Type to search

LOL Of The Week: Destroying Hillary Clinton Is The GOP’s Only Hope For 2016

Memo Pad Politics

LOL Of The Week: Destroying Hillary Clinton Is The GOP’s Only Hope For 2016


Just days after C-SPAN began its Road to White House 2016, frontrunners for the GOP presidential nomination Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) have begun blasting the woman they fear they may have to face in less than four years  — Hillary Clinton.

While House Republicans are intent on using the tragedy in Benghazi to engage in their ritual witch-hunt of any Democratic president who wins a second term, Paul and Rubio — along with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney — are intent on destroying the reputation of America’s most popular politician, likely in hopes of dissuading her from running.

Desperate, uncontainable fear of a Hillary candidacy is one of the few Republican policies that makes sense.

Last month, Clinton was leading Rubio by a 6-point margin — in Kentucky. Kentucky! Kentucky’s state bird is any bird that’s pooping on a Democrat. In the same poll, Clinton was tied with Rand Paul, who is a U.S. senator from Kentucky.

Since his drone filibuster earlier this year, Paul has rocketed to the top of the polls in the two states that will play a crucial role in deciding the next GOP nominee for president — Iowa and New Hampshire.

Paul’s advantages for 2016 include a political machine built by his father Ron, who sought the presidency for most of a decade, and a willingness to say just about anything in public. As news of revised talking points on Benghazi came out, Paul tweeted:

ABC’s Jon Karl, who reported the revisions, told Politico, “There’s no evidence that Hillary Clinton was aware of what was going on, or in any way tried to direct what was in these talking points.”

So to make a case against Clinton, Paul is blasting the former Secretary of State because she didn’t not respond personally to requests for more security. Based on Paul’s standard, Republicans in the House who cut nearly half a billion from State Department security shouldn’t hold office either.

It’s a crazy thing to suggest this disqualifies her for office but it wasn’t — by far — the craziest statement Rand Paul put his name on this week.

In an email to supporters, the junior senator from Kentucky uncovered a plot by “anti-American globalists” to limit the Second Amendment with a U.N. small-arms treaty. In a world full of complex, pressing issues, Paul is offering completely debunked science fiction to trick his followers into donating a few bucks.

Paul’s scaremongering about “globalists” only really makes sense to those who follow radio host Alex Jones, whose show Paul has appeared on several times. Jones is the truthiest truther who has ever truthed. He believes everything is a secret “false flag” plot, from suicidal fish to Newtown to the Boston bombing.

And who’s behind all these plots? Anti-American globalists, of course.


  1. sunmusing May 12, 2013

    Attacking a Clinton is on the short list as a new Olympic sport…

    1. angelsinca May 13, 2013

      Finally, a new sport. The Bush bashing games got stale 4 years ago.

  2. Siegfried Heydrich May 12, 2013

    It’s going to be amusing watching them try to keep this up for the next three years. By the time the ’16 election swings into high gear, the word ‘Benghazi’ will simply trigger a yawn, groan, and rolled eyes. Their desperation is palpable, and the level of hysteria on the RW sites is absolutely hilarious. They have convinced themselves that they’ve got Hillary on the run, now, and that she’s as good as defeated.

    1. sigrid28 May 12, 2013

      The administration and its surrogates are not yet pushing back at all, with the exception of former Ambassador Pickering on Sunday morning talk shows (clarifying skillfully) and Jay Carney patiently answering questions Friday afternoon. Meanwhile, the Republicans and newspersons are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Worrisome I suppose, but on reflection, not yet our problem. I think thoughtful Americans would be wise to let the Republicans and their media entourage run themselves out, just have at it with a full grown tantrum. Once they can pause to listen to the administration’s response, I’ll bet you a cookie it will be a “Please proceed, governor” moment well worth waiting for.

      1. plc97477 May 13, 2013

        The only thing wrong with that is they should be doing their jobs not having temper tantrums.

        1. angelsinca May 14, 2013

          Agreed. From the top, across the board.

    2. cats33 May 13, 2013

      Tell that to the families whose loved ones’ murders could have been prevented, you heartless bitch!!

