Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Assails Her Majesty 94
Escalation: Hillary contradicts Benghazi families, denies blaming attacks on video at private meeting
It's blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer that the NYT cleared Her Majesty, and now the conservatives are just Making Stuff Up in an effort to deny Her Majesty that throne Her Royal Buttocks so richly deserve.
It's blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer that the NYT cleared Her Majesty, and now the conservatives are just Making Stuff Up in an effort to deny Her Majesty that throne Her Royal Buttocks so richly deserve.
And back to the regularly scheduled conspiracy! (Score:2)
Your cherry picking is amusing here.
Re: (Score:1)
Your cherry picking is amusing here.
Yes, you should talk...
Re: (Score:2)
How is it a conspiracy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What difference, based upon the emails FINALLY coming out, did any of those investigations make?
Well, being as none of the emails support your conspiracy in any way, shape, or form, your endless witch hunts have been nothing but a total waste of time and money. I expect you will support the initiation of yet another one in the spring once this one finally wraps up, even though the chance to make any use of it will have long since passed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess it's a strategy. Didn't help Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods.
But I guess it gave #OccupyResoluteDesk another four years of running cockup [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
So your strategy is "deny everything"?
I'm not denying anything. The one in denial is you, you are denying the reality that your conspiracy has no merit and will not bring about your desired outcome. You cannot end the Lawnchair administration early at this point, no matter how much time and treasure you are willing to waste in your attempt to do so. You and your friends will likely end up being punished even more by the voters this time around in response to the way you have happily let the country burn while in endless pursuit of your sill
Re: (Score:2)
The conspiracy is pretty clearly Her Majesty's for the purpose of retaining power and obstructing justice.
Justice, of course, being the desired outcome.
The joy of your wailing and the sweetness of your tears are just trim.
Re: (Score:2)
Ain't mine.
Well, I certainly wouldn't accuse you of being the originator of the conspiracy, but you are the biggest cheerleader of it I know.
Justice
This strange, constitution-shredding form of "justice" that you seek does not bring justice to anyone. You are willingly discarding rule of law just to further your own partisan interests. If you were after justice you would be looking some place else entirely, but justice was never your goal with this or any of your other favorite conspiracies.
Re: (Score:2)
constitution-shredding form of "justice" that you seek
Seriously?
discarding rule of law just to further your own partisan interests
That you pretend #OccupyResoluteDesk or Her Majesty care fig #1 for the rule of law is an example of canyon-wide panache. Truly, you are a panache hole.
justice was never your goal
Do you ever wonder what Ambassador Steven's goals were? Why, no: no, you do not. You have been told to lower your gaze. Docile thrall that you are, you stare at the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
constitution-shredding form of "justice" that you seek
Seriously?
Yes, seriously. Your special "justice" is completely against many core values of the constitution. It is applied unequally, it is repeatedly reapplied, and it has nothing at all to do with any offense that you claim to have been committed.
justice was never your goal
Do you ever wonder what Ambassador Steven's goals were?
Apparently you feel that he existed to take down the Lawnchair Administration?
Re: (Score:2)
That's as close to justice as The Royal Backside will ever get under the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
After the evidence is dribbled out over the next 10.5 months
So then you admit that your "investigations" are farcical, as they will wrap up before then? Or are you already endorsing the initiation of the next "investigation" once this one also fails to bring about extralegal removal of everyone with a (D) who ever heard of Obama?
there will be a one-day trial whereat all voters will weigh in
For one, President Lawnchair will not be on the ballot. Your hopes of removing him early passed some time ago, even though you keep pushing for it nonetheless (perhaps because you hope to use the Obama Time Machine to end it earlier?).
Re: (Score:2)
So then you admit that your "investigations" are farcical, as they will wrap up before then? Or are you already endorsing the initiation of the next "investigation" once this one also fails to bring about extralegal removal of everyone with a (D) who ever heard of Obama?
tl;dr: it's a farce (at ALL points) followed by what is called "an election". Her Majesty played a foul game to support #OccupyResoluteDesk's re-election. That foul game is being returned. This is called "politics". Word of it may have reached your head, lodged though it be in a sunless location.
For one, President Lawnchair will not be on the ballot. Your hopes of removing him early passed some time ago, even though you keep pushing for it nonetheless (perhaps because you hope to use the Obama Time Machine to end it earlier?). Even if he were on the ballot and lost, the election wouldn't end his term early.
