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 689
    More: Asinine, Fox News, State Department, key dates, journalists  
•       •       •

25334 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



689 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 10:00:57 PM

RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?

Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.

Everyone on Libya told him that it wasn't related to a video. The Lieberman report concluded that there was never any reason whatsoever to link it to a video. There's a pretty good bit of information out there now establishing that it was known immediately after the attack that it was terrorism and not a video protest. Read the reports.

This is not proof. This is you saying there is proof out there. Prove he willingly lied. Prove that he knew it was in no way related and said it was regardless.


Read the Lieberman report. Not sure what you're wanting. All of the information that has come out has shown that everyone in the ground in Libya and the intelligence community knew that it wasn't about a video. Obama said that it was for two weeks. Even a lib can figure that one out.
 
2013-01-03 10:01:39 PM

Silly Jesus: Zasteva: Silly Jesus: Zasteva: Silly Jesus: The one by Lieberman. Points out that everyone on the ground was immediately saying that there were no protests whatsoever and Obama continued to blame a guy in California for days.

Could you provide a quote that you feel is indicative of Obama blaming a guy in California for the attack?

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. I couldn't find one. I guess you can't either. It shouldn't be that hard for you if it went on for days.

I already posted one in response to you. Reading is hard.


Actually that was in response to someone else. I just got back into the thread to look for your answer and did find it. See my response above.
 
2013-01-03 10:02:15 PM

Zasteva: To me "using something as an excuse" is not the same as "this was the cause of".


LOL
 
2013-01-03 10:03:45 PM

AurizenDarkstar: And you prove my point once again. Trust me, you are never going to be ready for the big leagues if you keep up this lame BS. Now go play with your toys. Adults are trying to talk here.


Ahh, the white flag! Well played.

We are talking about attacks on Diplomatic Facilities, and you bring up something that has nothing to do with that.

Ok Pearl Harbor?

Or you can admit that the graphic your buddy posted was misleading as hell, and intentionally so.
 
2013-01-03 10:04:04 PM

Silly Jesus: Hickory-smoked: Silly Jesus: Zasteva: Silly Jesus: The one by Lieberman. Points out that everyone on the ground was immediately saying that there were no protests whatsoever and Obama continued to blame a guy in California for days.

Could you provide a quote that you feel is indicative of Obama blaming a guy in California for the attack?

Seriously?

Yes, absolutely.

Sept. 18th on the David Letterman Show speaking about Benghazi

Obama: "As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we've denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That's never an excuse for violence."


He said (referring to protests against the video) "What also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies including the consulate in Libya."

Here's a link to the interview. Go 26 minutes in.

That doesn't sound like he's saying Nakoula's trailer caused the attacks. Everything he said was correct. The only reason you're biatching is because you're desperate for a reason to hate Obama.
 
2013-01-03 10:04:17 PM

Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?

Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.

Everyone on Libya told him that it wasn't related to a video. The Lieberman report concluded that there was never any reason whatsoever to link it to a video. There's a pretty good bit of information out there now establishing that it was known immediately after the attack that it was terrorism and not a video protest. Read the reports.

This is not proof. This is you saying there is proof out there. Prove he willingly lied. Prove that he knew it was in no way related and said it was regardless.

Read the Lieberman report. Not sure what you're wanting. All of the information that has come out has shown that everyone in the ground in Libya and the intelligence community knew that it wasn't about a video. Obama said that it was for two weeks. Even a lib can figure that one out.


Which would be fine except that we don't agree that he said it was about the video for two weeks.
 
2013-01-03 10:04:43 PM

entitygm: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?

Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.

Everyone on Libya told him that it wasn't related to a video. The Lieberman report concluded that there was never any reason whatsoever to link it to a video. There's a pretty good bit of information out there now establishing that it was known immediately after the attack that it was terrorism and not a video protest. Read the reports.

Which has been admitted already. The video story was intentionally pushed to keep confidential info (like the location of the CIA safehouse exposed on CSPAN, for example) under wraps. This has already been admitted. It's not a scandal.

/ Or was it scandalous that they didn't announce the raid that killed Bin Laden on CNN before the helicopters launched? Governments aren't bound to feed the public information immediately, nor should they be


I hadn't heard that angle from a lib before. I thought the official talking point was that Obama called it terrorism in the Rose Garden and then when that is shown to be incorrect the talking point is "who cares."

As for covering their rendition site, that's fine, but could they not have done that with "we're still investigating and will let you know more when we know more" rather than "hey, look at this guy over here, he did it all."
 
