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.

(Politico)   House Democrats: For fark's sake, Issa, either shiat or get off the Benghazi pot. Either way, pay your damn tab, you deadbeat   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, House Democrats, Democrats, Benghazi, California Republicans, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, California Air Resources Board, Elijah Cummings, Frederick Hill  
•       •       •

2760 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:22 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-27 08:33:04 AM  
Obviously the probe is closer than ever to finding out the truth, and that's why the Democrats want to end  it.  They'll be weeping delicious, delicious tears when the facts are uncovered and Obama doesn't get reelected.
 
2014-03-27 08:48:51 AM  
That's a strange combinations of metaphors to mix, subby.
 
2014-03-27 08:50:27 AM  

Kome: That's a strange combinations of metaphors to mix, subby.


I had multiple metaphors? I thought I only had one?
 
2014-03-27 09:28:28 AM  
I thought Benghazi was more of a hash city.
 
2014-03-27 09:59:29 AM  
I'm at work, so I'll limit my response to this:

I don't understand how the right can't help but find the mindset of continual conspiracy to be more than a bit of a logical disconnect.

First, it was conspiracy by Hillary, to cover for her mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by Obama, to cover for her mistakes AND his mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by House Democrats, to cover for all of them. Now, it's the Pentagon stooges, so enslaved to the will of the President that they go public to cover for him? Oh, and it's also a conspiracy by the media, to cover for their darling?

And mind you, this is in total contradiction to all of the physical evidence, the accounts of the people there, and common sense. And somehow, the party that is so capable that it can hide the greatest scandal of the past 30 years, yet so incompetent that polls are indicating it probably won't even be able to hang on to the Senate?

Those who think Benghazi is a scandal can and will think what they like, but *my* argument is Occam's razor: among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
 
2014-03-27 10:09:33 AM  

whistleridge: I don't understand how the right can't help but find the mindset of continual conspiracy to be more than a bit of a logical disconnect.


There's your problem.

If logic were a standard for them, much of this would never happen in the first place.

They have a goal to achieve.  Sacrifices must be made to achieve them.  Logic and decency are the first casualties.
 
2014-03-27 10:36:40 AM  
He's been shiatting all over the place for over a year already.
 
2014-03-27 10:38:08 AM  

whistleridge: I'm at work, so I'll limit my response to this:

I don't understand how the right can't help but find the mindset of continual conspiracy to be more than a bit of a logical disconnect.

First, it was conspiracy by Hillary, to cover for her mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by Obama, to cover for her mistakes AND his mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by House Democrats, to cover for all of them. Now, it's the Pentagon stooges, so enslaved to the will of the President that they go public to cover for him? Oh, and it's also a conspiracy by the media, to cover for their darling?

And mind you, this is in total contradiction to all of the physical evidence, the accounts of the people there, and common sense. And somehow, the party that is so capable that it can hide the greatest scandal of the past 30 years, yet so incompetent that polls are indicating it probably won't even be able to hang on to the Senate?

Those who think Benghazi is a scandal can and will think what they like, but *my* argument is Occam's razor: among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.


But... but... that 60 Minutes guy. Surely HE wouldn't be lying! He was a hero.
 
2014-03-27 10:38:11 AM  

whistleridge: And mind you, this is in total contradiction to all of the physical evidence, the accounts of the people there, and common sense. And somehow, the party that is so capable that it can hide the greatest scandal of the past 30 years, yet so incompetent that polls are indicating it probably won't even be able to hang on to the Senate?


As was covered the other day, conspiracy nuts are nuts and don't like being called nuts, `cause they're so nuts.
 
2014-03-27 10:38:59 AM  
Sounds like there might soon be a suspicious fire in the offices of the Oversight Committee.
 
2014-03-27 10:42:09 AM  

whistleridge: I'm at work, so I'll limit my response to this:

I don't understand how the right can't help but find the mindset of continual conspiracy to be more than a bit of a logical disconnect.

First, it was conspiracy by Hillary, to cover for her mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by Obama, to cover for her mistakes AND his mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by House Democrats, to cover for all of them. Now, it's the Pentagon stooges, so enslaved to the will of the President that they go public to cover for him? Oh, and it's also a conspiracy by the media, to cover for their darling?

