Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Any one with a plural brain cell count knew this 137
Benghazi Emails Show Blaming Video Was Effort to Protect, Re-Elect Obama
The past certainly frozen, but there are lessons here that can still protect the future from the particular flavor of idiocy.
Plus, answering the Lefty sycophants in advance: Piss Off, ye slack-jawed dirtbags. You've done enough damage, have you not?
As usual, the Instapundit is highly astute:
The past certainly frozen, but there are lessons here that can still protect the future from the particular flavor of idiocy.
Plus, answering the Lefty sycophants in advance: Piss Off, ye slack-jawed dirtbags. You've done enough damage, have you not?
As usual, the Instapundit is highly astute:
I don't think anyone will impeach Obama because
(1) He's black, and impeaching the first black President is too fraught;
(2) Another impeachment so soon after Clinton might set a pattern; and
(3) President Biden.
But I was serious when I called for him to resign over the Nakoula arrest. It was a transparent case of political scapegoating and a complete abrogation of Presidential responsibility. In itself, it indicated an unfitness to serve, and subsequent revelations have merely underscored that fact. For the same reason, of course, I didn't expect him to resign.
That's just silly (Score:2)
The reason why Obama isn't being impeached over your first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight
Re: (Score:1)
Choosing to impeach - or not impeach - Obama is not about race.
Oh no. If Bush had been as careless, in, say 2007, they would have broken out the spikes and mallets and give Georgie his choice of tree upon which, metaphorically, to hang.
Your 'lack of evidence' claim is far beyond specious [youtube.com], and you soil yourself to pretend not to see that, for example, Nakoula was thrown in jail in a purely shameful, banana-republic context. Keep sticking up for this idiocy--it make you look swell!
Re: (Score:2)
Choosing to impeach - or not impeach - Obama is not about race.
Oh no. If Bush had been as careless
What does Bush have to do with this? I thought you said that was the second standard play for the "progressives" - after playing the race card that you cannot show an example of being played the way you insist it is played so frequently - to play the "Bush card". You seem to be misreading your own cue cards.
If Bush had been as careless, in, say 2007, they would have broken out the spikes and mallets and give Georgie his choice of tree upon which, metaphorically, to hang.
Really? I'm quite sure that Bush's incompetence killed more than 4 Americans. In fact, over 600 times that many and still counting. Bush's incompetence also dismantled an economy that was successf
Re: (Score:1)
But, hey: counterfactuals and $5 are a beverage at Starbucks.
You keep defending the rodeo clown, and I'll keep laughing. It's as close as I can get to my money b
Re: (Score:2)
You keep defending the rodeo clown
That only supports the notion that you actually realize that you have no evidence whatsoever of an impeachable offense having been committed by Obama. A clown does not have access to enough power to commit an impeachable offense .
Re: (Score:2)
Obama has committed numerous impeachable offenses, as did his predecessor and his predecessor before him. For the murder of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (among many others) for instance. Or for repeatedly and intentionally violating Section 7008 of the U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Or repeatedly and intentionally violating the US Constitution, I:8, Amendment I, IV, VI, inter alia. Or any of
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to point out something important that you seem to have missed - he said that Obama has done the same things that Bush did, and for the same reasons that Bush was not impeached, he will not be impeached either. He is smart enough to realize that the situation is no
Re: (Score:1)
(1) I did read Arker's post.
(2) I don't dispute that there is substantial corruption overlap between all politicians in kind, if not degree (your girl has totally turned it up to 11)
(3) Your behavior resembles that of an absolute jerk. I hope that you're less tedious in person.
Re: (Score:2)
To reiterate (Score:1)
To reiterate accurately (Score:2)
2. You responded with insults
We have had meaningful discussions in the past. Why you are not interested in trying to have one any more is not at all clear.
Re: (Score:1)
Predictably, the shoe went into your mouth.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
are quite simply best described as an asshole.
It is obviously far better to directly insult someone who you disagree with than to call them a racist, right? Is that the joke you are going for here, that the conservative movement is trying to accuse "the left" of overusing allegations of racism in order to try to get people to forget how often conservatives reach for silly insults when they realize that their arguments hold no water and have no factual support?
Re: (Score:1)
Just pointing out that your pattern of on-line harassment makes you an asshole.
Don't like being called an asshole? Quit acting like one.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not making this point in the context of a political discussion.
