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

(NBC News)   "Mrs. Clinton should never hold high office again", says RAND PAUL, accidentally revealing that Benghazi outrage is a political stunt to keep Hillary away from the White House before the race even starts   (nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com) divider line 270
    More: Obvious, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul, Benghazi, GOP, White House, Victoria Nuland, CIA Director David Petraeus, humans  
•       •       •

1888 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 May 2013 at 4:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-11 12:01:52 PM  
Mrs. Clinton is a soulless harpie, Benghazi didn't cause that.
 
2013-05-11 12:13:54 PM  
Sure, Republicans, go on a Hillary witch-hunt. Don't see a possible thing that could go wrong as a result.

Remember when the GOP's members were so certain that she'd be the Democratic nominee around 2008, so they attacked her relentlessly early in the campaign, securing a shoo-in victory for President Giuliani?
 
2013-05-11 12:28:06 PM  
If anyone knows about unsuitability for office, it's Rand Paul.
 
2013-05-11 12:36:13 PM  
My wife, who is about as uninterested in politics as they come, says that if Hillary runs you will see women that never thought about voting coming out to vote for her. I believe it. And the GOP know it, which is why they are trying so hard to smear her with this.
 
2013-05-11 12:39:00 PM  
I doubt Hillary runs, but she'd win going away. First a black dude, then a WOMAN? The biblethumping teabaggers would go off the damn rails.
 
2013-05-11 12:47:54 PM  
Obama was far more malicious in his nominee campaign than the Republicans have ever been to her

Doesn't change that I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her
 
2013-05-11 01:26:25 PM  

Elroydb: Obama was far more malicious in his nominee campaign than the Republicans have ever been to her

Doesn't change that I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her


Why?
 
2013-05-11 01:49:51 PM  

2wolves: Elroydb: Obama was far more malicious in his nominee campaign than the Republicans have ever been to her

Doesn't change that I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her

Why?


Because she's a coont who can't tell the truth.
 
2013-05-11 01:50:52 PM  

2wolves: Elroydb: Obama was far more malicious in his nominee campaign than the Republicans have ever been to her

Doesn't change that I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her

Why?


She bleeds for several days in a row and doesn't die! And she does it every month!

/or she used to
 
2013-05-11 01:52:02 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: 2wolves: Elroydb: Obama was far more malicious in his nominee campaign than the Republicans have ever been to her

Doesn't change that I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her

Why?

Because she's a coont who can't tell the truth.


You just described every politician to ever hold high office.
 
2013-05-11 01:52:53 PM  

EyeballKid: Sure, Republicans, go on a Hillary witch-hunt. Don't see a possible thing that could go wrong as a result.

Remember when the GOP's members were so certain that she'd be the Democratic nominee around 2008, so they attacked her relentlessly early in the campaign, securing a shoo-in victory for President Giuliani?


Remember when the GOP told everyone how much better she would be as President than Obama during the 2008 campaign?
 
2013-05-11 01:59:20 PM  
He's right, but for the wrong reasons.

/political dynasties are bad.
 
2013-05-11 02:00:30 PM  
president warren might appoint her to something. you never know....
 
2013-05-11 02:02:22 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: jehovahs witness protection: 2wolves: Elroydb: Obama was far more malicious in his nominee campaign than the Republicans have ever been to her

Doesn't change that I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her

Why?

Because she's a coont who can't tell the truth.

You just described every politician to ever hold high office.


Both sides are bad, so vote Democrat?
 
2013-05-11 02:03:03 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: 2wolves: Elroydb: Obama was far more malicious in his nominee campaign than the Republicans have ever been to her

Doesn't change that I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her

Why?

Because she's a coont who can't tell the truth.


Yes, because republicans never ever lie.

Creating a narrative so top secret information isn't released to the public is lying. Creating a narrative to push the entire country into war costing over a trillion dollars and over ten thousand American lives (and over a hundred thousand Iraqi lives) is good foreign policy.
 
2013-05-11 02:07:22 PM  
RAND PAUL shouldn't be the assistant manager of a 7-11, let alone a Senator.
 
2013-05-11 02:10:46 PM  

Mentat: EyeballKid: Sure, Republicans, go on a Hillary witch-hunt. Don't see a possible thing that could go wrong as a result.

Remember when the GOP's members were so certain that she'd be the Democratic nominee around 2008, so they attacked her relentlessly early in the campaign, securing a shoo-in victory for President Giuliani?

Remember when the GOP told everyone how much better she would be as President than Obama during the 2008 campaign?