And mind you, this is in total contradiction to all of the physical evidence, the accounts of the people there, and common sense. And somehow, the party that is so capable that it can hide the greatest scandal of the past 30 years, yet so incompetent that polls are indicating it probably won't even be able to hang on to the Senate?

Those who think Benghazi is a scandal can and will think what they like, but *my* argument is Occam's razor: among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.


When you are making secret conspiracies to sell weapons to Iran, rob the DNC headquarters for information, etc. you get to the point of assuming everyone does that. It is the only explanation I can find.
 
2014-03-27 10:49:02 AM  

Witty_Retort: whistleridge: And mind you, this is in total contradiction to all of the physical evidence, the accounts of the people there, and common sense. And somehow, the party that is so capable that it can hide the greatest scandal of the past 30 years, yet so incompetent that polls are indicating it probably won't even be able to hang on to the Senate?

As was covered the other day, conspiracy nuts are nuts and don't like being called nuts, `cause they're so nuts.


Conspiracy nuts, yes. But 35% of the population? That's almost 100,000,000 people. I find it difficult to believe they're ALL nuts.

I just don't get how Fox can sell that many people on a line like this, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. These are, after all, the same people who usually smell a line of BS from a used car dealer, or at the local flea market, or wherever. Somehow, that critical element is lost on a national stage; it's an observable psychological phenomenon, but I'll be damned if I can even hypothesize a possible cause for it.
 
2014-03-27 10:52:12 AM  

whistleridge: I'm at work, so I'll limit my response to this:

I don't understand how the right can't help but find the mindset of continual conspiracy to be more than a bit of a logical disconnect.

First, it was conspiracy by Hillary, to cover for her mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by Obama, to cover for her mistakes AND his mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by House Democrats, to cover for all of them. Now, it's the Pentagon stooges, so enslaved to the will of the President that they go public to cover for him? Oh, and it's also a conspiracy by the media, to cover for their darling?

And mind you, this is in total contradiction to all of the physical evidence, the accounts of the people there, and common sense. And somehow, the party that is so capable that it can hide the greatest scandal of the past 30 years, yet so incompetent that polls are indicating it probably won't even be able to hang on to the Senate?

Those who think Benghazi is a scandal can and will think what they like, but *my* argument is Occam's razor: among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.


There comes a point where if everyone's in on it, it ceases to be a conspiracy. It becomes reality, and you're just a lunatic.

/Well, not you specifically
//Usually
 
2014-03-27 10:55:49 AM  

whistleridge: I don't understand how the right can't help but find the mindset of continual conspiracy to be more than a bit of a logical disconnect.


They see it as Issa doing God's work.
 
2014-03-27 10:56:57 AM  

whistleridge: I just don't get how Fox can sell that many people on a line like this, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. These are, after all, the same people who usually smell a line of BS from a used car dealer, or at the local flea market, or wherever. Somehow, that critical element is lost on a national stage; it's an observable psychological phenomenon, but I'll be damned if I can even hypothesize a possible cause for it.


I'm almost glad I'm not the only person that knows otherwise intelligent people that have dangerously ill-informed and/or totally illogical and irreconcilable political positions.  How political viewpoints are immune to logic and reason and seem to follow the mentality they do is actually pretty scary.
 
2014-03-27 10:56:58 AM  

Muta: whistleridge: I don't understand how the right can't help but find the mindset of continual conspiracy to be more than a bit of a logical disconnect.

They see it as Issa doing God's work.


Then let the God foot the bill. The rest of us would prefer he do the country's work, and stop wasting our money.
 
2014-03-27 11:01:39 AM  

whistleridge: I'm at work, so I'll limit my response to this:

I don't understand how the right can't help but find the mindset of continual conspiracy to be more than a bit of a logical disconnect.

First, it was conspiracy by Hillary, to cover for her mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by Obama, to cover for her mistakes AND his mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by House Democrats, to cover for all of them. Now, it's the Pentagon stooges, so enslaved to the will of the President that they go public to cover for him? Oh, and it's also a conspiracy by the media, to cover for their darling?

And mind you, this is in total contradiction to all of the physical evidence, the accounts of the people there, and common sense. And somehow, the party that is so capable that it can hide the greatest scandal of the past 30 years, yet so incompetent that polls are indicating it probably won't even be able to hang on to the Senate?

