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.

(Washington Post)   Special Ops were told not to respond to Benghazi attacks. It might actually be a scandal now   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 728
    More: Interesting, Benghazi, U.S., Benghazi attacks, Jason Chaffetz, diplomats  
•       •       •

6500 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2013 at 7:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



728 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 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-07 01:13:57 PM
The funniest thing about this whole deal is watching the Obama defenders scream as they move the goalposts and watching the Obama haters scream as they move their goalposts.
 
2013-05-07 01:15:37 PM

Source4leko: The funniest thing about this whole deal is watching the Obama defenders scream as they move the goalposts and watching the Obama haters scream as they move their goalposts.


Good on you for saying absolutely NOTHING of substance, but taking a high-horse stance above everyone by making up easy strawmen to judge.
 
2013-05-07 01:17:45 PM

praymantis: quatchi: So... 8 months later, a youtube video whips Fark trolls up into a fine froth and out they all come to assail and try to conquer Mount Molehill one last time only to all come tumbling down on their asses as usual by failing to make any kind of cogent argument as to what the scandal is here and how things coulda woulda shoulda been done differently.

A'ight, since we're doing this... for the umpteenth time.

The only real scandal over Benghazi is how the GOP have tried politicize the deaths of 4 Americans for purely partisan purposes.

It's not their first manufactured outrage by far but it is the biggest and the most egregious to date.

LOL really the GOP is the only party that politicizes tragedy? Doesn't the Democratic party have to wheel out the Newton, CT parents and Gabby Gifford for a press conference on banning guns from law abiding citizens?


Newtown is manufactured outrage?
 
2013-05-07 01:17:52 PM

LasersHurt: Source4leko: The funniest thing about this whole deal is watching the Obama defenders scream as they move the goalposts and watching the Obama haters scream as they move their goalposts.

Good on you for saying absolutely NOTHING of substance, but taking a high-horse stance above everyone by making up easy strawmen to judge.


My comment accomplished as much as the 624 before it about this waste of time.
 
2013-05-07 01:19:33 PM
I've read several threads about Benghazi - I still have no idea what the big deal is or what it has to do with Obama. I've yet to see someone explain coherently why it matters. And I still have seen any new information that hasn't been already said months ago, including this article.
 
2013-05-07 01:26:03 PM
Waldo Pepper:

One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack and never tried to misdirect the American public, the world and the media with the video farce.  Got to give Obama credit he has some great PR handlers.

Are you saying that was the scandal? How does this look:

Benghazi is a scandal because Obama felt that telling the public that it was an act of terror would undermine his ability to defeat Romney and so they came up with "the big lie": tell the media it was the video that caused other riots and attacks on the same day. He and his advisors felt so because there is no indication in recent memory that terrorist attacks against US citizens could help a politician in the polls.

Sound about right? Can this be the official "scandal" now?
 
2013-05-07 01:26:04 PM
Since when did we start caring about Africa?
 
2013-05-07 01:28:46 PM

YoungLochinvar: mrshowrules: Waldo Pepper: Lionel Mandrake: Vodka Zombie: Waldo Pepper: One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack...
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x399]

Yeah, I can't imagine it would be a significantly different outcome than calling it "an act of terror."

Obama never directly called the attack "an act of terror" but it's okay please continue believing that Obama is different from every other politician on the planet and only cares for the people and would never put his legacy first.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But...      but...       but, that's not DIRECT, see? Because, you know, just because he was talking ABOUT Benghazi earlier doesn't mean that the acts of terror he's referencing there are actually Benghazi!! DERP!!

/I might cry when somebody says the same basic thing I did but actually means it


You don't understand. That was a completely unrelated non-sequitur. It's as if he said, "Corvettes are nice," and THEN went on to talk about Benghazi.
 
2013-05-07 01:35:38 PM

Waldo Pepper: Do i know his motives for Hillary and Him talking about the video as much as they did, No but my gut tells me there is something fishy


Because there weren't riots in multiple other locations over that very thing, that very day, right?
 
