Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

A professor I once had told me that Saddam knew the US was coming to depose him so in the final days of his regime he had his men take the wmds away across national borders or something

and then he began building a bipedal, walking tank capable of launching a nuclear warhead

 

[BertramCooper]

Lol. My dad told me that once. Said Saddam sent them to Iran.

That makes sense because Saddam and Iran were total BFFs.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

and then he began building a bipedal, walking tank capable of launching a nuclear warhead

Should have sent in Punished Bush instead of Solid Bush.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Just saw Ben Carson on This Week. WTF did I just watch?

He set up John Hopkins(or wherever) medical department so he knows how to broker deals with foreign countries. I have $5,000(coming from where, I dunno) in a health account which is somehow tied to my family so if I don't use it I can pass it on to them. Threatening Saudi Arabia by boycotting their oil would have been enough for them to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

 

[Plinko]

If Jeb somehow ever made it to the general, Hillary would torment him until he cried. This guy is so vulnerable and thin-skinned about everything.

edit: The National Review is claiming we did find WMDs in Iraq but the MSM tried to cover it up? Is this just sob and scream in the corner day?

Am I mistaken, or didn't Colin Powell flat out admit they had bad intel and no WMDs were found?

 

[HylianTom]

Friends, Jeb is now trying to raise money off of Trump's 9/11 comments.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Jeb stealing money from the saddest people left in America.

Am I mistaken, or didn't Colin Powell flat out admit they had bad intel and no WMDs were found?

Fucking RINO Muslim Obummer Lover says some shit, but it's lies, now let me get back to my bourbon.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

A professor I once had told me that Saddam knew the US was coming to depose him so in the final days of his regime he had his men take the wmds away across national borders or something
He sounded really self assured so I didn't question it

Yeah that's what I heard too. They sent them to Syria.. The Librul Media lied to us..

and then he began building a bipedal, walking tank capable of launching a nuclear warhead

Someone has to fight the Patriots..

Spoiler

i have never played a minute of metal gear so

Friends, Jeb is now trying to raise money off of Trump's 9/11 comments.

Man.. This doesn't reek as desperation now does it?

 

[FiggyCal]

Am I out of touch? I was watching Real Time and they had a pretty long conversation about socialism and it always comes back to welfare programs. They started with "we have a long history of socialism in the United States" and their go to example was Social Security. And even here on neogaf -- we have people saying the US is already socialist because our military is funded by the public. They called Bernie a liberal when he constantly says he's a socialist. I sincerely don't understand it.

 

[RustyNails]

Threatening Saudi Arabia by boycotting their oil would have been enough for them to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

What does this even mean?

 

[Retromelon]

I sincerely don't understand it.

Well, social security was the birth of welfare in this country, and socialism and liberalism are not mutually exclusive, so..
Am i getting something wrong?

 

[RustyNails]

Friends, Jeb is now trying to raise money off of Trump's 9/11 comments.

Man, if you need to raise money off of Donald Trump's comments, you need to re-evaluate. Regardless, I think FDR, Reagan and Bush all need to be held accountable. Reagan and Bush especially moreso, as they made objectionably bad decisions based on intelligence they had. Bush just ignored it, meaning he's absolutely the worst.

 

[HylianTom]

Meanwhile, Bobby Jindal is trying to raise money off of the football team of the university whose budget he's butchered..

"A special $7 donation.."

 

[FiggyCal]

Well, social security was the birth of welfare in this country, and socialism and liberalism are not mutually exclusive, so..
Am i getting something wrong?

Are welfare programs what makes socialism, socialism? What about stateless socialism or communism? Is the state granting welfare and taxing to build up armies the defining characteristic of that too? And unless you're using liberal as a synonym for the left -- I don't see how it's not mutually exclusive to socialism. Seems like a universal theme of socialism is the abolition of private property which liberalism is fundamentally in favor of. I mean that's kind of the main part of socialism.

 

[FyreWulff]

Fun little tidbit:
Trump & Carson are getting Secret Service details. Not so for Bush & Rubio.
(I can hardly wait to see what kind of fun Trump has with this)

I thought Jeb has Secret Service for life for being the son and then brother of a president?