      1. Siegfried Heydrich May 13, 2013

        And how, exactly, was the story after the fact supposed to have prevented their deaths? Seriously, if you think that this is going to have legs for anyone outside the Fox bubble, you’re sadly mistaken. But by all means, please proceed . . .

        1. cats33 May 13, 2013

          Apparently you didn’t watch the hearings, those attacks could have been prevented

          1. razorback10 May 13, 2013

            As could have the 12 similar attacks on consulates during the 8 years Bush was in office. Are we going to investigate those as well?

          2. cats33 May 13, 2013

            Those attacks weren’t Bushs’ fault or you know darn well the dems would have had investigations. Benghazi was Obamas’ fault, he didn’t send help when it was begged for. The real question is, WHY did Obama and Hillary want Stevens dead?????

          3. razorback10 May 13, 2013

            The title of this article really is appropriate! LOL! Have you found out who really killed Kennedy yet?

          4. razorback10 May 13, 2013

            Listen, I will humor you. The attacks weren’t investigated because people understand that attacks happen and there are miscommunications. Who did we indict for Pearl Harbour? After that fact it was plain we had intel they were coming, but you know what mistakes happen and our military isn’t omnipotent. That is why this is the first of it’s kind hearing on something that is a non-issue. Believe what you want but those are the facts. You can look back and find evidence of minhandling of intel for a whole lot of incidences that killed a lot more people.
            And I am assuming you heard about the other incidences to make the call that Bush had nothing to do with them?

          5. idamag May 13, 2013

            They weren’t attacked then, because both Republicans and Democrats were real Americans back then. We came together as one in outrage. Now, everything must be political fodder. We have a congress who is POS (proud of stupid) and do not care about the United States of America.

          6. razorback10 May 13, 2013

            This is exactly it. Now the discussion of everything is dominated by crazy conspiracy nuts.

          7. angelsinca May 14, 2013

            “We have a congress who is POS (proud of stupid) and do not care about the United States of America”

            That would be the sh-tpile inherited from Pelosi.

          8. idamag May 14, 2013

            I coined the phrase POS and it was people, like you, who inspired me.. Please do not respond to any of my posts as I consider you intellectually inferior to me.

          9. sarchasm May 13, 2013

            “The real question is, WHY did Obama and Hillary want Stevens dead?????”

            At least we’ve moved on from the JFK-Oswald thing. I like the new crazy… very little hipster conspiracy theorist at the moment.

          10. angelsinca May 13, 2013

            Here’s another one that doesn’t get what Benghazi is about but finds it appropriate to make jokes about murdered people.Quite despicably poor taste. Send it to the WH-they’ll appreciate that type of humor

          11. Madelaine Ayers Henne May 13, 2013

            Do you have a common sense thought in your head?? Want them dead? Seriously? My God, the loons that are loose in the country!!

          12. cats33 May 14, 2013

            Obamas’ on a roll. Benghazi, the IRS, and now he is spying on the press, recording their phone calls. He’s had a good couple weeks, ya think? DICTATOR

          13. ralphkr May 13, 2013

            Well, your first error, cats33, was to believe that help was not sent because the first rescue mission (from the local CIA) reached the Consulate in about an hour after the first attack and withdrew after losing TEN or OUR Libyan soldiers. The second rescue mission flew in from Tripoli and arrived after midnight, joined with Libyan soldiers, and was ambushed by a well armed, well organized group but was still able to rescue and evacuate 32 Americans.

            Your last sentence is just pure fantasy and unworthy of anyone with a shred of intelligence.

          14. idamag May 14, 2013

            Don’t confuse Lana, our resident nut.

          15. Joe WallStreet May 15, 2013

            Using YOUR logic, those attacks happened on Bush’s watch and thus were ALL his fault. 🙂

          16. angelsinca May 13, 2013

            ” Are we going to investigate those as well?”

            Go ahead. have fun. Presently, the topic under investigation NOW is Benghazi, those that left the Americans there to die, and the lies to cover up the incompetence. Go ahead, jump to the past and begin an investigation of how you think Bush did the same.