2013-05-07 01:38:30 PM

Source4leko: LasersHurt: Source4leko: The funniest thing about this whole deal is watching the Obama defenders scream as they move the goalposts and watching the Obama haters scream as they move their goalposts.

Good on you for saying absolutely NOTHING of substance, but taking a high-horse stance above everyone by making up easy strawmen to judge.

My comment accomplished as much as the 624 before it about this waste of time.


Hmmm... Just another Obama apologist, agreeing with everyone else who says this is a stupid waste of time.
 
2013-05-07 01:38:32 PM

vygramul: YoungLochinvar: mrshowrules: Waldo Pepper: Lionel Mandrake: Vodka Zombie: Waldo Pepper: One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack...
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x399]

Yeah, I can't imagine it would be a significantly different outcome than calling it "an act of terror."

Obama never directly called the attack "an act of terror" but it's okay please continue believing that Obama is different from every other politician on the planet and only cares for the people and would never put his legacy first.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But...      but...       but, that's not DIRECT, see? Because, you know, just because he was talking ABOUT Benghazi earlier doesn't mean that the acts of terror he's referencing there are actually Benghazi!! DERP!!

/I might cry when somebody says the same basic thing I did but actually means it

You don't understand. That was a completely unrelated non-sequitur. It's as if he said, "Corvettes are nice," and THEN went on to talk about Benghazi.


or it depends on what the meaning of is is.  Obama's "acts of terror" statement and the line about religion earlier in the speech was a nice way of playing it both ways.  maybe i'm just stupid enough to catch it.
 
2013-05-07 01:40:41 PM

Waldo Pepper: vygramul: YoungLochinvar: mrshowrules: Waldo Pepper: Lionel Mandrake: Vodka Zombie: Waldo Pepper: One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack...
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x399]

Yeah, I can't imagine it would be a significantly different outcome than calling it "an act of terror."

Obama never directly called the attack "an act of terror" but it's okay please continue believing that Obama is different from every other politician on the planet and only cares for the people and would never put his legacy first.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But...      but...       but, that's not DIRECT, see? Because, you know, just because he was talking ABOUT Benghazi earlier doesn't mean that the acts of terror he's referencing there are actually Benghazi!! DERP!!

/I might cry when somebody says the same basic thing I did but actually means it

You don't understand. That was a completely unrelated non-sequitur. It's as if he said, "Corvettes are nice," and THEN went on to talk about Benghazi.

or it depends on what the meaning of is is.  Obama's "acts of terror" statement and the line about religion earlier in the speech was a nice way of playing it both ways.  maybe i'm just stupid enough to catch it.


Paragraphs, how do they work?
 
2013-05-07 01:41:24 PM

Waldo Pepper: or it depends on what the meaning of is is.  Obama's "acts of terror" statement and the line about religion earlier in the speech was a nice way of playing it both ways.  maybe i'm just stupid enough to catch it.


You don't give yourself enough credit.
 
2013-05-07 01:41:27 PM

vygramul: You don't understand. That was a completely unrelated non-sequitur. It's as if he said, "Corvettes are nice," and THEN went on to talk about Benghazi.


I think it works like this:

Corvettes are nice.  Yadda yadda corvettes.

Lamborginis are nice, yadda yadda lambos.

Fast cars will always be loved by real americans in this great nation of ours.


Republicans, "zomg smackle you never said corvettes are fast cars, what are you a farking moron!?! this is an outrage!"
 
2013-05-07 01:42:19 PM

Waldo Pepper: maybe i'm just stupid


Well, you certainly walked into this one.
 
2013-05-07 01:53:10 PM
fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-05-07 01:54:23 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: SilentStrider: Not sending troops into a confusing situation where they could have made things much worse by firing on civilians is a scandal?
Nope. Not a scandal.

So.. Don't ever send police to a riot, because it's confusing and more people might be hurt?


Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-07 02:04:32 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot


Because VibramTM-soled boots are so unusual?  Seriously?

