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.

(Talking Points Memo)   WaPo fact checker gives three "Pinocchios" to the doctored Benghazi emails claim. Proving once and for all that we cannot trust a single soul within a 50 mile radius of D.C   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 423
    More: Interesting, District of Columbia, Benghazi, fact checking, Capitol Hill Republicans, Benghazi emails, emails, Washington Post, ABC White House  
•       •       •

10905 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2013 at 10:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-22 01:56:45 PM

Road Rash: PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?

Voting the same as the Democrats, apparently, if you check the voting record.


Yes, but the Democrats aren't whining about it.  And you'll note the Republicans didn't bother to investigate most of the FIFTY embassy attacks that happened on Bush's watch.

- it was the Administration's choice to make any cuts that were made.

CITATION NEEDED.

And, sorry, but Republican sources DON'T COUNT...they've already been caught lying about this, just like they were caught lying about Muffingate.  (not to mention caught being unable to do basic math)

Loss of credibility is a hard thing to overcome.
 
2013-05-22 01:58:53 PM

BgJonson79: PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?

Cite a source, please?


First thing off google, there's tons more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_19 54 912.html

Oddly, Fox "News" has chosen to downplay this angle...
 
2013-05-22 02:05:51 PM

Deucednuisance: vygramul: Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?

You know, you're always trying to sound dispassionate, even as pretty much everything you write boils down to "Libruls BAD", but lately it's getting very hard to follow what you're actually arguing.

For instance, at this point it sure seems like you're conceding that those taking conservations stances should be presumed to be intellectually dishonest.

Is that really where you want to go with this?


Seriously, how can you interpret everything I write as liberals are bad? I have some disagreements with some liberal positions, but I've expressed uncompromising support for gay marriage, waxed philosophic on the problems with our rape culture, constantly argue against green walls I'f global warming ignorance, argue for Obamacare and prefer universal health care...
 
2013-05-22 02:11:57 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cognitive dissonance, ladies and gentlemen.


No, it's not.

He not troubled by the contradiction in the least, therefore he is experiencing no "dissonance".

What he's engaging in is Doublethink.
 
2013-05-22 02:13:27 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You raise well debunked and totally false points and get defensive when we call you on your bullshiat. Over and over again.


I think you honestly believe the points I raise have been debunked. They have not. But you obviously prefer your interpretation of truth. But defensive? I don't think so.
 
2013-05-22 02:13:52 PM

vygramul: You must have me confused with someone else.


If so, I apologize, and management regrets the error.

So, were you arguing in good faith, then about the intellectual dishonesty of conservatives?

(Hint: question is not an attack.)
 
2013-05-22 02:14:28 PM
Halli,

Can you provide a specific example of a "doctored email?"  The Washington Post writer seems to be standing pretty firm in his assertion there were no doctored emails.  Surely there has to be at least one "doctored email" that you can link to....
 
2013-05-22 02:14:48 PM

Deucednuisance: bluefox3681: Plus the state department had money to put in electric car charging stations in italy, so I am guessing that they had money for the essential security. (or Hillary ran the state department incompetently.)

So, I guess you missed the latest from Consumer Reports about cost per mile?

[l.yimg.com image 605x245]

You only have to install a charging station once, and given the turnover in vehicles, and the fact that it's reasonable to expect a continuing US diplomatic presence in Italy for a very long time, it sure looks like over time, electrics will be a significant cost saver. 

You got a problem with that?  Really?


Not to mention that budgets aren't a huge pot of money that the department can simply allocate at their whim.
 
2013-05-22 02:17:53 PM

jpo2269: Halli,

Can you provide a specific example of a "doctored email?"  The Washington Post writer seems to be standing pretty firm in his assertion there were no doctored emails.  Surely there has to be at least one "doctored email" that you can link to....


If you're modifying e-mails from the original then they're doctored.  Or were you going with the "fake but accurate" defense.
 
2013-05-22 02:18:45 PM

jpo2269: Halli,

Can you provide a specific example of a "doctored email?"  The Washington Post writer seems to be standing pretty firm in his assertion there were no doctored emails.  Surely there has to be at least one "doctored email" that you can link to....


Are you for real?
 
2013-05-22 02:19:24 PM

coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.

