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.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Republicans pursue probe of Benghazi attacks. In related news, Fark contemplates introduction of a "Not This Shiat Again" tag   (csmonitor.com) divider line 288
    More: Asinine, Benghazi, deputy assistant, terrorist threat  
•       •       •

1048 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2013 at 9:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-05 10:59:05 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

I keep asking the question because I haven't received a satisfactory answer.


Sorry that the truth isn't a satisfactory answer. We know that you want us to agree with you and say that Obama personally went to the guy's house and threw him in the police car while giving a wink and thumbs-up to his Kenyan Muslim homies, but that isn't what happened no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself.
 
2013-05-05 11:04:20 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

I keep asking the question because I haven't received a satisfactory answer.

Because the question you ask is a completely debunked talking point.


How can it be a "talking point" when I'm the only one who's asking the question? Doesn't a "talking point", by definition, require that someone else besides me has made or reiterated the point?

I'm not claiming to know why Hussein Obama ordered the Libyan Arab Spring rebels he armed to kill those Americans in Benghazi.
 
2013-05-05 11:08:14 PM

Noam Chimpsky: I'm not claiming to know why Hussein Obama ordered the Libyan Arab Spring rebels he armed to kill those Americans in Benghazi.


That's more like it.
 
2013-05-05 11:09:09 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Zeppelininthesky: Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

I keep asking the question because I haven't received a satisfactory answer.

Because the question you ask is a completely debunked talking point.

How can it be a "talking point" when I'm the only one who's asking the question? Doesn't a "talking point", by definition, require that someone else besides me has made or reiterated the point?

I'm not claiming to know why Hussein Obama ordered the Libyan Arab Spring rebels he armed to kill those Americans in Benghazi.


You are just making up stuff and then complaining when someone does not answer it the way you want.
 
2013-05-05 11:12:58 PM

CheapEngineer: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: CheapEngineer:  Four people die, and they shut down the town, and people cower in their basements.

Yes, amazingly people like their ability to walk and not wind up confined to a wheelchair or a set of prosthetics. Or do all the wounded and maimed not count in our pish-poshing of what happened in Boston?

Did you really believe that there was a planned spree? Seriously - after seeing the video of the explosion 350 times on TV, did anyone really think there was a large Al Queda cell blanketing the town, ready to fire off another mystery explosion as soon as more that 6 people went outside? What kind of ego do people have to believe that they're a foreign terrorism target? Why would Al Queda give a rats ass about a marathon? Doesn't Occam's Razor lead you to believe that it was more likely some local numbnuts with a grudge against *anyone he could find*? I guess not, not since The World Changed on 9/11, right? I guess there will be no rest until some link with Islam or some random religious figure is found or fabricated on these two to justify the froth and panic of the last 12 years. Since they come from *one of those countries*, it's a slam dunk, right?

I don't live in Boston, so I don't know how people react there. I don't remember Boston being a hotbed of terrorist activity, so I can't imagine people there being concerned about much afterward except not getting in the middle of a firefight between whoever did this and a large group of police. Lord knows they showed plenty of long-distance chase scenes all day long there.

The who idea of terrorism is to make you panic, cower in your homes and change the way you live.

Have a very small number of events (which are responded to in a spectacular way) manage to make Americans into complete candy-asses? Or do they believe all the politicians who spend all their time pointing out Boogeymen, so they can say how badly Leader X is *failing* to protect you from Boogeyman?

I guess so.

\btw, thanks fo ...


Fark you and your retarded pants-shiatting about your conspiracy paranoia over "DA GUBMINT USE DIS TO TAKE OUR RIIIIIIIGHTS!!!!". What did you want them to do, huh, turn around and go home after they lost a farking murderer after he shot one officer to death, killed his own brother while trying to run over two more officers, threw bombs willy-nilly from his getaway car during the chase, and ran into a residential area? They acted within the law and professionally. No one was dragged from their home so they could ransack it, people on the streets weren't attacked and thrown in prison, and the fact a civilian who found him (because the search made him cautious and he wanted to check his boat and found the guy) doesn't make it pointless or the government crushing the Constitution.

