Huge Benghazi bombshell -- Obama actually in trouble now

GOP Intel Report Debunks Its Own Party's Nutty Benghazi Theories



WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.
The House Intelligence Committee report was released with little fanfare on the Friday before Thanksgiving week. Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.
The attacks in Benghazi killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty. A Libyan extremist, Ahmed Abu Khatalla, is facing trial on murder charges after he was captured in Libya and taken to the U.S.
In the aftermath of the attacks, Republicans criticized the Obama administration and its then-secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is expected to run for president in 2016. People in and out of government have alleged that a CIA response team was ordered to "stand down" after the State Department compound came under attack, that a military rescue was nixed, that officials intentionally downplayed the role of al-Qaida figures in the attack, and that Stevens and the CIA were involved in a secret operation to spirit weapons out of Libya and into the hands of Syrian rebels. None of that is true, according to the House Intelligence Committee report.
"We spent thousands of hours asking questions, poring over documents, reviewing intelligence assessments, reading cables and emails, and held a total of 20 committee events and hearings," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the committee's chairman, and Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the ranking Democrat, in a joint statement.
"We conducted detailed interviews with senior intelligence officials from Benghazi and Tripoli as well as eight security personnel on the ground in Benghazi that night. Based on the testimony and the documents we reviewed, we concluded that all the CIA officers in Benghazi were heroes. Their actions saved lives," they said.
Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who serves on the intelligence panel and the Benghazi select committee, said, "It's my hope that this report will put to rest many of the questions that have been asked and answered yet again, and that the Benghazi Select Committee will accept these findings and instead focus its attention on the State Department's progress in securing our facilities around the world and standing up our fast response capabilities."
Some of the harshest charges have been leveled at Rice, now Obama's national security adviser, who represented the Obama administration on Sunday talk shows the weekend after the attack. Rice repeated talking points that wrongly described a protest over a video deemed offensive to Muslims.
But Rice's comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said —14 from the Open Source Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense Department; and four from the National Security Agency.
In the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers on, the investigation found.
"To this day," the report said, "significant intelligence gaps regarding the identities, affiliations and motivations of the attackers remain."




http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/re...-obama-hillary


So that's the seventh investigation that found nothing. The Pentagon, the intelligence agencies and now the Republicans several times have all found no evidence of any governmental wrongdoing. But never mind, the GOP are setting up an eighth inquiry. I'm sure they'll eventually find some evidence.


Of course this is just the liberal media's point of view on this report. Here is the Fox News version of this story :



A leading Republican wants to expand the House investigation into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack by adding a Senate probe, as a new House Intelligence Committee report Friday concluded that the initial CIA assessment found no demonstrations prior to the assault and a primary purpose of the CIA operation in eastern Libya was to track the movement of weapons to Syria.
The report described the attack as "complex" with the attackers affiliated with Al Qaeda. It also said the initial CIA assessment concluded there were no demonstrations outside the State Department Consulate in Eastern Libya.
Referring to the House Select committee Chairman, and the Democratic ranking member, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, said the current House investigation should be expanded.
"(Republican) Trey Gowdy and (Democrat) Elijah Cummings have done a good job,” he said. “I can't imagine the U.S. Senate not wanting to be a part of a joint select committee. We'll bootstrap to what you've done, but we want to be part of discussion," Graham told Fox News. "What I would suggest to (incoming Senate majority leader) Mitch McConnell is to call up Speaker Boehner and say 'Listen, we want to be part of this’.".........................


CIA gathered intelligence on weapons to Syria: Benghazi report | Fox News

Talking Points Memo is a SMIDGE liberal and the "data" provided in the article amounts to nothing more than a 4 year old saying "Nuh uh!" in response to an argument.

Typical

Petulant

Liberal

Bullshit

Kirkland, why do you insist on having your nose up the ads of America. The Bangahzi response was bungled, pure and simple.

You know what else hasn't been solved?


WHERE WAS THE PRESIDENT WHEN THIS SHIT WAS GOING DOWN?!?!?!


Why hasn't that been solved? He's Obama and he can do what he wants

Was with Eric in Ferguson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Talking Points Memo is a SMIDGE liberal and the "data" provided in the article amounts to nothing more than a 4 year old saying "Nuh uh!" in response to an argument.

Typical

Petulant

Liberal

Bullshit

---

It's an Associated Press article. AP are the world's biggest press operation, tens of thousand of papers worldwide print their articles. I read this article in the very conservative Wall Street Journal but they have a paywall so I had to link it from elsewhere. If you google the first few lines you can read it from any of hundreds of conservative and liberal newspapers who printed the exact-same article.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the fact it's an AP article and the facts and evidence in the article all fell off the back of your little shelf before you wrote your reply otherwise, to borrow a phrase, your reply looks like a petulant four year old saying "nuh uh".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

You know what else hasn't been solved?