So you're arguing that more embassy funding wouldn't help or that the embassy funding was cut by the GOP?  I am arguing the former whereas you think I am arguing the latter.... BUT I NEVER F*CKING SAID ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING IT... SO STOP MAKING UP RANDOM CRAP.


Right there in bold in your own words.  That statement is completely false.  The morons in charge of the embassy security agency were not properly allocating resources and were too busy getting in bureaucratic slap fights w/ the CIA  as per the Pickering report and testimony from top level state department officials.
 
2013-05-22 02:22:43 PM

Deucednuisance: vygramul: You must have me confused with someone else.

If so, I apologize, and management regrets the error.

So, were you arguing in good faith, then about the intellectual dishonesty of conservatives?

(Hint: question is not an attack.)


In the public sphere, it's hard to find an intellectually honest presentation of a conservative argument. There are some that can be made, especially on economic issues, but usually the intellectually honest positions are at odds with other traditionally conservative assertions, such as Christianity.
 
2013-05-22 02:23:29 PM

PunGent: BgJonson79: PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?

Cite a source, please?

First thing off google, there's tons more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_19 54 912.html

Oddly, Fox "News" has chosen to downplay this angle...


Fair enough, but the prez had to sign that bill... neither side has a veto-proof majority now or at that time.  Thanks for the source!
 
2013-05-22 02:28:36 PM

BgJonson79: PunGent: BgJonson79: PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?

Cite a source, please?

First thing off google, there's tons more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_19 54 912.html

Oddly, Fox "News" has chosen to downplay this angle...

Fair enough, but the prez had to sign that bill... neither side has a veto-proof majority now or at that time.  Thanks for the source!


Because in order to get it passed they had to compromise which was greater than what the GOP wanted but still resulted in a cut.  It's never an all-or-nothing situation when it comes to budgets.
 
2013-05-22 02:28:56 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You raise well debunked and totally false points and get defensive when we call you on your bullshiat. Over and over again.

I think you honestly believe the points I raise have been debunked. They have not. But you obviously prefer your interpretation of truth. But defensive? I don't think so.


Your position is "librul bad" Obama lied. So far, you fail to prove your point.
 
2013-05-22 02:30:06 PM
Fart Machine, Halli,


Surely you can provide one example of a "doctored email."  My understanding of the issue at hand has more to do with the writer of the initial story misquoting his notes and not having some photo shopped/fictitious email.  If am wrong, so be it, I was misinformed, all I am asking for is visual proof of said "doctored email."
 
2013-05-22 02:36:48 PM

jpo2269: Surely you can provide one example of a "doctored email."


Surely you can RTFT, there's been examples of the changed language between the original and the synopsis post right here already, and pretty early on, too.

Fart_Machine: Not to mention that budgets aren't a huge pot of money that the department can simply allocate at their whim.


Not to mention that the SECSTATE is pretty darned unlikely to be personally signing off on Motor Pool requisitions in Italy or anywhere.
 
2013-05-22 02:38:13 PM

jpo2269: Fart Machine, Halli,


Surely you can provide one example of a "doctored email."  My understanding of the issue at hand has more to do with the writer of the initial story misquoting his notes and not having some photo shopped/fictitious email.  If am wrong, so be it, I was misinformed, all I am asking for is visual proof of said "doctored email."


So you don't understand that utilizing quotes that aren't actually quotes is doctoring.  So Dan Rather's investigation team is finally cleared.
 
2013-05-22 02:40:02 PM

PunGent: bluefox3681: PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?

How could they cut funding?  There hasn't been a budget in years!

There's the vaunted Republicans for you...nothing is EVER their fault.  Even when it's their Constitutional duty.
Party of personal responsibility my ass.


My point is that funding/defunding had absolutely nothing to do with the failure at Benghazi.
Proof?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/are-budget-cuts-to- bl ame-for-benghazi-attack-as-biden-suggested.html

"In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, "Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"Lamb responded, "No, sir."Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats."

So there you have it.  Money/budget had nothing to do with the lack of security there.   And passing a budget is the constitutional duty of both parties, jackass.  It's not the House that hasn't passed a budget, it is the Senate.
 
2013-05-22 02:41:53 PM

jpo2269: Fart Machine, Halli,


Surely you can provide one example of a "doctored email."  My understanding of the issue at hand has more to do with the writer of the initial story misquoting his notes and not having some photo shopped/fictitious email.  If am wrong, so be it, I was misinformed, all I am asking for is visual proof of said "doctored email."


