big GOP masturbatory thread over Hillary's testimony today

Started by mongers, January 23, 2013, 06:39:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User actions

Razgovory

#45
January 23, 2013, 08:39:49 PM
You forgot about the UN ambassador didn't you?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Razgovory

#46
January 23, 2013, 08:43:38 PM
Checked out Breitbart so figure out what Derspeiss is getting at.  Most liked comment on the front page story about Hilary Clinton:
Quote

"Stand by her man"...who is dirtier and more corrupt and dishonest than most men to be sure...doing what she does best...and what she had weeks to perfect...lie...just like her male counterpart in our White House!

The way I heard it from some sources...is not having enough security around the compound...was intentional.

The way it was supposed to go down...is terrorists were to overtake the compound and take the Ambassador hostage (their new thing) to be held in exchange for the blind sheik which Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood want desperately to be released.

But no one told the brave Seals who were guarding the Ambassador probably to make it appear more authentic.

Then the Seals did what they were trained to do...'preserve and protect' and they did to their demise and the demise of the Ambassador.

IT ALL BLEW UP IN THEIR FACES...THAT IS WHY THE PANIC ON MAKING UP THE STORY ABOUT THE VIDEO BEING THE REASON...IT WAS A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT FROM THE TRUTH!

SHE SHOULD SHOW EMOTION...SHE IS GOING TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE (4) INDIVIDUALS MAYBE NOT IN THIS LIFE...BUT IN THE NEXT...GUARANTEED!

P.S. And just a note on the last slaughter of hostages...this was just a prelude...to show the world what will happen is their future demands are not met. And I can guarantee you...their demand will be to release the blind sheik!
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Razgovory

#47
January 23, 2013, 08:55:52 PM
Oh, and I suppose since the US Ambassador would have pretty much needed a private army, then any Ambassador who hasn't had a private army in a dangerous country is in fact guilty of negligence.  I don't think that's standard practice for the US so probably counts for every US president for the last 50 years.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Admiral Yi

#48
January 23, 2013, 09:42:17 PM
This thread title is sort of misleading.

CountDeMoney

#49
January 23, 2013, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 09:42:17 PM
This thread title is sort of misleading.

Don't see why;  every got their rocks off busting up Hillary in public.  Pretty sure Paul had to change his shorts.

Razgovory

#50
January 23, 2013, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 09:42:17 PM
This thread title is sort of misleading.

Refers to comments in another thread where CdM asks where it is.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Valmy

#51
January 23, 2013, 10:40:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:37:16 PM
I don't think there was a conspiracy with this Benghazi thing, just negligence and ineptitude.

Usually a safe bet.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

garbon

#52
January 24, 2013, 02:22:34 AM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 08:00:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:49:04 PM
Why does there have to be negligence involved in this particular terrorist attack?

EDITED TO AVOID SILLY ARGUMENTS.

Seems pretty obvious to me.  Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks.  He had requested additional security.  He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time.  Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.

OK that seems fair.

I really don't know much about the back story of Bengazi-gate.

Though rather misleading if Hillary's testimony was correct.

From about 3:52 on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUKpRlfAf8s
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

garbon

#53
January 24, 2013, 02:48:54 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/obama-urged-to-resign-over-beyonc-scandal.html

QuoteOBAMA URGED TO RESIGN OVER BEYONCÉ SCANDAL

A rising chorus of congressional Republicans are calling on President Obama to acknowledge that the pop singer Beyoncé lip-synched during his inaugural festivities on Monday and resign from office, effective immediately.

"By lip-synching the national anthem, Beyoncé has cast a dark cloud over the President's second term," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky).  "The only way President Obama can remove that cloud is by resigning from office at once."

While many in the media have blamed Beyoncé for the lip-synching controversy, Mr. Paul said, "We must remember that this happened on President Obama's watch."

Mr. Paul said that the White House's refusal to comment on the Beyoncé crisis "only serves the argument that this President has something to hide."

"If Beyoncé lip-synched the national anthem, how do we know President Obama didn't lip-sync his oath of office?" he said. "If that's the case, he's not legally President. But just to be on the safe side, he should resign anyway."

Mr. Paul also blasted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her testimony on Benghazi before the Senate today: "Her tactic of answering each and every question we asked her didn't fool anyone."

I chuckled and I don't even like the New Yorker. Wonder if this will get picked by a Chinese press outfit.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

DGuller

#54
January 24, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security?  He was an ambassador, not a security chief.  For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.

derspiess

#55
January 24, 2013, 09:54:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security?  He was an ambassador, not a security chief.  For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.

:huh:
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

The Minsky Moment

#56
January 24, 2013, 10:05:02 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Seems pretty obvious to me.  Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks.  He had requested additional security.  He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time.  Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.

Additional security would have required additional people would have required additional funding, which is the responsibility of . . . oh yeah, never mind.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Malthus

#57
January 24, 2013, 10:16:03 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 09:54:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security?  He was an ambassador, not a security chief.  For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.

:huh:

It's like life insurance. The companies know the odds as to how long you will live overall, but in each individual case they could easily be wrong. The fact that the life insurance company sold a 30 year old guy in good health (but with premonition of death based on dreams) life insurance on a tuesday, and he was hit on the head with an anvil accidentally dropped out of an apartment building  on friday, doesn't mean that the insurance company's predictions based on actuarial tables are full of shit and they were negligent to rely on them rather than on dreams and premonitions. Right?

I'm not saying that the ambassador's position was like a guy basing his chances of death on dreams - merely pointing out an example of how the professionals could easily be "wrong" in an individual case, without being "wrong" in their methods.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

derspiess

#58
January 24, 2013, 10:36:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2013, 10:05:02 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Seems pretty obvious to me.  Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks.  He had requested additional security.  He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time.  Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.

Additional security would have required additional people would have required additional funding, which is the responsibility of . . . oh yeah, never mind.

Are you seriously implying that the only reason we couldn't provide more security for the ambassador and consulate was congressional funding?  That the DoS had absolutely no options to beef up security?
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Admiral Yi

#59
January 24, 2013, 10:38:16 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 09:54:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security?  He was an ambassador, not a security chief.  For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.

:huh:

Joking.  :secret:
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User actions