WHERE WAS THE PRESIDENT WHEN THIS SHIT WAS GOING DOWN?!?!?!


Why hasn't that been solved? He's Obama and he can do what he wants

---

Even the craziest of the crazy GOP congessscritters aren't going to bother with the really ridiculous conspiracy theories that are out there. They haven't bothered investigating why a plane didn't really hit the Pentagon either.

Keep taking the meds baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Kirkland, why do you insist on having your nose up the ads of America. The Bangahzi response was bungled, pure and simple.

---

I pay taxes over there and the idiots that govern you directly affect me and what I do for a living. So I'm entitled to an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

You know what else hasn't been solved?


WHERE WAS THE PRESIDENT WHEN THIS SHIT WAS GOING DOWN?!?!?!


Why hasn't that been solved? He's Obama and he can do what he wants

---

Even the craziest of the crazy GOP congessscritters aren't going to bother with the really ridiculous conspiracy theories that are out there. They haven't bothered investigating why a plane didn't really hit the Pentagon either.

Keep taking the meds baby.

---

So do you use Reynolds Wrap or some generic aluminum foil to make your hats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

You know what else hasn't been solved?


WHERE WAS THE PRESIDENT WHEN THIS SHIT WAS GOING DOWN?!?!?!


Why hasn't that been solved? He's Obama and he can do what he wants

---

Even the craziest of the crazy GOP congessscritters aren't going to bother with the really ridiculous conspiracy theories that are out there. They haven't bothered investigating why a plane didn't really hit the Pentagon either.

Keep taking the meds baby.

---

So do you use Reynolds Wrap or some generic aluminum foil to make your hats?

---

Not for the first time you managed to misread what I wrote. What I'm saying is that your crazy Kenyan-left-them-there-to-die theory is on a par of whackadoodleness with the people who think a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Kirkland, why do you insist on having your nose up the ads of America. The Bangahzi response was bungled, pure and simple.

---

I pay taxes over there and the idiots that govern you directly affect me and what I do for a living. So I'm entitled to an opinion.

---

Kirk, you are just like me, you may pay taxes here but that doesn't mean they give a shit what we think.

Of course this is just the liberal media's point of view on this report. Here is the Fox News version of this story :

So the Austrailian Rupert Murdoch has the (real) America's POV? His boy Roger Ailes was once down with the Birch Society that openly advocated Klansmanship in the 1960's...and those guys represent the (real) view of what went down?

The same FOX that started out as Op-ed? Opinionated Editorial-ism..is now Fair and Balanced, right?

I'm still waiting on them to uncover Larry Silverstein's story on how he knew to (BUY) the World Trade Ceneter with a caveat---he would be free to pay a single dime on it...not if a natural disaster occurred.

But he had a clause that stated---if a plane hits it (WTC) not only does he not have to pay for them, but he made billions on the insurance.


Still waiting on FOX Op-ed to tell us how the Koch Brothers father got his millions under Joseph Stalin...a Communist.

If FOX did a story on something other than dividing American into Liberal vs Conservative...I might think they have something to offer on the Benghazi...so-called scandal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Of course this is just the liberal media's point of view on this report. Here is the Fox News version of this story :

So the Austrailian Rupert Murdoch has the (real) America's POV? His boy Roger Ailes was once down with the Birch Society that openly advocated Klansmanship in the 1960's...and those guys represent the (real) view of what went down?

The same FOX that started out as Op-ed? Opinionated Editorial-ism..is now Fair and Balanced, right?

I'm still waiting on them to uncover Larry Silverstein's story on how he knew to (BUY) the World Trade Ceneter with a caveat---he would be free to pay a single dime on it...not if a natural disaster occurred.

But he had a clause that stated---if a plane hits it (WTC) not only does he not have to pay for them, but he made billions on the insurance.


Still waiting on FOX Op-ed to tell us how the Koch Brothers father got his millions under Joseph Stalin...a Communist.

If FOX did a story on something other than dividing American into Liberal vs Conservative...I might think they have something to offer on the Benghazi...so-called scandal...

---

I see people quoting the AP but I didn't see anyone referring to FOX. Perhaps it was earlier in the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Kirkland, why do you insist on having your nose up the ads of America. The Bangahzi response was bungled, pure and simple.

---

I pay taxes over there and the idiots that govern you directly affect me and what I do for a living. So I'm entitled to an opinion.

---

Kirk, you are just like me, you may pay taxes here but that doesn't mean they give a shit what we think.