Those who think Benghazi is a scandal can and will think what they like, but *my* argument is Occam's razor: among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.


Reminds me of when the RNC recently announced their plans to dramatically shorten the GOP presidential primary process, and when there was push-back over it, Reince Priebus actually had to officially state, "Not everything is a conspiracy."
 
2014-03-27 11:02:33 AM  
What a waste of money.
 
2014-03-27 11:03:11 AM  

somedude210: Kome: That's a strange combinations of metaphors to mix, subby.

I had multiple metaphors? I thought I only had one?


Well, duuuuh. Only women can have multiple metaphors.
 
2014-03-27 11:03:59 AM  
Democrats and Obama administration officials complain that Issa's Benghazi probe has cost millions of dollars

I knew it would happen if I lived long enough: Democrats have finally discovered something they don't want to spend taxpayer money on.
 
2014-03-27 11:07:08 AM  

NotoriousW.O.P: There comes a point where if everyone's in on it, it ceases to be a conspiracy. It becomes reality, and you're just a lunatic.


limeyfellow: When you are making secret conspiracies to sell weapons to Iran, rob the DNC headquarters for information, etc. you get to the point of assuming everyone does that. It is the only explanation I can find.


Diogenes: There's your problem.

If logic were a standard for them, much of this would never happen in the first place.

They have a goal to achieve.  Sacrifices must be made to achieve them.  Logic and decency are the first casualties.


The problem with these positions is that, accurate in their own ways as they are, they also essentially amount to 'they're crazy because they're crazy'. That's accusatory, and doesn't get to the fundamental problem of  why a huge mass of people would be so willing to ignore every modicum of rationale and common sense simply because someone else tells them to. It can't all be racism, or religious fundamentalism, or class warfare, or even some combination thereof; there has to be some underlying something inherent to human psychology, some gate that allows these things to get in. 

I'm fascinated by the outcome, but I would love for someone on the left to look more into the root causes that simply trying to make counterpoints to the cray-cray. That's treating the symptoms, but leaves the underlying disease untouched.
 
2014-03-27 11:09:27 AM  

whistleridge: It can't all be racism, or religious fundamentalism, or class warfare, or even some combination thereof; there has to be some underlying something inherent to human psychology, some gate that allows these things to get in.


the root cause is really that simple: people are assholes. it's the universal answer to why people act like they do
 
2014-03-27 11:12:06 AM  
The real problem with Issa is that he has zero support from leadership.  Boehner couldn't be quieter on the issue and Cantor might be off somewhere displaying his excellent jawline to a photographer.  Issa on the other hand is busy trying to not let the media hatchet him with his admittedly shady past.

fun times.  his investigation will go nowhere because his own leaders won't support him.  And not because there isn't any there there...but because it no longer serves purposes for election coverage or hurr durr erbama.  Also for whatever the CIA was doing there (apart from the people in the annex) The leadership in congress would have already been aware of and have signed off on the operation.

Statutorily speaking here - the CIA writes up a memorandum, The Speaker of the House, VP, majority leader, minority leader (in each house of congress) and the President are required to sign off on any black op.  Probably also senate and House intelligence chair-persons. I honestly can't be bothered to find the exact statute at the moment.

Those people are the ones who would have the details on Benghazi and the entire Libyan coup/invasion.  They are remarkably silent or denying anything untoward happening.  Its not a conspiracy when its a statute.
 
2014-03-27 11:14:13 AM  

whistleridge: Conspiracy nuts, yes. But 35% of the population? That's almost 100,000,000 people. I find it difficult to believe they're ALL nuts.

I just don't get how Fox can sell that many people on a line like this, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. These are, after all, the same people who usually smell a line of BS from a used car dealer, or at the local flea market, or wherever. Somehow, that critical element is lost on a national stage; it's an observable psychological phenomenon, but I'll be damned if I can even hypothesize a possible cause for it.


A lot of them just don't care.  They see this as something to hang around that ******s neck.
 
2014-03-27 11:15:20 AM  
It took Ken Starr 2 years.
 
