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.

(The Raw Story)   Rachel Maddow explains Benghazi flap by way of Monty Python: 'Burn the witch! Burn her!'   (rawstory.com) divider line 375
    More: Amusing, Rachel Maddow, Monty Python, Benghazi, Benghazi flap, Mr. Speaker  
•       •       •

3037 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 May 2014 at 5:15 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-11 08:22:37 AM  

MountainClimber: [i.onionstatic.com image 850x479]

I've brought down bigger presidents than you, Obama


Yeah, by the end of that episode, she was really no better than someone like Issa.  Which explains why the admiral gets up and walks out.
 
2014-05-11 08:27:47 AM  

Summoner101: You may be surprised by this, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can drop troops in somewhere automatically.


That's ridiculous! It's in our historical documents!
i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2014-05-11 08:38:11 AM  

Close2TheEdge: This is what I hate about Saturday threads. The A-list trolls all have the day off and we get the shiatty B-team trolls.


The Gentleman Caller: No depth. No bench. And they didn't do anything in the Troll Draft either.


You're bad at detecting satire, and should feel bad about it.  At least check the profile, guys.
 
2014-05-11 09:28:40 AM  
Triple Oak:

You sure know how to make friends. I'm more willing to talk at length with SunsetLament about anything than consider what you have to say at this point.

Oh hey, what's going on in here?

*Trolling Detected*

i1234.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-11 09:46:21 AM  

Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: What did those supposed "withheld" documents contain? Why were they withheld?

It's not "stonewalling" if the administration didn't provide unrelated crap that doesn't involve Benghazi at all.

Evidence that contradicts the administrations assertion that the Rice claim originated with the CIA. It may have originated with the State Department. As for why they were withheld, I have no idea. Obama said they contained nothing new, I guess? If we take him at his word, that would be why. Here's a link to FactCheck (I honestly don't know if it swings left or right... Whatever).


 One must have an *extremely* soft head to accept the notion that the target of an investigation gets to decide which requested information is relevant and which is not. Like... tapioca-pudding-soft. The Obama administration has been stonewalling this for the last 2 years, and there's no getting around that.
 This behavior is downright stupid if the administration actually has nothing to hide, because it makes them appear guilty. So if anybody is wondering why this Benghazi thing won't die, there ya go.
 
2014-05-11 10:07:56 AM  

GoSlash27: Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: What did those supposed "withheld" documents contain? Why were they withheld?

It's not "stonewalling" if the administration didn't provide unrelated crap that doesn't involve Benghazi at all.

Evidence that contradicts the administrations assertion that the Rice claim originated with the CIA. It may have originated with the State Department. As for why they were withheld, I have no idea. Obama said they contained nothing new, I guess? If we take him at his word, that would be why. Here's a link to FactCheck (I honestly don't know if it swings left or right... Whatever).

 One must have an *extremely* soft head to accept the notion that the target of an investigation gets to decide which requested information is relevant and which is not. Like... tapioca-pudding-soft. The Obama administration has been stonewalling this for the last 2 years, and there's no getting around that.
 This behavior is downright stupid if the administration actually has nothing to hide, because it makes them appear guilty. So if anybody is wondering why this Benghazi thing won't die, there ya go.


Funny this is the same "logic" birthers use.
 
2014-05-11 10:12:52 AM  
Bachman was talking about Benghazi on CNN this morning.  She didn't seem particularly stupid.  I realized why.  The Benghazi speaking points are just at her level of stupidity.  Every other Republican has just dropped down to her level.  When you are speaking at the same level as Bachman, that's not good.
 
2014-05-11 10:38:39 AM  
Fart_Machine:

Funny this is the same "logic" birthers use.

 Really? There was a Congressional investigation into Obama's birth certificate? And they subpoenaed records and witnesses that the administration refused to supply?
/derp_machine...
 
2014-05-11 10:46:44 AM  

GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:

Funny this is the same "logic" birthers use.

 Really? There was a Congressional investigation into Obama's birth certificate? And they subpoenaed records and witnesses that the administration refused to supply?
/derp_machine...


What information are you missing exactly?  Again it's the old "All Obama has to do is release the long-form birth certificate and it will all go away" argument.  Yeah, I know.  You're "just asking questions" birther.
 
2014-05-11 10:47:34 AM  
^ But there *is* a parallel;
 The "birther" idiocy didn't die until the records were finally released. Same deal here.
 