---

Yes but they can't stop us having opinions, can they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Of course this is just the liberal media's point of view on this report. Here is the Fox News version of this story :

So the Austrailian Rupert Murdoch has the (real) America's POV? His boy Roger Ailes was once down with the Birch Society that openly advocated Klansmanship in the 1960's...and those guys represent the (real) view of what went down?

The same FOX that started out as Op-ed? Opinionated Editorial-ism..is now Fair and Balanced, right?

I'm still waiting on them to uncover Larry Silverstein's story on how he knew to (BUY) the World Trade Ceneter with a caveat---he would be free to pay a single dime on it...not if a natural disaster occurred.

But he had a clause that stated---if a plane hits it (WTC) not only does he not have to pay for them, but he made billions on the insurance.


Still waiting on FOX Op-ed to tell us how the Koch Brothers father got his millions under Joseph Stalin...a Communist.

If FOX did a story on something other than dividing American into Liberal vs Conservative...I might think they have something to offer on the Benghazi...so-called scandal...

---

I see people quoting the AP but I didn't see anyone referring to FOX. Perhaps it was earlier in the thread.

---

yes sir:
1st post
Above the last paragraph.
Just before.... A leading Republican wants to expand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Kirkland, why do you insist on having your nose up the ads of America. The Bangahzi response was bungled, pure and simple.

---

I pay taxes over there and the idiots that govern you directly affect me and what I do for a living. So I'm entitled to an opinion.

---

Kirk, you are just like me, you may pay taxes here but that doesn't mean they give a shit what we think.

---

Yes but they can't stop us having opinions, can they?

---

No you can be as stupid as you like......as if I had to tell you that, but who knows, maybe you were holding a little back :rolleyes:

EXCLUSIVE: Benghazi Heroes Debunk House Intel Report as 'Full of Inaccuracies' with Firsthand Account

.....but hell those guys were only THERE ON THE GROUND IN BENGHAZI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

EXCLUSIVE: Benghazi Heroes Debunk House Intel Report as 'Full of Inaccuracies' with Firsthand Account

.....but hell those guys were only THERE ON THE GROUND IN BENGHAZI

---

These people already testified to at least the last inquiry.

In 2016 Hikkary will almost certainly be running for prez. If she is she'll be the Democratic nominee and do you know what half the GOP campaign platform will be? Fucking Benghazi. They're going to have three or four new Benghazi inquiries between then and now to keep the rabble roused and ready to vote GOP in 2016. And people like these guys, who have a book out and are promoting it in the sponsored advertising posing as an article that you linked, will be front and centre in the GOP campaign to defeat Hillary. They don't have to worry about people they can fool all of the time like yourself because you'll swallow anything but these guys will be a key element in the campaign to try and persuade low information voters to distrust Hillary.

It won't work though. Absent a recession or economic meltdown Hillary will cruise to victory. If there is a recession/meltdown she'll lose anyway. So stuff like this is just there to fool the rubes.

Good for you...not reading the article and keeping your head in the sand....good for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

It won't work though. Absent a recession or economic meltdown Hillary will cruise to victory. If there is a recession/meltdown she'll lose anyway. So stuff like this is just there to fool the rubes.

---

Yeah the entire 20 people listening to her speech at Georgetown are "super psyched"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE6ceBVoIz0


#readyforhillary



You're a fucking dope

Kirkland, are you ready to #standupwithhillary ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Kirkland, are you ready to #standupwithhillary ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30

---

Are you ready for eight years of Hillary to follow the eight years of Kenyan socialism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Are you ready for eight years of Hillary to follow the eight years of Kenyan socialism?

---

I don't like Hillary at all, but even recusing my political beliefs from the argument I can't see how she'll A) Be the candidate and B ) win the general election for the following reasons.

1. Her name alone. Clinton. So you're telling the American people we'd willingly go H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, W. Bush, Obama, Hillary Clinton? And you figure we'd be ok with that? We don't do kings and we don't do royal families...not even Jeb Bush will win this election.

2. Again her age/health....is it sexist to bring those up? If that decisions was Hillary's to make she'd say yes in a heartbeat. That spill she took while getting on the airplane is going to stick with her as is her testimony on Benghazi...as will Benghazi in general, remember her 3 a.m. phone call ad? Yeah that's going to be used against her effectively.

3. Here's a question maybe you could answer on her behalf "What was her defining moment/best event/biggest deal as Secretary of State?"