But, be fair: if Clinton had been the Democratic nominee, the GOP would have told everyone how much better Obama would be as president.

It doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate, the GOP is going to argue that the nominee is the most liberal, least trustworthy and least qualified candidate ever to run for office.  They've been doing it for 20+ years.
 
2013-05-11 02:17:11 PM  
The weird thing is that I never wanted her to be the candidate in 2016. I still have bad taste in my mouth from the 2008 primaries. Remember when she was dodging sniper fire?

My dream candidate for maximum trolling? Susan Rice.
 
2013-05-11 02:19:47 PM  

eraser8: It doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate, the GOP is going to argue that the nominee is the most liberal, least trustworthy and least qualified candidate ever to run for office.  They've been doing it for 20+ years.


THIS
2016 debate will be about
taxes - LOL
the gays - LOL
minorities - LOL - STILL? meaning that nothing changed in 4 years? ROFL
dirty liberals- LOL

so unless the DEMS nominate "Gary Hart", the DEMS with beat any or most of all the current clowns who are talking about running.

likelihood that the GOPS will nominate a moderate, esp given the last 5 elections? close to farking zero. At best, they will get the next, "anybody but romney, whoops, we mean YAY ROMNEY!!"
the DEMS will most likely nominate a moderate. hopefully it wont be another algore/kerry

hillary/obama or hillary warren would cause so much INSANITY on the GOP side of the world, that well, they would probably win.
plus EVERY female DEM voter that I know will work to make this happen.

wow
first a black president, then a female president.
it is almost like the US was catching up to the 20th century finally.
 
2013-05-11 02:20:02 PM  

aiiee: Mrs. Clinton is a soulless harpie, Benghazi didn't cause that.


this is something i can agree with.
 
2013-05-11 02:24:24 PM  

JerseyTim: The weird thing is that I never wanted her to be the candidate in 2016. I still have bad taste in my mouth from the 2008 primaries. Remember when she was dodging sniper fire?

My dream candidate for maximum trolling? Susan Rice.


The one that bothered me about the hill 2008 campaign was the "I am the only candidate who can win the swing state rhetoric"
Obama won with a 50 state campaign. I would love to see a candidate who used the same strat.

Mhmmmmmm maybe mccain will run again or palin or bachmann or perry or romney or newt or paul or paul or santorum or turtle boy or bohner or canter or jeb or christie or wow this list is fun or oooooo what about michael steele ???!!!!! I heard that he was hip and cool and the blacks would all vote for him.
 
2013-05-11 02:39:16 PM  

2wolves: Elroydb: Obama was far more malicious in his nominee campaign than the Republicans have ever been to her

Doesn't change that I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her

Why?


Still waiting for an answer.
 
2013-05-11 02:42:01 PM  
i can't wait to see whom the republicans nominate. i'm sure their takeaway from 2012 was that romney was really a liberal and that they need to go derper. i'm hoping for a santorum/bachmann ticket!
 
2013-05-11 02:48:42 PM  
You're never going to be President, Randy...even if Hillary doesn't run.  Which she will,  And she will win.

You can resume your quixotic ego-trip in 2024.
 
2013-05-11 02:53:41 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: 2wolves: Elroydb: Obama was far more malicious in his nominee campaign than the Republicans have ever been to her

Doesn't change that I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her

Why?

Because she's a coont who can't tell the truth.


lol

I give the teabaggers about two years into the Hillary administration before they all die from rage-induced apoplexy.

I will really enjoy watching that.
 
2013-05-11 02:56:35 PM  

2wolves: Elroydb: Obama was far more malicious in his nominee campaign than the Republicans have ever been to her

Doesn't change that I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her

Why?


She's an intelligent woman. Republicans don't like women with brains.
 
2013-05-11 03:05:16 PM  

FlashHarry: i can't wait to see whom the republicans nominate. i'm sure their takeaway from 2012 was that romney was really a liberal and that they need to go derper. i'm hoping for a santorum/bachmann ticket!


It seems that that is their current take away. It will be AWESOME if they stick with that view.

HUCKABEE/BACHMANNNN 2016
The GOD Party
 
2013-05-11 03:22:07 PM  
The Republicans know they have no potential candidate who could win against Hillary. Now that Job 1 is no longer making Obama a 1-term president, the Republicans will spend the next 3 years telling the world how afraid they are of Hillary. Pretty soon they'll realize the same is true of Biden, and the smear campaign against him will begin in ernest. It's kind of embarrassing, really.
 