2014-03-27 11:18:39 AM  

jjorsett: Democrats and Obama administration officials complain that Issa's Benghazi probe has cost millions of dollars

I knew it would happen if I lived long enough: Democrats have finally discovered something they don't want to spend taxpayer money on.


What about war?  You're not too bright, huh?
 
2014-03-27 11:21:30 AM  

TDBoedy: The real problem with Issa is that he has zero support from leadership.  Boehner couldn't be quieter on the issue and Cantor might be off somewhere displaying his excellent jawline to a photographer.  Issa on the other hand is busy trying to not let the media hatchet him with his admittedly shady past.

fun times.  his investigation will go nowhere because his own leaders won't support him.  And not because there isn't any there there...but because it no longer serves purposes for election coverage or hurr durr erbama.  Also for whatever the CIA was doing there (apart from the people in the annex) The leadership in congress would have already been aware of and have signed off on the operation.

Statutorily speaking here - the CIA writes up a memorandum, The Speaker of the House, VP, majority leader, minority leader (in each house of congress) and the President are required to sign off on any black op.  Probably also senate and House intelligence chair-persons. I honestly can't be bothered to find the exact statute at the moment.

Those people are the ones who would have the details on Benghazi and the entire Libyan coup/invasion.  They are remarkably silent or denying anything untoward happening.  Its not a conspiracy when its a statute.


Or it's because there is no there there. You sound like the guys who still believe 9/11 was an inside job.
 
2014-03-27 11:22:09 AM  

somedude210: Kome: That's a strange combinations of metaphors to mix, subby.

I had multiple metaphors? I thought I only had one?


Isn't "pay your tab" also a figure of speech, or is there literally something in the article (which I did not read) that Issa did not pay? My apologies if I was mistaken. It was early when I posted that, so my brain may have been a little fuzzy.
 
2014-03-27 11:24:47 AM  
TDBoedy: The real problem with Issa is that he has zero support from leadership actual scandal to uncover.

FTFY.
 
2014-03-27 11:29:44 AM  

whistleridge: I'm fascinated by the outcome, but I would love for someone on the left to look more into the root causes that simply trying to make counterpoints to the cray-cray. That's treating the symptoms, but leaves the underlying disease untouched.


say, for example you lived in a reality where everybody you knew not only agreed with you, but took it as such a given that the subject matter was in agreement..that anyone deviating from this agreed upon reality was daft. insane. crackers. a loon.

say these agreements were things like any of a litany of right-wing-echo-chamber nonesense we see featured on this page on a daily basis. I'm not even going to pick an example, because it's pointless. they are quite literally too numerous for any example to not end up being it's own rabbithole of crazy rather than looking at the whole.

now say reality pisses on your assessment of these things - be it election results, effects of social and economic policy, actual recorded events that contradict the echo chamber's version -  whatever - objective reality has just lifted its leg, and pissed all over your assessment of reality.

a brain has two choices - reassess reality, or find a way to mangle reality to fit the previous assessments you want to keep.

it's the 'Stabbed in the Back' routine as much as it's cray-cray for cray-cray's sake - the ideology, the framework of ideas that form their reality can't be wrong, so the actual reality that just pissed on them must be retconned.

as to 'underlying disease', fark me if i know how you alter people only seeking out information that confirms what they want to think in the first place. i usually just give up and scroll thru for the funny pictures.
 
2014-03-27 11:34:47 AM  
I heard fartbongo personally executed the ambassador with his pearl handled revolvers loaded with halal bullets. Why won't the media report the truth?
 
2014-03-27 11:35:57 AM  
Republican are short sighted, they have extended the meaning of "scandal" to mean anything someone accuses you of, be it incompetence or actual malfeasance no matter the evidence.

Imagine if that was applied to Bush's or even Reagan's presidency.


Too me a scandal has to involve something illegal or immoral and/or a coverup of the same.  Applying that rule all the past scandals of presidents still stay but all these "scandals" of the Obama administration are seen for what they are, political attacks.
 
2014-03-27 11:37:09 AM  
FTA: All 17 Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are demanding that Chairman Darrell Issa end his year-and-a-half probe into the Benghazi attacks, which left four Americans dead and have become a catchphrase signifying conservative suspicion of the Obama administration.

BENGHAZI!!!11,!