Ordinarily I would agree that you are not making a point. However as you are a fake conservative I presume that you are actually trying to make a point about conservatives' inability to make a point on this matter; instead preferring to go to insults when questions on facts arise. In which case, you are making a great point about other people not making points (and hence I have to disagree with you).
your pattern of on-line harassment
On-line harassment? I would be interested in knowing where you feel this pattern comes from. I ask peop
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you amping up the act in homage to Colbert's announcement of the pending retirement of his character? I don't think you're really comedy central material if you're hoping to fill his job upon his departure but you are amusing. When you follow me to discussion threads and start spouting nonsense, it does bring to mind the "creeper" walk that he's done behind peoples' backs (for comedic effect, of course!) in the past. Then you start discussions
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But this entry of mine [slashdot.org] highlighted a few that you dropped in very rapid succession almost 5 years ago. Your writing has remained pretty much the same since then.
Re: (Score:1)
Please provide proof that I did not vote for Ted Cruz.
Please provide proof that I did not vote for the following candidates in the last 5 Presidential Elections:
2012: Romney/Ryan
2008: McCain/Palin
2004: Bush/Cheney
2000: Bush/Cheney
1996: Dole/Kemp
Due to being under 18 at the time, I was uneligible to vote in the 1992 Presidential Election, however I would have (erroneously, hindsight being what it is) voted for Ross Perot.
You remind me of a ch
Re: (Score:2)
Writings in your journal do not constitute evidence.
The writings in my journal show that nobody could possibly be dumb enough to seriously believe in the obviously contradictory things you have posted here. Why you chose to delete those obviously contradictory and silly things is not something you have shared publicly. The most reasonable conclusion is that you posted them to make a mockery of the conservatives here on slashdot, and you have done a fine job of that.
Please provide proof that I did not vote for
If you know anything about the voting system in this country you would know that neither o
Re: (Score:1)
This is a lie, and you know this full well.
The rest of your rant is another shining example of the infantilism we've all come to expect from slashdot's version of Professor Edward Weston.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank YOU! for providing proof that you are whack and a most gullible fool (Well, actually the both of you are). You're just voting for crazy democrats in a costume. *You'll dance to anything*
Re: (Score:2)
The writings in my journal show that nobody could possibly be dumb enough to seriously believe in the obviously contradictory things you have posted here.
This is a lie, and you know this full well.
No, it is not a lie. It is, however, an incomplete statement. I should have said that nobody could possibly be smart enough to write on slashdot and dumb enough to not notice the obvious contradictions in the statements you made in your journal entires.
I apologize for the lack of clarity, there. Go ahead and continue on with your regularly scheduled comedy routine now.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
More infantilism [slashdot.org]...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the vagueness might be part of your act at this point as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Took you a long, long, time to get to that punch line, friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice choice going back to that, considering nearly every case from the past several weeks has started with you replying to a comment that I wrote in a discussion. That's a good way to go out with a bang, I suppose. I'll miss your act if you're going away again!
Re: (Score:2)
Obama should actually be impeached for many of the same reasons [washingtonsblog.com] that Bush should have been impeached, and it is extremely unlikely this will actually happen, for the same reasons Bush was not impeached.
Actually, the big reason why neither of them - or for that matter hardly any other sitting president - have been impeached is that you need to show that the president knew their actions to be illegal and did them anyways. This is why the president has legal counsel in the white house, to confirm that their actions are legally valid under the restrictions of the presidency. Otherwise if every mistake is impeachable then the president is no longer allowed to make any mistakes at all - and is expected to be
Re: (Score:2)
I do not see that requirement in my copy of the Constitution. Nor does it seem in any way unfair to expect the US President to be familiar with the US Constitution.
"This is why the president has legal counsel in the white house, to confirm that their actions are legally valid under the res
Re: (Score:2)
"Actually, the big reason why neither of them - or for that matter hardly any other sitting president - have been impeached is that you need to show that the president knew their actions to be illegal and did them anyways"
I do not see that requirement in my copy of the Constitution. Nor does it seem in any way unfair to expect the US President to be familiar with the US Constitution.
If willful violation is not a requirement for impeachment, then there has never been a president in my lifetime who was not deserving of impeachment, and frankly I doubt anyone alive today can say any different.
Indeed if the criteria is set such that any offense - by the interpretation of anyone - can initiate impeachment, then our government would be in an endless cycle of impeachment trials. If your goal is to ensure that the government never passes another bill, this might be a good way to shoot for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We are routinely told "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
That depends on the law or laws in question. Furthermore the laws that govern the reach of the executive branch are not nearly as direct as those that govern the rest of us.
The legal boundaries on the Presidents lawful powers are a matter of law, not of opinion. The idea that you can exempt yourself from the law by commissioning a flawed legal opinion is one that would be far more disastrous in general practice. There would be no point in passing any laws at all, if one can exempt oneself from the law simply by paying a lawyer to write an advisory opinion that says it's ok.
