Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
User Journal

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: [conspiracy] How many investigations do we need? 15

For reasons that are not abundantly clear (aside from the fact that they don't seem to have a better one), Benghazi seems to remain the most popular conspiracy theory for the conservatives. I will remind us in this JE though that there have already been two reports released, neither of which have been particularly kind to the administration:

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Benghazi

NY Times report on Benghazi

So we have two reports, one from the government and one that was from the media. Neither were kind to the administration, yet neither provided everything the conservatives wanted either. So how many investigations do they want? At what point will they be happy?

It appears the first answer is "enough to drive the president out of the white house", and the second is likely "only after the president and everyone with a "D" after their name is driven permanently from Washington DC".
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

[conspiracy] How many investigations do we need?

Comments Filter:
  • No more than one investigation per day that BHO has cluttered the Oval Office.
    This could fix unemployment and justice at the same time.
    • No more than one investigation per day that BHO has cluttered the Oval Office.

      That statement raises more questions than it answers:

      • Would they all be Benghazi investigations, or would some investigate the birther claims and various other popular conspiracy theories?
      • Do you count every day since his inauguration (in which case you are over two thousand) or only the days that you claim he was not on vacation (in which case it might only be 20 or so?)?
      • Do they all get follow-up investigations in the case of not returning the results you wanted as well?

      We could continue from there, but I

      • I'm afraid that a bit of hyperbole just flew over your head.
        • It is impossible to tell if there is a limit for you now. You have no concern for the cost of your witch hunt or the fact that it does not reflect reality. There was no way to know if you were serious with that response or not, so I took the course of expecting it to be a serious response.
          • Well, I haven't accused you of calling for murder, so there's that.
            • So then I should only expect you to be serious when you are supporting murder? I guess that makes a certain amount of sense in light of much of what you have said.
              • Dr. Smitty recommends you get a little rest.
                • Poor Reading and Comprehension skills are just part of the act my dear friend the fake liberal (damn_registrars) plays. He knows that the only way a real liberal remains as such is to be willfully ignorant, therefore, in his brilliant satire of liberals he maintains the appearance of cherry picking and misconstruing things to support the liberal position.

                  It's the same act that intellectually dishonest tools like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz perform on MSNBC on a daily basis, my dearest friend the fike lib
                  • Wait a minute, here. Previously you said you were me. Now you are talking about me as some other person. You could at least try to keep your trolling story straight.
                    • My trolling story is as straight as you are, my dear friend the fake liberal damn_registrars. And since I have already admitted that I am you, and no one believes it, it ultimately doesn't matter if I am you (which I am) or not.
  • If you believe a godforsaken thing printed in the NYT, you're outing yourself as an idiot.
    I have relatively the same level of confidence in Harry Reid's Senate.
    Credibility begins with an independent, special prosecutor.

The other line moves faster.