Jon Karl apparently got the transcribed emails from a third party. He claimed to have obtained the emails but that of course was a lie.

The people who saw the emails were given ample time to transcrbie them. How exactly then does one explain this:

email "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

paraphrase "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."


Original "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

paraphrase "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

How exactly would transcribing add so much into the emails that make the Obama administration look bad?

Shamelessly taken from squirrelflavoredyogurt btw.
 
2013-05-22 02:48:25 PM

spentshells: I'm surprised you don't know that. Dr. Paul is an unsung American hero.


If all it takes to be an unsung American hero is to stuff your hand in someones vagina and talk about the Gold Standard and the Fed, then our standards have become incredibly pathetic.
 
2013-05-22 02:52:25 PM

Phinn: You don't actually get to tell me which questions I'm allowed to ask.


And I didn't, now did I? I just "answered" your question flippantly because it was all it deserved and it's all you'll continue to get because we (and a large number of other Farkers it seems) both know damn well you have no interest in an honest discussion of facts so you won't be treated as if you do.

Imagine that. You ask stupid, leading questions and you get inane, mocking answers. Wild stuff.

vygramul: You're holding up NO examples.


That would be because you're the one who made the claim that started this. Not sure what I'm expected to give examples of here.

vygramul: You'll be able to find some conservative positions, of course, but I'll beat you by a landslide.


No, I won't, because you're still doing exactly what I complained you were doing: everything you disagree with must be liberal.

And, no, I haven't followed your posts. If you're trying to claim you're liberal and therefore the accusations of your arbitrary claims of bias must be wrong, that doesn't change the correctness of your position, just your motivation for being wrong.
 
2013-05-22 02:56:35 PM
Halli,


From the fact check article.  While you can certainly take issue with the way Karl represented the "quotes" but given what he was provided were "summaries" the use of "doctored emails" really doesn't apply now does it?


"Karl over the weekend tweeted, "I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake." He declined to comment further.

"I didn't speak to anyone who represented the email summaries as direct quotes," Hayes said in an e-mail Monday. "I called around on Capitol Hill and elsewhere to follow up on what I thought were interesting footnotes in the House GOP report on Benghazi. Those notes referred to specific emails (and included exact times) and I thought there might be more to learn."
 
2013-05-22 03:01:45 PM

jpo2269: From the fact check article. While you can certainly take issue with the way Karl represented the "quotes" but given what he was provided were "summaries" the use of "doctored emails" really doesn't apply now does it?


How exactly does a summary add so much into an email? Also he made it look like he had obtained the emails and that they were direct quotes.

jpo2269: "Karl over the weekend tweeted, "I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake." He declined to comment further.


So he just completely lied about the emails.
 
2013-05-22 03:05:31 PM

ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.

So you're arguing that more embassy funding wouldn't help or that the embassy funding was cut by the GOP?  I am arguing the former whereas you think I am arguing the latter.... BUT I NEVER F*CKING SAID ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING IT... SO STOP MAKING UP RANDOM CRAP.

Right there in bold in your own words.  That statement is completely false.  The morons in charge of the embassy security agency were not properly allocating resources and were too busy getting in bureaucratic slap fights w/ the CIA  as per the Pickering report and testimony from top level state department officials.


I guess I'll just provide proof whereas you did not.

http://www.whatthefolly.com/2013/02/05/transcript-hillary-clinton-o n-t he-state-departments-chronic-funding-shortfall/

In the words of that Jew Hater to the Chinese in Lethal Weapon 4: "I f*cked you!  I f*cked you!"
 
2013-05-22 03:13:08 PM
I love how the trolls and shills keep screeching "All of you libs always say that Obama is God and can do no wrong!" when every single day they're proven 100% wrong as even people who super-support Obama still point out things he's said and done that they dislike and wish he'd do something or other.

I've also yet to hear ANY Democrat say that Obama is a messiah, the Chosen One, the Anointed One, Jesus reincarnated, etc etc. But I hear it multiple times a day from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and many other Republicans. For a party of God-fearing old-fashioned Christians they sure do like to speak blasphemy.
 
2013-05-22 03:15:17 PM

Thunderpipes: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.