          17. razorback10 May 13, 2013

            It was a rhetorical question. It was intended to show the idiocy of singling one instance out of many in recent events, let alone out of the entire course of modern history where there are even more clear cut cases of intentionally ignoring intel that cost the lives of many Americans, such as Pearl Harbour. The only thing that has changed is that Republicans are desperate to create problems at every turn and are trying to create mountains out of molehills.

          18. angelsinca May 14, 2013

            “more clear cut cases of intentionally ignoring intel that cost the lives of many Americans, such as Pearl Harbour”

            Oh God, the new batch of conspiracy morons has arrived. We don’t spell ‘Harbor’ like the Brits. Everyone should go to the entombed Arizona there and warm up to the so called ‘sacrificed’ souls. Your comment is an insult to all those killed in the attack. You should demand a refund from whoever fed you that anti-america proganda BS.

            “Republicans are desperate to create problems at every turn”

            At least once a week (or whenever Obama decides to bless America with another meaningless speech) a new issue arises. The GOP doesn’t even have to be involved. Obama talks, issues arise. The guy is a one man, walking, talking conflict creator. Check it out.

          19. razorback10 May 13, 2013

            Or the info that Cheney got 9 months prior to 9-11, but only convened meetings on a week prior to the attack.

          20. cats33 May 13, 2013

            Clinton had 3 chances we know of to get Bin Laden. His cock and Monica were more important than our National Security!!!

          21. razorback10 May 13, 2013

            An insightful comment, but still doesn’t refute anything I have said.

          22. cats33 May 13, 2013

            Why did Obama and Hiltery want Stevens dead. What did he know and what was he doing?? This investigation is far from over

          23. Nixus00 May 13, 2013

            @ cats33: The paranoia is strong with this one.. I see another Glenn Beck in training.

          24. Joe WallStreet May 15, 2013

            Bush also had many years to get Bin Laden and failed MISERABLY. 🙂

          25. angelsinca May 14, 2013

            You work for Conspiracies R Us, riight? You don’t have to believe every loony anti GOP talking point you hear.

          26. Siegfried Heydrich May 13, 2013

            I did, and sure they could have been prevented. If congress hadn’t cut the State Dept’s security budget, possibly. If the CIA had not made the mistake of thinking the locals they had hired for security wouldn’t cut & run at the first sign of trouble, certainly. But unless you have a time machine, the issue is moot at this point. But that’s not the issue at hand. The ginned up outrage concerns what happened AFTER the attack.

            Unlike the movies, where you can put fighters in the air at a minute’s notice, in the real world it doesn’t work that way. You’re quibbling over details, when the adults in the room have already addressed the situation and have apportioned blame and implemented changes to prevent a reoccurrence

            However, by all means, keep beating this dead horse. By the ’16 campaign, the public will be sick of your paranoid shrieks, and all it will do is make you look even mpore foolish..

          27. Dominick Vila May 13, 2013

            I doubt the terrorist attack in Benghazi, and all the other terrorist attacks against our embassies and consulates during the past dozen years could have been prevented regardless of how much money was made available to the State Department for security. Short of building bunkers, with machine gun emplacements and Apache helicopters flying overhead 24×7 there is little we could do to prevent attacks like the ones we have endured, and the GOP is well aware of that fact. After all, they were in control of the White House and Congress when a dozen such attacks took place.

          28. Siegfried Heydrich May 13, 2013

            Perhaps, but we could have made any attacks far more costly for that attackers, and deterrence is the best defense. Though I’ve always like the Russian approach to such things – they don’t bother with protests or diplomatic notes, they just find out who was responsible, and start killing them, their families, their neighbors, and just about everyone the attackers know. They make it very, very clear that attacking them carries a very high price, and they don’t give a shit who objects.

            If we used the Russian approach, every suspected camp in the entire region would have been mapped, targeted, and then carpet bombed. Not very diplomatic, but it would make the next group thinking about attacking us stop and reconsider for a bit . . . But then, we’re the good guys, right?

          29. angelsinca May 13, 2013

            We could, but you democrats can’t even wrap your arms around a little interrogation using water.