Let me show you my police-issued Disc Golf putter:

www.discgolfstation.com
 
2013-05-07 02:17:23 PM

Deucednuisance: Vlad_the_Inaner: Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

Because VibramTM-soled boots are so unusual?  Seriously?


Two men getting arrested wearing IDENTICAL boots to the cops, obviously intentionally sprayed and taped to look rough and different.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, and it COULD be coincidence, but... that's a HELL of a coincidence.
 
2013-05-07 02:40:08 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: SilentStrider: Not sending troops into a confusing situation where they could have made things much worse by firing on civilians is a scandal?
Nope. Not a scandal.

So.. Don't ever send police to a riot, because it's confusing and more people might be hurt?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]


Right, because people never get their combat boots at surplus stores.
 
2013-05-07 02:40:30 PM

Waldo Pepper: Lionel Mandrake: Kangaroo_Ralph: I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

People like you keep asking this question, and when the answer is presented to you, you just choose to ignore it.  It was this administration's motive to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which Obama was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

Continue to ignore it and your motive is transparent as well.

So, that's the scandal?  Really?

This is what's got Republican knickers all twisted?

I mean, I've heard all this video stuff before, of course, but I always thought that was the starting point to an actual scandal of some sort.  This is why there's steam shooting out of Republican's ears?  Wow.

Next you'll be telling me that 0bongo claims to prefer Pepsi, but secretly drinks Coke.

What was Watergate about?


It was about Nixon's campaign staff facing obscenity charges after being caught engaging in water sports or something.
 
2013-05-07 02:41:51 PM

LasersHurt: Deucednuisance: Vlad_the_Inaner: Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

Because VibramTM-soled boots are so unusual?  Seriously?

Two men getting arrested wearing IDENTICAL boots to the cops, obviously intentionally sprayed and taped to look rough and different.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, and it COULD be coincidence, but... that's a HELL of a coincidence.


No it's not. People who wear BDU pants tend to like the genuine article and go out of their way to be posers.
 
2013-05-07 02:50:42 PM
I have police issue boots.  Good for yardwork.  Big farkin deal.
 
2013-05-07 02:53:08 PM

vygramul: No it's not. People who wear BDU pants tend to like the genuine article and go out of their way to be posers.


This.  And considering that those soles appear to be Vibram 132 molds, they are the long-produced and most-manufactured boot sole on the planet, having first appeared in 1935.  The 132 is currently used by more than 1000 boot manufacturers world-wide.  Those helmets don't appear to be American, so, I'm guessing we're in Eastern Europe somewhere, where the selection of boots on the market would presumably be less than that available here in the US.

I'd be surprised if anyone was wearing a boot that did not have a Vibram 132 sole.

It's a leap to describe them as "police issue", much less "identical" when you can't even see the laces on most of them.
 
2013-05-07 02:58:37 PM

vygramul: No it's not. People who wear BDU pants tend to like the genuine article and go out of their way to be posers.


I have literally never seen boots like that. It's looking like that's a failing of my own, since enough other people seem to think those are the only boots on the market. Still, never seen a pair with that type of sole, and I've owned a few pairs over the years.
 
2013-05-07 03:03:44 PM

colon_pow: i will reserve comment until after the wednesday testimonies.


Thank gods. That means I don't need to Force-choke you for another few hours.
 
2013-05-07 03:05:16 PM

bgilmore5: DamnYankees: Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.

I'm sure Nazi Germany will be happy to hear that.


Shhhh, DamnYankees isn't too bright.Don't confuse him with facts.
 
2013-05-07 03:08:33 PM
Well it's been a hell of a laugh riot in here just reading but I gotta go get me some Friskies n soda pop.

Laters.
 
2013-05-07 03:19:47 PM

vygramul: Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: SilentStrider: Not sending troops into a confusing situation where they could have made things much worse by firing on civilians is a scandal?
Nope. Not a scandal.

So.. Don't ever send police to a riot, because it's confusing and more people might be hurt?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]

Right, because people never get their combat boots at surplus stores.