I am sure Farkers will think that is awesome. If it happened under Bush, Bush would be impeached tomorrow.

Can you imagine the friggin uproar if the IRS targeted ACORN and all the Obama organizations?


Considering we already had threads pointing out that it happened, and no one said a damn thing about it, under Bush?
 
2013-05-22 03:15:58 PM
Halli:

While I wouldn't go as far as say he lied, I certainly could live with someone claiming he "misrepresented" the quotes.  Now I would hope that we could agree that a reporter "misrepresenting quotes" is entirely different from "Republicans doctoring e-mails."

Now, if you would like to discuss Mr. Karl's version of "quotes" vs. what was actually contained in the emails and whether or not they paint two completely different pictures, I might be game for that as well.
 
2013-05-22 03:17:29 PM
How come we have to prove their guilt yet they expect us to prove our innocence?
 
2013-05-22 03:20:59 PM

jpo2269: While I wouldn't go as far as say he lied, I certainly could live with someone claiming he "misrepresented" the quotes. Now I would hope that we could agree that a reporter "misrepresenting quotes" is entirely different from "Republicans doctoring e-mails."


Saying you had obtained the emails and making direct quotes was a lie. Simple as that and it sure smells like partishan doctoring.

jpo2269: Now, if you would like to discuss Mr. Karl's version of "quotes" vs. what was actually contained in the emails and whether or not they paint two completely different pictures, I might be game for that as well.


I'm sure you have some fake but accurate narrative fired up and raring to go.
 
2013-05-22 03:25:48 PM
"Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did)," wrote Kessler.

Oh, since you put it THAT way.... I mean, it's a well known fact that Republicans have NEVER done something that was "foolish".
 
2013-05-22 03:32:31 PM
Kessler sides with ABC White House correspondent Jon Karl, who in March wrongly attributed quotes from White House officials that were based on "summaries," by chalking up the inconsistency as a simple transcribing error.

Wow, how much does this guy earn to do this? Regardless of WHO doctored what up summed up what, the story QUOTED these incorrect emails. They put them in quotes, meaning that they were supposedly stating this word for word AS APPEARS IN THE ORIGINAL, not "summarized". You use single quotes for that. INstead of calling this guy out for being a lazy journalist(at best), this dude finds a way to make it nobody's fault while at the same time insulting the people who pointed it out.

When this guy is done "fact" checking, he should look into a job with whomever is President at the moment, he'd make an amazing press secretary...
 
2013-05-22 03:34:59 PM
Why would you you change or edit the emails at all?

Considering how the republicans have generally behaved since Reagan it is pretty safe to bet they were altered as an attempt to smear the White House. If that were not the case then show me an email that they modified that doesn't do that. Every text change just happened to make the WH sound like all they were concerned about was the politics, even omitting the word investigation while replacing it with a concern over politics. Republicans can't be trusted, how many times have they proven that to be the case?
 
2013-05-22 03:45:05 PM

Cletus C.: You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.


Remember, everyone, "acts of terror" is NOTHING AT ALL like "terrorist attack", and because he said the former and not the latter Obama is hiding his personal involvement in killing those 4 people with his Muslim Brotherhood.

And according to Phinn, not knowing every single thing Obama was doing during the incident means that he personally told everyone to stand down and gleefully watched from a cloaked drone as the attack played out, jerking his dick and making walrus sounds of bliss at how much he's destroying America.
 
2013-05-22 03:56:02 PM

skozlaw: No, I won't, because you're still doing exactly what I complained you were doing: everything you disagree with must be liberal.


No, I provided examples that are liberal. Show me one issue I presented that the Post agreed with that ISN'T a liberal position. I can't even imagine how you arrived at "everything you disagree with must be liberal" - go ahead, provide one shred of evidence for this.
 
2013-05-22 04:00:08 PM

coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.


And you know where the ballsack goes.
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-22 04:10:53 PM

YoungLochinvar: Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Sensitive? Pretty much all of us have told you to go find the answer, and yet you refuse to do so. I wonder why that is.

No one in the media has the answer.  I looked but found none.  That could either mean that it's been answered and I couldn't find it, or it hasn't been answered.  By asking the Fark Genius Brigade, it adds to the likelihood that the question has not been answered.