And before you try the "But other incidents that didn't have tanks and stuff!", those times weren't this time, and personally I'd like a little armor between the police and a guy who has no qualms about brutally killing people with bombs and guns. If that makes you piss your pants in terror then move to farking Antarctica.
 
2013-05-05 11:15:20 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Zeppelininthesky: Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

I keep asking the question because I haven't received a satisfactory answer.

Because the question you ask is a completely debunked talking point.

How can it be a "talking point" when I'm the only one who's asking the question? Doesn't a "talking point", by definition, require that someone else besides me has made or reiterated the point?

I'm not claiming to know why Hussein Obama ordered the Libyan Arab Spring rebels he armed to kill those Americans in Benghazi.


Just like how Bush ordered the Towers to be filled with thermite and explosives and the pilots to run into them, the Pentagon, and crash in a random field?
 
2013-05-05 11:43:16 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: @Curious since for some reason it won't let me quote:


too bad since you seem to have completely missed the point. oh wait you wrote this: "It's really sad how people like you conveniently forget about all of that in order to make your conspiracy theories work, as well as your insistence that people were rounded up and held at gunpoint in their yards while their houses were ransacked and anyone who was outside was harassed and arrested." which is pure BS. it wasn't my point it, doesn't include an accurate quote and you can piss off.
 
2013-05-05 11:50:15 PM

Curious: Keizer_Ghidorah: @Curious since for some reason it won't let me quote:

too bad since you seem to have completely missed the point. oh wait you wrote this: "It's really sad how people like you conveniently forget about all of that in order to make your conspiracy theories work, as well as your insistence that people were rounded up and held at gunpoint in their yards while their houses were ransacked and anyone who was outside was harassed and arrested." which is pure BS. it wasn't my point it, doesn't include an accurate quote and you can piss off.


Then stop whining about how the police searched for a dangerous and amoral criminal who was armed with guns and explosives, especially when they did it well within the law.
 
2013-05-05 11:57:03 PM

Biological Ali: You're either not following your own point, or you haven't understood the issue I'm taking with what you said. I was merely speaking to your ridiculous and melodramatic characterization of the generic act of "lying under oath" as a "grave offense", when it clearly isn't anything of the sort (by legal as well as moral/ethical standards), along with the suggestion Clinton somehow wasn't sufficiently punished for it.


look you have your opinion and i have mine as to what a "grave offense" is. i'll give you that legally you won't be getting life for it but (one last time) IMO the POTUS shouldn't lie under oath or give "intentionally false" testimony. you can (and did) call my opinion ridiculous and melodramatic, fine. i'll cop to melodramatic especially give the behavior of other presidents. i'll still not going to give Clinton a pass. you want to fine, i don't.

again IMO we should hold the POTUS to a higher standard. that it is the PRESIDENT is the part that bothers me. not the lying per se, not the BJ. silly me to be bothered by the president lying at all let along in a deposition. YMMV :)

yeah i "lose" this debate all the time. it's ok.
 
2013-05-06 12:02:34 AM

Curious: Biological Ali: You're either not following your own point, or you haven't understood the issue I'm taking with what you said. I was merely speaking to your ridiculous and melodramatic characterization of the generic act of "lying under oath" as a "grave offense", when it clearly isn't anything of the sort (by legal as well as moral/ethical standards), along with the suggestion Clinton somehow wasn't sufficiently punished for it.

look you have your opinion and i have mine as to what a "grave offense" is. i'll give you that legally you won't be getting life for it but (one last time) IMO the POTUS shouldn't lie under oath or give "intentionally false" testimony. you can (and did) call my opinion ridiculous and melodramatic, fine. i'll cop to melodramatic especially give the behavior of other presidents. i'll still not going to give Clinton a pass. you want to fine, i don't.

again IMO we should hold the POTUS to a higher standard. that it is the PRESIDENT is the part that bothers me. not the lying per se, not the BJ. silly me to be bothered by the president lying at all let along in a deposition. YMMV :)

yeah i "lose" this debate all the time. it's ok.


He had his dick sucked by an intern, whoopty-farking-doo. Maybe America should grow up and stop acting like retarded children about sex. It's amazing how much we idolize tits yet scream in fear when a female nipple appears on a screen, and how much porn the nation makes and watches yet we devolve into gibbering apes over who people sleep with in real life.
 