Just to clarify, here - you are not trying to make a case that the POTUS would simply find a new adviser if the one he had did not support his desires, are you? If you want to hold that cynical of a view of the executive branch you can, but I don't think you can support it factually any better than I could the contrary. If you have
Re: (Score:2)
That is the practice. That is not the law. And it should not be.
When those who are sworn to uphold the law set themselves above it that is corruption, which you will recall I say is the underlying cause of this mess. Systemic corruption, mass, general corruption, not just any one individual, but affecting nearly all of our top officials and a large minority of society in general.
"Look, let's say you want to sue Smitty." (Score:1)
But anyone who thinks that facts and the First Amendment trump all here is unfamiliar with the American legal system. Because the defendants' blogs are disseminated widely over the Internet, Mann was able to shop for a friendly jurisdiction. He launched his suit, unsurprisingly, in the District of Columbia, 90 percent of whose population votes Democratic, where jurors and judges are likely to be unsympathetic to conservatives (as the outrages against Scooter Libby and Ted Stevens demonstrated).
Steyn and National Review have moved to dismiss the case under anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statues intended to spare innocent defendants the substantial costs of discovery and other legal expenses. This is a standard response to frivolous and vexatious litigation. But the initial judge, Natalia Combs-Greene, rejected the anti-SLAPP action, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. Her reasoning can only be described as tortuous: According to her, the defendants uttered statements that could be considered defamatory—specifically, they implied that Mann had engaged in fraud or other disreputable conduct. (As NR editor Rich Lowry wrote when Mann threatened to file suit, "In common polemical usage, 'fraudulent' doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong. I consider Mann’s prospective lawsuit fraudulent. Uh-oh. I guess he now has another reason to sue us.") The judge acknowledged that there was "slight" evidence of actual malice but said that it would be sufficient to "demonstrate some malice or the knowledge that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false."
At this point, Steyn took the tompions [thefreedictionary.com] out of his heavy-gage guns and bombarded the serried ranks of be-robed sacred cows on the American bench. Apart from appealing the decision (unsuccessfully), he impugned the judge's intelligence and pointed out factual errors in her judgment. It was a refreshingly robust response, doubly refreshing because of the free lunch the entire American judiciary has long enjoyed in the media and public opinion. While the president and Congress have been rightly chastised for their incompetence, and at times, their venality, the bench has soldiered unassailably on for decades, tacitly assumed by almost everyone to be condign and virtuous.
Read the whole thing. Conrad Black is borderline lyric in his lambasting of our decadent legal system.
And d_r's arguments, as usual, are a pile of bollocks.
Re: (Score:2)
"Furthermore the laws that govern the reach of the executive branch are not nearly as direct as those that govern the rest of us."
That is the practice. That is not the law. And it should not be.
I hope that means that we would both like the laws to be more clear. However I know that I do not write the laws, and it is probably not too daring of an assumption for me to say that you likely don't, either.
Turkey and the US were working together to funnel arms from Libya to the Syrian jihadists.
Not once has Smitty or any other slashdot Benghazi conspiracy theorist mentioned such a thing. However, again, if this is the basis of the argument you still need to demonstrate both that Obama was directly involved in such a decision and that he knew it to be wrong if you want to use it to drive
Re: (Score:2)
I am, however, capable of reading them.
"It would, of course, be very difficult to come up with a reason why the US government would intentionally deliver weapons to Al-Qaeda"
It's not hard to find at all actually. It's public knowledge. You really pay that little attention?
Even captive media like the NYT and the WSJ have acknowledged that Islamists in general, and Al Q
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"It would, of course, be very difficult to come up with a reason why the US government would intentionally deliver weapons to Al-Qaeda"
It's not hard to find at all actually. It's public knowledge.