2014-05-11 10:52:32 AM  

GoSlash27: ^ But there *is* a parallel;
 The "birther" idiocy didn't die until the records were finally released. Same deal here.


Please specify what information you believe that the Obama administration has not released that they were required to.
 
2014-05-11 11:06:19 AM  
Fart_Machine:
What information are you missing exactly?

The phrase "there is no such thing as a stupid question" is really just a saying. ;)

 The fact that the administration is withholding information is not in question. They openly say that themselves. Your question is what, if anything, that information might reveal (as if that matters).
 What matters is that it's being withheld.
 If the administration wants to kill and bury the Benghazi thing, they will have to quit giving it credence by making themselves look guilty.
 
2014-05-11 11:14:29 AM  

amiable: GoSlash27: ^ But there *is* a parallel;
 The "birther" idiocy didn't die until the records were finally released. Same deal here.

Please specify what information you believe that the Obama administration has not released that they were required to.


 The 7 page e-mail regarding Press strategy that they refuse to release because "it would have a chilling effect"? The memos that were subpoenaed but not supplied, but ended up released a year later to Judicial Watch under an FOIA request?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/07/white-house-hidi ng -more-benghazi-documents/8799351/

Jeez, dude. This was just 3 days ago. How do you expect people to take "there's no 'there' there" with all of this going on?
 
2014-05-11 11:22:33 AM  
FTFA:

"
• A seven-page e-mail exchange consisting of 16 messages between State and other administration officials [Rhodes, Brennan, McDonough . . .] on Sept. 27 and Sept. 28, 2012, with an original subject line "FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm."
• A one-page e-mail exchange, consisting of three messages, dated Sept. 11, 2012, with the subject line "UPDATE: Clashes at U.S. consulate in eastern Libyan city (Reuters)."
• A three-page e-mail exchange between State and other U.S. officials, dated Sept. 28, 2012 and originally designated "unclassified." The subject line of the first five messages is "Statement by the Director of Public Affairs for National Intelligence Shawn Turner on the intelligence related to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya."

 This is all specified by the Justice Department as information they're withholding.
 
2014-05-11 11:25:29 AM  

GoSlash27: • A seven-page e-mail exchange consisting of 16 messages between State and other administration officials [Rhodes, Brennan, McDonough . . .] on Sept. 27 and Sept. 28, 2012, with an original subject line "FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm."


Notwithstanding that Obama called it an act of terror with 24 hours, an attack against a CIA outpost, is not a terrorist attack.
 
2014-05-11 11:30:07 AM  

GoSlash27: The 7 page e-mail regarding Press strategy that they refuse to release because "it would have a chilling effect"? The memos that were subpoenaed but not supplied, but ended up released a year later to Judicial Watch under an FOIA request?


Now what would that information change about what happened?

This is a fishing expedition, nothing more.
 
2014-05-11 11:30:20 AM  

GoSlash27: FTFA:

"
• A seven-page e-mail exchange consisting of 16 messages between State and other administration officials [Rhodes, Brennan, McDonough . . .] on Sept. 27 and Sept. 28, 2012, with an original subject line "FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm."
• A one-page e-mail exchange, consisting of three messages, dated Sept. 11, 2012, with the subject line "UPDATE: Clashes at U.S. consulate in eastern Libyan city (Reuters)."
• A three-page e-mail exchange between State and other U.S. officials, dated Sept. 28, 2012 and originally designated "unclassified." The subject line of the first five messages is "Statement by the Director of Public Affairs for National Intelligence Shawn Turner on the intelligence related to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya."

 This is all specified by the Justice Department as information they're withholding.


I'm still confused on how the terminology that was used made that big of a difference. And wasn't this stuff cleared up before the election, so how did Obama use it for political gain?
 
2014-05-11 11:32:24 AM  
mrshowrules:
Notwithstanding that Obama called it an act of terror with 24 hours, an attack against a CIA outpost, is not a terrorist attack.

Irrelevant. If the information exonerates them, that's all the more reason to release it. They didn't, and don't intend to. This makes them look like they're hiding something (which, by definition, they are) and gives credence to the investigation.
 Any scandal is always more about the coverup than the initial misdeed. It's the WH themselves giving this thing legs.
 
2014-05-11 11:34:27 AM  
cameroncrazy1984:

Now what would that information change about what happened?