2013-05-11 03:33:55 PM  
don't know of any democratic candidates that could challenge clinton
 
2013-05-11 03:39:02 PM  

SpikeStrip: don't know of any democratic candidates that could challenge clinton


obama?
bwhahahahah
hillary's biggest mistake in 2008 was assuming that she was the chosen one.
 
2013-05-11 03:43:43 PM  

Notabunny: The Republicans know they have no potential candidate who could win against Hillary. Now that Job 1 is no longer making Obama a 1-term president, the Republicans will spend the next 3 years telling the world how afraid they are of Hillary. Pretty soon they'll realize the same is true of Biden, and the smear campaign against him will begin in ernest. It's kind of embarrassing, really.


There are some good potential candidates. I'd vote for Biden in a heartbeat. But, yes, the office is Clinton's for the taking.
 
2013-05-11 03:52:56 PM  

SpikeStrip: don't know of any democratic candidates that could challenge clinton


Martin O'Malley will try.
 
2013-05-11 03:53:26 PM  
I was reading the Wall Street Journal today and there was this OpEd about THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT BENGHAZI by some toolbag and I still can't understand why former President Bush hasn't been tried and executed as a war criminal for lying to the American people and starting two wars BUT HEY AN EMBASSY GOT ATTACKED AND OBAMA DIDN'T SAVE EVERYONE PERSONALLY. This is definitely an intelligence error of the highest sort. how did it happen? WEGOTTAKNOW NOWNOWNOWNOWNOWNOWNOWNOWNOW!

You know what? Forget it. I have a headache.
 
2013-05-11 03:59:51 PM  
Joe Biden / Harold Ford 2016!

Articulate, bright, clean... and Joe Biden, too!
 
2013-05-11 04:01:49 PM  
FTFA: Nuland wrote "Why would we want the Hill fingering al Ansar al Sharia when we aren't doing that ourselves until we have an investigation result?"

That would seem to be the logical thing to do. Wait until you know more before singling out a specific group of people, since Libya was/is so fluid. Highlighting the wrong group would give the real perpetrators more time to cover their tracks.

FTFA: Nuland also expressed concern that references to previous terror threats "could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned."

Again, sounds reasonable. If you haven't finished the investigation yet (just hours later) you wouldn't want to reference any previous terror warnings without knowing if any of them turned out to be specifically applicable. Because Libya was so unstable and had many different groups, there's no way of reliably backtracking until you've got more information from the ground.

FTFA: [Nuland] was concerned because the original talking points could potentially "prejudice the investigation," and possibly encouraged "a blame game before the investigation was complete."

Again, completely reasonable. You don't want to send investigators and military after red herrings before you are reasonably sure what the facts on the ground are. In the hours following a remote attack on a CIA operating base, the last thing you want to do is introduce more uncertaintly, rather than clarity. Since Libya was so fluid, any media action you take could change the situation in ways you're not aware of until much later. I don't see why this is such a big deal.
 
2013-05-11 04:32:54 PM  

FlashHarry: president warren might appoint her to something. you never know....


President Warren?  I don't think America wants to be henpecked for four years.
 
2013-05-11 04:36:28 PM  

Notabunny: Joe Biden / Harold Ford 2016!

Articulate, bright, clean... and Joe Biden, too!


Biden/Warren?
 
2013-05-11 04:37:13 PM  

Johnny Swank: I doubt Hillary runs, but she'd win going away. First a black dude, then a WOMAN? The biblethumping teabaggers would go off the damn rails.


I don't know where you've been for 5 years, but they already have. I think right now they're at a point to establish themselves as a permanent uneducated, extremist, terrorist underclass, which is wont to happen when a religious society implodes on itself.
 
2013-05-11 04:40:32 PM  
Hillary has so much baggage. We've been hearing about her for the past 22 years that people's opinions are pretty set on her.

I'd vote for her, but it would be hard for me to get excited about her.
 
2013-05-11 04:40:38 PM  

Notabunny: Joe Biden / Harold Ford 2016!

Articulate, bright, clean... and Joe Biden, too!


Joe Piscopo / Harrison Ford 2016!!!
 
2013-05-11 04:41:16 PM  

Johnny Swank: I doubt Hillary runs, but she'd win going away. First a black dude, then a WOMAN? The biblethumping teabaggers would go off the damn rails.


I don't know what "biblethumping" has to do with it. I'm a Christian (a Christian socialist not a teabagger) and have many like minded friends who are also Christians. I don't know one of us who didn't vote for Obama. I don't like Hillary because she backed the war and was dismissive toward the Code Pink mothers but I would vote for her any day over a Republican. I think you should deal with your own bigotry before you worry about a few minority teabaggers.
 