 

[HylianTom]

I thought Jeb has Secret Service for life for being the son and then brother of a president?

There was an article earlier this year about how Jeb had to hire security because being son/brother of former presidents (surprisingly) doesn't get him SS coverage..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...other-have-a-security-detail-now-he-does-too/

 

[Retromelon]

Seems like a universal theme of socialism is the abolition of private property which liberalism is fundamentally in favor of. I mean that's kind of the main part of socialism.

If liberalism means my new computer and tv are not my private property anymore, than slap my ass and call me buckley

 

[FyreWulff]

There was an article earlier this year about how Jeb had to hire security because being son/brother of former presidents (surprisingly) doesn't get him SS coverage..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...other-have-a-security-detail-now-he-does-too/

damn. surprised at that.

 

[FiggyCal]

If liberalism means my new computer and tv are not my private property anymore, than slap my ass and call me buckley

Nah. That's not what it means.

Maybe it's just bad political science on my part. But I think if we are going to the welfare = socialism angle. Then the republican critique that Obama is a communist isn't ridiculous after all and words have no meaning.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

Socialism and welfare are NOT the same thing, and one of my biggest gripes with the Sanders campaign is how these terms are getting inextricably conflated. What most liberal democrats ascribe to (including myself) is called Social Democracy, which advocates for a capitalist system with a strong welfare state and regulatory system to reign in the excesses of capitalism. What Bernie calls himself is a Democratic Socialist, which is someone who calls for the replacement of a capitalist private system with a socialist system (which emphasizes worker control over the means of production) through democratic means. Frankly, I think what Bernie is really advocating is a strong form of Social Democracy, and I don't understand the inclination to instead use an incorrect politically charged term and also to now link the Democratic Party with that term.

From Wikipedia:
Democratic socialism rejects the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity. Democratic socialists believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by transitioning from capitalism to socialism, by superseding private property with some form of social ownership, with any attempt to address the economic contradictions of capitalism through reforms only likely to generate more problems elsewhere in the capitalist economy.

However, "democratic socialism" is sometimes improperly used as a synonym for social democracy, where "social democracy" usually refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.

 

[Teggy]

Trump is going after Sanders. Maybe he is a Hillary plant?

 

[Manmademan]

Trump is going after Sanders. Maybe he is a Hillary plant?

Hillary will continue to steamroll sanders without Trump's help. Trump is just looking to keep his name in the headlines by any means necessary until the next debate.

 

[Bowdz]

Yet another win for Hilldawg with regards to the Benghazi Committee:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...enthal-email-to-clinton-not-classified-214907

The top Democrat on the House Benghazi Committee says the CIA has pulled the rug out from under a Republican claim that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received and forwarded the name of a sensitive CIA human source in her personal email account.

In a letter earlier this month, Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) asserted that an email Clinton got from outside adviser Sidney Blumenthal contained what the U.S. government considers one of its most closely-held secrets: the name of a source relied on by the intelligence community.

However, the ranking member on the Benghazi panel--Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland--said the CIA advised the committee on Saturday that the information Gowdy suggested required extreme caution is, in fact, unclassified.

"The CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that 'the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information,'" Cummings wrote in a new letter to Gowdy (posted here).

Cummings said Gowdy owes Clinton "an immediate apology" for arguing that she jeopardized national security by handling that information on her private email account.

Gowdy responded Sunday that the fact the CIA didn't ask that the information be withheld did not mean it should not be treated with care.

"The name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch – the fact that the CIA says it didn’t do it does not mean the material was not sensitive or classified. And in fact, additional information remains in the document that ordinarily would be considered highly sensitive," Gowdy said. "This appears to mean either Mr. Blumenthal conveyed false and unreliable information to Secretary Clinton about Libya and misrepresented it, or the review process is faulty or has been politicized."

Gowdy also snarkily suggested that the panel's Democratic staff was having more success getting key facts from the administration than Gowdy's GOP aides were.

"I am envious of your staff's ability to get information from this administration in less than 45 minutes on a weekend. This is something the majority Members struggle to do on weekdays. Perhaps you would be willing to help us gain access to the information the Committee has been seeking from the administration for over half a year now," the chairman wrote in a new letter to Cummings.

A CIA spokesman declined comment.