This is a fishing expedition, nothing more.


Mrtraveler01:

I'm still confused on how the terminology that was used made that big of a difference. And wasn't this stuff cleared up before the election, so how did Obama use it for political gain?

 See above: Irrelevant.
 
2014-05-11 11:35:02 AM  

GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:
What information are you missing exactly?

The phrase "there is no such thing as a stupid question" is really just a saying. ;)

 The fact that the administration is withholding information is not in question. They openly say that themselves. Your question is what, if anything, that information might reveal (as if that matters).
 What matters is that it's being withheld.
 If the administration wants to kill and bury the Benghazi thing, they will have to quit giving it credence by making themselves look guilty.


Yes, you're a conspiracy rube.  Thanks for proving my point.  You don't know what the scandal is but there must be "something".  Benghazi Truthers are just like WTC Truthers.
 
2014-05-11 11:36:22 AM  

GoSlash27: mrshowrules:
Notwithstanding that Obama called it an act of terror with 24 hours, an attack against a CIA outpost, is not a terrorist attack.

Irrelevant. If the information exonerates them, that's all the more reason to release it. They didn't, and don't intend to. This makes them look like they're hiding something (which, by definition, they are) and gives credence to the investigation.
 Any scandal is always more about the coverup than the initial misdeed. It's the WH themselves giving this thing legs.


What are they hiding?  What is it you could possible imagine could be in any E-mail communication that would alter what happened and make this a real scandal?

Also, what initial misdeed?
 
2014-05-11 11:36:24 AM  

GoSlash27: Irrelevant.


You've just summarized your entire argument.  Congratulations.
 
2014-05-11 11:37:40 AM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:

Now what would that information change about what happened?

This is a fishing expedition, nothing more.

Mrtraveler01:

I'm still confused on how the terminology that was used made that big of a difference. And wasn't this stuff cleared up before the election, so how did Obama use it for political gain?

 See above: Irrelevant.


So you know there's a coverup, but you don't know what's being covered up.

Shouldn't the GOP have some vague idea of what they think was covered up before starting this investigation?
 
2014-05-11 11:38:13 AM  

GoSlash27: amiable: GoSlash27: ^ But there *is* a parallel;
 The "birther" idiocy didn't die until the records were finally released. Same deal here.

Please specify what information you believe that the Obama administration has not released that they were required to.

 The 7 page e-mail regarding Press strategy that they refuse to release because "it would have a chilling effect"? The memos that were subpoenaed but not supplied, but ended up released a year later to Judicial Watch under an FOIA request?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/07/white-house-hidi ng -more-benghazi-documents/8799351/

Jeez, dude. This was just 3 days ago. How do you expect people to take "there's no 'there' there" with all of this going on?


They were most likely not required to produce those documents because they are privileged.

Ever been involved in a FOIA request?  I have.  It is very very time consuming and in almost all cases something gets missed.  Ranting like a lunatic that they are "withholding document" is utter nonsense.  The memos they released to judicial watch entirely corroborated the white houses version of events.  The fact that a right wing organization like judicial watch is demanding answers proves absolutely nothing.

Even if arguendo, the white house is hiding the fact that they tried to pin blame on a video when they KNEW that it was a terrorist attack. So what?  That is small ball.  Hell, Reagan literally invaded a country to take the countries attention off of the abysmal security in beirut that led to 200+ marine deaths.

This is the problem with conspiracy theories, no amount of evidence will satisfy you, and if there is not evidence to produce that is somehow proof of stonewalling.  I nice little syllogism, but pretty much everyone but the wackossee right through that.
 
2014-05-11 11:42:26 AM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:

Now what would that information change about what happened?

This is a fishing expedition, nothing more.

Mrtraveler01:

I'm still confused on how the terminology that was used made that big of a difference. And wasn't this stuff cleared up before the election, so how did Obama use it for political gain?

 See above: Irrelevant.


You're right, that stuff is irrelevant to the events surrounding Benghazi. You're just mad that Issa didn't get everything he wanted.
 
2014-05-11 11:44:35 AM  

Fart_Machine: GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:
What information are you missing exactly?

The phrase "there is no such thing as a stupid question" is really just a saying. ;)

 The fact that the administration is withholding information is not in question. They openly say that themselves. Your question is what, if anything, that information might reveal (as if that matters).
 What matters is that it's being withheld.
 If the administration wants to kill and bury the Benghazi thing, they will have to quit giving it credence by making themselves look guilty.

