I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

anyone who reads this board with any objectivity knows you are brain damaged, so for all of us who do you think was let in and by which president? And who ever your feverish brain picks how is the San Bernadino wife different, other than the death toll?

"Gosh, Mr. Cheney, I would love to do something about that report about Al key-a-da wanting to attack us, but Bill Clinton let those people in. I guess I'll just sit on my thumb for nine months."

"Please Mr. President, call me Dick."


I'm sure that's how it went.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I am so fucking sick and tired about hearing about "populist anger." O.K., yeah, we get it. You're real angry and shit about things that you don't really understand so you are going to vote like a half-wit to show just how angry you are. Fucking brilliant. In fact, maybe your dim-witted positions on these issues helps explain why you're in such a sorry ass position in the first place. Maybe it's time to spend some energy looking inward and see if maybe, just maybe, some of the problems you are currently facing in your pathetic little life are the result of the fact that you're a dumb ass who spends all of his time blaming others for your own problems instead of trying to actually put a little effort into solving your problems for yourself. 99.9% of those morons railing against globalism cannot even spell globalism, much less define it, other than having some vague sense that it means that some foreigners, probably of a dark complexion, are the cause of all of their problems. Sure thing, Joe Sixpack, those damn foreigners are the real problem, not the fact that you have an Oxy addiction from your fake back injury and need a pill to help you poop. Take your "populist anger" and your half-baked conspiracy theories and your country-fucking music and shove them up your populist ass.

Racism and xenophobia are certainly part of the populist anger. But I don't think that they play a large role in the reasons people support Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm worried about you. You are talking as if you think that sending uniformed American military into Benghazi could have negative repercussions and is the sort of thing that diplomats need to think about. Don't you know that they would have welcomed us as liberators?

Don't we have uniformed guards at our embassies already? Serious question, I thought we did.

And as to repercussions, there are people in our embassy about to get killed, and these forces are the best/only way to prevent that. How about this; put them on the plane in uniform, and have them pack a pair of chinos. Then while they are flying we can decide? Because the repercussions in a country falling into chaos seem meaningless in comparision.

One of the things that killed this board for me is the complete inability for anyone to recognize the possibility someone they support might have made a mistake.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

One of the things that killed this board for me is the complete inability for anyone to recognize the possibility someone they support might have made a mistake.

You remember, years ago, when Hillary testified before for a Congressional committee (maybe the very first time on Benghazi) and admitted that she made mistakes? Good times.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

After reading (some, but not all) of the report, it's clear that there's plenty of blame to go around - from the GOP members in Congress cutting the State Department's security budget, to the CIA not really knowing the players on the ground, to State (and Hillary Clinton as the head of the department) for a bunch of things including the uniform debate.

One can also use the Libya policy as a whole as a basis to question Secretary Clinton's judgment, which is fair. But one didn't need all of the various and sundry lengthy and expensive Benghazi congressional investigations to reach that point.

If after all this brouhaha, the uniform issue raised by SEC Chick is the most serious thing that the nakedly partisan multi-year investigation led by Representative Gowdy can (sort of) blame on Mrs. Clinton, that speaks volumes. They had their result before they started and hoped that they would find evidence in their investigation that would get them (even arguably or plausibly) there. And it didn't happen. Heck, when releasing the report, Mr. Gowdy couldn't even answer questions about what was new in it.

All fair.

I wonder how bad government actors would look in any operation where the military lost lives if they were subject to the same levelS (plural) of investigation here. The whole thing is fucking ridiculous.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm worried about you. You are talking as if you think that sending uniformed American military into Benghazi could have negative repercussions and is the sort of thing that diplomats need to think about. Don't you know that they would have welcomed us as liberators?

You are also talking as if Hillary didn't devote every waking moment to the intentional effort to harm America that she and Obama have been involved in since Day One.

You see right through me. And here I thought I was hiding it well!

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

(Seriously, how many GOP candidates accused Obama of intentionally harming America? And they wonder why a tiny-fisted blowhard got so far?)

Tiny-fisted blowhard. That shit is mine now.

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Remember, what is a small bank today would have been a big bank in the 80s. The top US banks today are trillion-dollar banks, and you don't make the top twenty without being in the hundred billion range for assets. Back in the 80s, $10 billion landed you in the top twenty banks.