Right, because real rioters are permitted to hide behind police lines when other rioters accuse them of being provocateurs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3jGY0mn5_4
 
2013-05-07 03:39:12 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: SilentStrider: Not sending troops into a confusing situation where they could have made things much worse by firing on civilians is a scandal?
Nope. Not a scandal.

So.. Don't ever send police to a riot, because it's confusing and more people might be hurt?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]


AWESOME!  I have the same boots!

I guess that makes me a cop then, huh?
 
2013-05-07 03:46:02 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: SilentStrider: Not sending troops into a confusing situation where they could have made things much worse by firing on civilians is a scandal?
Nope. Not a scandal.

So.. Don't ever send police to a riot, because it's confusing and more people might be hurt?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]

Right, because people never get their combat boots at surplus stores.

Right, because real rioters are permitted to hide behind police lines when other rioters accuse them of being provocateurs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3jGY0mn5_4


Haven't looked at the video because it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether boots mean jack shiat.
 
2013-05-07 04:00:50 PM

vygramul: Haven't looked at the video because it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether boots mean jack shiat.


Oh fine, here's a video that shows the boots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

Nice calm civil discussion the guy the masked "protestor" is having with the cop in the line toward the wall, eh?  Look how it impossible it was for those guys to squeeze by.
 
2013-05-07 04:13:00 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: Haven't looked at the video because it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether boots mean jack shiat.

Oh fine, here's a video that shows the boots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

Nice calm civil discussion the guy the masked "protestor" is having with the cop in the line toward the wall, eh?  Look how it impossible it was for those guys to squeeze by.


Oh, and if you really really just hate video, here is article on about the police that covers the 'surplus' boot wearing guys.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.htm l

Because everyone needs a rock in one's hand to "[Respond] within their mandate to keep order and security."
 
2013-05-07 04:14:53 PM

Vodka Zombie: Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: SilentStrider: Not sending troops into a confusing situation where they could have made things much worse by firing on civilians is a scandal?
Nope. Not a scandal.

So.. Don't ever send police to a riot, because it's confusing and more people might be hurt?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]

AWESOME!  I have the same boots!

I guess that makes me a cop then, huh?


This guy was a cop so there's that.
 
2013-05-07 04:16:38 PM

vygramul: Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: SilentStrider: Not sending troops into a confusing situation where they could have made things much worse by firing on civilians is a scandal?
Nope. Not a scandal.

So.. Don't ever send police to a riot, because it's confusing and more people might be hurt?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]

Right, because people never get their combat boots at surplus stores.

Right, because real rioters are permitted to hide behind police lines when other rioters accuse them of being provocateurs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3jGY0mn5_4

Haven't looked at the video because it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether boots mean jack shiat.


Well if you are a cop pretending to be a protester to provoke a riot and you wear cop boots, it means you are pretty farking stupid.
 
2013-05-07 04:27:33 PM
So, let's see:

- all of the usual trolls never say how this was a scandal and what the lies were, as usual
- tenpoundsofcheese ignores everyone who responds to him with the facts, as usual
- willful and deliberate ignoring of the events and timeline in order to screech about Obama bad
- STILL trying to say "hurr hurr Obama threw American in prison to cover up his incompetence", when the truth is regular police arrested him for violating his parole
- when the old trolls play themselves out, brand new names pop up saying the exact same things

*sigh* Business as usual.
 
2013-05-07 04:28:59 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: SilentStrider: Not sending troops into a confusing situation where they could have made things much worse by firing on civilians is a scandal?
Nope. Not a scandal.

So.. Don't ever send police to a riot, because it's confusing and more people might be hurt?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]

Right, because people never get their combat boots at surplus stores.

Right, because real rioters are permitted to hide behind police lines when other rioters accuse them of being provocateurs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3jGY0mn5_4


Jeez, at :20 seconds, that is one ugly motherfarking cop.
 
2013-05-07 04:49:28 PM

kingoomieiii: feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.

As we've been over, if they'd shown up as soon as they could have, they would have arrived just in time to be killed by mortar fire.

And then Republicans would be talking about how Obama didn't just sit and watch Americans die, he ORDERED them to die.