Yes, you're a conspiracy rube.  Thanks for proving my point.  You don't know what the scandal is but there must be "something".  Benghazi Truthers are just like WTC Truthers.


Except, many WTC truthers and birfers eventually learned not to advertise their stupidity.
 
2014-05-11 11:44:49 AM  

Mrtraveler01: GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:

Now what would that information change about what happened?

This is a fishing expedition, nothing more.

Mrtraveler01:

I'm still confused on how the terminology that was used made that big of a difference. And wasn't this stuff cleared up before the election, so how did Obama use it for political gain?

 See above: Irrelevant.

So you know there's a coverup, but you don't know what's being covered up.

Shouldn't the GOP have some vague idea of what they think was covered up before starting this investigation?


Politically speaking, no... not so much. So long as the WH is content to stonewall, I'm sure the GOP is content to capitalize on it.
 As a practical matter, it is enough to know that they didn't come clean the first time to justify digging up their ass with a fine tooth comb.

 It seems apparent to me that nobody here's willing to argue that the administration has been cooperative and transparent in this matter, or that the WH is at least partially to blame for Benghazi still being a thing.
 Anyone care to have a crack at it, or are you cool with conceding the point?
 
2014-05-11 11:45:54 AM  

GoSlash27: Politically speaking, no... not so much. So long as the WH is content to stonewall, I'm sure the GOP is content to capitalize on it.


Not releasing everything that Issa wants, regardless of relevance is not "stonewalling."

Also, looks like the GOP capitalized on it really well, what with getting Romney elected and everyth...oh no wait.
 
2014-05-11 11:48:13 AM  
E-mail Fox is looking for that E-mail that will say:

Dear Hillary,

Whatever happens make sure Americans don't find out that I ordered this attack because Stevens had my original birth certificate.

Yours truly,

Fartbongo

P.S. good luck in 2016
 
2014-05-11 11:51:50 AM  
amiable:

They were most likely not required to produce those documents because they are privileged.

Translation: "It's okay that they didn't release relevant info because they decided it's not necessary to release it."
 You *do* realize how that sounds, don't you?
 My only point is that (for whatever reason) they didn't release it and that makes them look guilty, even if they're not. Politically, it's a stupid move to stonewall when you have nothing to hide. This is why Benghazi didn't die last year; the WH gave it credence through their own obstinance.
 
2014-05-11 11:53:17 AM  

GoSlash27: Translation: "It's okay that they didn't release relevant info because they decided it's not necessary to release it."
 You *do* realize how that sounds, don't you?


That's not even close to what he said. You DO know how you sound, don't you?

/shrill
 
2014-05-11 11:56:18 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Noam Chimpsky: Gyrfalcon: If this was some orchestrated false flag to create a situation where Obama could punish those who would mock the Prophet (or whatever the chimpmeister has cobbled together), they sure went the long way around and did it the hard way.

Why would he have do it "fraudulently", if he did do it fraudulently? He wouldn't have to do it that way, would he?  Have you seen the video? I haven't seen it myself. I imagine that everyone would say they were misled after the shiat hit the fan just to distance themselves from the controversy, but maybe they were misled. It just seems like if there was all this fraud and misleading that there is some mischief apart from doing a heartfelt critique of Islam going on. You probably have the same suspicions.

Goddamn, I want some of whatever you're smoking. You were the one who suggested it was a false flag, ape-man. And that it was redubbed after the fact is not in question--the guy who did the redubbing actually admitted the same.

What I DO suspect is that you've been hitting the pipe unusually hard today and it's begun affecting what few brain cells you have left.


I'm gonna have to have a word with Phillip Morris. Just what exactly is this "Turkish Blend" they speak of?
 
2014-05-11 12:04:04 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:

Not releasing everything that Issa wants, regardless of relevance is not "stonewalling."

Uh... yeah it is. That's *precisely* what it is. If you want an investigation into a matter to die from lack of credibility, the worst thing you can do is not cooperate fully.
 
2014-05-11 12:09:14 PM  

GoSlash27: . If you want an investigation into a matter to die from lack of credibility, the worst thing you can do is not cooperate fully.


I think we all learned from the birther movement still being somewhat alive is that you can't cooperate enough to shut people up if they're determined to make a scandal out of nothing.
 