Somehow, back then, they still got the deals done. But in a post-bank-deregulation world, there have been structural advantages to big banks built in, because there has been a sense that the big banks are safer and better managed, which has not turned out to be the case.

And now you're at the crux of the biscuit. Re-regulate the banks. Too big to fail is too big not to regulate.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Nah. We'll (1) find things for people to do, and (2) stop creating so many people. Those things will take care of themselves.

Take peoples' jobs away, give them money and expect them to reproduce less.

I like you, Adder. You remind me of when I was young and stupid.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Don't we have uniformed guards at our embassies already? Serious question, I thought we did.

And as to repercussions, there are people in our embassy about to get killed, and these forces are the best/only way to prevent that. How about this; put them on the plane in uniform, and have them pack a pair of chinos. Then while they are flying we can decide? Because the repercussions in a country falling into chaos seem meaningless in comparision.

One of the things that killed this board for me is the complete inability for anyone to recognize the possibility someone they support might have made a mistake.

No. Your problem is you are incapable of having a discussion if there is any sort of nuance. The issue is not whether hemming and hawing impacted whether people lost their lives and whose fault that is. The issue is how does one look at the totality of evidence of what happened over there in the context of certain international realities. Hillary should bear the blame for whatever shitty, bureaucratic mistakes her office made because her name is on the door. Fair enough. But, jesus. If that's the standard and we dedicated the past 4 years coming to that conclusion, let's have the same level of investigation for every single operation in which an American lost their life. You know, for perspective.

And if you're going to act like Hillary herself is in the room saying, "Send them in in civvies. No. Wait. Send them in camos. Hold on...Hmmmm, I just can't decide!" then you are a ridiculous person who should be ridiculed.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You are a ridiculous person who should be ridiculed.

TM

finally, grounds we can agree on!

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Class warfare is already engaged among the serfs. It's the non-apathetic against the distraction industries (media/entertainment and electronic gadget makers).

Someday, the message, "You're getting fucked," and "Your 'going along to get along' is making things worse" will overcome the diversions. The question then will be, "How well has the top 20% walled itself off? Literally."

We'll be near dead by then... voting for whoever promises to get those kids off our lawns.

Two of the few joys in my life these days are (1) I will most likely be dead long before the shit hits the fans and (2) if I'm not, I live in one of the states where I can walk into a gun shop with a couple hundred shekels in my pocket and walk out with all I need to keep those kids off my lawn until the black helicopters show up.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm not sure how this would work. For any loan over a certain amount that is syndicated beyond the club (3-4 banks) level, the Borrower and Admin Agent must offer to smaller banks (who may or may not be a pain in the fucking ass when it comes to amendment voting or who may not be able to fund an increase or who may be in danger of going under given their existing investments, etc.) an X%-sized piece of the deal? There isn't a chance in hell that such a law could be drafted to work, let alone pass.

TM

Then I guess we'll just have to outlaw loans that big.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I am so fucking sick and tired about hearing about "populist anger." O.K., yeah, we get it. You're real angry and shit about things that you don't really understand so you are going to vote like a half-wit to show just how angry you are. Fucking brilliant. In fact, maybe your dim-witted positions on these issues helps explain why you're in such a sorry ass position in the first place. Maybe it's time to spend some energy looking inward and see if maybe, just maybe, some of the problems you are currently facing in your pathetic little life are the result of the fact that you're a dumb ass who spends all of his time blaming others for your own problems instead of trying to actually put a little effort into solving your problems for yourself. 99.9% of those morons railing against globalism cannot even spell globalism, much less define it, other than having some vague sense that it means that some foreigners, probably of a dark complexion, are the cause of all of their problems. Sure thing, Joe Sixpack, those damn foreigners are the real problem, not the fact that you have an Oxy addiction from your fake back injury and need a pill to help you poop. Take your "populist anger" and your half-baked conspiracy theories and your country-fucking music and shove them up your populist ass.

Let me state the obvious. There are 10,000 of them for every one of you. Make them satisfied. Otherwise, fuck them? Fuck you.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

finally, grounds we can agree on!

That was the "then" portion that should have been a continuation of the "If..." previous sentence, which I have now fixed. I do not think that of you independent of the lead-in thought.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

then i guess we'll just have to outlaw loans that big.

I'm not sure you're putting any thought into your proposed solutions. But I'm glad I know that now.

TM