Huge Benghazi bombshell -- Obama actually in trouble now

[Kirkland Laing]

Kirkland, are you ready to #standupwithhillary

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

[El Kabong]

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?"

[Reginald Perrin]

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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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?


Not currently happening. Why not?

[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?


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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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?


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.

[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?


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.

[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.

[El Kabong]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

This is causing absolute fury with some of my Republican friends. How dare that bitch say those things about us! Wall Street would bury Hillary and any other candidate with money if Warren did decide to run for 2016. But being seen as the Wall Street candidate would be toxic for Hillary with Democratic voters.

If Warren does run it could get interesting.

[walrus]

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.

[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.