YoungLochinvar: ...yes, I get that you want to know what he was doing. But that's only a relevant question if you think that there is something he specifically SHOULD have been doing, so I'd like to know what it is that you think he should've been doing. It's not a hard question, and since I'm only asking your opinion it doesn't even require much in the way of facts.

I have no idea what he specifically should have been doing, because I do not know what his circumstances were at the time.  He could have been exhausted and near death, and thus needed sleep.  He could have been dealing with security or espionage matters that are as-yet undisclosed and he needed to monitor it.  He could have been having his balls lubed by Rahm Emanuel in the Lincoln Bedroom and really wanted to have a happy ending.  He could have been personally handling a serious diplomatic snafu that threatened the continued presence of U.S. military bases in NATO countries.  He could have been one ship away from getting a high score in Galaga and didn't want to waste another quarter in the machine.

I have no idea what he should have been doing because I have no idea what he was doing.  I can only answer it in the most vague way, by saying that a President should be doing whatever is required by his job, with the exception of a reasonable amount of non-official activities like sleep, vacation, campaigning and personal time.

Why are you so sensitive about the question being asked?

I wouldn't say that I'm particularly sensitive about the question itself. It'd be an extremely pertinent question if you believe that some sort of quick, decisive action (that only the President  could've somehow changed the outcome *after* the attack had started. But I've looked at the timeline and there don't appear to be any places where something should've been happening that wasn't already happening. It would seem that you do think the President should've been doing *something*, though - so why don't you try answering my question with something more than a total copout? I'll even give you some assumptions to work with - the President wasn't particularly exhausted and wasn't dealing with any other atypical Presidential business (eg there wasn't a simultaneous crisis elsewhere that he was dealing with).

Or perhaps I'll ask a different question - having reviewed the timeline, do you think there are points in time where the President, barring other emergencies, *should* have been doing something? If so, what do you think he should've been doing?

The reason I ask is because you obviously see something I don't see - so I'd really like to know what exactly it is that you're seeing and that I've missed. That doesn't seem like a particularly unfair request on my part, does it?


I'll answer this with something people on the left bring up quite frequently. Bush, storytime, Florida, September 11. Look at what happened there over 7 minutes and you can see why people might be upset over the president not giving details on orders given over an 11 hour window.
 
2013-05-22 04:11:28 PM

skilbride: mrshowrules: For Obama to be a terrible President, you would have to concede every President ranked below Obama to be a terrible President.  That's a long list.

How can Obama be ranked?  He hasn't even finished.  Who knows what will happen?

Just throwing this out there - but before 9/11 no one had a problem with Bush.  He was a domestic president not interested in foreign affairs.  I think that history will look at him more as a man who got shafted by circumstance than OMGWTFTHEDEVILPRESIDENT

But how can Obama be ranked ANYWHERE.  We don't know if Obamacare will work or fail, we haven't seen the long lasting effects of his policys (or lack there of)... I mean really?  Ranked!?


By this logic, you couldn't rank any 1-term President.  9/11 resulted in a popularity boost for Bush, a better President could have milked that shiat big time.  Bush is continuing to slide in popularity.  He is literally ranked by Presidential scholars in the top 5 worst Presidents of all time.
 
2013-05-22 04:19:37 PM

vygramul: No, I provided examples that are liberal. Show me one issue I presented that the Post agreed with that ISN'T a liberal position. I can't even imagine how you arrived at "everything you disagree with must be liberal" - go ahead, provide one shred of evidence for this.


You accused them of being liberal for endorsing Obama.

Also, I didn't read your examples. I'm rejecting your claims out of hand because I refuse to participate in this absurd march to the right where everything left of pulling premature babies from a mother's womb and throwing them in the salt mines to work is somehow "liberal".

There's a whole big old stretch in between what we predominantly have: far-right lunacy and what opposes it: right-leaning centrism and what you're pretending even exists in this country anymore: liberal.

I'm not going to pretend that just because a quarter of this country has managed to wedge a bunch of extremist right-wing wackadoos into the government that sensible middle-ground opposition to their idiocy magically becomes "liberal".
 
2013-05-22 04:23:38 PM

skozlaw: vygramul: No, I provided examples that are liberal. Show me one issue I presented that the Post agreed with that ISN'T a liberal position. I can't even imagine how you arrived at "everything you disagree with must be liberal" - go ahead, provide one shred of evidence for this.