2013-05-06 12:07:44 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: especially when they did it well within the law.


there are folks who might disagree with you about that but i'm tired and really am leaving this time. let me leave with this non conspiracy thought: how many things that we took for granted before 9/11 have been conscribed by the "war on terror" tm ? why does "if X happens the terrorist have won" resonate with so many people? i'm not a conspiracy person and i am a believer in the rule of law. that said the law and those who enforce it should serve us not the other way round.
 
2013-05-06 12:23:04 AM

Curious: Keizer_Ghidorah: especially when they did it well within the law.

there are folks who might disagree with you about that but i'm tired and really am leaving this time. let me leave with this non conspiracy thought: how many things that we took for granted before 9/11 have been conscribed by the "war on terror" tm ? why does "if X happens the terrorist have won" resonate with so many people? i'm not a conspiracy person and i am a believer in the rule of law. that said the law and those who enforce it should serve us not the other way round.


The law WAS serving us by looking for a farking murderer/bomber who ran into a goddamned residential area to hide after killing 4 people and mutilating over 100 more at a marathon then shot and killed an officer and ran over his own brother. You don't like how they did it? Fine, tell us how YOU would have done it. Tell us how ALL things should be done so that not one single person is inconvenienced in the slightest so that the Constitution will never ever be trampled upon like it was so heinously in Boston.
 
2013-05-06 01:17:54 AM

Curious: Keizer_Ghidorah: especially when they did it well within the law.

there are folks who might disagree with you about that but i'm tired and really am leaving this time. let me leave with this non conspiracy thought: how many things that we took for granted before 9/11 have been conscribed by the "war on terror" tm ? why does "if X happens the terrorist have won" resonate with so many people? i'm not a conspiracy person and i am a believer in the rule of law. that said the law and those who enforce it should serve us not the other way round.


A lot. What's your point? How many things have we taken for granted that have been circumscribed by the war on drugs? How many by the war on poverty, or the war on crime? How many did we lose in the first (undeclared) war on terror? If you're the age you claim in your profile, why does 9/11 bother you so, when you can recall (as I can) getting on a plane without so much as a metal detector checking you at the gate?

Law is not a straitjacket, and it's not something that is used when convenient. "Rule of law" must be flexible or it is useless when needed. We have a warrant requirement which clearly spells out when and how a warrant must be used--so that when circumstances prevent the issuing of a warrant, we will know that other things found during those circumstances are off the table.

For instance, when the cops were doing their warrantless searches in Boston and they saw someone's cocaine on the table, the warrant requirement means a) they cannot arrest that person on the spot, b) they probably can't use it for PC to get a warrant later, and c) if they try, any good attorney will shoot them down either in the trial or on appeal. That is how law works. But circumstances like Boston are thankfully rare in America. Let's hope they stay that way. If America were to become Israel, then we'd probably have to change some things, because a free society cannot function like one at war. And we are not at war yet. Which is why "If we do X the terrorists have won" is a powerful phrase--but so far, we have not committed to X, despite the fears of people like  you.
 
2013-05-06 01:51:58 AM

BMulligan: Curious: make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

ORLY?

[occupycolleges.org image 550x365]

[media-3.web.britannica.com image 550x421]

[external.ak.fbcdn.net image 720x441]


Also didn't a bunch of college kids at Kent State get slaughtered when your old ass was growing up?  Oh yeh, they did.
 
2013-05-06 02:13:13 AM

dababler: BMulligan: Curious: make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

ORLY?

[occupycolleges.org image 550x365]

[media-3.web.britannica.com image 550x421]

[external.ak.fbcdn.net image 720x441]

Also didn't a bunch of college kids at Kent State get slaughtered when your old ass was growing up?  Oh yeh, they did.


That was the first picture I posted - National Guardsmen in riot gear and armed with combat weapons, in a photo taken shortly before the carnage.
 
2013-05-06 02:26:44 AM

Curious: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!:  I would like to live in the fairy tale world where the cops have access to your perfect hindsight before anything actually happens.

[qph.is.quoracdn.net image 485x281]

i would like to live in a world where this doesn't happen. thank god the two ladies in that truck weren't killed. yes two women not one man in a completely different make, model and color truck had their truck shot to shiat by hair trigger police. if that's a fairy tale world were that doesn't happen let me in.


