Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans

damn_registrars's Journal: Is the GOP on an Intentional Suicide Mission? 31

Journal by damn_registrars
Any reasonable person knows that there is no good reason from this point for the GOP to push the Benghazi conspiracy any further. They have assembled another committee in the house to investigate the attack. However, if impeachment is their goal - and it certainly appears to be - then they have basically zero chance to achieve that. The reason I say that is because the time has already run out for that to lead to a successful impeachment of President Obama before his presidency ends in 2017. There is no chance that the committee could come up with sufficient charges in time for the pre-trial and trial to happen before then.

This means that in the most favorable - by which I mean most damning possible conclusions from the house committee - situation, the GOP will still be wasting taxpayer time and money when the 2016 election happens. In the - more likely based on what previous investigations have shown - scenario where the committee does not produce something worthy of an impeachment hearing, the GOP will have to face the fact that they wasted millions (if not billions) of taxpayer dollars and a great amount of time on what is clearly a political witch hunt.

Similarly, while conservatives are almost uniformly (and mostly alone) convinced that Obama himself somehow caused the Benghazi attack (presumably as part of his NWO aspirations, by use of his time machine and weather control technology), they also seem convinced of one other thing - that Hillary Clinton will be the democratic nominee for POTUS in 2016. Frankly I am not convinced that she will win the nomination, but that is a different matter. More so I am left to wonder if the GOP fears Clinton so much that they have actually decided to throw the 2016 election in the interest of trying to start framing a better 2020 campaign now.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is the GOP on an Intentional Suicide Mission?

Comments Filter:
  • (a) OccupyResoluteDesk is a craven sack of crap who, facts all in the open, could well merit impeachment. However, "any reasonable person" knows we are in a post-fact, post-integrity, post-manhood era.
    (b) Irrespective of (a), if the deaths of Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods mean frack-all, their blood, like Mary Jo Kopechne's, should at least mean that one despicable Democrat is precluded from cluttering the White House.
    • a craven sack of crap

      Wow, you're SOOOOO kind! No name calling in this discussion at all!

      facts all in the open, could well merit impeachment

      No. Incompetence is not an impeachable offense. We have known that for a long, long, time. If incompetence were an impeachable offense than nobody would ever run for the highest office as such a clause would make it possible to throw anyone out, at any time, over the most trivial of disagreements. Neither can one be impeached for not delivering on your wishes 110% of the time.

      the deaths of Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods mean frack-all, their blood, like Mary Jo Kopechne's, should at least mean that one despicable Democrat is precluded from cluttering the White House

      Again, impeachment is not a response used for incompetence

      • Incompetence is not an impeachable offense.

        Concur, Benghazi is no significant departure from his modus crap-in-handi. However, we do have Watergate as a guide, and, remind me: who got snuffed in Watergate, exactly?

        At what point will you call for an amendment that dictates how their votes are to be distributed?

        I can confess a temptation to have an amendment to deny you, specifically, all voting rights. Not that I care so much how you vote (you could, for example, overcome your predilection for godless Commies) but your skirling shrieks of righteous indignation could, I estimate, hit a "falsetto B flat in the fifth octave [wikipedia.org]".

        • Incompetence is not an impeachable offense.

          Concur, Benghazi is no significant departure from his modus crap-in-handi.

          Which is incompetence, and not impeachable.

          However, we do have Watergate as a guide, and, remind me: who got snuffed in Watergate, exactly?

          First of all, Nixon resigned, he was not removed by force or by impeachment. Second, Nixon was demonstrated to have willingly orchestrated a blatant crime. He was not incompetent, he was decidedly criminal.

          At what point will you call for an amendment that dictates how their votes are to be distributed?

          I can confess a temptation to have an amendment to deny you, specifically, all voting rights.

          That isn't really answering the question, there. Not that you do much of that any more. That said, when you remove the rights of people to elect senators directly, you make it really easy to appoint whichever president you want "in the peoples' best intere

          • Dude: it's a troll. I assume your attempt to analyze the troll is for comic effect?
            • It was similar enough to your normal writing that it was impossible for me to identify as a troll. If anything, based on your recent writings I would have expected your other comments today - where you did not call for the immediate extralegal removal of the POTUS - to be the troll comments.
              • I mean, didn't we depart from any rational exchange long ago? Your task seems to be to argue that the Progressive Project in general, and this administration in particular, is not a crap sandwich. And I'm offering you variations on the theme of "A crap sandwich is a crap sandwich is a crap sandwich."
                • You are now demonstrating yet again that you reply to my comments without actually reading them. That is the only way you could come up with

                  Your task seems to be to argue that the Progressive Project in general, and this administration in particular, is not a crap sandwich.

                  Considering that I have stated repeatedly:

                  • That there are no progressives in Washington - or at least no liberals - and haven't been any in decades with any real power
                  • Obama is the most conservative president we have ever had, and this is a proven fact by any definition of conservative when examining what he has actually done
                  • The law that you most often associate with
                  • I just laugh at you guys who, having completely soiled themselves losing the argument against individual liberty and government accountability, set about soiling the definitions instead.
                    Stay fragrant!
                    • I just laugh at you guys who, having completely soiled themselves losing the argument against individual liberty and government accountability, set about soiling the definitions instead.

                      When in doubt, (smitty will) change the subject, eh?

                    • When did you think me in doubt?
                    • The fact that you just - again - jettisoned the topic completely and opted to instead spout out random disconnected partisan nonsense in its place suggests that you have reached a point where you doubt your ability to discuss the topic at hand.
                    • OK, so we have arrived at a symmetry of accusations of changing the subject?
                    • OK, so we have arrived at a symmetry of accusations of changing the subject?