2013-01-03 10:07:01 PM

Zasteva: Which would be fine except that we don't agree that he said it was about the video for two weeks.


Well, pretty silly of them to admit that the story they were selling the American public was "incorrect" then huh?
 
2013-01-03 10:07:16 PM

Silly Jesus: Read the Lieberman report. Not sure what you're wanting. All of the information that has come out has shown that everyone in the ground in Libya and the intelligence community knew that it wasn't about a video. Obama said that it was for two weeks. Even a lib can figure that one out.


If Obama lied, then told they truth two weeks later, then why did he lie for two weeks? If you don't know the answer to that question, it can't be a scandal, even a con can study on that.
 
2013-01-03 10:07:20 PM

Thunderpipes: Hickory-smoked: Thunderpipes: wish they answered questions so quickly when Americans were being killed and dragged through the streets.

Is that what you think happened to Ambassador Stevens, or are you referring to something less fabricated?

So he was not killed, and pictures showing him being dragged through the streets did not pop up right away? Weird, I saw them.


On Free Republic, no doubt.

Here's how Stevens died, in hospital, after being rushed there by Libyan rescuers.
 
2013-01-03 10:07:34 PM

Hickory-smoked: Silly Jesus: Hickory-smoked: Silly Jesus: Zasteva: Silly Jesus: The one by Lieberman. Points out that everyone on the ground was immediately saying that there were no protests whatsoever and Obama continued to blame a guy in California for days.

Could you provide a quote that you feel is indicative of Obama blaming a guy in California for the attack?

Seriously?

Yes, absolutely.

Sept. 18th on the David Letterman Show speaking about Benghazi

Obama: "As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we've denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That's never an excuse for violence."

He said (referring to protests against the video) "What also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies including the consulate in Libya."

Here's a link to the interview. Go 26 minutes in.

That doesn't sound like he's saying Nakoula's trailer caused the attacks. Everything he said was correct. The only reason you're biatching is because you're desperate for a reason to hate Obama.


I don't have Obama, I voted for him. I just don't appreciate him lying.

Even mentioning the video in the same breath as Benghazi is dishonest. It had nothing to do with it whatsoever.
 
2013-01-03 10:08:08 PM

Silly Jesus: Zasteva: To me "using something as an excuse" is not the same as "this was the cause of".

LOL


And here I was thinking you might find some other quote that was a little stronger. After all, he repeated this for days, didn't he. Surely you have something else?
 
2013-01-03 10:08:18 PM

Zasteva: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?

Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.

Everyone on Libya told him that it wasn't related to a video. The Lieberman report concluded that there was never any reason whatsoever to link it to a video. There's a pretty good bit of information out there now establishing that it was known immediately after the attack that it was terrorism and not a video protest. Read the reports.

This is not proof. This is you saying there is proof out there. Prove he willingly lied. Prove that he knew it was in no way related and said it was regardless.

Read the Lieberman report. Not sure what you're wanting. All of the information that has come out has shown that everyone in the ground in Libya and the intelligence community knew that it wasn't about a video. Obama said that it was for two weeks. Even a lib can figure that one out.

Which would be fine except that we don't agree that he said it was about the video for two weeks.


Transcripts are lying? You're insufferable.
 
2013-01-03 10:08:34 PM

Hickory-smoked: Thunderpipes: Hickory-smoked: Thunderpipes: wish they answered questions so quickly when Americans were being killed and dragged through the streets.

Is that what you think happened to Ambassador Stevens, or are you referring to something less fabricated?

So he was not killed, and pictures showing him being dragged through the streets did not pop up right away? Weird, I saw them.

On Free Republic, no doubt.

Here's how Stevens died, in the hospital, after being rushed there by Libyan rescuers.


FTFY,F

/last F is for furriner
 
2013-01-03 10:09:14 PM

Silly Jesus: Zasteva: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?

Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.

Everyone on Libya told him that it wasn't related to a video. The Lieberman report concluded that there was never any reason whatsoever to link it to a video. There's a pretty good bit of information out there now establishing that it was known immediately after the attack that it was terrorism and not a video protest. Read the reports.

This is not proof. This is you saying there is proof out there. Prove he willingly lied. Prove that he knew it was in no way related and said it was regardless.

Read the Lieberman report. Not sure what you're wanting. All of the information that has come out has shown that everyone in the ground in Libya and the intelligence community knew that it wasn't about a video. Obama said that it was for two weeks. Even a lib can figure that one out.

