Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Because the Obama administration, thinking they wanted to question the Director of the CIA, not the former Director of the CIA, thought they'd send the current Director of the CIA to testify, they may also have felt they couldn't tell him to testify since he no longer was the Director of the CIA.

In conservative reality, this means that the Obama administration was refusing his testomony on #Benghazi, not to mention that it makes it look like it's a conspiracy against the former Director of Central Intelligence. You know, a honey trap being sprung to stop him from spilling the beans.

It's not unlike the birther nonsense, wherein a very basic premise was that someone had conspired to get this non-US citizen elected president some four decades after his birth, and therefore forged a new identity for #BHO. Obviously, it made a lot of sense to pick a kid from Kenya, make him a new identity as a US citizen, and frankly giving him less than perfect living conditions, and hedging all bets on getting him elected President..

Yeah. So in the same spirit, the Obama administration got Peatreaus to have an affair with a woman a year ago so that they could stop him from testifying on #Benghazi now.

Makes perfect sense. #TCOT
 
Yes indeed. It's like a Russian mate of mine, he's paranoid enough to just say "you can't trust anything you read or watch on the TV, how can you know it's true?".

Now, he is Russian, and both him and me are greatly endoved with the ability to understand what can and can't be faked, ie. everything, but it's still a rather strange viewpoint, don't you think?
 
John McCain missed a briefing on the Benghazi attack to hold a press conference slamming the Obama administration for their handling of #Benghazi.

And while I normally don't quote DRUDGE(!), I felt it would be in its place to make sure no one thought this was a liberal MSM ploy against McCain.

"[A]lthough McCain had time to speak on the Senate floor and on television about the lack of information provided to Congress about the attack, he didn't attend the classified briefing."
- Josh Rogin

Then again, last time McCain locked horns with Obama, it led to his ruined epitaph and a stop to legislative gay bashing in the UCMJ.

Seriously, holding hearings on #Benghazi because of what happened in Benghazi, and equating it to Watergate and Contras makes about as much sense as holding hearings on why John Boehner's name could become a joking reference to an erection. It's a waste of bloody time.

Edit: I love the fact that when you post a comment on Drudge, you press a button that doesn't say "send", "reply" or "save" or whatnot, but one that says "RETORT".
 
Last edited:
And following hard on the heals of Super Casinos we have - ta da - Elected Police commissioners - see by manning the barricades us Ukanians get exactly what we want!?
 
Those police comissioner elections just don't have high enough voter turnout to be anything but a shambles.
 
Have to be able to read for that to work, I suppose.
 
When did it become acceptable to turn Fox News on full blast in a restaurant? Why not turn the close caption on so I don't have to listen to the drivel...
Some people just like to yell-along with Bill O.... :p
 
Those police comissioner elections just don't have high enough voter turnout to be anything but a shambles.

The Home Office refused to allow leaflets be send out to everyone about candidates in the local areas. So most had no clue about candidates or election. Also had the effect of squeezing out independent candidates.

What a way to waste ?100m!
 
The Home Office refused to allow leaflets be send out to everyone about candidates in the local areas. So most had no clue about candidates or election. Also had the effect of squeezing out independent candidates.

What a way to waste ?100m!
They knew John Prescott, though. I might actually have voted for him, just to fuck with Daily Mail columnists who say it was only down to "his cabinet position" he didn't go to prison for punching a man. Which totally ignores the fact that he was assaulted. And that the feeling of something running down the back of your head might make you fearful there's a hole in your head. Well done, I say. It was, after all, spontanious.

I knew someone would take the bait. Still, I think it's bad practice to have the volume up on a TV in any place of business.
I know, bells should be ringing and I should be forfeiting 10 points. That being said, I don't mind the TV being on and with a high volume in a place of business. It makes little sense in most places (Director General of BBC put it like this in the 40s; "TV will never catch on, you can't watch it around corners", he was wrong on TV catching on, but right on the essensial difference between radio and TV), but you should stay away from anything political, as it may be controversial.
 
I like John Stewart pointing out that Bill O'Reiley (sp?) was Irish (and is probably a Catholic too I should think), and both groups were 'reviled' when they first turned up in the US, now they are part of what makes the US the US. So the next lot - South Americans - will be reviled until the sheer weight of numbers make it impossible to ignore them politically - are we there yet?
 
I like John Stewart pointing out that Bill O'Reiley (sp?) was Irish (and is probably a Catholic too I should think), and both groups were 'reviled' when they first turned up in the US, now they are part of what makes the US the US. So the next lot - South Americans - will be reviled until the sheer weight of numbers make it impossible to ignore them politically - are we there yet?

"Papist immigrants are wrecking our economy with their fecundity! We must erect a wall of brass around the country for the exclusion of catholics!"
- John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
 
Am I the only one a little confused by the row over the BBC right now?

First, they don't run a program, and they get scolded. Then, about a week later, they are given the option of running a program about someone being a peadophile, and they run it, and get scolded.

It just strikes me as a little.. inconsistant.

I suppose I should read up on the Daily Mail to see how big their literary erection are.
 
They stopped a programs about a paedo who was connected to the BBC - Jimi Saville, they then ran a programme about someone who was not a 'paedo', the accuser seems to have seriously mentally damaged by his experience (I do not blame him seeing an interview with him it is quite clear he was not well) and he cleared Lord McAlpine completely.

The BBC got pilloried for putting out a programme with out checking its facts, the investigation was undertaken by an investigative journalistic service company too - as the BBC has 2000 odd (at a guess) Jurnos you'd think they would not need 'outsourced journos'.

The BBC management is well known for being full of Posh no hopers out for a free lunch - they make no impression on the quality of the programmes - well except negative ones.

It is thought that Chris Pattern (Chairman of the BBC Trust) appointed a dismal no hoper to the job of DG as he wanted to run the BBC himself - the DG now departed from the BBC and another no hoper has been appointed. ? Oh er Mrs.
 
Last edited:
The BBC got pilloried for putting out a programme with out checking its facts, the investigation was undertaken by an investigative journalistic service company too - as the BBC has 2000 odd (at a guess) Jurnos you'd think they would not need 'outsourced journos'.

Important to note that the Newsnight programme never mentioned any names
 
Top