          30. Siegfried Heydrich May 14, 2013

            You DO know that we executed war criminals after WWII for doing that sort of thing . . .?

          31. Barbara Morgan May 13, 2013

            Doesn’s Cats 33 sound a lot like Lana Wood? He or she just started posting couple of weeks ago. Wonder if they are one and the same.

          32. plc97477 May 13, 2013

            I too think they are closer than your average crazies. Maybe she thinks that if there are 2 dingies spouting the same crap we will think they must be something in what they are saying.

          33. neeceoooo May 13, 2013

            Maybe she believes that if we think there is two people who think like her then it must be

          34. Siegfried Heydrich May 13, 2013

            Yeah, looking at her posting history, sounds like her. I seriously will never understand this need for sockpuppets that seems to be so prevalent on the right. I’ve never posted under any other name than my own, and have never been banned from anywhere, either. But there’s that virulent strain of hatred that they can never conceal, and I really have to wonder if she’s as hateful in real life as she is on-line. For the sake of her family and those around her, I sure hope not . . .

          35. angelsinca May 13, 2013

            No, she isn’t hateful in the same vein as the neocon hatemongers, Siegfried. She’s only a harmless annoyance to the left’s unfettered antics.

          36. neeceoooo May 13, 2013

            I do believe it is lanaward

          37. angelsinca May 13, 2013

            The name is Lana WARD. Perhaps you folks bullied her into assuming another moniker.

          38. ralphkr May 13, 2013

            Don’t blame the Libyan security guards, Heydrich, for cutting and running as they did exactly the same thing that American minimum wage security guards would do if offered the chance to save their own life. On the other hand, the Libyan troops in the CIA rescue mission fought bravely and did not withdraw, at CIA order, until after losing ten of their own in the battle at the Consulate.

          39. angelsinca May 13, 2013

            The State Department budget for construction and security for FY2012 is DOUBLE what it was ten years ago. The bipartisan FY2013 budget was approved for MORE than what was requested by the State Department. Look to the truth instead of reciting the propagandized partisan rhetoric.

          40. Siegfried Heydrich May 14, 2013

            Ten years ago was pre 9/11, when we didn’t NEED all that much security (yet). FY 2013 is being spent NOW. The FY2011 and FY2012 budgets were slashed by the cost cutters in Congress. And most of the State Sept building / security budget over the last several years was used to build that monstrosity in Baghdad. Seriously, check out the embassy there and what it cost to build that thing . . .

          41. ralphkr May 13, 2013

            Really, cats33, would you explain exactly how those attacks could have been prevented.

          42. angelsinca May 13, 2013

            “..explain exactly how those attacks could have been prevented.”

            For one, take back the self congratulatory pomp surrounding Bin Laden’s demise. Or, take back the ’09 Obama apology speech in Cairo. Or, take back redeploying the muslim killing machine from Iraq to Afghanistan.

          43. ralphkr May 13, 2013

            I gather that you far preferred the Bush attitude of not caring nor wishing to think about what happened to Bin Laden to Obama actually authorizing Bin Laden’s execution. And apology to the world for the actions of Bush was desperately needed in order to repair all the damage Bush, et al, had done to the US reputation. I vaguely recall that Bush deployed the Muslim killing machine in Afghanistan and expanded the Muslim killing machine to Iraq.

          44. angelsinca May 14, 2013

            Whatever truth you want to believe. I offered three things that might have prevented an attack on Benghazi.

          45. angelsinca May 14, 2013

            “I gather that you far preferred the Bush attitude of not caring”

            The more I think about, the more I appreciate Bush’s restraint to leave Bin Laden to his devices while pulling intel about his ops from those captured. One thing we know for sure is that Bin Laden’s death did’nt make much positive difference in the scheme of things. It seems to have lit a new flame of deadly intent toward Americans. Nice job. I feel less safe now.

          46. Joe WallStreet May 15, 2013

            Perhaps you missed the subsequent attacks that took place in Benghazi up until last week. You still foolishly think attacks can be prevented in that area of the world? LOLOL!!