Which one of you farkers authored this?
 
2014-03-27 11:38:26 AM  
Can't someone vote to censure Issa for his blatant abuse of his position? Is it just that Boehner and company are completely shameless assholes that no one does?
 
2014-03-27 11:39:29 AM  

Aldon: Republican are short sighted, they have extended the meaning of "scandal" to mean anything someone accuses you of, be it incompetence or actual malfeasance no matter the evidence.

Imagine if that was applied to Bush's or even Reagan's presidency.


Too me a scandal has to involve something illegal or immoral and/or a coverup of the same.  Applying that rule all the past scandals of presidents still stay but all these "scandals" of the Obama administration are seen for what they are, political attacks.


Issa was charged with illegal gun possession and linked to car theft and insurance fraud. Does that count?
 
2014-03-27 11:39:41 AM  

sugardave: jjorsett: Democrats and Obama administration officials complain that Issa's Benghazi probe has cost millions of dollars

I knew it would happen if I lived long enough: Democrats have finally discovered something they don't want to spend taxpayer money on.

What about war?  You're not too bright, huh?


I have him farkied as "dishonest and lazy."
 
2014-03-27 11:41:31 AM  

Diogenes: sugardave: jjorsett: Democrats and Obama administration officials complain that Issa's Benghazi probe has cost millions of dollars

I knew it would happen if I lived long enough: Democrats have finally discovered something they don't want to spend taxpayer money on.

What about war?  You're not too bright, huh?

I have him farkied as "dishonest and lazy."


That's pretty charitable, I think.
 
2014-03-27 11:42:24 AM  
I have always thought that Benghazi is merely a deflection from the GOP for when people point out the terror attacks on 9/11, they can say, "You mean the deaths at Benghazi?".
 
2014-03-27 11:42:40 AM  

heap: whistleridge: I'm fascinated by the outcome, but I would love for someone on the left to look more into the root causes that simply trying to make counterpoints to the cray-cray. That's treating the symptoms, but leaves the underlying disease untouched.

say, for example you lived in a reality where everybody you knew not only agreed with you, but took it as such a given that the subject matter was in agreement..that anyone deviating from this agreed upon reality was daft. insane. crackers. a loon.

say these agreements were things like any of a litany of right-wing-echo-chamber nonesense we see featured on this page on a daily basis. I'm not even going to pick an example, because it's pointless. they are quite literally too numerous for any example to not end up being it's own rabbithole of crazy rather than looking at the whole.

now say reality pisses on your assessment of these things - be it election results, effects of social and economic policy, actual recorded events that contradict the echo chamber's version -  whatever - objective reality has just lifted its leg, and pissed all over your assessment of reality.

a brain has two choices - reassess reality, or find a way to mangle reality to fit the previous assessments you want to keep.

it's the 'Stabbed in the Back' routine as much as it's cray-cray for cray-cray's sake - the ideology, the framework of ideas that form their reality can't be wrong, so the actual reality that just pissed on them must be retconned.

as to 'underlying disease', fark me if i know how you alter people only seeking out information that confirms what they want to think in the first place. i usually just give up and scroll thru for the funny pictures.


That explains the current behavior. But it doesn't get to the waiving of incredulity in the first place.

I get that, once the initial willingness to call BS is waived, all sorts of crazy will be bought into. But what causes that first step?

Nor is it a phenomenon restricted purely to the right. The far left does it too, as the USSR gave us many examples of. And which all sorts of left-leaning folks in this country routinely do as well.
 
2014-03-27 11:44:44 AM  

Diogenes: I have him farkied as "dishonest and lazy."


I have him Farkied in a special "invisible" color that keeps his posts from even showing up.
 
2014-03-27 11:50:00 AM  

whistleridge: I get that, once the initial willingness to call BS is waived, all sorts of crazy will be bought into. But what causes that first step?


it was a casual reference, but it really is kinda the crux of the biscuit.  Stabbed in the Back

ideology or policy couldn't fail, it could only be thwarted - that's that first step. the 'communism didn't fail, they failed communism' circle you kinda alluded to.
 