I am confident that some of the no-talent rodeo clown's gibbering sycophants will insist on writing him in, anyway. Wouldn't (as a hypothetical) winning a third-term by write-in be THE ultimate Constitutional crisis
Re: (Score:2)
it's a farce (at ALL points) followed by what is called "an election"
So then all your "investigations" were just to waste time and money? You seem to be admitting now that indeed they never had a chance of impeaching the POTUS, which is quite the about-face from not very long ago when you swore up and down that they would bring about impeachable charges.
I am confident that some will insist on writing him in, anyway
That is a new conspiracy to add to your list. How exactly do you postulate that the Lawnchair Administration is causing this to happen?
Wouldn't (as a hypothetical) winning a third-term by write-in be THE ultimate Constitutional crisis?
That is quite the hypothetical, there. At that point does he also pull off his mask
Re: (Score:2)
So then all your "investigations" were just to waste time and money?
In the sense that "we" are stipulating that Her Majesty is above the law, and we're not bothering to have a timely, actual proceeding with real consequences, that's exactly what I'm saying. Just as the events informing the demise and reaction to Benghazi and the deaths of heroes under fire were political, so has the fallout been. That includes all of your gibbering, worm-like scrambling to distract and deflect.
Just like Mary Jo managed to drown Ted Kennedy's ambition, so Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods
Re: (Score:2)
we're not bothering to have a timely, actual proceeding with real consequences
There is no proceeding because there are no charges. There are no charges because there was no chargeable offense committed. The previous 6-7 "investigations" couldn't find any, and this one won't, either. No matter how much you wish the opposite, there is no capital offense of "being a democrat" currently on the books in this country.
deaths of heroes under fire were political
No, they were not. You can pretend otherwise but every single fact about the attack shows the opposite of that claim. Just because your team wasn't in charge of 1600 Pe
Re: (Score:2)
State Department can't find emails of top Clinton IT staffer [politico.com]
The FBI has taken possession of Bryan Pagliano's computer system.
We should at least hook you up to a generator and produce a few watts for all your spinning. The good news is that simple, gibbering obsequiousness probably can't be confused with the actual obstruction of justice that is Her Majesty.
The real question here is precisely the degree to which the FBI has been corrupted by the Commies. Can it be relied up on do the proper thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was a "discussion"?
I thought that was the purpose of posting a JE with comments enabled. Granted, you generally seem opposed to actually discussing the subject of your JE...
Your canned answer to everything is that it's a conspiracy.
No, my response to fact-free - or counter-factual - allegations are to note them to be conspiracies. You happen to hold proudly on to a large number of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand the appeal of living in your fantasy world
Her Majesty is a diabolical liar. I hope your reward for being such a loyal servant is a worthy one. An Ambassadorship?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting how Dennis Miller picking on the appearance and presentation of a democratic senator for 2+ minutes counts as "insightful political comedy"
Speaking of "picking on the appearance" [theothermccain.com]
yet if a liberal
Do you mean a classical liberal in the sense of offering a dispassionate, balanced, fair consideration of all sides of an issue that encourages a Socratic consideration of a matter, or one of our godless Commie degenerate intellectual midgets whom you hope will continue redistributing scraps your direction in exchange for your support?
were to suggest that Reagan didn't know what was going while he was president on that would be "hitting below the belt" and "Un-American".
How so? Actual Americans are always iconoclastic. For example, I've loved the Dead Kennedys since high school [youtube.com]. Entertaining contradict
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean a classical liberal in the sense of offering a dispassionate, balanced, fair consideration of all sides of an issue that encourages a Socratic consideration of a matter,
You can claim that to exclude all people outside your party if you want, but you certainly haven't offered an example of anyone inside your party who resembles that in the least (excluding the part with that dreaded "l" word, of course) - so tread carefully.
or one of our [silly insult] [silly insult] [silly insult] whom [silly insult]
There was no argument seen amongst the silly insults. Please try to make one next time.