You accused them of being liberal for endorsing Obama.

I worked for the Obama campaign.

So much for "everything you don't like." You keep ASSUMING that I don't like these things.

Also, I didn't read your examples. I'm rejecting your claims out of hand because I refuse to participate in this absurd march to the right where everything left of pulling premature babies from a mother's womb and throwing them in the salt mines to work is somehow "liberal".

Something you made up in your head and isn't happening at all.

There's a whole big old stretch in between what we predominantly have: far-right lunacy and what opposes it: right-leaning centrism and what you're pretending even exists in this country anymore: liberal.

I'm not going to pretend that just because a quarter of this country has managed to wedge a bunch of extremist right-wing wackadoos into the government that sensible middle-ground opposition to their idiocy magically becomes "liberal".

OK, but that has nothing to do with this conversation. You're operating on assumptions that are completely false. I said something you don't like, and you concluded I was conservative. Looks like this has been a classic case of projection.

 
2013-05-22 04:44:22 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You raise well debunked and totally false points and get defensive when we call you on your bullshiat. Over and over again.

I think you honestly believe the points I raise have been debunked. They have not. But you obviously prefer your interpretation of truth. But defensive? I don't think so.

Your position is "librul bad" Obama lied. So far, you fail to prove your point.


Those are the points you say I've raised? I don't remember the "librul bad" one. Perhaps you could point me to it. Obama lied? Eh, lots of deception in the White House and his administration, for sure. Lies, if you will. I've seen lots of attempts to explain those deceptions away but nothing close to a debunking. In fact, the deceptions are very obvious. Mostly, the response has been to say the lies were necessary to protect an ongoing investigation, though that argument falls apart on closer examination.
 
2013-05-22 04:52:38 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.

Remember, everyone, "acts of terror" is NOTHING AT ALL like "terrorist attack", and because he said the former and not the latter Obama is hiding his personal involvement in killing those 4 people with his Muslim Brotherhood.

And according to Phinn, not knowing every single thing Obama was doing during the incident means that he personally told everyone to stand down and gleefully watched from a cloaked drone as the attack played out, jerking his dick and making walrus sounds of bliss at how much he's destroying America.


I don't know why it is necessary to take that down such an extreme path. Obama hiding his personal involvement in killing people, Muslim brotherhood and such. I have never claimed anything of the sort. Is that how you do this, make stuff up, claim I said it and therefore you are right?

Hmm.

If you want to talk about the difference between what Obama said about acts of terror vs. calling it a terrorist attack it's not comfortable ground for you. He said the U.S. would stand up to acts of terror. That same day, ask specifically if it was a terrorist attack, he declined to say so. His administration then went full-pedal with the spontaneous demonstration, youtube video stuff, so obviously a terrorist attack was not his story.
 
2013-05-22 04:56:06 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You raise well debunked and totally false points and get defensive when we call you on your bullshiat. Over and over again.

I think you honestly believe the points I raise have been debunked. They have not. But you obviously prefer your interpretation of truth. But defensive? I don't think so.

Your position is "librul bad" Obama lied. So far, you fail to prove your point.

Those are the points you say I've raised? I don't remember the "librul bad" one. Perhaps you could point me to it. Obama lied? Eh, lots of deception in the White House and his administration, for sure. Lies, if you will. I've seen lots of attempts to explain those deceptions away but nothing close to a debunking. In fact, the deceptions are very obvious. Mostly, the response has been to say the lies were necessary to protect an ongoing investigation, though that argument falls apart on closer examination.


What lies, exactly? The only lie I see are the emails that were "misquoted"
 
2013-05-22 04:56:42 PM
Cletus C.:
I don't know why it is necessary to take that down such an extreme path. Obama hiding his personal involvement in killing people, Muslim brotherhood and such. I have never claimed anything of the sort. Is that how you do this, make stuff up, claim I said it and therefore you are right?

Hmm.

If you want to talk about the difference between what Obama said about acts of terror vs. calling it a terrorist attack it's not comfortable ground for you. He said the U.S. would stand up to acts of terror. That same day, ask specifically if it was a terrorist attack, he declined to say so. His administration then went full-pedal with the spontaneous demonstration, youtube video stuff, so obviously a terrorist attack was not his story.


This seems like a trivial application of both Hanlon's razor and Occam's razor to resolve.  That is to say you're a paranoid delusional.
 