Which would be fine except that we don't agree that he said it was about the video for two weeks.

Transcripts are lying? You're insufferable.


no, that's your alt
Insufferable Jesus.
 
2013-01-03 10:09:20 PM

Aldon: Silly Jesus: Read the Lieberman report. Not sure what you're wanting. All of the information that has come out has shown that everyone in the ground in Libya and the intelligence community knew that it wasn't about a video. Obama said that it was for two weeks. Even a lib can figure that one out.

If Obama lied, then told they truth two weeks later, then why did he lie for two weeks? If you don't know the answer to that question, it can't be a scandal, even a con can study on that.


Because the lie couldn't sustain itself. It didn't work. The truth was coming out despite their efforts.
 
2013-01-03 10:09:49 PM

Silly Jesus: Even mentioning the video in the same breath as Benghazi is dishonest.


So you are dishonest then?
 
2013-01-03 10:10:12 PM

skullkrusher: Silly Jesus: Zasteva: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?

Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.

Everyone on Libya told him that it wasn't related to a video. The Lieberman report concluded that there was never any reason whatsoever to link it to a video. There's a pretty good bit of information out there now establishing that it was known immediately after the attack that it was terrorism and not a video protest. Read the reports.

This is not proof. This is you saying there is proof out there. Prove he willingly lied. Prove that he knew it was in no way related and said it was regardless.

Read the Lieberman report. Not sure what you're wanting. All of the information that has come out has shown that everyone in the ground in Libya and the intelligence community knew that it wasn't about a video. Obama said that it was for two weeks. Even a lib can figure that one out.

Which would be fine except that we don't agree that he said it was about the video for two weeks.

Transcripts are lying? You're insufferable.

no, that's your alt
Insufferable Jesus.


OK, Skinny Head.
 
2013-01-03 10:10:55 PM

Zasteva: Silly Jesus: Even mentioning the video in the same breath as Benghazi is dishonest.

So you are dishonest then?


Haha, ooooh. 7/10. You had me for several posts.
 
2013-01-03 10:11:46 PM

Silly Jesus: entitygm: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?

Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.

Everyone on Libya told him that it wasn't related to a video. The Lieberman report concluded that there was never any reason whatsoever to link it to a video. There's a pretty good bit of information out there now establishing that it was known immediately after the attack that it was terrorism and not a video protest. Read the reports.

Which has been admitted already. The video story was intentionally pushed to keep confidential info (like the location of the CIA safehouse exposed on CSPAN, for example) under wraps. This has already been admitted. It's not a scandal.

/ Or was it scandalous that they didn't announce the raid that killed Bin Laden on CNN before the helicopters launched? Governments aren't bound to feed the public information immediately, nor should they be

I hadn't heard that angle from a lib before. I thought the official talking point was that Obama called it terrorism in the Rose Garden and then when that is shown to be incorrect the talking point is "who cares."

As for covering their rendition site, that's fine, but could they not have done that with "we're still investigating and will let you know more when we know more" rather than "hey, look at this guy over here, he did it all."


I don't pay much mind to the official talking points, I'm just trying to figure out what exactly they're expecting to uncover. Funding was cut? security wasn't what it should be? The correct buzzwords weren't used? The finger was pointed elsewhere initially?

Coming from the side that started a war with a country over weapons that didn't exist, while largely ignoring one that was harboring a known terrorist, that just seems like sour grapes

/ Not a lib, proud gun-owner and 100% against political correctness
// Just asking questions
 
2013-01-03 10:12:36 PM
Silly Jesus,

In an effort to move the conversation forward could you please, in one or two sentences explain where the crime (?) occurred. What exactly did Obama or Hillary do that is worthy of...? I'm honestly unsure of the end game here. What is the scandal? Obama didn't immediately attribute the attack on terrorists?

Here, I'll help: The president/Secretary of State ignored warnings from Benghazi that additional security was needed. The consulate was then attacked, and the ambassador and three others died. The administration is trying to cover up their own criminal negligence.

Is that it?
 
2013-01-03 10:12:45 PM

Silly Jesus: Which would be fine except that we don't agree that he said it was about the video for two weeks.

Transcripts are lying?


No, the transcripts appear to be accurate unless the video I just watched had been altered, which seems really really unlikely.

We disagree about the meaning and intent of the words in the transcript.

You're insufferable.

Thank you!
 