Obama could eat the head off a new born baby and he wouldn't get into any trouble. The media would simply spin it and say 'That baby had it coming, it just wouldn't stop crying. It was armed with a rubber duck!' Clinton versus Bush in the next election would be particularly vulgar and patronising. It makes you wonder why they bother wasting all that money on what is essentially a pantomime, but I guess when you look at where the money comes from it spins around in the same circles, so it isn't such a waste. Plus they can always print some more and give it to the banks who will then pick the next target on a map for their arms dealer friends. Afghanistan is producing record levels of opium, so that's one success story complete. Nobody in trouble except the poor schmuk jailed for possession and unable to ever again participate in the greatest pantomime in town. Who cares about Benghazi when the circle jerk is winning? They got milk, baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Are you ready for eight years of Hillary to follow the eight years of Kenyan socialism?

---

I don't like Hillary at all, but even recusing my political beliefs from the argument I can't see how she'll A) Be the candidate and B ) win the general election for the following reasons.

1. Her name alone. Clinton. So you're telling the American people we'd willingly go H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, W. Bush, Obama, Hillary Clinton? And you figure we'd be ok with that? We don't do kings and we don't do royal families...not even Jeb Bush will win this election.

2. Again her age/health....is it sexist to bring those up? If that decisions was Hillary's to make she'd say yes in a heartbeat. That spill she took while getting on the airplane is going to stick with her as is her testimony on Benghazi...as will Benghazi in general, remember her 3 a.m. phone call ad? Yeah that's going to be used against her effectively.

3. Here's a question maybe you could answer on her behalf "What was her defining moment/best event/biggest deal as Secretary of State?"

---

1. Hillary is, as best we can tell, a woman. And so are roughly 50% of the American population. She may be the second Clinton running for prez but she's the first woman ever. And that fact overrides her surname. The surname is irrelevant anyway. It's only going to matter to people who are going to vote Republican anyway. It'll definitely be a talking point for the GOP during the election campaign....

2 ... as will her age and health and Benghazi which again are things which will only really matter to people who vote Republican. And they'll be all the GOP talk about (rmember Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth? Those fuckers selling that book you were on about the other day will be the 2016 SBVFTT for instance). The last thing the GOP want to do is talk about their actual policies so their entire campaign will be Benghazi, she's old, something she said in 1972, rehashed non-scandals from the 1990s, Bill Clinton's penis, the 2016 version of "you didn't build that".........

3. Again, something only GOP voters will find relevant. What was Romney's defining moment as governor of Mass.? Fucking Obamacare, that's what. How much coverage did that get in 2012? How much older was John McCain in 2008 than Hillary will be in 2016? How much coverage did his age get in the 2008 campaign? You need to stop looking at every single fucking thing through the prism of conservative media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reginald Perrin

but I guess when you look at where the money comes from it spins around in the same circles, so it isn't such a waste. Plus they can always print some more and give it to the banks

---

About three or four months ago you discovered the existence of fractionated reserve banking. To say your knowledge of where money comes from is at a Janet and John level is an insult to Janet and John books and the preschoolers who read them.

The Fed recently ended QE. Why aren't we currently seeing skyrocketing bond yields, hyperinflation and so on, hmmm?

https://scintillatingsilver.files.wo...8/germany3.jpg
Not currently happening. Why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

1. Hillary is, as best we can tell, a woman. And so are roughly 50% of the American population. She may be the second Clinton running for prez but she's the first woman ever. And that fact overrides her surname. The surname is irrelevant anyway. It's only going to matter to people who are going to vote Republican anyway. It'll definitely be a talking point for the GOP during the election campaign....

2 ... as will her age and health and Benghazi which again are things which will only really matter to people who vote Republican. And they'll be all the GOP talk about (rmember Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth? Those fuckers selling that book you were on about the other day will be the 2016 SBVFTT for instance). The last thing the GOP want to do is talk about their actual policies so their entire campaign will be Benghazi, she's old, something she said in 1972, rehashed non-scandals from the 1990s, Bill Clinton's penis, the 2016 version of "you didn't build that".........

3. Again, something only GOP voters will find relevant. What was Romney's defining moment as governor of Mass.? Fucking Obamacare, that's what. How much coverage did that get in 2012? How much older was John McCain in 2008 than Hillary will be in 2016? How much coverage did his age get in the 2008 campaign? You need to stop looking at every single fucking thing through the prism of conservative media.

---

Hey if you want to elect her, then vote for her. I won't and I know a large portion of the United States won't vote for her because they never liked her to begin with which is kind of why she didn't win the last time she ran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Are you ready for eight years of Hillary to follow the eight years of Kenyan socialism?

---

I don't like Hillary at all, but even recusing my political beliefs from the argument I can't see how she'll A) Be the candidate and B ) win the general election for the following reasons.

1. Her name alone. Clinton. So you're telling the American people we'd willingly go H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, W. Bush, Obama, Hillary Clinton? And you figure we'd be ok with that? We don't do kings and we don't do royal families...not even Jeb Bush will win this election.