How old are you?
 
2013-05-06 05:56:44 AM
If we just impeach Obama, jobs will trickle down from the heavens! Everyone will have two or even three!
 
2013-05-06 06:46:24 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: Zeppelininthesky: Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

I keep asking the question because I haven't received a satisfactory answer.

Because the question you ask is a completely debunked talking point.

How can it be a "talking point" when I'm the only one who's asking the question? Doesn't a "talking point", by definition, require that someone else besides me has made or reiterated the point?

I'm not claiming to know why Hussein Obama ordered the Libyan Arab Spring rebels he armed to kill those Americans in Benghazi.

Just like how Bush ordered the Towers to be filled with thermite and explosives and the pilots to run into them, the Pentagon, and crash in a random field?


Are you saying Hussein didn't arm his Libyan Arab Spring rebels or are you saying he did arm the Arab Spring army but the terrorists in Benghazi weren't part of the attack? Or are you saying the terrorists were Hussein Obama's Libyan Arab Spring army but that Hussein himself didn't order the attack on the consulate even though he immediately began a campaign of misinformation to take all focus off the people who carried out the attacks and on to some guy living in his mom's basement who posted a lame  video on youtube that had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks?
 
2013-05-06 08:20:06 AM
It really amazes me that the utter scum who support the Republican party attack Obama over Benghazi.

Four Americans killed halfway around the globe means Obama is a bad POTUS, right?

And yet you same pricks were saying "9/11: Never forget".

3000 dead on American soil on a GOP President's watch. Remember that, you Republican assholes? Yes or No, do you remember that?

You utter farking coonts are the very epitome of hypocrisy. Fark you.
 
2013-05-06 08:24:04 AM

JerseyTim: If you step back and really examine what the Republicans are saying, it's pretty farking disgusting. When you get right down to it, their argument is basically that the President cares so little about Americans that he sat idly by and let them die.

I don't know how Obama doesn't flip his shiat on a daily basis.


It isn't that he let them die, it is that before the smoke cleared from the scene, he had already surmised on his own that the attack came as a result of the youtube video, then went to the floor of the UN to apologize for it.  I remember for weeks how there were people who were calling for the guy who made the video to be put on trial for treason & inciting the enemy and the blowhards in the media were demanding limits on speech and for censorship of whatever they found offensive.  once people realized that mortars are dialed in days, sometimes weeks ahead of time and it happened on 9-farking-11, they were able to connect the dots.

the WH's reaction to the event is akin to how CNN reports on  - everything.

To most people, Bengazhi is a character on Jersey Shore.
 
2013-05-06 09:07:51 AM

Gyrfalcon: For instance, when the cops were doing their warrantless searches in Boston and they saw someone's cocaine on the table, the warrant requirement means a) they cannot arrest that person on the spot, b) they probably can't use it for PC to get a warrant later, and c) if they try, any good attorney will shoot them down either in the trial or on appeal. That is how law works.


Actually, if it's in plain sight, they might be able to use it.  If the police have exigent circumstances to search for a person and they're searching places a person might be and find a pile of cocaine on the kitchen table, they might still get to use it, even if they weren't looking for it.  However, if a cop decided to look inside a shoe box and found that it was full of cocaine, no way that would go in because there's no reasonable expectation that a person might be in the shoe box.

The home owners best chance would be to challenge if the police even had the need for exigent cirumstances.
 
2013-05-06 09:48:11 AM
The truth is coming to light.  Slowly, surely.  There will be no presidency for Hillary.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/clinton-sought-end-run-ar ou nd-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/
 
2013-05-06 10:27:11 AM

o5iiawah: It isn't that he let them die, it is that before the smoke cleared from the scene, he had already surmised on his own that the attack came as a result of the youtube video, then went to the floor of the UN to apologize for it.  I remember for weeks how there were people who were calling for the guy who made the video to be put on trial for treason & inciting the enemy and the blowhards in the media were demanding limits on speech and for censorship of whatever they found offensive.  once people realized that mortars are dialed in days, sometimes weeks ahead of time and it happened on 9-farking-11, they were able to connect the dots.