Entertaining contradictory opinions
You certainly do have plenty of those. Tragically you don't seem to realize the contradictions, just as you don't seem to realize when you are desperately ignoring
Re: (Score:2)
we still aren't allowed to question the effectiveness of Reagan
What difference, at this point, did Reagan make? The state he governed is Haiti on a grand scale, and turning the WH over to a Progressive like Bush41 shows that the Gipper was, at best, a pause on the slippery slope to the statist hell that you and your tribe seem to crave.
Re: (Score:2)
we still aren't allowed to question the effectiveness of Reagan
What difference, at this point, did Reagan make?
The point is that we aren't allowed to raise that question. It is open season on democrats 366 days a year but republicans are untouchable. We can barely even make jokes about Nixon without being labelled as "UnAmerican" and threatened with censure (or worse).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is open season on democrats 366 days a year but republicans are untouchable.
I'm old enough to remember when raising questions about #OccupyResoluteDesk was immediately "racism". But hey, it's your Holy Narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Your selective recollection remains a thing to behold.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a hint. Go back and read what I wrote. I specifically pointed out how GOP presidents are 100% untouchable, both during and after their administrations. I also pointed out how it is open season on all democrats, elected or not, all
Re: (Score:2)
It is open season on democrats 366 days a year but republicans are untouchable.
I'm old enough to remember when raising questions about #OccupyResoluteDesk was immediately "racism".
I recall asking you many times to show an example of that happening, and you not managing to do so even once. I also recall you desperately racism-baiting me a great many times, and never succeeding in that either. If you were trying to make a point, you almost certainly made the point opposite of what you were aiming for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
example of that happening
Twitter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
example of that happening
Twitter
Which is exactly the same as it happening in real life, because nobody has ever trolled on twitter, right? And obviously some random person on twitter saying something that you believe is being said by everyone who doesn't wear the right consonant after their name is exactly the same as every person who wears the wrong consonant saying it, right?
This game you play is so easy, it's no wonder why you always win. It was nice of you to make the goalposts I am going for cemented in, will the contractors c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However this still doesn't clear the threshold. He still wasn't talking about a republican president. As I said before, it is open season on democrats - both elected and past - 366 days a year, but we are never a
Re: (Score:2)
Given an example
I would love to see you give an actual example. I have asked you many times and the best you can come up with is something that someone said on twitter? And at that, you can't even give an actual example of it, you just simply claim that it happened. By that standard I could say that the entire GOP is made up of neo-nazis if I could find one neo-nazi who tweeted about supporting GWB (or Reagan, or Nixon, or Trump, or Duke, or Buchanan).
Re: (Score:2)
it is open season on democrats - both elected and past - 366 days a year, but we are never allowed to criticize a sitting or past GOP president.
OK, you can sit there in your playpen and pretend that, because you really don't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see you give an actual example.
I totally have, and this is absolutely your literal response.
Re: (Score:2)
it is open season on democrats - both elected and past - 366 days a year, but we are never allowed to criticize a sitting or past GOP president.
OK, you can sit there in your playpen and pretend that,
There are plenty of cases - the immediate aftermath of 9/11 especially comes to mind but the GOP is never a group to allow a good disaster to go to waste - of anyone who dared to openly question a GOP president being promptly shouted down as "Un-American". I have not seen a single case of that happening in response to criticism of a democratic president; and you haven't even been able to put the slightest bit of merit to your allegation of them throwing around allegations of racism in the way you claim (si
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see you give an actual example.
I totally have
You have not. I have asked you many times and not once have you given an actual example. I love how you keep claiming the contrary, apparently under the belief that it will become true through repetition. The fact is you have not given one single example that meets even your own criteria.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You win.
No. I did not win. The truth won. Your argument lost to the truth because the truth does not support your argument. You keep pushing an argument that is routed in your preferred fiction and mythology, without concern for the matter that not facts support it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have been trying to understand where you get your arguments from
As you say; understand that I don't believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
I have been trying to understand where you get your arguments from
As you say; understand that I don't believe you.
I understand that you are a big fan of conspiracies. I would like to be able to believe that you believe in your conspiracies for reasons bigger than just that you like conspiracies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Words like "conspiracy" are useful for shutting down discussion.
How so? I use it to identify when you have a claim with an aim but without factual support.
You consistently appear to take the Lefty joy in claiming to support the thing you're stifling.
I would say your fact-free use of "Lefty" is a more effective tack towards shutting down discussion as it shows you don't actually want to discuss anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With you, there are no facts, only conspiracies.