2. Again her age/health....is it sexist to bring those up? If that decisions was Hillary's to make she'd say yes in a heartbeat. That spill she took while getting on the airplane is going to stick with her as is her testimony on Benghazi...as will Benghazi in general, remember her 3 a.m. phone call ad? Yeah that's going to be used against her effectively.

3. Here's a question maybe you could answer on her behalf "What was her defining moment/best event/biggest deal as Secretary of State?"

---

1. Hillary is, as best we can tell, a woman. And so are roughly 50% of the American population. She may be the second Clinton running for prez but she's the first woman ever. And that fact overrides her surname. The surname is irrelevant anyway. It's only going to matter to people who are going to vote Republican anyway. It'll definitely be a talking point for the GOP during the election campaign....

2 ... as will her age and health and Benghazi which again are things which will only really matter to people who vote Republican. And they'll be all the GOP talk about (rmember Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth? Those fuckers selling that book you were on about the other day will be the 2016 SBVFTT for instance). The last thing the GOP want to do is talk about their actual policies so their entire campaign will be Benghazi, she's old, something she said in 1972, rehashed non-scandals from the 1990s, Bill Clinton's penis, the 2016 version of "you didn't build that".........

3. Again, something only GOP voters will find relevant. What was Romney's defining moment as governor of Mass.? Fucking Obamacare, that's what. How much coverage did that get in 2012? How much older was John McCain in 2008 than Hillary will be in 2016? How much coverage did his age get in the 2008 campaign? You need to stop looking at every single fucking thing through the prism of conservative media.

---

Actually, since 1872 the US has had roughly 36 women run for president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reginald Perrin

but I guess when you look at where the money comes from it spins around in the same circles, so it isn't such a waste. Plus they can always print some more and give it to the banks

---

About three or four months ago you discovered the existence of fractionated reserve banking. To say your knowledge of where money comes from is at a Janet and John level is an insult to Janet and John books and the preschoolers who read them.

The Fed recently ended QE. Why aren't we currently seeing skyrocketing bond yields, hyperinflation and so on, hmmm?

https://scintillatingsilver.files.wo...8/germany3.jpg
Not currently happening. Why not?

---

As a prodigious, intelligent and successful man of the world (ice cream marketing, greatest seller of useless products etc), fractional reserve banking is something I have known about for many years. In certain nations it has become more than fractional reserve banking with infinite re-hypothecation meaning in essence that the money is emerging from a complete vacuum. The banks have nothing to back up their cooked and rather scruffy books beyond a wave of frauds and manipulations.

The Fed may have ended the latest round of money printing (fraud), but the scheme is a global one and the buck has merely been passed onto Japan. The reason we are not seeing hyper inflation is because the Feds printed money is being handed directly to the banks (almost for free) and they are holding onto it because, as I mentioned before, these institutions are insolvent. This isn't rocket science. Unless money actually gets passed on to the real economy there will be no significant inflation. All the inflation is in stocks and asset prices. In the real world wages are falling and continue to fall.

I hope this service has been of some use to you and I really appreciate the picture of those lovely little aristocrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Kirkland, are you ready to #standupwithhillary ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30

---

She may just want to stick a cigar up a male interns ass and call it quits :-\.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

1. Hillary is, as best we can tell, a woman. And so are roughly 50% of the American population. She may be the second Clinton running for prez but she's the first woman ever. And that fact overrides her surname. The surname is irrelevant anyway. It's only going to matter to people who are going to vote Republican anyway. It'll definitely be a talking point for the GOP during the election campaign....

2 ... as will her age and health and Benghazi which again are things which will only really matter to people who vote Republican. And they'll be all the GOP talk about (rmember Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth? Those fuckers selling that book you were on about the other day will be the 2016 SBVFTT for instance). The last thing the GOP want to do is talk about their actual policies so their entire campaign will be Benghazi, she's old, something she said in 1972, rehashed non-scandals from the 1990s, Bill Clinton's penis, the 2016 version of "you didn't build that".........

3. Again, something only GOP voters will find relevant. What was Romney's defining moment as governor of Mass.? Fucking Obamacare, that's what. How much coverage did that get in 2012? How much older was John McCain in 2008 than Hillary will be in 2016? How much coverage did his age get in the 2008 campaign? You need to stop looking at every single fucking thing through the prism of conservative media.

---

Hey if you want to elect her, then vote for her. I won't and I know a large portion of the United States won't vote for her because they never liked her to begin with which is kind of why she didn't win the last time she ran.

---

A large portion of voters won't vote for either candidate because they can't stand them. That's the same in every single presidential election.

She hasn't run for president. She didn't win the Democratic primary. Provided she stays healthy she'll run again and she'll cruise the primary this time. And absent a recession or an economic meltdown she'll cruise to the White House too. No Republican can beat her if the economy stays OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Are you ready for eight years of Hillary to follow the eight years of Kenyan socialism?

