Benghazi hearing?

[Disserbia]

I predict Benghazi will become a euphamism for bullshit...they both begin with b and are 8 letters long.

[Cannot think of a name]

Uh huh, you need to provide citations or evidence. Otherwise you're just talking to yourself.

You have the tenacity of a terrier!

Who the hell taught you that this was a legitimate way to debate?

[Fellrike]

You couldn't think of a name. And I couldn't think of anything else to say. You know how it is sometimes. But I have two cats, and they're more bullheaded than any terrier ever born, so maybe I used the wrong animal to make my point.

[JuNii]

We don't see the point in continuing to discuss something that is no longer relevant. Yes, it was managed badly, that has been acknowledged, there is nothing more to discuss.

Actually, there is a lot to discuss... The stand down order that was supposidly given basically abandoning several federal employees to be killed, the decline of the request for higher security at the embassy, the arrest of the filmmaker of the YouTube video blamed for the "spontaneous riot" that then sec of state as well as the president blamed this attack on.

Btw, when did the administration acknowledge that they mishandled this? Or are you saying that NSG acknowledged it?

[Cannot think of a name]

You couldn't think of a name. And I couldn't think of anything else to say. You know how it is sometimes.

Yeah, you're totally the first person to get cute with my lack of a name.

Seriously. It's not often these days I find arguments so bad that it actually makes me embarrassed to read them. "You wouldn't accept my sources" is not a way of demonstrating the relative nature of ambiguous things (especially when we're talking about provable things), it's a way of saying "I have some spectacularly shitty sources." You're not being clever, you're being obtuse. I'm just wondering where you got the idea that any of that shit would fly?

[Ethel mermania]

It does matter. A member of the foreign service is afforded more privileges than your average person, and the vast, vast majority of those people were not even in the employ of the government, they were people on the street at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Let me ask you something, should the mayor of Boston be brought up on a hearing for the Marathon bombings?

Let me ask you what I've been asking, and you've avoided answering.

Should there have been hearings and investigations into each of these incidents where someone in the employ of the US Government was killed?

yes, there should have been, At some level i am pretty sure there was investigations if not hearings. If there were no investigations, well that is another issue entirely and a pretty big one at taht,

Bengazhi was a much bigger failure, than the others, Begngazhi was much more systemic, the whole system failed. The fact is, as the times said, bengahzi is being treated as a partisan issue by the media. The problem is, that it is being treated as a partisan issue by the players as well.

[Wikkiwallana]

But there's still a line we can't dare to cross, wouldn't you agree, otherwise we'll lose our ability to deal with each other respectfully and resolve disagreements in a more or less friendly manner, as we usually have in the past.

I whole heartedly agree with that. However, the Tea Party sprinted across that line at a dead run a few years ago, and dragged much of the GOP's ideological and temporal leadership with them.

[New England and The Maritimes]

But there's still a line we can't dare to cross, wouldn't you agree, otherwise we'll lose our ability to deal with each other respectfully and resolve disagreements in a more or less friendly manner, as we usually have in the past.

I whole heartedly agree with that. However, the Tea Party sprinted across that line at a dead run a few years ago, and dragged much of the GOP's ideological and temporal leadership with them.

Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson dragged them across that line in 1990, dude. The Republicans have been increasingly incapable of anything approaching compromise for more than two decades.

[Fellrike]

You couldn't think of a name. And I couldn't think of anything else to say. You know how it is sometimes.

Yeah, you're totally the first person to get cute with my lack of a name.

Seriously. It's not often these days I find arguments so bad that it actually makes me embarrassed to read them. "You wouldn't accept my sources" is not a way of demonstrating the relative nature of ambiguous things (especially when we're talking about provable things), it's a way of saying "I have some spectacularly shitty sources." You're not being clever, you're being obtuse. I'm just wondering where you got the idea that any of that shit would fly?

But who is to say what constitutues a shitty source ? What you consider a bad source, might seem like a great source to me, and vice versa.

[Farnhamia]

I whole heartedly agree with that. However, the Tea Party sprinted across that line at a dead run a few years ago, and dragged much of the GOP's ideological and temporal leadership with them.

Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson dragged them across that line in 1990, dude. The Republicans have been increasingly incapable of anything approaching compromise for more than two decades.

1994, actually.

[Wikkiwallana]

So you say! But Republicans, for their part, say the Democrats are at fault, and that they themselves have gone out of their way to compromise. They believe in their cause as strongly as you believe in yours, and they'll argue its rightness with equal vigor. How can you expect anything else? This back and forth gets us nowhere.

Mostly because you are holding onto that false equivalence of yours with a vice grip. Facts and evidence are against you, so you persist in decrying actual events as relative. End the sophistry, and the back and forth ends with it.

[Fellrike]

But whose definition of sophistry are we to accept? Yours, or mine? What exactly constitutes sophistry?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson dragged them across that line in 1990, dude. The Republicans have been increasingly incapable of anything approaching compromise for more than two decades.