        2. Robert P. Robertson May 13, 2013

          Siegfried, you know cats33 is lana ward. She an old cat lady hiding behind her mask.

      2. Wex May 13, 2013

        Okay, what about the families of the soldiers that died in the Iraq war? Where is the witch hunt for bush and his administration for using misinformation to lead us to an unjustified war. A hell of a lot more people died there than did in Benghazi.

        If you’re going to get pissed of by one politicized tragedy but not an even greater tragedy then you show nothing but a lack of character and horrible moral judgement.

        Seriously, this blatant, mindless partisanship of American politics is so disheartening. I wish people would realize both parties suck, neither have our best interest at heart, and just learn to think for themselves for once.

        1. angelsinca May 13, 2013

          Where were you in 2002? Except for a very few domestic protesters, most of the world was behind the US enforcing UN law in Iraq. It became wrong when you folks believed Bush and Cheney lied about it. Saddam bragged about WMD, the world believed him, the US entered with bipartisan congressional approval and international support. Everything else is just conspiracy theory and speculation.

          1. idamag May 14, 2013

            One more post to your chronic lies and then I am through with you. Saddam did not brag about WMDs. I saw Dan Rather’s interview with Saddam Hussein And I saw a desperate man trying to convince people he did not have WMDs. He even gave up the normal defense weapons a country has. As for your other lie, most of the world was against the United States attacking Iraq. The UN had inspectors ready to go in and asked Bush to hold off until the inspections were made. France, Russia, and Germany refused to support the attack on Iraq.
            A suspicious hmmm – no bid contracts were given to Cheney’s Haliburton subsidiaries. Iraq had large oil deposits.
            Saddam Hussein had been at war with Al Qaeda for years so it would look funny if he was harboring Iraq’s enemies, wouldn’t it?
            Some of the information they got by water boarding turned out to be false. Your defense of torture makes me suspect you are a neo Nazi.
            Congress was wrong in supporting the war. Even if it was by false information they were given. I suspected the information was bogus, so why did they buy it?

          2. idamag May 14, 2013

            One more reply to your filtered brain and then I am through with you. Most of the world was not behind the United States in starting war with Iraq. The UN was asking that the US hold off as they had inspectors ready to go into Iraq. Saddam Hussein never said he had WMDs. I watched the interview with Dan Rather where Hussein said he did not have WMDs. I also saw Iraq giving up all their own defense weapons to keep the bully from attacking them. France, Germany, and Russia refused to support the US. Tony Blair, PM of England supported Bush and was drummed out of office for doing so. I read the London Time sometimes and the English people were against going into that costly fiasco.
            Yes, with lies, Cheney got congressional support. Shame on Congress for allowing themselves to be duped. I always doubted the evidence being presented.
            And, a hmmmm. Why was Cheney’s Haliburton subsidiaries given no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq? Why did they start by rebuilding the roads to the oil fields? Why, when they were caught cheating the US government, were their contracts not cancelled?

          3. angelsinca May 14, 2013

            “One more reply to your filtered brain and then I am through with you.”

            Don’t bother. Your dismissive condescension is as much a put off as your selective history tailored to fit the I-Hate-Bush narrative. But since you took the time to replicate the same old left-end talking points, you deserve a challenge to the more ridiculous claims.

            Of the multinational forces in Iraq, you conveniently neglected to included the 15 nations that supported the US-led mission through 2007, and the 24 additional nations with troops in Iraq until at least 2008 up through 2011, including the UK.

            Don’t care much for what the lying dictator said to Dan Rather or Peter Jennings or Peter Arnett of CNN. The chemical weapons used by Saddam against his own people were WMD. UN Insepctor Hans Blix thought there were WMD before the invasion and that “thousands of warheads were unaccounted for”. Evidence by Blix showed Saddam lied about the age, type and amount of WMD’s in Iraq. The UK had egg on its face for giving Saddam the technology during the Iraq-Iran wars.

            The supposed “refusal to support” the US on an invasion (by the int’l community) was more like No votes by the UN Security Council. But, the 18th Resolution was never put to vote that would have officially sanctioned an invasion. There were only 4 ayes and 9 were needed. UN Sec’y Gen’l Kofi Annan declared the invasion as ‘against UN charter’ and mumbled something about it being illegal and left it at that.