---

I don't like Hillary at all, but even recusing my political beliefs from the argument I can't see how she'll A) Be the candidate and B ) win the general election for the following reasons.

1. Her name alone. Clinton. So you're telling the American people we'd willingly go H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, W. Bush, Obama, Hillary Clinton? And you figure we'd be ok with that? We don't do kings and we don't do royal families...not even Jeb Bush will win this election.

2. Again her age/health....is it sexist to bring those up? If that decisions was Hillary's to make she'd say yes in a heartbeat. That spill she took while getting on the airplane is going to stick with her as is her testimony on Benghazi...as will Benghazi in general, remember her 3 a.m. phone call ad? Yeah that's going to be used against her effectively.

3. Here's a question maybe you could answer on her behalf "What was her defining moment/best event/biggest deal as Secretary of State?"

---

1. Hillary is, as best we can tell, a woman. And so are roughly 50% of the American population. She may be the second Clinton running for prez but she's the first woman ever. And that fact overrides her surname. The surname is irrelevant anyway. It's only going to matter to people who are going to vote Republican anyway. It'll definitely be a talking point for the GOP during the election campaign....

2 ... as will her age and health and Benghazi which again are things which will only really matter to people who vote Republican. And they'll be all the GOP talk about (rmember Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth? Those fuckers selling that book you were on about the other day will be the 2016 SBVFTT for instance). The last thing the GOP want to do is talk about their actual policies so their entire campaign will be Benghazi, she's old, something she said in 1972, rehashed non-scandals from the 1990s, Bill Clinton's penis, the 2016 version of "you didn't build that".........

3. Again, something only GOP voters will find relevant. What was Romney's defining moment as governor of Mass.? Fucking Obamacare, that's what. How much coverage did that get in 2012? How much older was John McCain in 2008 than Hillary will be in 2016? How much coverage did his age get in the 2008 campaign? You need to stop looking at every single fucking thing through the prism of conservative media.

---

Actually, since 1872 the US has had roughly 36 women run for president.

---

OK, the first woman running for one of the two main parties/a party with a chance of winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reginald Perrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reginald Perrin

but I guess when you look at where the money comes from it spins around in the same circles, so it isn't such a waste. Plus they can always print some more and give it to the banks

---

About three or four months ago you discovered the existence of fractionated reserve banking. To say your knowledge of where money comes from is at a Janet and John level is an insult to Janet and John books and the preschoolers who read them.

The Fed recently ended QE. Why aren't we currently seeing skyrocketing bond yields, hyperinflation and so on, hmmm?

https://scintillatingsilver.files.wo...8/germany3.jpg
Not currently happening. Why not?

---

As a prodigious, intelligent and successful man of the world (ice cream marketing, greatest seller of useless products etc), fractional reserve banking is something I have known about for many years. In certain nations it has become more than fractional reserve banking with infinite re-hypothecation meaning in essence that the money is emerging from a complete vacuum. The banks have nothing to back up their cooked and rather scruffy books beyond a wave of frauds and manipulations.

The Fed may have ended the latest round of money printing (fraud), but the scheme is a global one and the buck has merely been passed onto Japan. The reason we are not seeing hyper inflation is because the Feds printed money is being handed directly to the banks (almost for free) and they are holding onto it because, as I mentioned before, these institutions are insolvent. This isn't rocket science. Unless money actually gets passed on to the real economy there will be no significant inflation. All the inflation is in stocks and asset prices. In the real world wages are falling and continue to fall.

I hope this service has been of some use to you and I really appreciate the picture of those lovely little aristocrats.

---

That's not what you were saying a few months ago. A few months ago you were convinced as soon as the Fed stopped QE the dollar would collapse.

when given the opportunity to vote for the "Established Candidate" or the "Newbie" the liberals always.....ALWAYS pick the newbie and that's why the Hildebeast wasn't nominated last time. But again you believe what makes you happy ok princess

Elizabeth Warren or perhaps a Castro Twin (Julian or Joaquin) will make a strong run....in the end who knows? If they are beaten out by an establishment candidate there WILL be civil unrest wherever they hold the convention a la Chicago '68.


The Republicans will be out of a heat of: Rand Paul (my pick although he won't win because he's too Libertarian), Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz (2nd pick), Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Dr. Ben Carson would certainly factor big if he runs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reginald Perrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reginald Perrin

but I guess when you look at where the money comes from it spins around in the same circles, so it isn't such a waste. Plus they can always print some more and give it to the banks

---

About three or four months ago you discovered the existence of fractionated reserve banking. To say your knowledge of where money comes from is at a Janet and John level is an insult to Janet and John books and the preschoolers who read them.