2013-01-03 10:14:46 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Silly Jesus,

In an effort to move the conversation forward could you please, in one or two sentences explain where the crime (?) occurred. What exactly did Obama or Hillary do that is worthy of...? I'm honestly unsure of the end game here. What is the scandal? Obama didn't immediately attribute the attack on terrorists?

Here, I'll help: The president/Secretary of State ignored warnings from Benghazi that additional security was needed. The consulate was then attacked, and the ambassador and three others died. The administration is trying to cover up their own criminal negligence.

Is that it?


I don't think there's any criminal activity, the House is just wasting more time on silly hearings instead of doing something useful.
This is the body that held hearings on steroid use in baseball, after all
 
2013-01-03 10:18:44 PM

Silly Jesus: skullkrusher: Silly Jesus: Zasteva: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?

Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.

Everyone on Libya told him that it wasn't related to a video. The Lieberman report concluded that there was never any reason whatsoever to link it to a video. There's a pretty good bit of information out there now establishing that it was known immediately after the attack that it was terrorism and not a video protest. Read the reports.

This is not proof. This is you saying there is proof out there. Prove he willingly lied. Prove that he knew it was in no way related and said it was regardless.

Read the Lieberman report. Not sure what you're wanting. All of the information that has come out has shown that everyone in the ground in Libya and the intelligence community knew that it wasn't about a video. Obama said that it was for two weeks. Even a lib can figure that one out.

Which would be fine except that we don't agree that he said it was about the video for two weeks.

Transcripts are lying? You're insufferable.

no, that's your alt
Insufferable Jesus.

OK, Skinny Head.


Insatiable
 
2013-01-03 10:18:53 PM

entitygm: Uranus Is Huge!: Silly Jesus,

In an effort to move the conversation forward could you please, in one or two sentences explain where the crime (?) occurred. What exactly did Obama or Hillary do that is worthy of...? I'm honestly unsure of the end game here. What is the scandal? Obama didn't immediately attribute the attack on terrorists?

Here, I'll help: The president/Secretary of State ignored warnings from Benghazi that additional security was needed. The consulate was then attacked, and the ambassador and three others died. The administration is trying to cover up their own criminal negligence.

Is that it?

I don't think there's any criminal activity, the House is just wasting more time on silly hearings instead of doing something useful.
This is the body that held hearings on steroid use in baseball, after all


I am trying to pin down the scandal. After all the United States has both been through, and inflicted upon others in the last twelve years, this is a scandal worthy of... whatever?
 
2013-01-03 10:19:23 PM
Who gives a frecking crap what state Hilliary's brain's in? She's guilty of being an accomplice to murder. Slap her fat butt with a subpoena and get her on the stand!
 
2013-01-03 10:20:31 PM

Silly Jesus: Even mentioning the video in the same breath as Benghazi is dishonest. It had nothing to do with it whatsoever.


Ansar al-Sharia certainly claimed that it was related.

And if it wasn't, even as a diversionary or PR tactic, what purpose would the White House have for fabricating a connection? I am seriously asking this question. I don't know you think Obama was secretly trying to overturn the 1st Amendment, or outlaw blasphemy, or Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was a danger to his agenda and had to be disappeared, or what. What flavor of Free Republic paranoia is responsible for this theory?
 
2013-01-03 10:22:09 PM

halfof33: 1. No. The Libyans among others were pointing "all the fingers" at terrorism on 9/12/12. The administration was still Bs'ing the public ten days later

2. see answer to one


What the Libyans or anyone else were saying had nothing to do with either question, but s'okay, that answers a third question in and of itself.
 
2013-01-03 10:22:13 PM

Silly Jesus: djkutch: skullkrusher: djkutch: Yes, but I don't remember it was a scandal. Maybe video wasn't around then.

It is bullshiat that the GOP suddenly makes a big deal about consulate attacks and the death of diplomatic employees. They should be more like the Democrats and still not give a shiat ;)

Or, the GOP should have gave a shiat before, and said, yeah, we were wrong and this is why Obama is wrong. Round and round and round we go.

I still don't have a farking clue why this is any sort of scandal.

Do you think that the Tillman cover-up was cool? How about Jessica Lynch?


Nope. What have Republicans done to correct it?
 
2013-01-03 10:23:05 PM

tony41454: Who gives a frecking crap what state Hilliary's brain's in? She's guilty of being an accomplice to murder. Slap her fat butt with a subpoena and get her on the stand!


Christ on a crutch, when are you going to stop freaking out about Vince Foster?
 