            You have to look at the FBI’s interrogation transcripts after Saddam’s ’03 capture to get a better feel for the POS and international threat Hussein really was. He was a serious narcissist and not too friendly with the truth. Unfortunately all chances for similar intel insights were lost with Bin Laden due to Obama’s eagerness for a minor jump in the polls.

            Cheney is a different issue. To be fair, you might as well bring up Holder’s name and the names of the MSM chiefs everytime Obama stretches the law or plays the media, if you are going to bring in collateral players to paint Bush as a ‘liar’.
            But, feel free to sympathize with the executed dictator while trying to discredit Bush. Can’t say we saw many domestic terror acts while Bush was the CinC. There were none. Your man Obama has some serious issues to deal with right now. Much more serious than Iraq or Benghazi. Good luck.

        2. angelsinca May 14, 2013

          “A hell of a lot more people died there than did in Benghazi”

          Assigning more imprtance because of the body count doesn’t sound like a very good measure of moral character.

      3. ralphkr May 13, 2013

        Well, cats33, I gather from your post that you are referring to the Newton, MA, murder of children and adults but I fail to see the connection to Heydrich’s post nor how the administration, let alone the State Department, could have prevented them.

      4. Robert P. Robertson May 13, 2013

        lana? I know that’s you. You smell of dirt kitty litter. Go scoop out those boxes!

    3. Catskinner May 13, 2013

      Actually, the 2014 elections are the ones to watch. Once the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, the can impeach Obama and put the country back on the road to recovery…

      1. Siegfried Heydrich May 13, 2013

        And that will result in the utter obliteration of the GOP in the ’16 election. Seriously, I think you people are insane. You live inside your little bubble of hate and paranoia, and refuse to consider the fact that you are a very small but extremely loud minority.

        If you were to succeed in removing President Obama, I have only one thing to remind you of – President Biden. Do you REALLY want to go there?

        1. angelsinca May 13, 2013

          “You live inside your little bubble of hate and paranoia, and refuse to consider the fact that you are a very small but extremely loud minority”

          Look in the mirror Siegfried. You see, back in 2010 this new party emerged to take back the House of Representatives from a Democrat garden party free-for-all. I don’t see many whispered love quotes or hugs & kisses directed at the TEA party. In fact, about ALL we hear is you folks loudly proclaming how you are going to unseat those evil bastards from YOUR House. LOL. Total rule by one party is not such a good idea.

          1. Siegfried Heydrich May 14, 2013

            What new party? Looks more to me like the crazy wing of the republican party, one that the republicans are desperately trying to distance themselves from while still trying to manipulate them to their own ends (and good luck with THAT!). And I don’t want one party rule. We need two parties who are rational and capable of compromise. Right now, though, we have a sane party, and one that has gone stark, staring, raving, violently batshit insane. I keep hoping the GOP will break the fever of madness afflicting it, but to be honest, I think they’re too far gone. Perhaps the Libertarians can do a better job of it after the republicans finally implode.

          2. idamag May 14, 2013

            Look what happened to Germany’s democracy when the tea party, oops I meant Nazi party took over.
            We also need more than one opinion news media. Rupert Murdock and the Koch brothers are busy buying up every newspaper and tv station they can get their hands on.
            If we have to have a party system, then a two-party system is healthier than a one-party system.

          3. Siegfried Heydrich May 14, 2013

            I agree, but one party right now is desperately ill, and likely to succumb to that illness. I suspect the Libertarians are going to be the conservative party of the 21st century, as the GOP is simply suffering from advanced senescence. That’s what happens when you get old and cranky and tell everyone to get off your lawn. The GOP is now simply the Gotten Old Party . . .

            To be honest, the conditions that allowed for the rise of the Nazi party are absent in this country, but there will always be budding dictators who attempt to pervert power to their ends. However, bear in mind that Rupert Murdoch isn’t likely to be with us that much longer, and his successors are less ideological and more profit driven. Same thing with the Koch brothers – you can bet his heirs will be less concerned with ‘the cause’ than how much they have to spend . . . that’s the way it historically works out.