Obama did not go on to the floor of the UN and blame the video for the attacks and apologize for it. Here are the full transcripts of his remarks. He doesn't start talking about the video until after he concludes his Benghazi remarks. When he does talk about it, he says that  while he and many Americans consider it offensive, that it is wrong to react to an act of freedom of speech with an act of violence. These are his exact words: "There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.  There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents.  There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy."

The embassy he's talking about is the one in Egypt, which was an actual embassy and was attacked by people responding to the video. There were protests and riots all over the world that day and 75 people were killed.
 
2013-05-06 10:35:53 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: The truth is coming to light.  Slowly, surely.  There will be no presidency for Hillary.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/clinton-sought-end-run-ar ou nd-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/


...and that's the real motivation behind this ridiculous witch hunt. The hell with the truth, let's bring down the biggest contender for 2016. Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap by Darrell Issa.
 
2013-05-06 10:44:52 AM
I honestly don't understand what difference it makes whether the attack was "TerrorismTM" or a response to that video. I just don't get the outrage.
 
2013-05-06 10:59:36 AM
This thread:
images.wikia.com
 
2013-05-06 11:31:13 AM
If Hillary and Obama would just come out and admit they f*cked up, this all goes away.  Most people have the attention span of a ferret on crack anyway.
 
2013-05-06 11:50:52 AM

Trapper439: It really amazes me that the utter scum who support the Republican party attack Obama over Benghazi.

Four Americans killed halfway around the globe means Obama is a bad POTUS, right?

And yet you same pricks were saying "9/11: Never forget".

3000 dead on American soil on a GOP President's watch. Remember that, you Republican assholes? Yes or No, do you remember that?

You utter farking coonts are the very epitome of hypocrisy. Fark you.


Yeah, but at least Bush tracked down the ringleader of 9/11. Oh, wait.
 
2013-05-06 12:09:55 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: If Hillary and Obama would just come out and admit they f*cked up, this all goes away.  Most people have the attention span of a ferret on crack anyway.


I doubt that. And I still don't see where they "farked up".
 
2013-05-06 12:21:07 PM

Gyrfalcon: If you're the age you claim in your profile, why does 9/11 bother you so, when you can recall (as I can) getting on a plane without so much as a metal detector checking you at the gate?


i am that age and "9/11 changed everything" isn't an answer. we over reacted to that and still are. i doubt we disagree that there should be a response to "terrorism" (whatever that is) but i'm odd man out here it seems at to how much and what response is right.

Gyrfalcon: Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

[www.pbs.org image 375x310]
It's not too different from the one I remember
(Detroit, 1967, post-riots)

[I wasn't in Detroit--I grew up in L.A. in 1967--but I remember these pictures too]


i was in Watts before and after the riots. i had friends among the rioters and riding in jeeps. i'm not claiming that America of the 50s, 60s or even 70s was utopia for everybody but i never had to worry about my government routing my calls through a clandestine center to do keyword searches on them.  everyone is NOT a terrorist nor should be be treated as one. "see something say something" may, i say may occasionally produce a usable result but by making us all afraid or suspicious of each other. that's a hell of a price. of course if your white like i am i won't look too closely. and if i see you coming from church sunday morning, well from then on you're good to go. OTOH if you're a funny color and go to the wrong building to worship i'll be on you like white on rice. but it's ok since given those criteria you probably are a terrorist.

so yeah, i'm not enamored of where we as a country are right now.

zenobia: How old are you?


i was 28 when Kent State happened. i was 23 when King marched in Selma. yes we have come a long way in many ways since then. but in our personal lifes in so far as civil rights go IMO we have given up way too much since 9/11. we gave up too much with the "war on drugs" tm and the confiscation laws. the trend is wrong, give up X for "safety" is IMO bad. oh here's a pertinent quote:

 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
2013-05-06 01:58:11 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: Zeppelininthesky: Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

I keep asking the question because I haven't received a satisfactory answer.

Because the question you ask is a completely debunked talking point.

How can it be a "talking point" when I'm the only one who's asking the question? Doesn't a "talking point", by definition, require that someone else besides me has made or reiterated the point?