Clinton said in an interview Friday that she would have had no reason to suspect information coming from Blumenthal was classified.

"Sid Blumenthal was not a government employee or official," Clinton told CNN's Jake Tapper. "It was not in the category of anything that could be classified because it came from an outside, non-government person passing on what somebody told somebody told him."

In Gowdy's Oct. 7 letter (posted here), he described the identification of the CIA source as "redacted due to sources and methods." However, Cummings' letter Sunday said that redaction was done by Gowdy and his staff, not by the State Department, which is still reviewing many of the messages for public release.

A Clinton campaign spokesman suggested last week that Gowdy's concern about the information might not have been shared by the State Department or the CIA.

"It may be the redaction that Trey Gowdy included in the e-mail is not one the State Department has yet performed," Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said on CNN. "They're still reviewing the e-mails. This is a redaction that we suspect he performed because he knew it was already venturing out on to shaky territory by even excerpting the e-mail in part."

Gowdy truly is pathetic. This whole sham is finally crumbling. Kudos to the Dems and Hilldawg for growing a spine and actually pouncing on the GOP fuckups when they happened instead of just taking it.

 

[teiresias]

I love how this whole Trump vs. Jeb concerning W and 9/11 is spilling over into the whole Benghazi thing. Right wingers claiming W. beared no responsibility for 9/11 (even though it's pretty well documented there was intelligence warning of such), while at the same time being called out, with no good answer, on the complete opposite rationale they use for Benghazi. I particularly like how even mainstream media is calling out Jeb for this on national TV news.

In the meantime, still no sign of a Speaker of the House while Mitch McConnell calls for welfare and Social Security cuts or else the debt ceiling goes bust in two weeks. Total train wreck.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Sanders supports keeping troops in Afghanistan.

 

[Mario]

Jeb! might as well be called (Low Energy) Cognitive Dissonance Man.

This seems like a politically dangerous thing for JEB to hang his hat on regarding Benghazi. Don't all roads around this line of thought lead back to "a Republican majority Congress denied State Department requests for budget to improve security"?

 

[Lucky Forward]

Gowdy truly is pathetic. This whole sham is finally crumbling. Kudos to the Dems and Hilldawg for growing a spine and actually pouncing on the GOP fuckups when they happened instead of just taking it.

Benghazi chairman to GOP colleagues: "Shut up"

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, the man running the special House Committee to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attacks, has a message for his Republican colleagues and friends: "Shut up talking about things that you don't know anything about."

"Unless you're on the committee you have no idea what we've done, why we've done it, and what new facts we have found," Gowdy said in an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

This seems like a politically dangerous thing for JEB to hang his hat on regarding Benghazi. Don't all roads around this line of thought lead back to "a Republican majority Congress denied State Department requests for budget to improve security"?

Attacking Benghazi while defending 9/11 is a move with no winning strategy regardless of what he says. He's fucked here.

 

[Mario]

Attacking Benghazi while defending 9/11 is a move with no winning strategy regardless of what he says. He's fucked here.

I meant outside of the foolish comparison. That falls apart on "3000+ civilians on home soil versus 4 State Department staff in a war ravaged state" alone.

If he actually succeeded in moving the conversation about the "purpose" of the Benghazi investigation to "want to ensure all adequate steps around security were taken", it's only going to lead to difficult questions for Republicans to answer to. The only failure around the whole thing is going to have "Republican" written all over it.

 

[RustyNails]

Trump made it certain that the next debate has the iraq war question. I hope he rehearses his fatality before unleashing it on Jeb.

This "Bush kept us safe" meme has to fucking die. He did not keep America safe. Keeping America safe is the most basic duty of a President and he fucked it up. If you use Jeb's logic as a bar, then every President in America kept America safe lol. What is he arguing for then? What is your point? Is your point that W is great because he kept America safe? Obama kept America safe too.

I hate these Frank Luntz-focus tested, myopic, political, asinine answers Jeb delivers and someone needs to destroy them. Yhey are made of straw. If not Hillary then Trump.

 

[Grexeno]

Benghazi chairman to GOP colleagues: "Shut up"

"Stop fucking it up, idiots."