                      Difference being that you actually abandoned the subject. The most I did in that regard was daring to ask why you did so. While asking why you changed the subject would, in the most literal sense of the phrase, constitute changing the subject; it is not of the same magnitude as completely walking away from the topic at hand as you have done repeatedly.

                    • Another "difference that makes no difference" from you. Do you actually subscribe to your own hooey, or is it all just so much trolling?
                    • From that argument it appears that when you drop the subject entirely in a discussion, you want me to return you to the subject and ignore your distraction?

                      In that case, I suggest you go back and read the message you did not previously read before replying to [slashdot.org]. You did not respond to a single of the points in it. For that matter, you should probably really go back a few comments further [slashdot.org] to another message that you did not read before replying to.

                      I guess if you insist, we could indeed play this game
                    • self-imposed alliterate condition

                      Alternately, an anus admires assonance, als alliteration?

                    • Whoops. That was the result of both a typo and foolishly misplaced confidence in spell check. I was aiming for antiliterate, which I see spell check still does not like.

                      It is nice to see, though, that apparently you do still read some of the words I write here. If only I could figure out which words of my comments you read, so I can place the parts that you normally miss in those positions.
                    • Why read you in detail, exactly? Like Picketty, you just Make Junk Up, e.g. "Obama is conservative" or whatever that silly euphemism you have for the Affordable Care Act.
                      I commend to you a renewed interest in Truth.
                    • Why read you in detail, exactly?

                      I read every word of every comment that you write in response to me. I see it as a key part of having a discussion, as it aids understanding. It is clear from your replies to me that you do not value that.

                      you just Make Junk Up

                      The fact that you don't read my comments from start to finish makes it vastly easier for you to make that claim.

                      e.g. "Obama is conservative"

                      One cannot possibly look at the actual actions that Obama has taken as president - in particular, bills signed - and reach any other conclusion. He signed off on bills that actual liberal

                    • So, is your insistence on trying to rebrand the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as "ObamaCare" an example of commitment to "Higher Truth", or are you just crapflooding?
                    • I could ask the same of you and your mission to use your strange hashtag to describe the POTUS. The difference is that when I use an alternate name for the ACA it actually is based in reality, while your name for the POTUS is based on ignorance and fantasy.

                      However that is completely beside the point. The point of the previous message is that said act - regardless of what you want to call it - was a deeply conservative bill. It was based on what a conservative governor did, and included a mandate that
                    • The difference is that when I use an alternate name for the ACA it actually is based in reality, while your name for the POTUS is based on ignorance and fantasy.

                      It's a jest. For as much damage as the loser is doing, it's the bare minimal recompense.

                      You hate the bill, but your hatred is based on paranoia and conspiracy theories.

                      After five years of no-talent rodeo clownery, deep-seated distrust of #OccupyResoluteDesk is a simple matter of common sense and empirical evidence.

                    • The difference is that when I use an alternate name for the ACA it actually is based in reality, while your name for the POTUS is based on ignorance and fantasy.

                      It's a jest. For as much damage as the loser is doing, it's the bare minimal recompense.

                      Even for you, that doesn't make much (if any) sense. You can - and will - call him whatever you like, but when you insert a conspiracy theory right into your nickname for him you just make yourself look that much more disconnected from reality.

                      After five years of no-talent rodeo clownery, deep-seated distrust of #OccupyResoluteDesk is a simple matter of common sense and empirical evidence.

                      No. Common sense tells us that one who performs "no-talent rodeo clownery" is, by definition, incapable of being the evil emperor that you repeatedly claim him to be. Try to at least stick with non-self-contradictory conspiracy theories in the future.

                    • No. Common sense tells us that one who performs "no-talent rodeo clownery" is, by definition, incapable of being the evil emperor that you repeatedly claim him to be.

                      Your attempt at a refutation would hold some water if #OccupyResoluteDesk were acting solo. Quite to the contrary, his ineptitude has been elevated far past his competence my a cast of a thousand lickspittles, not the least of which is yourself.

                    • Quite to the contrary, his ineptitude has been elevated far past his competence my a cast of a thousand lickspittles, not the least of which is yourself.

                      Rodeo clowns do not lead other people. Once again, you have provided more evidence against your claim than for it.

                    • I can agree with you, if you think that the word "lead" implies some useful direction.
                      But every pack of lemmings has a leader, and #OccupyResoluteDesk, alas, is ours.
                    • Directionality is irrelevant in this case. You are claiming that Obama is leading. You cannot simultaneously claim that the leader is a "rodeo clown", as clowns do not lead. The function of a clown is to distract, never to lead. Whether you agree with what you see the leader doing does not matter.
                    • You cannot simultaneously claim that the leader is a "rodeo clown", as clowns do not lead.

                      "Our political leader, Barack Obama, is a rodeo clown."
                      Now that I've ventilated your little theory, what's next?

                    • You cannot simultaneously claim that the leader is a "rodeo clown", as clowns do not lead.

                      "Our political leader, Barack Obama, is a rodeo clown."

                      I know you don't mind making self-contradictory statements, but you don't often flaunt them so openly.

                      what's next?

                      Based on where you just went with that, I would expect that next you will give us more self-contradictory statements.

                      If you wanted to surprise me, you could actually try to discuss the subject of this JE, but that really isn't your style.

                    • Re: JE => Sure.

Most public domain software is free, at least at first glance.

Working...