The Fed recently ended QE. Why aren't we currently seeing skyrocketing bond yields, hyperinflation and so on, hmmm?

https://scintillatingsilver.files.wo...8/germany3.jpg
Not currently happening. Why not?

---

As a prodigious, intelligent and successful man of the world (ice cream marketing, greatest seller of useless products etc), fractional reserve banking is something I have known about for many years. In certain nations it has become more than fractional reserve banking with infinite re-hypothecation meaning in essence that the money is emerging from a complete vacuum. The banks have nothing to back up their cooked and rather scruffy books beyond a wave of frauds and manipulations.

The Fed may have ended the latest round of money printing (fraud), but the scheme is a global one and the buck has merely been passed onto Japan. The reason we are not seeing hyper inflation is because the Feds printed money is being handed directly to the banks (almost for free) and they are holding onto it because, as I mentioned before, these institutions are insolvent. This isn't rocket science. Unless money actually gets passed on to the real economy there will be no significant inflation. All the inflation is in stocks and asset prices. In the real world wages are falling and continue to fall.

I hope this service has been of some use to you and I really appreciate the picture of those lovely little aristocrats.

---

That's not what you were saying a few months ago. A few months ago you were convinced as soon as the Fed stopped QE the dollar would collapse.

---

I do not recall ever having made this particular statement. As soon as QE stops you would expect the markets to stop rising as they are. However, all I can see is a central banking cartel that passes the buck when the heat gets too hot thus the fraud continues unchecked. The cartel seem to be very much in collusion and I am not sure they can end QE without the painful consequences. Assets and stocks are overvalued, but with ZIRP at unprecedented levels, I have a hard time seeing normality ever in place again. The system has eaten itself alive and those in charge know it, they have no way of winding it all back in and so the continued mirage of stocks and assets is being used to suggest recovery, when in fact the entire system is in a much worse place than last time.

I think banking as a % of GDP stands at something like 450% today and that is with them constantly in the dock and insolvent beyond their frauds. By comparison it was only 150% in 1990. Deregulation and infinite hypothecation has led to some rather outrageous behaviour and 2008 was only a slight unraveling. Instead of dealing with it, they opened another bottle of bubbly and continued to gorge on the rotten carcass of the imperialist economies. They should have gone bust, but now there are no serious penalties for the banking class, it's anyone's guess what comes next.

Economic norms and expectations have a very difficult time in times of unprecedented absurdity. It's anyone's guess where it ends up, but the banks as they stand likely have to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

when given the opportunity to vote for the "Established Candidate" or the "Newbie" the liberals always.....ALWAYS pick the newbie and that's why the Hildebeast wasn't nominated last time. But again you believe what makes you happy ok princess

Elizabeth Warren or perhaps a Castro Twin (Julian or Joaquin) will make a strong run....in the end who knows? If they are beaten out by an establishment candidate there WILL be civil unrest wherever they hold the convention a la Chicago '68.


The Republicans will be out of a heat of: Rand Paul (my pick although he won't win because he's too Libertarian), Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz (2nd pick), Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Dr. Ben Carson would certainly factor big if he runs.

---

Hillary didn't get the 2008 nomination because she voted for the war in Iraq. Democratic primary voters were still furious about Iraq so voted for Obama. Now Hillary is the runaway favourite, has the full backing of the Democratic establishment and will walk the primary.

The GOP nimonee will either be Romney, Christie or Bush, who are the three GOP establishment guys. At a push if an outsider gets it it'll be Scott Walker. All the other guys in the 2016 GOP Klown Kar Kavalcade (Paul, Cruz etc) will be favourites at one point or another but the GOP establishment will pick a moderate and put all their money behind them. They're not going to back one of the looney tunes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reginald Perrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reginald Perrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reginald Perrin

but I guess when you look at where the money comes from it spins around in the same circles, so it isn't such a waste. Plus they can always print some more and give it to the banks

---

About three or four months ago you discovered the existence of fractionated reserve banking. To say your knowledge of where money comes from is at a Janet and John level is an insult to Janet and John books and the preschoolers who read them.

The Fed recently ended QE. Why aren't we currently seeing skyrocketing bond yields, hyperinflation and so on, hmmm?

https://scintillatingsilver.files.wo...8/germany3.jpg
Not currently happening. Why not?

---

As a prodigious, intelligent and successful man of the world (ice cream marketing, greatest seller of useless products etc), fractional reserve banking is something I have known about for many years. In certain nations it has become more than fractional reserve banking with infinite re-hypothecation meaning in essence that the money is emerging from a complete vacuum. The banks have nothing to back up their cooked and rather scruffy books beyond a wave of frauds and manipulations.