 

[Averon]

Jeb's inability to ignore Trump's bait is incredible. Every time Jeb gets into a spat with Trump, he comes out worse for it.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

DNC Vice Chair Rybak: Wasserman Schultz "Went On Television And Repeated A Knowing Untruth About Tulsi Gabbard"

"I have serious questions," Rybak said of Wasserman Schultz's leadership. "And it's not just about the debates. The fact of the matter is some time in a month or two before the convention, somebody is going to win or lose. It's going to be essential for the leader of the party to be able to say to everyone, look, it's been fair, we need to now, let's all pull together. That's what Democrats want. I think the only thing that's going to mess that up, frankly, is that I don't think the Chair, right now, is in the position to be that peacemaker who builds that big tent for all of us."

Rybak said he is going public after Wasserman Schultz told a "knowing untruth" about Gabbard.

Hopefully DWS gets the boot before the GE.

 

[Aaron Strife]

DNC Vice Chair Rybak: Wasserman Schultz "Went On Television And Repeated A Knowing Untruth About Tulsi Gabbard"



Hopefully DWS gets the boot before the GE.

She's been a disaster and needs to get canned. Rybak would be a fine replacement too.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

She's been a disaster and needs to get canned. Rybak would be a fine replacement too.

IIRC, Obama wanted to replace her with Rybak years ago and she was planning to retaliate by calling him sexist and anti-Semitic. That party loyalty.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

FEED. ME. MORE.

 

[Jimmy King]

FEED. ME. MORE.

lol I was lurking and contemplating saying something...

 

[Y2Kev]

Debbie is awful. How is she still around after the Democrat party has basically been dismantled over the last six years nationally anyway?

edit: Her wikipedia page is full of false citations, lol liberals

 

[PhoenixDark]

Debbie is awful. How is she still around after the Democrat party has basically been dismantled over the last six years nationally anyway?

edit: Her wikipedia page is full of false citations, lol liberals

Clinton ally.

I'm assuming this debate nonsense is the Clinton's idea.

 

[thepotatoman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paul-ryan-open-to-running-for-speaker/

"According to those close to him" Paul Ryan is open to becoming speaker, as long as he doesn't have to negotiate with the freedom caucus in order to do it.

It'll be fun to see how far his doesn't give a fuck attitude gets him. It's not like they can threaten to remove him from a job he never wanted in the first place.

The only question left is if these are terms the freedom caucus can live with.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sanders supports keeping troops in Afghanistan.

When there is no organized anti war group why wouldn't he?

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paul-ryan-open-to-running-for-speaker/

"According to those close to him" Paul Ryan is open to becoming speaker, as long as he doesn't have to negotiate with the freedom caucus in order to do it.

It'll be fun to see how far his doesn't give a fuck attitude gets him. It's not like they can threaten to remove him from a job he never wanted in the first place.

The only question left is if these are terms the freedom caucus can live with.

They'll never agree to it, even by leaking this he's admitting they have real power right now. Why would they give that up?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Ted Cruz calls a fuckton of Republicans in Congress RINOs:

In fact, what the Republican majorities have done, we came back right after the last election, passed a trillion dollars cromnibus bill, filled with corporate welfare reform. Then Republican leadership and– and leadership joined with Harry Reid and the Democrats to do that.

Then leadership voted to fund Obamacare. Then they voted to fund amnesty. Then they voted to fund Planned Parenthood. And then Republican leadership took the lead confirming Loretta Lynch as Attorney General. Now Chuck, which one of those decisions is one iota different than what would happened under Harry Reid and the Democrats? The truth of the matter is Republican leadership are the most effective Democrat leaders we’ve ever seen. They’ve passed more Democratic priorities than Harry Reid ever could.

Screaming.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/ted...een/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

 

[Tamanon]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paul-ryan-open-to-running-for-speaker/

"According to those close to him" Paul Ryan is open to becoming speaker, as long as he doesn't have to negotiate with the freedom caucus in order to do it.

It'll be fun to see how far his doesn't give a fuck attitude gets him. It's not like they can threaten to remove him from a job he never wanted in the first place.

The only question left is if these are terms the freedom caucus can live with.