2013-05-22 05:04:03 PM
Wow, Such butthurt coming from the left.

You'd think Bush was still there.

Might as well be.

All of his failed policies are still being used.
 
2013-05-22 05:18:10 PM

Slam1263: Wow, Such butthurt coming from the left.

You'd think Bush was still there.

Might as well be.

All of his failed policies are still being used.

www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-22 05:33:59 PM

mrshowrules: By this logic, you couldn't rank any 1-term President. 9/11 resulted in a popularity boost for Bush, a better President could have milked that shiat big time. Bush is continuing to slide in popularity. He is literally ranked by Presidential scholars in the top 5 worst Presidents of all time.


you get 4 pinocchios for that one.
congrats
 
2013-05-22 05:37:31 PM

vygramul: I worked for the Obama campaign.


I don't care. That doesn't make you right.

vygramul: Something you made up in your head and isn't happening at all.


What, the continued push to the right in American politics which is very real or the crazy hypothetical I made up for effect?

vygramul: I said something you don't like


Yea, you arbitrarily claimed bias without evidence it exists because of something that is perfectly normal. I don't like when people do dumb things like that.

vygramul: you concluded I was conservative


No, I observed that your thought-processes show significant markers of conservative "thinking". I stand by that.

You can't be conservative and smart, but you don't have to be conservative to be dumb or say dumb things.
 
2013-05-22 05:45:52 PM

vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.

Although increasingly rare in America, it's still possible to be right-leaning and intelligent.

You had to be either pretty damn stupid or obscenely rich to endorse anyone but Obama in the last election.

The Post hadn't ever endorsed a presidential candidate before. They could have followed tradition.

They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.



I really rather hope that someone else has replied to this, with actual data, but...

Endorsements:
In 2000, the Post endorsed the Republican governor of Maryland, Robert Ehrlich.  In 2006, the Post endorsed ~every~ Republican encumbant in northern Virginia.  They also endorsed Obama in both elections, but given his opposition, that's not surprising.  (The Post has had issues with McCain in the past, so not supporting him was no real surprise.)

Editorially:
The Post supported W's invasion of Iraq, was supportive of his attempts to privatize Social Security, and opposed withdrawl timetables for Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Post also supports various free trade efforts commonly supported by Republicans.

WaPo correspondents have been, in the past, internally ordered to stop criticism of Republicans.


Even current and former members of the editorial boards of the WaPo have admitted that the paper has moved a lot further to the right then it was 40 years ago.  They put that shift down to the right leaning nature of the Washington Times.


-----

Personally, I view many of their editorials as centrist to right leaning.  And I also find their fact checking to be pretty crap, at best, but then I also find Politifact to be pretty crap, as well.  Both are more concerned with splitting hairs than actually coming out and saying something was a lie or the truth.
 
2013-05-22 05:53:20 PM
skozlaw:I don't care. That doesn't make you right.

It does make the argument that things I dislike are therefore liberal to be groundless.

skozlaw:What, the continued push to the right in American politics which is very real or the crazy hypothetical I made up for effect?

No, the assertion you made that I was labeling things I don't like as liberal. I made no qualitative statements about anything the Post said.

skozlaw:Yea, you arbitrarily claimed bias without evidence it exists because of something that is perfectly normal. I don't like when people do dumb things like that.

And the claim that the Post is right-leaning is, what, established fact? I provided a shiatload more evidence of the Post's bias than the people who STARTED this conversation, so for you to pick on me is entirely arbitrary and capricious. Or you're full of shiat. (The positive assertion that the Post was right-wing came first, so you can't magically claim that I'm the one here with the only burden of proof.)

skozlaw:vygramul: you concluded I was conservative

No, I observed that your thought-processes show significant markers of conservative "thinking". I stand by that.


No, for you to argue that anything I don't like must be liberal excludes the possibility that I am liberal myself. You are now trying to wriggle your way out of this mess rather than examining your own assumptions and re-reading what I said without your baseless assumptions; assumptions that revealed a bias so strong in your reading of what I said, it's a profound sort of intellectual dishonesty to pretend you didn't do it.

skozlaw:You can't be conservative and smart, but you don't have to be conservative to be dumb or say dumb things.

As you have demonstrated.
 
Displayed 50 of 423 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report