I'm not claiming to know why Hussein Obama ordered the Libyan Arab Spring rebels he armed to kill those Americans in Benghazi.

Just like how Bush ordered the Towers to be filled with thermite and explosives and the pilots to run into them, the Pentagon, and crash in a random field?

Are you saying Hussein didn't arm his Libyan Arab Spring rebels or are you saying he did arm the Arab Spring army but the terrorists in Benghazi weren't part of the attack? Or are you saying the terrorists were Hussein Obama's Libyan Arab Spring army but that Hussein himself didn't order the attack on the consulate even though he immediately began a campaign of misinformation to take all focus off the people who carried out the attacks and on to some guy living in his mom's basement who posted a lame  video on youtube that had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks?


You're the one saying all of that, not me. I made the Bush crack to put myself in your dipshiat mindset to try to understand your broken record idiocy, and it gave me a migraine afterward. Your "Questions" have been answered many, many, MANY times now, and you ignore and reject them all because they don't give you the answers you WANT to hear. So you follow the sound advice of Adam and say "I reject your reality and substitute my own!". Which, so far, has only helped you become a laughingstock retard.

Parroting the "hurr hurr Obama is Secret Mooslum" shiat also isn't doing anything to help your image.

o5iiawah: JerseyTim: If you step back and really examine what the Republicans are saying, it's pretty farking disgusting. When you get right down to it, their argument is basically that the President cares so little about Americans that he sat idly by and let them die.

I don't know how Obama doesn't flip his shiat on a daily basis.

It isn't that he let them die, it is that before the smoke cleared from the scene, he had already surmised on his own that the attack came as a result of the youtube video, then went to the floor of the UN to apologize for it.  I remember for weeks how there were people who were calling for the guy who made the video to be put on trial for treason & inciting the enemy and the blowhards in the media were demanding limits on speech and for censorship of whatever they found offensive.  once people realized that mortars are dialed in days, sometimes weeks ahead of time and it happened on 9-farking-11, they were able to connect the dots.

the WH's reaction to the event is akin to how CNN reports on  - everything.

To most people, Bengazhi is a character on Jersey Shore.


You have a really bad memory. Or only believe the right's interpretation of the events.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: If Hillary and Obama would just come out and admit they f*cked up, this all goes away.  Most people have the attention span of a ferret on crack anyway.


Why admit to something that's not true?

Curious: blah blah blah


Nobody gave up anything in Boston, so shut up with your Chicken Little routine. It's getting to the point I'm going to start labeling everyone like you as "On the side of the bombers" because you're so damn scared of the police that you'd rather let a murdering psychopath go free than do whatever it takes WITHIN THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION (which is what happened) to find him.
 
2013-05-06 03:25:00 PM
Keizer_Ghidorah:
Nobody gave up anything in Boston, so shut up with your Chicken Little routine. It's getting to the point I'm going to start labeling everyone like you as "On the side of the bombers" because you're so damn scared of the police that you'd rather let a murdering psychopath go free than do whatever it takes WITHIN THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION (which is what happened) to find him.
so with you it's either or. you're with us or against us. it's that thinking that got the law to where it is today. farked up.

i want him caught the old fashioned way where you don't "lock down" a 20 block area, conduct questionable searches and then find out the guy isn't even in your perimeter.

btw that last point, that he was found by the boat owner outside the search area, really makes the "it's ok we're the law" guys look silly.
 
2013-05-06 04:18:01 PM
Keizer_Ghidorah:
Fark you and your retarded pants-shiatting about your conspiracy paranoia over "DA GUBMINT USE DIS TO TAKE OUR RIIIIIIIGHTS!!!!". What did you want them to do, huh, turn around and go home after they lost a farking murderer after he shot one officer to death, killed his own brother while trying to run over two more officers, threw bombs willy-nilly from his getaway car during the chase, and ran into a residential area? They acted within the law and professionally. No one was dragged from their home so they could ransack it, people on the streets weren't attacked and thrown in prison, and the fact a civilian who found him (because the search made him cautious and he wanted to check his boat and found the guy) doesn't make it pointless or the government crushing the Constitution.
And before you try the "But other incidents that didn't have tanks and stuff!", those times weren't this time, and personally I'd like a little armor between the police and a guy who has no qualms about brutally killing people with bombs and guns. If that makes you piss your pants in terror then move to farking Antarctica.