One big problem you overlooked entirely here is that we are discussing a city in Libya called Benghazi. You just discussed Syria quite a bit but did not bother connecting it to Benghazi, which is Smitty's top (by post and JE count) conspiracy theory. The current Syrian uprising [wikipedia.org] began around March 2011. The event in Benghazi was September 11 of that same year. I don't recall the US providing any assets to the uprising in the 6 months between; if you have reason to believe that they did please state them
OK (Score:2)
Since obviously you wont look it up no matter how many times I refer to it, I will give you a link: Seymour M. Hersh "The Red Line and the Rat Line" [lrb.co.uk]
Time travel again? (Score:2)
The article you quoted states that the Administration was interested in overthrowing the Assad regime in Syria. I don't see much reason to doubt that, honestly. However it doesn't show any evidence of them doing so before the beginning of the Syrian uprising. Being as the uprising began less than 6 months before the attacks on Benghazi - and the administration showed almost
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I do not see any difficulty in the timeline. This starts in early 2012, the attack on the embassy is in September, there is plenty of time. The NYT (among others) have reported Qatari C-17s being used for this, they have a cruising speed of over 5
Re: (Score:2)
When is it that you imagine US weapons were first brought in to Syria? I haven't seen any good arguments for when that started. You then need to figure out if it is even possible by ordinary means of transportation to get from Damascus
Re: (Score:2)
True and completely irrelevant. No one was using cars. Thought that should be pretty clear from the specific reference to Qatari C-17s which travel at over 500mph and can do a nearly straight line from point a to point b, no?
Re: (Score:2)
And of course all this is based on the speculation that the Administration intentionally sent weapons to Syria that early in the conflict - or at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been reported by news agencies around the world, including mainstream US sources like the NYT.
"Why would someone be interested in chartering a plane to fly these weapons from one conflict to another?"
Perhaps I am missing something but you seem maddeningly dense here. Have you already forgotten the thread?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Do you have evidence of them actually flying the weapons from Syria to Libya?"
It's been reported by news agencies around the world, including mainstream US sources like the NYT.
And yet I never heard of it happening. I would like to know which sources you are reading that have found American-provided weapons being flown from Syria to Libya. I am asking you again, please help me find these sources that found that happening.
"Why would someone be interested in chartering a plane to fly these weapons from one conflict to another?"
Perhaps I am missing something but you seem maddeningly dense here.
I could say the same about your strange insistence on not using the quote tag to separate quotes.
Have you already forgotten the thread?
The thread began with Smitty pretending that one example of an event is sweeping evidence of it being a widespread mantra that occurs every minute of every day.
Re: (Score:1)
...BHO tries to crib from Reagan's playbook.
I don't suppose you'll ever stop idolizing the man.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't suppose you'll ever stop idolizing the man.
And speaking of sounding arrogant. How in the world am I 'idolizing' him here, exactly?
Re: (Score:1)
You brought him up. How would I know? You claim Obama is "cribbing" something from him. I'm kind of interested in knowing how. So far, Beirut and Iran/Contra are the ones that are most obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
In any large organization, you can contend that the dork at the top whom you like was unaware of the details of Scandal X.
As an old squid, though, I don't buy off: if you're the captain, you own the actions of the crew, heroic or craven.
Re: (Score:1)
As an old squid, though, I don't buy off: if you're the captain, you own the actions of the crew, heroic or craven.
I agree completely. That is why I wonder how you keep Reagan on that pedestal of yours. All your posts clearly indicate that you are still hung up on the person and his affiliations and not the act. If you don't "buy off", you have a funny way of showing it.
Re: (Score:1)
You need to go way, way, WAY beyond those - and you have not - in order to bring something to the level of an impeachable offense.
Why, no: no, I do not.
(a) I agree that Obama is effectively unimpeachable. His re-election is pretty much an infinite pardon, due in no small part to the sort of intellectual decay in which you personally wallow.
(b) I do know that, whereas Bush's stock has (to a degree) recovered a bit over the last five years (still *not* supporting his brother as Shrub Round Three, mind you) I think that #OccupyResoluteDesk and his little Gangster Chorus are going to be recognized as the nadir of American politics. If the
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that Obama is effectively unimpeachable. His re-election is pretty much an infinite pardon
Have you forgotten that Nixon was reelected, and serving his second term when he resigned? Granted the situation was very different but it lead to the end of an administration, which is your ultimate goal here.
That said, if you could actually provide evidence of impeachable actions you would be able to build a case for impeachment hearings. Right now you are pretending that your favorite conspiracy theories and rumors are sufficient substitutes.
And who is it that you are saying you "agree" with? I
Re: (Score:1)
You're starting to look like a caricature of a Poe character, trying to swear enough times that your Chicago Savior hasn't done anything wrong. It may be true, on a per-day basis, that he hasn't done anything more wrong than any other day, but that's about as non-negative as it gets with #OccupyResoluteDesk.
Just keep it pathetic there, as you try to defend this bucket of crap, you hear?
Re: (Score:2)
because there is no evidence, no evidence can exist.