Assuming the Dems don't vote for him, doesn't he kinda need the Freedom Caucus to become Speaker?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Sanders supports keeping troops in Afghanistan.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but keeping troops in Afghanistan seems like the correct play. Would it have been better not to get in at all? Yes, of course. Is leaving now a good idea? FUCK NO. It's not Obama's fault that ISIS is rampaging, but clearly, leaving Iraq when we did was not a good idea. And leaving Afghanistan now would almost certainly result in the Taliban rushing right back in and resuming the old status quo, except probably worse 'cause they'll probably be fighting with ISIS the whole time.

There is no good option. But leaving is almost definitely worse than staying.

 

[teiresias]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paul-ryan-open-to-running-for-speaker/

"According to those close to him" Paul Ryan is open to becoming speaker, as long as he doesn't have to negotiate with the freedom caucus in order to do it.

It'll be fun to see how far his doesn't give a fuck attitude gets him. It's not like they can threaten to remove him from a job he never wanted in the first place.

The only question left is if these are terms the freedom caucus can live with.

What does this even mean by "in order to it"? In order to become Speaker or to actually act as Speaker? Sounds to me like that would be one and the same, because to become Speaker without the Freedom Caucus he needs Democratic votes (I believe?) and I can't imagine Democrats getting involved in this mess to that extent without some kind of assurance that the Hastert Rule is gone forever and that there will essentially be a coalition party in the House.

I mean, in that scenario, what difference does the Freedom Caucus's opinion even matter? Sounds to me like this is a leak more to Democrats than to Freedom Caucus members.

 

[thepotatoman]

Assuming the Dems don't vote for him, doesn't he kinda need the Freedom Caucus to become Speaker?

Yes, but many of them would prefer him over keeping Boehner around indefinitely as they continue to fail to find a replacement, and they might somewhat worry about the damage it would cause the party if they can't ever find any speaker.

I guess it depends on if they think someone like Webster could become speaker, and they aren't exactly known for taking the most realistic option.

What does this even mean by "in order to it"? In order to become Speaker or to actually act as Speaker? Sounds to me like that would be one and the same, because to become Speaker without the Freedom Caucus he needs Democratic votes (I believe?) and I can't imagine Democrats getting involved in this mess to that extent without some kind of assurance that the Hastert Rule is gone forever and that there will essentially be a coalition party in the House.

I mean, in that scenario, what difference does the Freedom Caucus's opinion even matter? Sounds to me like this is a leak more to Democrats than to Freedom Caucus members.

Maybe, but the democrats would have to be absolute idiots to bail them out, unless they want Paul freaking Ryan to be the face of bipartisan agreement, and allowing themselves to be linked to every single dumb thing Paul Ryan does.

What would it even accomplish them? Being able to skip government shutdowns that will end up being politically very good for them?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but keeping troops in Afghanistan seems like the correct play. Would it have been better not to get in at all? Yes, of course. Is leaving now a good idea? FUCK NO. It's not Obama's fault that ISIS is rampaging, but clearly, leaving Iraq when we did was not a good idea. And leaving Afghanistan now would almost certainly result in the Taliban rushing right back in and resuming the old status quo, except probably worse 'cause they'll probably be fighting with ISIS the whole time.

There is no good option. But leaving is almost definitely worse than staying.

What does staying get us? This is Vietnam mentality. If we stay a little longer we can delay the inevitable.

We can bomb places from other countries if they're is a threat otherwise. The Taliban isn't going to attack the US. That's not their M.O. and they know the threat of drones.

All we're doing is continuing to prop up a government that has had 14 years to get its shit together. It's failed.

 

[teiresias]

Maybe, but the democrats would have to be absolute idiots to bail them out, unless they want Paul freaking Ryan to be the face of bipartisan agreement, and allowing themselves to be linked to every single dumb thing Paul Ryan does.

What would it even accomplish them? Being able to skip government shutdowns that will end up being politically very good for them?

I'm not saying it makes much sense, but I get the distinct impression he just doesn't want to deal with the Freedom Caucus, but I'm not sure the gop can get out from under them at this point. It's like a hail mary pass.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

All we're doing is continuing to prop up a government that has had 14 years to get its shit together. It's failed.

So we pull out and let the Taliban take the country back? That didn't work out so well the first time.