2014-05-11 12:18:08 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That's not even close to what he said. You DO know how you sound, don't you?

/shrill


 You have had ample opportunity to address my point, which you have bent over backwards to avoid.
 You DO know how that makes you look, don't you?
/shrill ;)

- The administration has withheld information directly related to official investigations
- This makes them look guilty, even if they're not.
- This gives credence to the investigations.
- Therefore, they have nobody to blame for the continued investigations other than themselves.
- They can make it all collapse under its own weight simply by being fully open and cooperative.
- The longer they stonewall, the longer this will continue.
- If it is still a thing next year, Hillary will (rightly or wrongly) be fatally tainted.
- Therefore, if Hillary fails to get the nomination (or worse, gets the nomination and loses the election) it will ultimately be the Obama administration's fault.
 
2014-05-11 12:22:20 PM  

palelizard: Destructor: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.

The Republicans haven't mismanaged anything. It's just that Clinton's propaganda machine has been in full force since before day 1 orchestrating the cover-up.  It's hard to get accurate facts from those involved when they've been threatened by Washington insiders.  I've no doubt that President Obama had no idea about what was really happening--but there's no way Clinton did not. Didn't she advertise about who Americans wanted to get the middle of the night call?  This whole thing is an attempt to discredit Obama, likely in a way that improves Hillary's chances in 2016.  I hope he doesn't let her drag him down.  He should appoint a special prosecutor, someone non-partisan and trusted by all, to get to the bottom of this.

Look at it this way--the Clintons got away with Vince Foster, Whitewater, an extramarital affair and perjury, all while we knew full well they'd done it but were stymied by their incredibly cover-up apparatus. Obama couldn't convince people he was born in the country.  Heck, he was on the ropes about the whole birth certificate thing when the Republican governor of Hawaii stepped in a bailed him out.  It's not his fault--without a teleprompter, he's just a community organizer who bit off more than he bargained for.  Out of the two, who do you think really orchestrated this cover-up?

Sadly, much like before, this has been done so well we may never be able to prove it and in twenty years, people who don't remember will just think of it as 'one more conspiracy theory', despite H. R. Clinton being in her fifth term.


[applause.gif]
 
2014-05-11 12:27:01 PM  

Mugato: GoSlash27: . If you want an investigation into a matter to die from lack of credibility, the worst thing you can do is not cooperate fully.

I think we all learned from the birther movement still being somewhat alive is that you can't cooperate enough to shut people up if they're determined to make a scandal out of nothing.


 The validity of this statement would depend on your definition of "somewhat alive". I'm not seeing anyone discussing Obama's birth certificate on the Sunday morning talk shows. I'm not seeing Congressional hearings about Obama's birth certificate. I'm not seeing 2-3 threads a day on this forum about Obama's birth certificate. I'm not seeing Obama's birth certificate as a potential issue in the next election.
 Seems pretty "stone-cold- dead" to me.
 I remember when it was alive. That was back before his birth certificate was released. Now the only person I see still discussing it is... you.
 
2014-05-11 12:29:05 PM  

udhq: Destructor: Page after page of examples from a google search. And not just from the usual suspects (FoxNews, etc).

Issa keeps claiming the administration is stonewalling because he's not getting the answers he wants.

Everybody who testifies who fails to confirm his conspiracy theory only seems to provide him with further evidence of how deep this thing goes.


Did you know that OVER 99.99% of Americans have FAILED to testify on what REALLY happened in Benghazi!? This conspiracy is THAT wide spread!

/how do you get over 300,000,000 people to lie for you?
//the answers simple...
///*whisper* Benghaziiiii
 
2014-05-11 12:29:42 PM  
DAMN MY MISSING APOSTROPHE!
 
2014-05-11 12:30:40 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984: That's not even close to what he said. You DO know how you sound, don't you?