2013-01-03 10:25:00 PM

Silly Jesus: Aldon: Silly Jesus: Read the Lieberman report. Not sure what you're wanting. All of the information that has come out has shown that everyone in the ground in Libya and the intelligence community knew that it wasn't about a video. Obama said that it was for two weeks. Even a lib can figure that one out.

If Obama lied, then told they truth two weeks later, then why did he lie for two weeks? If you don't know the answer to that question, it can't be a scandal, even a con can study on that.

Because the lie couldn't sustain itself. It didn't work. The truth was coming out despite their efforts.


I'm skipping the idea of a two week cover-up that is laughable. Because you obviously can't answer the question , why would Obama lie for two weeks?

You already jump to a cover-up you can't back up with any facts, by skipping the reason why he would 'cover-up' anything in the first place, because you don't have any reason why Obama lied (because you are ignoring the actual reason, given by the CIA director). You can tell me what he is 'covering up' or why he 'lied', therefore, how can there be a 'scandal'?

You cons need get out of your bubble every once in a while.
 
2013-01-03 10:25:31 PM

tony41454: Who gives a frecking crap what state Hilliary's brain's in? She's guilty of being an accomplice to murder. Slap her fat butt with a subpoena and get her on the stand!


cdn.niketalk.com
 
2013-01-03 10:28:53 PM

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


February 29, 1989
 
2013-01-03 10:32:47 PM
This must be why cons are so bad at getting Islamic terrorists, they are so fixated on getting the real person at fault for Islamic terrorist attacks, the President of the United States (obviously).


When terrorists attack on 9/11/2001 cons attack the Iraqis, when terrorists attack on 9/11/2012 cons attack the President of the United States.


/Leave it to a lib to actually get Bin Laden and Al-Quieda.
 
2013-01-03 10:33:36 PM

Silly Jesus: Zasteva: Silly Jesus: Even mentioning the video in the same breath as Benghazi is dishonest.

So you are dishonest then?

Haha, ooooh. 7/10. You had me for several posts.


You've got to admit, that was too good to pass up :-)

But I really do think that this whole Benghazi thing is manufactured outrage; So far all I've seen here is people seizing on the worst possible interpretation of the words and then further twisting them to call it a lie. But if you can offer some better quotes you might convince me.
 
2013-01-03 10:34:54 PM

RminusQ: As noted, this is the same guy who told a Buzzfeed reporter "Have a good day. And by good day, I mean Fark Off." after telling him that a DoD study had proven beyond a doubt that the reporter was "an unmitigated asshole".

So ten points to him.


Buzzfeed.... "reporter?" There's something not right here.
 
2013-01-03 10:36:13 PM
Just swung over to one of the other Fox channels after watching Chelsey waste time and money only to find Greta getting angry about Al Gorejarezza. I guess that's like the classic rock of impotent rage.
 
2013-01-03 10:37:03 PM

Arumat: 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.


The width of the space between the front benches in the UK House of Commons is described as "a pace plus a swordlength plus 1 ft"
 
2013-01-03 10:39:12 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.


They thought it  was to blame at first. There was a communications error, so a few departments knew before a few others. Once everyone knew it was an actual pre-planned attack, they reverted to that. Obama was still calling it an act of terror while everyone thought it was about the vid, though, so I'm not sure what the scandal is supposed to be.

/Basically, absolutely nothing happened out of the ordinary, unless you count evidence that the government needs to fix their systems as 'out of the ordinary'.
 
2013-01-03 10:39:14 PM

AurizenDarkstar: halfof33: djkutch: Fair enough. Lies aside, can you explain why we didn't do this over deaths under Dubya's admin? No, it's not a but, but Bush, but an honest question about historical perspective,

Huh, the intentionally misleading graphic, again

It leaves out the african embassy bombings under Clinton, AND the several embassy attacks that took place during the Obama administration.

Whats the difference in all of those from Benghazi, including the ones you left off? C'mon, it is pretty significant....

What about the bombing of the Marine barracks that took place under Reagan? Oh, that's right. If something like that happens under a Republican administration, all is forgiven. Doesn't count if they are troops, right? They're just meat shields in your book.

But a diplomat is killed, you have to put it on a pedestal as the worst thing to happen to an American citizen EVER! And continue to lie while doing so. I really hope you get paid well for shilling, since you're so shiatty at it.


How much might shilling pay, anyway? Just curious.. Whatever these guys are making, I'm pretty sure a non-idiot could do even better.
 
2013-01-03 10:42:19 PM

Aldon: This must be why cons are so bad at getting Islamic terrorists, they are so fixated on getting the real person at fault for Islamic terrorist attacks, the President of the United States (obviously).


