damn_registrars's Journal: Let's get all liquored up ...

... and set fire to something we don't understand

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) â" A former Marine admitted Wednesday that he broke into a mosque and set fire to a prayer rug because he wanted revenge for the killings of American troops overseas.

When asked by a federal judge whether he thought all Muslims are terrorists, he answered: "I'd say most of them are."

Prosecutors said Linn drove about two hours from his home to suburban Toledo on Sept. 30 and broke into the mosque where he poured gasoline on the rug and lit it on fire.

He estimated that he had drunk 45 beers over several hours before he decided to drive to Ohio.

Clear proof. . .

[smittyoneeach]

. . .of the vast anti-rug sentiment so rampant underfoot.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I've also heard there likely is at least one prayer rug in Benghazi, hence this is all Obama's fault and he should be immediately removed by force for it.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Well, now it sounds like you're demanding that your government work for you, instead of you for it.
We'll schedule you for Room 101.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I guess that comment made as much sense as anything else you have said about Benghazi so far. Or are you just grabbing random sentences and posting them in reply to see what I will say?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Or are you just grabbing random sentences and posting them in reply to see what I will say?

My previous rejoinder was pure sarcasm, followed by a 1984 reference [wikipedia.org].
Regret if I was obscure there. While you may object to everything I have to say, there is an effort to offer a coherent, rational argument under what I'm spouting.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

My previous rejoinder was pure sarcasm

Ahh, yes. That sarcasm thing. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but it doesn't tend to carry well in plain text.

While you may object to everything I have to say

A rather extreme conclusion you make there, even for you. If you believe it, why would you bother coming to a discussion with me?

there is an effort to offer a coherent, rational argument under what I'm spouting

I'm still waiting for the coherent, rational argument for your obsession with Benghazi. I asked you before what else you want to see on it and you gave an answer so vague it could have been from a oija board.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Benghazi: You've got

• Nakoula in the joint
• Rice losing a Sec State nomination
• Hillary faking injuries to avoid testifying
• No word from the people who were there
• A damaging report on just the security aspects
• ...

Balls, man: if you want to play the hear no evil/see no evil/speak no evil game, fine. I seem to recall responding to you in another thread that Benghazi raises fundamental questions about fitness for the role of Commander-in-Chief. One wonders if the strategy of the Left is just to wait a few days and fi

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Nakoula in the joint

I presume you are referring to someone other than this guy [wikipedia.org] since the attack in Benghazi was not related to his film. Please clarify who you are thinking of.

Rice losing a Sec State nomination

Wrong. She was never nominated. She withdrew herself from the list of potential candidates for the position. But that was what you wanted, wasn't it - to punish her for reading the talking points that were handed to her?

(hell, there wasn't even a teleprompter this time).

Hillary faking injuries to avoid testifying

I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight. Why would someone fake a concussi

I daresay we're done

[smittyoneeach]

Unless you have some unforeseen addendum to the sandy head-burying evolution.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

That is your response when I ask you for clarification? You accuse me of burying my head in the sand? Your response was essentially fact-free and you stand by it, apparently.

Well, that is your choice to make. I can't force you to provide support for your claims, regardless of how much I would like to see it.

You have the mic. You can make your case. Instead you have opted to walk away...

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Hey, you can defend the indefensible all you like.
It goes on in all sorts of fascist settings. Little throne-sniffers get ensconced, tyranny happens, you question them on it, and "Shut up!", they explain.
Democrat; Grand Obama Party: it don't matter. What does matter is the struggle for liberty.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Hey, you can defend the indefensible all you like.

What is it that you are accusing me of defending? I have been asking you to explain your positions and you just repeat sound bites that you are unwilling or unable to back up with anything resembling actual facts.

and "Shut up!", they explain.

I don't see anyone telling you to shut up. I see you silencing yourself when you are faced with questions. That is a choice you make, to not provide any support for your assertions.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

See, I wasn't in charge when Benghazi went down.
I do admire the rhetorical trick by which you've made it seem like it's about ME needing to produce facts.
Bravo! Truly, Benghazi has been an Orwellian mind trick for the ages.
If you want some non-Ministry of Truth-approved reporting, see Breitbart [breitbart.com] (he said, knowing the messenger would be ventilated).
You really are cute when you circle the wagons and defend The Man, you throne sniffer.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

See, I wasn't in charge when Benghazi went down.

I never said you were. I asked you to state what it is that you feel happened with Benghazi that is so atrocious as to warrant sending out a lynch mob to dispose of the president. I have asked you many times, and not once have you given a non-weasel answer.

I do admire the rhetorical trick by which you've made it seem like it's about ME needing to produce facts.

If you even produced meaningful questions, that would be a start. I have asked what else you want to know and you dodged the question. At what point would you be satisfied? Why are you so dead certain that what is being told right now is somehow le

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

At what point would you be satisfied? Why are you so dead certain that what is being told right now is somehow less than true?

Step back, consider the timeline, the behavior.
If it will help you, swap BHO and GWB. Consider the media carnage if Benghazi had gone down on W's watch.
For another example, consider Valerie Plame, and how the whole yellow cake deal went down--pure farce!
Only, we have a dead Ambassador, aide, and two CIA guys who fought all night and got Hung. Out. To. Dry. by a miserable cretin.
T

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Step back, consider the timeline, the behavior.

You could do yourself a favor to take that advice yourself. You are so certain that you will find evil that anything else still looks like evil to you.

If it will help you, swap BHO and GWB.

From a policy standpoint the two are quite nearly interchangeable, the difference being that the more recent is arguably more conservative.

Consider the media carnage if Benghazi had gone down on W's watch.

Being as the media still fears the GOP, it would have had even more positive coverage. Hell we probably would have had Fox News banging the war drum for us by now, and all the others would have gotten in line behind t

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

the difference being that the more recent is arguably more conservative.

We move toward agreement. For BHO is closer to King George III than, hmmm, Abraham Lincoln? Only, I can give AL more slack because the 3/5ths compromise, was baked right into the Constitution. No good would come of it.

no meaningful justice brought down on the person who exposed her identity?

Was it not Armitage [wikipedia.org]? Wow, the media sure did a great job of keeping the focus off of him. Who did Scooter Libby offend, anyway?

Only, we have a dea