2013-05-11 04:41:49 PM  

Triumph: Martin O'Malley will try.


And lose. Badly.
 
2013-05-11 04:43:48 PM  

Johnny Swank: I doubt Hillary runs, but she'd win going away. First a black dude, then a WOMAN? The biblethumping teabaggers would go off the damn rails.


yes
would be fun at first

still dont want anything of a dynasty
i do hope she is not the best the democrats can offer
 
2013-05-11 04:43:49 PM  
FTA: Former White House senior adviser David Axelrod tweeted Friday that the furor over Benghazi is motivated by those hoping to undercut her presidential chances.
"Can't help but feeling that If (former secretary of the interior) Ken Salazar were the front runner for '16, the House GOP be holding hearings on the BP oil spill," he wrote.


Pretty much.
 
2013-05-11 04:44:19 PM  
Right. Incompetence and lying about it seven weeks before the election have nothing to do with it. It's all just some political scheme.

You will always know liberals by what they accuse others of... Not that anyone needed much help to notice every transgression by a Republican, real or imagined by liberals, is cause for screaming outrage but no matter what a Democrat does, you're making something out of nothing for political gain.
 
2013-05-11 04:44:37 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: 2wolves: Elroydb: Obama was far more malicious in his nominee campaign than the Republicans have ever been to her

Doesn't change that I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her

Why?

Because she's a coont who can't tell the truth.


Unlike Romney who is an jackass who could not tell the truth.
 
2013-05-11 04:44:46 PM  
GLOBAL WARMING IS A DIVERSION, BUT BENGHAZI IS A TRUE THREAT

/10 times greater than watergate and iran-contra
//brain cancer, getcha brain cancer here!
 
2013-05-11 04:45:38 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Johnny Swank: I doubt Hillary runs, but she'd win going away. First a black dude, then a WOMAN? The biblethumping teabaggers would go off the damn rails.

I don't know where you've been for 5 years, but they already have. I think right now they're at a point to establish themselves as a permanent uneducated, extremist, terrorist underclass, which is wont to happen when a religious society implodes on itself.


I keep asking WHY havent the moderate GOP jumped ship? In the very least, gone independent?
WE know WHY the GOP party has gone where they have gone, belief that it is the solution to 50.^A% of the vote.
WHY havent more moderate GOP candidates or elected officials gone rogue? Join with the centrist democrats, and together, we can rule the empire.
(sry)

but seriously, given that moderate GOPS and the majority of the people who voted for obama are all the same. farkING CENTRISTS.
Eject the religious/teahadist/homophobes/racists/anti-choice. TADA
You magically become a centrist candidate which could get a TON of the DEM votes and a TON of the GOP votes in your district.
Hell, run as a MODERATE/CENTRIST democrat. You already know that your district doesnt have a viable DEM candidate.
Switching based on rational thought, compromise, sanity, and being a centrist could/would be a winning strat.

1) no real competition in the DEM primary.
2) wont get primaried against a far right GOP teahadist
3) you win the general election by getting all the sane vote.

position to DEMS: Look, I am not crazy and I will work for the middle. You and the GOPs.
position to sane GOPS: I am not crazy, you REALLY want to vote for that batshiat crazy farktard??

WIN!!
 
2013-05-11 04:45:39 PM  

Mija: Johnny Swank: I doubt Hillary runs, but she'd win going away. First a black dude, then a WOMAN? The biblethumping teabaggers would go off the damn rails.

I don't know what "biblethumping" has to do with it. I'm a Christian (a Christian socialist not a teabagger) and have many like minded friends who are also Christians. I don't know one of us who didn't vote for Obama. I don't like Hillary because she backed the war and was dismissive toward the Code Pink mothers but I would vote for her any day over a Republican. I think you should deal with your own bigotry before you worry about a few minority teabaggers.


Dude, there's christian in an actual "follower of christ" sense and there's the biblethumping teabaggers who preach all about how we're damned if we don't go against all that christ has taught and make gays illegal/shot, ban all abortions and make the white man superior because "jesus is white" e

that's what JS was referencing in his post, not people like you who I imagine look to the teachings of Christ as a means to treat your fellow man with love and respect, not the evangelizing dogma of Paul.

/former Catholic, now Buddhist
//funny enough, my confirmation name was "Paul"
 
2013-05-11 04:48:35 PM  

Johnny Swank: I doubt Hillary runs, but she'd win going away. First a black dude, then a WOMAN? The biblethumping teabaggers would go off the damn rails.


We can only hope.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report