...

www.toptenz.net

\you know it's bad when *I'm* suggesting you calm down
\\but if you need to worry 'bout terrorists, then I guess everyone needs a hobby
 
2013-05-06 04:59:49 PM

AtlanticCoast63: ....my two cents:

3.  I believe that former SecState Clinton knew exactly what happened (after a full internal investigation, not before/during the attack) and played it down in order to protect the President and her own political future.



This point I see a lot from some. Would you care to elaborate? How, exactly, was Sec Clinton covering her own ass? Why would a spontaneous attack by islamic extremists be ruinous to her political career?

Would an undecided voter change over to Romney if, for instance, Hillary came out day 1, saying that it was a planned attack by AQ? Would you say that some undecided voters based their vote on wether or not a murderous attack was pre-planned or spontaneous? I just don't see the motive to lie, it's not a political mistake to be attacked, and there's no reason to lie, so I would go as far as assuming that the administration thought it was more spontaneous than it actually was. Wooptie-fricken-doo!
 
2013-05-06 06:17:49 PM
How much farking money have Congress/Republicans wasted on staged "investigations"? If their plan was to make the complement so fed up we actually vote in midterms (against them), it's working.
 
2013-05-06 06:20:27 PM

JerseyTim: If you step back and really examine what the Republicans are saying, it's pretty farking disgusting. When you get right down to it, their argument is basically that the President cares so little about Americans that he sat idly by and let them die.


Projection at work. It's what the Bush Administration did.
 
2013-05-06 06:44:07 PM

Curious: Keizer_Ghidorah:
Nobody gave up anything in Boston, so shut up with your Chicken Little routine. It's getting to the point I'm going to start labeling everyone like you as "On the side of the bombers" because you're so damn scared of the police that you'd rather let a murdering psychopath go free than do whatever it takes WITHIN THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION (which is what happened) to find him.
so with you it's either or. you're with us or against us. it's that thinking that got the law to where it is today. farked up.


No, and you know it, but you apparently can't think about this except in terms of "GOVERNMENT JACKBOOTS! CIVILIANS IMPRISONED! CONSTITUTION CRUSHED! OBAMA USING AS PRECEDENT TO DESTROY AMERICA!". I'd suggest you stop watching 1984 so much. You Chicken Littles think that this is going to become the norm for every single thing ever because you're just absolutely sure that the government is coming to get you.

i want him caught the old fashioned way where you don't "lock down" a 20 block area, conduct questionable searches and then find out the guy isn't even in your perimeter.

Yeah, it would be nice if we could do the exact same thing for everything, especially things that happen completely differently from each other. One size fits all for everything doesn't work, however, and this wasn't exactly something that happens every other day. Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but unless you're some kind of seer who can see the future with perfect clarity, you work with that you have at the moment, and what they had at the moment was a dangerous murderer on the loose in a residential area. Sorry if you think it was a dry-run for Obama bulldozing everyone's homes and throwing them into gulags, it's not their fault you're a paranoid little shiat.

btw that last point, that he was found by the boat owner outside the search area, really makes the "it's ok we're the law" guys look silly.

The guy who found him? He checked his boat because the search made him want to check on his stuff. If there hadn't been a search, he may not have gone to check his boat, and the kid would have either escaped or died there. And again, hindsight is 20/20, forecasting the future, etc. You'd rather they just left and never came back and let the kid free because you ASSUME that what they did was against the Constitution despite them working well within the boundaries of law and the Constitution and you ASSUME that it's all a plot by the government to crush your rights.

CheapEngineer: \you know it's bad when *I'm* suggesting you calm down
\\but if you need to worry 'bout terrorists, then I guess everyone needs a hobby


No idea where you got "worrying about terrorists" from what I said. I'm talking about people who shiat themselves because our police were trying to find a murderer.
 
2013-05-06 06:56:29 PM

raatz01: How much farking money have Congress/Republicans wasted on staged "investigations"? If their plan was to make the complement so fed up we actually vote in midterms (against them), it's working.


^^^Erm, complacent.
 
Displayed 38 of 288 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report