fistofdoom Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) https://youtu.be/xhdsp3u4S4I (skip to 21:30) So... how's about that? Edited January 18, 2017 by fistofdoom Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 How many investigations of Benghazi do we actually need? If we're not going to believe them, why keep having them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 18, 2017 Author Share Posted January 18, 2017 How many investigations of Benghazi do we actually need? If we're not going to believe them, why keep having them? Well, we could either keep perusing the facts and bring justice for the dead, or we could cave into the horse crap we get from the weasels who don't want the real story to come to light. Make your own judgement. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 "It was an attack." Well no shit, Clinton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Well, we could either keep perusing the facts and bring justice for the dead, or we could cave into the horse crap we get from the weasels who don't want the real story to come to light. Make your own judgement. We have literally held more hearings on Benghazi than 9/11. You don't see something oddly partisan in that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 19, 2017 Author Share Posted January 19, 2017 We have literally held more hearings on Benghazi than 9/11. You don't see something oddly partisan in that? I wouldn't know, I didn't look much into politics when I was in elementary school. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 We have literally held more hearings on Benghazi than 9/11. You don't see something oddly partisan in that? I don't know about you, but when one group says "We flew planes into buildings," it's pretty clear-cut. When a group says that they attacked a building not because of a video, but politicians have debated if it was because of the video, then there is a gray area that needs to be addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I don't know about you, but when one group says "We flew planes into buildings," it's pretty clear-cut. When a group says that they attacked a building not because of a video, but politicians have debated if it was because of the video, then there is a gray area that needs to be addressed. What can possibly not have been asked at this point? IIRC the video story was shown to be inaccurate within like 12 hours of it being posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trump Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Clinton is a criminal. I suggest locking her up forever in max security. People have been sentenced to death for weaker crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 What crime did she commit? Why would you worry about a 70 year old woman so much that she'd need max security? Which people have been executed for what Clinton's never been charged with, let alone convicted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 What can possibly not have been asked at this point? IIRC the video story was shown to be inaccurate within like 12 hours of it being posted. She contradicts herself in the video multiple times. We need to know what is the true truth. What crime did she commit? Why would you worry about a 70 year old woman so much that she'd need max security? Which people have been executed for what Clinton's never been charged with, let alone convicted? He's a troll. Surprised you haven't found that out yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 She contradicts herself in the video multiple times. We need to know what is the true truth. He's a troll. Surprised you haven't found that out yet. Who's a troll? So, how many more times should we have hearings? Perhaps we could just do a rotating, permanent one and just switch people in and out as the elections go by? I thought they were pretty reasonable questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) I don't know about you, but when one group says "We flew planes into buildings," it's pretty clear-cut. When a group says that they attacked a building not because of a video, but politicians have debated if it was because of the video, then there is a gray area that needs to be addressed. No one says today it was because of a video. That information came out before all the facts were known. All GOP led investigations concluded there was no wrongdoing by Secretary Clinton or the white house. No one investigated the 13 embassy attacks and 60 deaths of US personnel during Bush II's reign, so its clear to any thinking person that this is just meaningless partisan witchhunting. Edit: It did help Clinton lose the election, so mission accomplished witchhunters!!! Edited January 20, 2017 by Aisha Greyjoy Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Who's a troll? So, how many more times should we have hearings? Perhaps we could just do a rotating, permanent one and just switch people in and out as the elections go by? The person who you were replying to when I replied to you. We should have more until everything is cleared up and there are no contradictions. No one says today it was because of a video. That information came out before all the facts were known. Except Hillary in the hearing posted in the OP. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 The person who you were replying to when I replied to you. We should have more until everything is cleared up and there are no contradictions. Except Hillary in the hearing posted in the OP. I think if you question someone about something for 11 hours there's probably always going to be some things that vary a little. She's not the ambassador who elected to travel without security. Have any of the hearings included testimony from the Regional Security Officer? A number of players from the Something Awful forums actually interacted regularly with the victim named as the intelligence officer. He was a moderator in the the debate subforum and a very nice person, I'm told. These hearings are no longer about what happened, but trying to get Hillary charged with a crime and they seem to get annoyed when the results keep coming back without it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 I think if you question someone about something for 11 hours there's probably always going to be some things that vary a little. She's not the ambassador who elected to travel without security. Have any of the hearings included testimony from the Regional Security Officer? A number of players from the Something Awful forums actually interacted regularly with the victim named as the intelligence officer. He was a moderator in the the debate subforum and a very nice person, I'm told. These hearings are no longer about what happened, but trying to get Hillary charged with a crime and they seem to get annoyed when the results keep coming back without it. knowingly doing the wrong thing while being a high ranking government member and getting caught doesn't mean you get a free pass just because you're a high raking government member at least not always Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Wait, so let me get this straight: With the exception of the troll, all of you have issue with Clinton because you think she had credible information (in that she thought the information was true and the information was directly linked to the attack) of an attack on the embassy and lied to the American public about what she knew? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not actually too familiar with all of this. It's ironic, because at least half of everyone in that room voted or openly expressed agreement to invade another country based on information that said country had WMDs,. In that process, they "killed" at least 32,000 American soldiers in the name of finding said WMDs (not to mention other casualties from coalition members, civilians, contractors, etc.) and then lied about their purpose in invading Iraq and calling it an operation to "free" the people (and keep troops in the region for another 5 years to "maintain the peace"). You guys are talking about American politics: a place of fluid morality (sometimes rightfully based on a complex situation of the world, but mostly based on reelection), a collection of empty promises in the hopes of maintaining political prominence in the greatest superpower in human history, and a zero-sum gladiatorial arena designed for two propaganda machines to do battle until the end of the nation's existence. That's so cute you all expect truth and nothing but. 1 Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 The Benghazi thing was always a nakedly partisan shitshow, I don't know how anyone takes it seriously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Wait, so let me get this straight: With the exception of the troll, all of you have issue with Clinton because you think she had credible information (in that she thought the information was true and the information was directly linked to the attack) of an attack on the embassy and lied to the American public about what she knew? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not actually too familiar with all of this. To be a little pedantic it wasn't actually the embassy that was attacked, but I also don't believe there's any guilt with Clinton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 To be a little pedantic it wasn't actually the embassy that was attacked, but I also don't believe there's any guilt with Clinton. I don't think anyone here would say Clinton "killed" anyone. I think the question is criminal incompetence, at least, that's what I was hearing from the clip. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 I think the question is incompetenceNo, that would be Podesta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Clinton can't really force the ambassador to travel with security even if he doesn't want to. They might not even have told her they were doing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 22, 2017 Author Share Posted January 22, 2017 Not everyone who thinks hillary !@#$ed up also supports the iraq/afghanistan/etc wars. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 True, but the grand inquisition trial with the senate and house was like the pot screaming at the kettle. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) True, but the grand inquisition trial with the senate and house was like the pot screaming at the kettle. nobody trusts kettles Edited January 24, 2017 by fistofdoom 1 Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.