      2. cats33 May 13, 2013

        I pray you are right or America is through!!! Google,” Muslim Purchase Of the United States Presidency” it’s an article written by Valerie Jarretts father in law written in 1979 that has come true with Obama. We are in that article right now!!!!!

        1. neeceoooo May 13, 2013

          Your view of America is through…….

      3. ralphkr May 13, 2013

        What utter BS, Catskinner! Republican control of Senate as well as the House shall result in the rapid crash of the US economy once they are able to achieve their ambition to spend huge amounts on unneeded military expenditures and cut taxes on big business and the top 10% earners to zero.

        1. angelsinca May 13, 2013

          Fear. When you are unable to pursuade and convince, scare the sh-t out of ’em. As with the empty dire warnings of a perilous ‘fiscal cliff’, the right is no longer daunted by Chicken Little’s threats of falling skies.

  3. idamag May 12, 2013

    Why do you think they are out there with their big guns?

    1. cats33 May 13, 2013

      That’s right. Sambo hasn’t taken them yet

      1. Siegfried Heydrich May 13, 2013

        Ah, the trolls are out early today . . .

      2. Melvin Miller May 13, 2013

        Sambo? Come out from behind your sheet and hood. Now we know your problem.

        1. idamag May 13, 2013

          I’ve always suspected lana ward, AKA cats 33 and some other user names, was a member of a neo Nazi groups.

          1. Robert P. Robertson May 13, 2013

            idamag, not neo-Nazi’s, neo-Confederates. lana ward, bozo, cats33, montanabill, labrat, mike, they are all part of the neo-Confederate Tea Bag Movement.

          2. neeceoooo May 13, 2013

            so true, I do wish they would crawl back to where they came from

          3. idamag May 14, 2013

            Yes, you are right.

  4. GinnyDorlan May 13, 2013

    Wish the mainstream media could avoid being sucked into this vortex of wackiness… All the Sunday shows are treating this sh*t like it’s legitimate and not a RWNJ witch hunt. I’d like to think that the electorate are intelligent, but…….

  5. KhanneaSuntzu May 13, 2013

    Screw those idiot conservatives and republicans. Not interested. *Booooring*

  6. mc1964 May 13, 2013

    At first, I thought I was reading an article from the Onion. You know you’re in
    trouble when real news stories about your party read like comedy.

    1. angelsinca May 13, 2013

      It’s like knowing you are in trouble when your 2 most followed spokepersons are both comics. Hurts even more when you realize the jokes are now about the Dem leadership. Please support Hillary for 2016-the GOP needs an easy win.

  7. Dominick Vila May 13, 2013

    There is increasing evidence that suggests that while the hatred towards a man the GOP considers an usurper remains latent, their focus is rapidly shifting to the need to derail a potential Clinton candidacy in 2016. The GOP understands that if Hillary runs in 2016, she will be our first female President and that she is likely to win by a landslide. Needless to say, the probability of a 16 year GOP hiatus from the White House is driving the rank and file, and some unstable Republican politicians, crazy. Fortunately for us, their reactions are so bizarre that instead of improving their chances, that are actually self-destructing. Could not happen to a nicer bunch of guys.

    1. cats33 May 13, 2013

      It’s the mindset of you communist”americans” that is scary, Presidents come and go , but the public is becoming more and more anti American. Progressive= communism

      1. ObozoMustGo May 13, 2013

        Well put, Cat! “Progressive” is a term that started following Woodrow Wilson’s failed bid to create a socialist party when they realized that “socialism” was a really negative word to the American public. But the word “progressive” polled well while disguising their real agenda. Socialism is an evil philosophy antithetical to American values and the traditions of our founding in individual liberty. This is why they must lie constantly to hide their real intentions. Look at Obozo’s campaign slogan “Forward.” It’s no coincidence that the biggest communist publication of the 30s was also called “Forward”, and the meaning of the word in political parlance is strictly socialist.

        Have a great day!