2014-03-27 11:55:11 AM  
Benghazi is a winning talking point to the GOP base.  There is absolutely no way that Issa will stop the proceedings regardless of how little it accomplishes and how much it costs.  Wasting taxpayer money is evil unless it benefits your side politically.
 
2014-03-27 11:56:20 AM  

monoski: Aldon: Republican are short sighted, they have extended the meaning of "scandal" to mean anything someone accuses you of, be it incompetence or actual malfeasance no matter the evidence.

Imagine if that standard was applied to Bush's or even Reagan's presidency.


Too me a scandal has to involve something illegal or immoral and/or a coverup of the same.  Applying that rule all the past scandals of presidents still stay but all these "scandals" of the Obama administration are seen for what they are, political attacks.

Issa was charged with illegal gun possession and linked to car theft and insurance fraud. Does that count?


That would fall under illegal, and therefore a scandal, yes.
 
2014-03-27 11:58:56 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Can't someone vote to censure Issa for his blatant abuse of his position? Is it just that Boehner and company are completely shameless assholes that no one does?


Both the Oversight and Reform Committee and The Committee of the Whole House are controlled by the GOP, and it would be one or both of those to do the censuring, by majority vote.

So yes, they can vote in theory to censure Issa, but the bills necessary to do so wouldn't make it out of committee, and wouldn't get taken up by the Whole House even if it somehow did (unless it's 100% clear he farked up HUGE and everyone's chomping at the bit to censure him, which isn't likely to happen).

// hey, did you know Issa's also currently the richest man in Congress?
 
2014-03-27 12:00:06 PM  

dinch: whistleridge: I'm at work, so I'll limit my response to this:

I don't understand how the right can't help but find the mindset of continual conspiracy to be more than a bit of a logical disconnect.

First, it was conspiracy by Hillary, to cover for her mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by Obama, to cover for her mistakes AND his mistakes. Then, it was a conspiracy by House Democrats, to cover for all of them. Now, it's the Pentagon stooges, so enslaved to the will of the President that they go public to cover for him? Oh, and it's also a conspiracy by the media, to cover for their darling?

And mind you, this is in total contradiction to all of the physical evidence, the accounts of the people there, and common sense. And somehow, the party that is so capable that it can hide the greatest scandal of the past 30 years, yet so incompetent that polls are indicating it probably won't even be able to hang on to the Senate?

Those who think Benghazi is a scandal can and will think what they like, but *my* argument is Occam's razor: among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

But... but... that 60 Minutes guy. Surely HE wouldn't be lying! He was a hero.


He even punched a terrorist in the face. IN. THE. FACE.
 
2014-03-27 12:03:15 PM  

jjorsett: Democrats and Obama administration officials complain that Issa's Benghazi probe has cost millions of dollars

I knew it would happen if I lived long enough: Democrats have finally discovered something they don't want to spend taxpayer money on.


Gene Perret called.  He wants his Bob Hope stock lines back.
 
2014-03-27 12:03:20 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: whistleridge: Conspiracy nuts, yes. But 35% of the population? That's almost 100,000,000 people. I find it difficult to believe they're ALL nuts.

I just don't get how Fox can sell that many people on a line like this, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. These are, after all, the same people who usually smell a line of BS from a used car dealer, or at the local flea market, or wherever. Somehow, that critical element is lost on a national stage; it's an observable psychological phenomenon, but I'll be damned if I can even hypothesize a possible cause for it.

A lot of them just don't care.  They see this as something to hang around that ******s neck.


Something to hang around that "nears" neck?
 
2014-03-27 12:17:54 PM  

Kome: Isn't "pay your tab" also a figure of speech, or is there literally something in the article (which I did not read) that Issa did not pay? My apologies if I was mistaken. It was early when I posted that, so my brain may have been a little fuzzy.


I was referencing the previous articles about how DoD told Issa's committee that he owes a shiatload for his investigation and to pay up :D
 
2014-03-27 12:22:22 PM  
www.lifestylemirror.com
 
2014-03-27 12:24:48 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Benghazi is a winning talking point to the GOP base.  There is absolutely no way that Issa will stop the proceedings regardless of how little it accomplishes and how much it costs.  Wasting taxpayer money is evil unless it benefits your side politically.


But they already own their base and it makes all other voters hate them. I really think they have overplayed this hand.
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | 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