I have never claimed that. Not once. I have pointed out that you have never presented any evidence, nor have you ever presented any good reason to expect there to be any. You have been seeking the removal of Obama from the White House since at least November of 2008. You have latched on to a dizzying array of conspiracy theories that you have sworn from the highest mountains to be sufficient for forceful removal of the POTUS in spite of not having the smallest conceivable shred of evidence to support s
"You want him out." (Score:1)
though your attempt at racist baiting is noted yet again
That's an interesting accusation; I've never said I'm anything other than tired of false accusations.
Re: (Score:2)
What I actually want is reform. Replacing #SillyHashTag with another tool (Bush; Clinton; it don't matter) is not a substantive improvement.
You did not criticize Bush when he was president. You endorsed the conservative ideals that are in the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 when they were proposed by conservatives - and you have endorsed "replacements" for it that include the same ideals. You endorsed the conservative actions of Obama when they were enacted by Bush and proposed by other conservatives.
though your attempt at racist baiting is noted yet again
That's an interesting accusation; I've never said I'm anything other than tired of false accusations.
You have made a great number of failed attempts to get me to call you a racist. You are so very much in love with your unsuppor
Re: (Score:1)
What I actually want is reform.
Mothra vs Ghidorah
"You did not criticize Bush when he was president" (Score:1)
Sorry, Chumly: the: "You didn't say X at time Y, therefore you're muzzled on Z" is bollocks. Get a real argument, please.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The one lacking an argument is you. You cannot provide a reason beyond that parenthetical consonant for why these actions were fantastic in 2007 and evil in 2009.
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing has gotten reformed by "playing along". You gotta break stuff.
Re: (Score:1)
http://i60.tinypic.com/10ommip... [tinypic.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
But you deny that the Tea Party is actually "breaking stuff"
That's right. They're actually fortifying established authority. Anything they break has that explicit purpose. They are not against concentrated power, except for that which is not in their hands. They are not the "alternative" you are looking for, unless of course you think as they do, which would mean that "reform" is just another punchline in your book of silly jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You could disprove my assertion of you not criticizing the previous conservative president for the same conservative actions by showing us comments you posted here where you did that in that time frame.
Even if I cared two figs, I totally lack confidence in my ability to shut down your speculative urges with any amount of evidence. You're so off galavanting in your own fantasy realm, we're going to have to pray for an overt miracle from God to recover you, I fear.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I totally lack confidence in my ability to shut down your speculative urges with any amount of evidence.
You are free to speculate all you want. I have, once again, given you very clear criteria that you could meet under which I would consider your argument to be valid and supported. Instead you have opted again to reach for silly insults.
I really miss the man you used to be, who was interested in having a discussion with people who did not occupy the same extreme conservative end of the conservative wing of the republican party. Your opinions haven't changed much (if any) since then, but your willingn
Re: (Score:1)
You simply need to stop drawing from a circle of carney hucksters that feed on the same money pool. It's not complicated.
Re: (Score:1)
I really miss the man you used to be, who was interested in having a discussion with people who did not occupy the same extreme conservative end of the conservative wing of the republican party.
I have reason to doubt this. Your repeated false accusations (violence against POTUS, plagiarism, &c) are not the behavior pattern of someone who can "really miss" anything. While not a formal medical diagnosis, I consider you a sociopath, and troll, and mostly the target of prayer for a miracle to restore you to functional humanity.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
violence against POTUS
You have shown repeatedly that you don't care what the law says about removal of the POTUS. In particular you don't see the right to a fair trial or provisions against double jeopardy as being applicable to those who are of a political party that you harbor ill will towards. Furthermore you don't care how much federal time and money is consumed in investigation of your unending list of conspiracy theories (if you were a true fiscal conservative you would acknowledge what an utter waste that would be at t
Re: (Score:1)
No, I'm not. The lottery, which is my preferred method, is a completely different issue. Here I am talking about using what you already have, a chance to shun the big money con men when voting. Of course that won't happen. This is why a lottery is needed, to keep political hucksterism from becoming a career.
When you vote for those people, you are showing that "concentrated power" is not the bugaboo you claim it is. You just want to be closer to that power. Your five year "epiphany" will evaporate if Ted Cru
Re: (Score:1)
When you vote for those people, you are showing that "concentrated power" is not the bugaboo you claim it is. You just want to be closer to that power. Your five year "epiphany" will evaporate if Ted Cruz or one of your other wacko friends get in.
Nah, the Vichy GOP you inadvertently support is currently thrashing the Tea Party right handily. Thanks.
Please don't impeach him (Score:2)
Before we Oregon taxpayers sue him and Kitzhaber for the $330 million they wasted on Obamacare in this state without one shred of source code to show for it.
Re: (Score:1)