And this is why whistle blowers were threatened to keep them silent. Riiight.

Face it Dems, new boss is the same as the old boss when it comes to transparency, taking away our civil rights, and selling us out to big business. This is all you will ever get from a candidate with a D or an R next to his or her name.
 
2013-05-07 04:52:23 PM

Walter Paisley: Waldo Pepper: Lionel Mandrake: Kangaroo_Ralph: I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

People like you keep asking this question, and when the answer is presented to you, you just choose to ignore it.  It was this administration's motive to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which Obama was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

Continue to ignore it and your motive is transparent as well.

So, that's the scandal?  Really?

This is what's got Republican knickers all twisted?

I mean, I've heard all this video stuff before, of course, but I always thought that was the starting point to an actual scandal of some sort.  This is why there's steam shooting out of Republican's ears?  Wow.

Next you'll be telling me that 0bongo claims to prefer Pepsi, but secretly drinks Coke.

What was Watergate about?

It was about Nixon's campaign staff facing obscenity charges after being caught engaging in water sports or something.


I'm not sure the politics tab is the proper place to share your fantasies
 
2013-05-07 04:54:19 PM

vygramul: Haven't looked at the video because it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether boots mean jack shiat.  proves you're right.


FTFY
 
2013-05-07 04:54:30 PM

Maud Dib: Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: SilentStrider: Not sending troops into a confusing situation where they could have made things much worse by firing on civilians is a scandal?
Nope. Not a scandal.

So.. Don't ever send police to a riot, because it's confusing and more people might be hurt?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]

Right, because people never get their combat boots at surplus stores.

Right, because real rioters are permitted to hide behind police lines when other rioters accuse them of being provocateurs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3jGY0mn5_4

Jeez, at :20 seconds, that is one ugly motherfarking cop.


Yikes! That person's face reminds me of on the the images posted in the creepy book cover thread from a couple of days ago.
i1243.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-07 04:56:06 PM

Brubold: kingoomieiii: feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.

As we've been over, if they'd shown up as soon as they could have, they would have arrived just in time to be killed by mortar fire.

And then Republicans would be talking about how Obama didn't just sit and watch Americans die, he ORDERED them to die.

And this is why whistle blowers were threatened to keep them silent. Riiight.

Face it Dems, new boss is the same as the old boss when it comes to transparency, taking away our civil rights, and selling us out to big business. This is all you will ever get from a candidate with a D or an R next to his or her name.


Yep, expanding gun rights is taking away our rights. No one being able to explain how Benghazi is a scandal and what the lies were is Benghazi is a scandal and lies. Helping small businesses is selling us out to big business.

And both sides are bad so vote Republican.
 
2013-05-07 04:56:50 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: Haven't looked at the video because it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether boots mean jack shiat.

Oh fine, here's a video that shows the boots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

Nice calm civil discussion the guy the masked "protestor" is having with the cop in the line toward the wall, eh?  Look how it impossible it was for those guys to squeeze by.


You're still off trying to prove those guys are cops. The question is whether the boots are, in and of themselves, meaningful. They're not.

Look at it this way:

Picture: "OMG! THEY HAVE LEGS! COPS HAVE LEGS! THEY'RE COPS!"
Me: Lots of people have legs.
You: "No, here's a video proving they're cops."

See the problem?
 
2013-05-07 04:57:57 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: vygramul: Haven't looked at the video because it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether boots mean jack shiat.  proves you're right.

FTFY


They have legs. That proves they're cops. Just watch the video.
 
2013-05-07 05:00:36 PM

vygramul: See the problem?


You didn't read the article in which the police said they were cops?
 
2013-05-07 05:05:21 PM

vygramul: You're still off trying to prove those guys are cops. The question is whether the boots are, in and of themselves, meaningful. They're not.


So go ahead and confuse a visual aid offered in a lighter vein as being sole (arf-arf) proof.