The Fed may have ended the latest round of money printing (fraud), but the scheme is a global one and the buck has merely been passed onto Japan. The reason we are not seeing hyper inflation is because the Feds printed money is being handed directly to the banks (almost for free) and they are holding onto it because, as I mentioned before, these institutions are insolvent. This isn't rocket science. Unless money actually gets passed on to the real economy there will be no significant inflation. All the inflation is in stocks and asset prices. In the real world wages are falling and continue to fall.

I hope this service has been of some use to you and I really appreciate the picture of those lovely little aristocrats.

---

That's not what you were saying a few months ago. A few months ago you were convinced as soon as the Fed stopped QE the dollar would collapse.

---

I do not recall ever having made this particular statement. As soon as QE stops you would expect the markets to stop rising as they are. However, all I can see is a central banking cartel that passes the buck when the heat gets too hot thus the fraud continues unchecked. The cartel seem to be very much in collusion and I am not sure they can end QE without the painful consequences. Assets and stocks are overvalued, but with ZIRP at unprecedented levels, I have a hard time seeing normality ever in place again. The system has eaten itself alive and those in charge know it, they have no way of winding it all back in and so the continued mirage of stocks and assets is being used to suggest recovery, when in fact the entire system is in a much worse place than last time.

I think banking as a % of GDP stands at something like 450% today and that is with them constantly in the dock and insolvent beyond their frauds. By comparison it was only 150% in 1990. Deregulation and infinite hypothecation has led to some rather outrageous behaviour and 2008 was only a slight unraveling. Instead of dealing with it, they opened another bottle of bubbly and continued to gorge on the rotten carcass of the imperialist economies. They should have gone bust, but now there are no serious penalties for the banking class, it's anyone's guess what comes next.

Economic norms and expectations have a very difficult time in times of unprecedented absurdity. It's anyone's guess where it ends up, but the banks as they stand likely have to go.

---

I had a little look but can't find it. Miles, the Fed just stopped buying $75 billion of US bonds a month. All the fucking idiots you get your information from predicted that when this stopped bond yields would skyrocket and the dollar would collapse. You and Brockton have been coming out with this crap for years. Yet the bond market has swallowed the monthly 75 large without even a burp.

And now you're trying to blame the non-collapse of the dollar on the Bank of Japan buying Japanese bonds? Exactly how the fuck does the Japanese central bank buying Japanese bonds affect the American bond market or the creditworthiness of the US government?

Actually don't even bother answering, for fuck's sake just stick to teaching English.

Therefore, you must be making things up. The economist Ha Joon Chang makes the valid observation that most economics is mere common sense. One does not need a phd to make accurate and observable statements about the economy or economics. All one needs is a general understanding of the practices taking place and to interpret them accordingly. In fact if you were to follow the subject using certain schools of analysis, then your approach would be ideological, which would be tantamount to religious or political faith rather than any common sense. Economics is largely agenda driven and thus not a science. The concepts of trickle down economics or the joys of globalisation are a case in point. Trickle down is a myth and globalisation an ideological crusade for corporations to override governments.

If anything it is those in the finance industry that caused the crash, driven by the academics that promoted their greed with agenda driven discourse, and the politicians that were bought and sold that are the problem. The viewpoints of Reginald Perrin as salient, lucid, and remarkably calm in the face of such a diatribe, as they are, are merely the economic views of common sense. On that basis any ordinary person can be an economist or banker and in all likelihood would struggle to do as bad a job as George Osborne or Jamie Dimon. Though of course the inhumane and greedy would argue that they have done a fine job, but alas those are the views of corrupt psychopaths. The economics of common sense is not ideological or written by economists for finance or corruption, it is the economics of concern for people.

The economic policies of central banks is the furthest away from the economics of common sense as one can be. It is the economics of insanity and has practically no regard for people. The only people it is concerned about protecting are the psychopaths for whom enough is never enough. A common sense man would say they all have to go.

Community banking works and that is all you need. Customers deposit money then loans are made to business using fractional reserve banking and hey presto, a banking system as it was once known. Balance sheets that are transparent and a system that knows what it can manage. The banking of investment and finance stands in marked contrast and I don't think many ordinary people would be sad to see it all go.

Common sense, it all goes back to the roots. Central banks should really be abolished. They are not necessary. Likewise, investment banking has grown massively since 1980 and on the whole it has been far more trouble than it is worth too....for ordinary people. Take these elements away and return life to a basic banking model that serves its people and a peg that controls government spending (eg. gold standard) then one is heading towards something a bit more human. However, there are a lot of people in finance and they know it is their ticket.

Haha! Why are you calling someone named Reginald Perrin.... 'miles'.....that is frankly weird, but I would expect nothing different from a banker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E