/shrill

 You have had ample opportunity to address my point, which you have bent over backwards to avoid.
 You DO know how that makes you look, don't you?
/shrill ;)

- The administration has withheld information directly related to official investigations

they have withheld nothing related to Benghazi attack

- This makes them look guilty, even if they're not.
They look guilty in your eyes even if the don't look guilty to anyone else

- This gives credence to the investigations.
yaaaaa, no

- Therefore, they have nobody to blame for the continued investigations other than themselves.
they can blame the GOP and people like you

- They can make it all collapse under its own weight simply by being fully open and cooperative.
being full and open is what got them in this mess to begin with, a rush to provide initial findings

- The longer they stonewall, the longer this will continue.
Pure fiction.  It continues despite the full cooperation and openness of the administration

- If it is still a thing next year, Hillary will (rightly or wrongly) be fatally tainted.
I think the GOP is the taint in this scenario

- Therefore, if Hillary fails to get the nomination (or worse, gets the nomination and loses the election) it will ultimately be the Obama administration's fault.
Now you need to put down the crack-pipe.  The deaths of those 4 brave Americans didn't save Romney despite his transparent and disgusting attempts to politicize it and it won't save you in 2016.  In fact, keep it up and it might cost you this November.
 
2014-05-11 12:32:34 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:

Not releasing everything that Issa wants, regardless of relevance is not "stonewalling."

Uh... yeah it is. That's *precisely* what it is. If you want an investigation into a matter to die from lack of credibility, the worst thing you can do is not cooperate fully.


The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.
 
2014-05-11 12:36:55 PM  

GoSlash27: I remember when it was alive. That was back before his birth certificate was released. Now the only person I see still discussing it is... you.


Oh please. It lasted much longer than after he showed his birth certificate. Long form, short form, all that shiat. And there are people who still don't believe it. The "Benghazi truthers" sound like jackasses to most people too, unless your TV is stuck on Fox News;.
 
2014-05-11 12:44:34 PM  
Fart_Machine:

The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.

 When all you got is "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" everything sounds like "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1"
 
2014-05-11 12:44:58 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:

Not releasing everything that Issa wants, regardless of relevance is not "stonewalling."

Uh... yeah it is. That's *precisely* what it is. If you want an investigation into a matter to die from lack of credibility, the worst thing you can do is not cooperate fully.


No, it's not. It's called "not releasing irrelevant documents just because Issa is fishing."
 
2014-05-11 12:48:08 PM  

GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:

The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.

 When all you got is "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" everything sounds like "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1"


Did you forget which alt you logged in with?
 
2014-05-11 12:52:50 PM  
Mugato:  The "Benghazi truthers" sound like jackasses to most people too, unless your TV is stuck on Fox News;.

Somehow, I doubt that you actually believe that. Seems to be the big story on all the networks and press outlets. Seems to be the main topic on the Sunday morning shows. Seems to be a fairly popular subject around these parts. And gee... for such a non-issue, you sure do seem to discuss it a lot yourself, don'tcha? :D

 Seems to me that you may be a wee bit off-base about how this looks to "most people". One of the two of us is surely way out in the cabbage. I'm content to let events unfold and see which of us is right.
 
2014-05-11 12:56:25 PM  

Fart_Machine: GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:

The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.

 When all you got is "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" everything sounds like "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1"

Did you forget which alt you logged in with?


Oh, this'll be rich. This is the part where "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" outlines for the rest of us his "trolls" conspiracy theory.
/gimme a sec to get mah popcorn
// aaand...... go.
 
2014-05-11 12:56:30 PM  

GoSlash27: Mugato:  The "Benghazi truthers" sound like jackasses to most people too, unless your TV is stuck on Fox News;.

Somehow, I doubt that you actually believe that. Seems to be the big story on all the networks and press outlets. Seems to be the main topic on the Sunday morning shows. Seems to be a fairly popular subject around these parts. And gee... for such a non-issue, you sure do seem to discuss it a lot yourself, don'tcha? :D

 Seems to me that you may be a wee bit off-base about how this looks to "most people". One of the two of us is surely way out in the cabbage. I'm content to let events unfold and see which of us is right.


Wait, you think Benghazi is a "big story" anywhere but Fox News? Good lord you're retarded
 
2014-05-11 12:58:10 PM  

GoSlash27: Fart_Machine: GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:

The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.

 When all you got is "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" everything sounds like "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1"

Did you forget which alt you logged in with?

Oh, this'll be rich. This is the part where "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" outlines for the rest of us his "trolls" conspiracy theory.
/gimme a sec to get mah popcorn
// aaand...... go.


Wait, you're really that dumb that you don't recognize obvious sarcasm?
 
2014-05-11 12:59:08 PM  
Just put the Benghazi troll on Ignore, like I did about a half hour ago.
 
Displayed 50 of 375 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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