Names and everything

Favorite quote: "The trio were also acquitted of not identifying themselves as police after the committee ruled the protestors' taunts didn't consist of a formal demand for the officers to identify themselves. "
 
2013-05-07 05:09:05 PM

Waldo Pepper: Walter Paisley: Waldo Pepper: Lionel Mandrake: Kangaroo_Ralph: I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

People like you keep asking this question, and when the answer is presented to you, you just choose to ignore it.  It was this administration's motive to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which Obama was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

Continue to ignore it and your motive is transparent as well.

So, that's the scandal?  Really?

This is what's got Republican knickers all twisted?

I mean, I've heard all this video stuff before, of course, but I always thought that was the starting point to an actual scandal of some sort.  This is why there's steam shooting out of Republican's ears?  Wow.

Next you'll be telling me that 0bongo claims to prefer Pepsi, but secretly drinks Coke.

What was Watergate about?

It was about Nixon's campaign staff facing obscenity charges after being caught engaging in water sports or something.

I'm not sure the politics tab is the proper place to share your fantasies


You think the politics tab is a fantasy-free zone? Do you not read the threads here very often?
 
2013-05-07 05:14:04 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Brubold: kingoomieiii: feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.

As we've been over, if they'd shown up as soon as they could have, they would have arrived just in time to be killed by mortar fire.

And then Republicans would be talking about how Obama didn't just sit and watch Americans die, he ORDERED them to die.

And this is why whistle blowers were threatened to keep them silent. Riiight.

Face it Dems, new boss is the same as the old boss when it comes to transparency, taking away our civil rights, and selling us out to big business. This is all you will ever get from a candidate with a D or an R next to his or her name.

Yep, expanding gun rights is taking away our rights. No one being able to explain how Benghazi is a scandal and what the lies were is Benghazi is a scandal and lies. Helping small businesses is selling us out to big business.

And both sides are bad so vote Republican.


You do know there are civil rights outside of gun rights, don't you? This is the president who you people claimed was going to restore those rights not take even more of them away. He was going to end torture and instead he outsourced it. He was going to close Gitmo and end that evil indefinite detention. This is a myth exposed even by very left leaning sources. Obama not only planned to keep the indefinite detention in place, he signed a bill "reluctantly" that expanded it to include US citizens. If you want to know how he sold us out to big business look at how he's kept the same old crew running the fed. Look at how his healthcare bill did nothing to ease the actual cost of healthcare. He forced us to buy it and didn't do anything to keep the insurance companies from jacking up the prices. He promised to have the most transparent administration ever and has had one of the least transparent ever. Face it, Obama served you all kool-aid and you all drank it down.
 
2013-05-07 05:18:21 PM

Brubold: kingoomieiii: feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.

As we've been over, if they'd shown up as soon as they could have, they would have arrived just in time to be killed by mortar fire.

And then Republicans would be talking about how Obama didn't just sit and watch Americans die, he ORDERED them to die.

And this is why whistle blowers were threatened to keep them silent. Riiight.

Face it Dems, new boss is the same as the old boss when it comes to transparency, taking away our civil rights, and selling us out to big business. This is all you will ever get from a candidate with a D or an R next to his or her name.


In fairness, the whistleblowers claim to have been threatened. It's certainly possible that they have been, and that those threats are coming because they have damning information which hasn't been made public.

It's also possible that they're simply talking out of their asses, have no actual new information, and have misinterpreted warnings about the possible deleterious effects of slandering their bosses* as "threats".

*Publicly spreading untrue information about your superiors in an attempt to damage their reputations is generally a fireable offense, I would think.

/Just to be clear, I have no idea which of those two scenarios is the truth, just pointing out that it could be very easy for the whistleblowers to misinterpret genuine advice as a threat.
//For example, see Woodward, Bob, re: the sequester negotiations.
 
2013-05-07 05:33:49 PM
701 comments and not one accusation of slurping?

Guys, I'm kinda getting worried about sen.lindsey graham.


 

colon_pow: i will reserve comment until after the wednesday testimonies.


you should reserve comment until after the heat death of the sun. Zing!
 
Displayed 50 of 728 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report