That is a fascinating conspiracy, there. I have asked you to facts and you respond with anything but actual facts. I expect the way you like to avoid facts that at this point if I were to ask you for a fact on the 43rd POTUS you would respond by telling me your favorite conspiracy about President Lawnchair.
Re: (Score:2)
"full-blown election season spin mode" (Score:1)
Isn't that standard practice during election season? To win, you gotta do what you gotta do. You're not saying this is the first time you noticed, are you? Something tells me that you place a certain amount of nuance to the issue, that it only applies when a certain 'variable' is at play, little to do with the act itself. But yes, of course, it is important to remain focused on the present and mindful of the future, the past is the past, but you shouldn't deny that the past actually happened in the same fas
Re: (Score:2)
I hear that if the country is stupid enough to elect Her, the Royal Personage shall make Ambassadors of us all.
And in that case, we'll deserve it.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess this is the part where you are suppose to supply the 'better' alternative?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Gee! How about Vince Foster?
You are so goofy...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Um, excuse me? He's was the one who put his dog Brzezinski in to agitate the Muslims in Afghanistan to provoke the Soviet invasion. That cold war was terminated by starting another one with somebody else, a little warmer this time. And he did his part in Iran, also to keep the USSR out. George Bush was his point man in the CIA. Carter just didn't make headlines, well, he did, but it was bullshit. He can be credited with spilling less American blood.
And for the record, he deregulated the banks to which the
Re: (Score:2)
He's was the one who put his dog Brzezinski in to agitate the Muslims in Afghanistan to provoke the Soviet invasion.
Got a URL for that? I'm not expert on that period of Afghan history, but your version is one I've absolutely never heard of.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, okaaay [voltairenet.org]. And I suppose you would still bitch if I didn't cough up a translation [arizona.edu] for yer lazy ass.
I would think you'd bone up on these things instead of believing I'm just being cynical. But since it bumps up against your desired narrative, I can understand the defensiveness and feigned ignorance that goes along with it.
Re: (Score:2)
But since it bumps up against your desired narrative, I can understand the defensiveness and feigned ignorance that goes along with it.
No idea what you mean by that. Afghanistan was yet another theater in the Cold War, subsequent to Korea and Vietnam, as mentioned in the article. The US and USSR screwed with each other around the world and across the spectrum.
The precise amount of the support and the actual effect on Soviet planning are not revealed. But Russians play a long game of chess. I'd say it's not unlikely that intended the invasion, and the US support to the proto-Mujahideen was just a "yeah, sure" moment.
So it's not clear what
Re: (Score:1)
What strawman? I do believe you are projection something of your own, again. And your continued hand waving appears to validate what I said. You still have yet to show any "moral" (or even practical) high road alternative to her satanic majesty (don't worry, she doesn't get my vote), which I believe is the topic of your JE.
And besides, I was only pointing out to Barb that Carter was no angel compared any of the others, so I really don't know why you got all jumpy about it.
Re: (Score:2)
your continued hand waving appears to validate what I said
All I'm saying is that I'm not sure this excellent reference of yours is the complete story. Certainly an important piece, but you seem to treat it as the whole puzzle.
Re: (Score:1)
It sets the tone, proves we're all the same. Proxy wars aren't exactly unique. I'm sure the French did the same during the American 'revolution'.
And remember, I'm not the one complaining about what you claim is a weak foreign policy. You seem to treat today's events as the whole puzzle. Why? You know why. I know why. Even d_r knows why.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to treat today's events as the whole puzzle.
What are you even talking about? I'd start analysis with http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091/ref=sr_1_1 [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:1)
You are only going to go back a hundred years and call that the 'whole puzzle' (those are your words, why the surprised look?)? You should start your 'analysis' a few eons before that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Before that. Bible wasn't even written 2000 years ago
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Recorded history? The story doesn't even require humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Time is a personal thing. It starts when you live and ends when you die. So no, neither you or I are unstoppable.
Re: (Score:2)
Time is a personal thing.
I should think the sidereal movement by which time is generally reckoned among the *least* subjective points one could proffer.
Re: (Score:1)
It's all about perception.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You have something better, or even different? Remember, you have to show your work, can't just make shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, there ya go then. TNX
Re: (Score:2)