1994, actually.

That was the first chance they got to make anything happen, but the attitude was there before that.

[Wikkiwallana]

Also, there is a tremendous difference between a suicide bombing and a several hour long attack. One is nearly impossible to prevent, while the other can easily be repelled with proper security.

They killed nearly 100 attackers. Please explain how people that committed and with those kind of numbers can easily be repelled from a small consulate.

[Free Soviets]

And thus, the morons will yet make a prophet of me. Ever since 2010, I've been saying that the Republicans will no rest until they impeach Barack Obama. They've got the votes, and they're going to do it, and there's no way that they will be persuaded not to; it's as inevitable as the sun, the moon, the wind, and the tides. It's a maniacal compulsion, and these idiots are going to go through with it come Hell or high water. It may take them a couple more years to get around to it, but it's going to happen. "Benghazigate" isn't "Watergate with fatalities"; it's "Whitewater" and "Travelgate" and "Vince Foster" and "Monicagate", with even less substance than last time around.

And it's all because Republicans are fucking nuts and can't believe they're capable of losing elections.

inhofe actually came out and said it yesterday.

Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Thursday with “The Rusty Humphries Show” that impeachment would become an issue soon over the “greatest cover-up in American history.”

“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe said.

“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.

“Yeah,” Inhofe responded.

“Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this ... is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history,” Inhofe said.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Also, there is a tremendous difference between a suicide bombing and a several hour long attack. One is nearly impossible to prevent, while the other can easily be repelled with proper security.

They killed nearly 100 attackers. Please explain how people that committed and with those kind of numbers can easily be repelled from a small consulate.

There's also the fact that Paul Ryan was one of the guys cutting money out of embassy security that same year, and all his lackeys in the GOP followed along.

[Gauthier]

And thus, the morons will yet make a prophet of me. Ever since 2010, I've been saying that the Republicans will no rest until they impeach Barack Obama. They've got the votes, and they're going to do it, and there's no way that they will be persuaded not to; it's as inevitable as the sun, the moon, the wind, and the tides. It's a maniacal compulsion, and these idiots are going to go through with it come Hell or high water. It may take them a couple more years to get around to it, but it's going to happen. "Benghazigate" isn't "Watergate with fatalities"; it's "Whitewater" and "Travelgate" and "Vince Foster" and "Monicagate", with even less substance than last time around.

And it's all because Republicans are fucking nuts and can't believe they're capable of losing elections.

inhofe actually came out and said it yesterday.

Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Thursday with “The Rusty Humphries Show” that impeachment would become an issue soon over the “greatest cover-up in American history.”

“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe said.

“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.

“Yeah,” Inhofe responded.

“Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this ... is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history,” Inhofe said.

And for your viewing amusement... Rachel Maddow.

[Fellrike]

Some of you seem to be taking this all too personally. You should expect that each party will take any opportunity it can to gain advantage over the other. It's just politics. This is the way the world works. You can't expect too much out of politicians, whatever their party.

[Wikkiwallana]

I'm sorry, did you just throw 5 or so different bullshit conspiracy theories in a blender just to see what would happen? Please tell me it was that, because the alternative is that you actually believe that convoluted brain fart, and I really don't want to think that poorly of anyone.

I really believe that and its true, also these are not conspiracy theories the left wing communist control the Military industrial complex they violated the Souths States rights

I could make a drinking game out of everything wrong with what you say…

[Farnhamia]

I really believe that and its true, also these are not conspiracy theories the left wing communist control the Military industrial complex they violated the Souths States rights

I could make a drinking game out of everything wrong with what you say…

Is that your liver running down the road, screaming?

[Wikkiwallana]

I whole heartedly agree with that. However, the Tea Party sprinted across that line at a dead run a few years ago, and dragged much of the GOP's ideological and temporal leadership with them.

Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson dragged them across that line in 1990, dude. The Republicans have been increasingly incapable of anything approaching compromise for more than two decades.

I'm 26. I was 3 for the vast majority of 1990. I think I can be forgiven for not knowing what was happening in Washington at the time.

[Gauthier]

I could make a drinking game out of everything wrong with what you say…

Is that your liver running down the road, screaming?

Being chased by the ghosts of Larry Hagman and David Crosby.

[Fellrike]

How are events that took place in 1993 any harder to learn about than any other historical event that happened when you were young, or even preceded your birth? Learning about stuff that happened in 1993 is no harder than learning about Hannibal's crossing of the Alps with his war elephants.

[Farnhamia]

Is that your liver running down the road, screaming?

Being chased by the ghosts of Larry Hagman and David Crosby.

David Crosby's not dead.

[Wikkiwallana]

But whose definition of sophistry are we to accept? Yours, or mine? What exactly constitutes sophistry?

Holy.
Flying.
Fuckcakes.

That is either the most spectacularly unaware thing I've read in years, or the best, cleverest self-demonstration in the history of NSG.