When terrorists attack on 9/11/2001 cons attack the Iraqis, when terrorists attack on 9/11/2012 cons attack the President of the United States.


/Leave it to a lib to actually get Bin Laden and Al-Quieda.


I still don't think Obama's a lib. His record on foreign policy and his horrendous DoJ certainly don't trend that way.
For the same reason I believe he's probably an atheist, his policy decisions speak more toward pragmatism than the football/"my team good, your team bad" mentality the Republicans seems to be running with lately. He's wrong on a lot of things, but at least there's a discussion going on.

Winner take all politics makes us all losers
 
2013-01-03 10:47:04 PM

entitygm: I still don't think Obama's a lib. His record on foreign policy and his horrendous DoJ certainly don't trend that way.
For the same reason I believe he's probably an atheist, his policy decisions speak more toward pragmatism than the football/"my team good, your team bad" mentality the Republicans seems to be running with lately. He's wrong on a lot of things, but at least there's a discussion going on.

Winner take all politics makes us all losers


I agree with you, heck Obama even compromises when he doesn't need to, like with the fiscal cliff deal. But your reasonable words have no place in a BENGAZI!!! thread.
Haven't you heard? Obama is the most liberal president evar!
 
2013-01-03 10:49:45 PM

gordian: What the Libyans or anyone else were saying had nothing to do with either question, but s'okay, that answers a third question in and of itself.


HAHAHA!!! Yeah, Gordian says that you don't want the terrorists to know that the Americans are looking for them even though everybody else in the world, including the Libyans who live in Libya where the attack took place are openly looking for them and the terrorists admitted it while the attack was still going on.

Wouldn't want to give away the "secret."

How about a slurpee, Gordian??

Hee hee!!!
 
2013-01-03 10:50:22 PM

Weaver95: quickdraw:
Shills these days..... No creativity no verve. I mean you can kind of see why. They really have nothing to work with. They must miss the old days when they could whine about a BJ that actually happened instead of just having to make shiat up like they do now.

our GOP types here on fark really don't have a lot to work with, do they?  the Republican party has come down on the wrong side of so many issues lately that defending the stupidity and insanity has to be emotionally draining.  to be a Republican True Believer these days is to rebel against logic and common sense, and wage war against yourself in the name of party unity and ideological purity.  that's gotta take a toll on your psyche.


So you're saying that people who believe a bunch of inconsistent, self-contradictory nonsense with no grounding in reality are prone to voting Republican?
 
2013-01-03 10:54:01 PM

halfof33: Hee hee!!!


*shakes head* Ooh...kiddo. Have fun with that glue you're sniffing. Looks to be wondrous stuff.
 
2013-01-03 10:59:54 PM

gordian: halfof33: Hee hee!!!

*shakes head* Ooh...kiddo. Have fun with that glue you're sniffing. Looks to be wondrous stuff.


So, let me see if I follow. The terrorists, didn't "Know" that the americans were after them, even after the terrorists admitted it, and the Libyans specifically identified them?

Huh, that glue must be working, because gordian your farking stupid idiotic theory don't make a dick load of sense.

But, Yay Obama, huh, Slurpee?
 
2013-01-03 11:20:26 PM

Evil High Priest: How much might shilling pay, anyway? Just curious.. Whatever these guys are making, I'm pretty sure a non-idiot could do even better.


Kind of hard not to appear like an idiot with the material theyre given
 
2013-01-03 11:25:05 PM

quickdraw: Kind of hard not to appear like an idiot with the material theyre given


lolz. You mean when we were discussing attacks on diplomatic targets and when I mentioned attacks on diplomatic facilities in 1998 and 2008-2011, and he comes up with an attack on a military target from the early 1980's?

Man, you having a very berry slurpee tonight sport?
 
2013-01-03 11:27:30 PM

halfof33: quickdraw: Kind of hard not to appear like an idiot with the material theyre given

lolz. You mean when we were discussing attacks on diplomatic targets and when I mentioned attacks on diplomatic facilities in 1998 and 2008-2011, and he comes up with an attack on a military target from the early 1980's?

Man, you having a very berry slurpee tonight sport?


the slurpee stuff has been old for hours now, brah
 
2013-01-03 11:48:06 PM
We all know that the clot was made of Fartbama's MKULTRA nanites in order to keep Hilary from laughing and rolling her eyes at Darrell Issa and the Derp All-Stars.
 
Displayed 50 of 689 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 »






Report