        “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” – H.L. Mencken

      2. Dominick Vila May 13, 2013

        With the DOW at over 15,000 points, companies posting record profits, Wall Street on solid ground, new construction moving nicely, house prices rising, foreclosure and bankruptcies back at normal levels, the only recourse left for the Reds is to claim the economic progress that should be evident to everyone is just an illusion and catastrophe lies ahead. Unfortunately for the GOP, most Americans are capable of rational thinking and act accordingly.

      3. Kyle_Kasson May 13, 2013

        No. “Public is becoming more and more anti-American.” If the average american is becoming more “Progressive” then the politics should follow. The government is “of the people by the people and for the people.” Not “Of the people who feel like it today, by the people who are the most vocal, and for the people who believe in conspiracy theories.” It means that we are not defined by tradition but by the feelings of the majority. And if the majority of the public want progressive movements in the politic general, then those opposed to it are actually the Anti-American ones.

      4. Nixus00 May 13, 2013

        I wish you were my neighbor; your total insanity is entertaining…much like a cat on catnip. Interesting

    2. Barbara Morgan May 13, 2013

      You are right Dominick. Also after reading Cats33 post i it is clear that Lana Wood and Cats33 are the same person. Cats has posted some of the exact posts that Lana was posting Sunday word for word.

      1. neeceoooo May 13, 2013

        I think as lana she got kicked off the site so she had to create a new log in name

        1. idamag May 14, 2013

          Now and again monitors visit the site and when they see far out hatred crap, they can remove a person.

          1. Siegfried Heydrich May 14, 2013

            That happens with great regularity at places like the Daily Beast, but they just set up a new e-mail addy and come right back, as Lana has done. The sad thing is that she still continues with the same writing style and hateful rhetoric, and somehow thinks nobody will be able to figure out that it’s her. I just haven’t figured out how Fern has avoided getting booted. Even though we’re in somewhat ideological agreement, she is far and away the most obnoxious and abusive poster I have ever seen on this site, just as bad as Lana on the other end of the spectrum.

  8. Catskinner May 13, 2013

    Actually, Hillary fell on her sword to protect Obama and destroyed herself, so…

    1. ObozoMustGo May 13, 2013

      Skinner…. speaking of Cankles Clinton falling on her sword, check out this cartoon.

      Have a nice day!

      “4 Americans are dead. What difference, at this point, does it make how they were killed?” — Hillary “Wide Load and Cankles” Clinton lying and shilling to change the topic in front of a sham of a Congressional inquiry

      1. Catskinner May 13, 2013

        Great Cartoon, and really kind of sad….

        1. ObozoMustGo May 14, 2013

          Skinner… what’s really sad is the legion of morons that support Obozo and Cankles Clinton even after they have been lied to repeatedly about EVERYTHING. Their heads are so far up Obozo’s arse they actually think his crap smells like roses.

          Have a great day!

          “I have made it clear that the United States government had
          nothing to do with this video,” – Barack Hussein Obozo lying to the world in speech to UN General Assembly following the Benghazi attack

    2. plc97477 May 13, 2013

      Did you happen to read the part of the article that mentions the fact that Hillary is the most popular politician?

      1. Catskinner May 13, 2013

        Give it a few more hours, plc…

      2. idamag May 14, 2013

        That is why they are after her in force.

  9. darkagesbegin May 13, 2013

    the only thing holding the republican party together is their hatred of the Clintons. If we didn’t have the Clintons today, there might not be a republican party to unite. I mean, all through the Bush years, for every mistake, for every colossal blunder, Rush was right there blaming it on the Clintons. Eight years into the quagmire of the Bush administration, every thing that went wrong was Clinton’s fault. And when the economy collapsed in August of 2008, Rush turned to a new tactic: blame it on the upcoming election of Barack Obama.

    1. angelsinca May 13, 2013

      “the only thing holding the republican party together is their hatred of the Clintons”

      Can’t say there’s much truth in this. Can say that it seems the only thing holding the DNC together is a waning hatred for Bush, along with repulsion for republicans and contempt for conservatives. What are you going to hate on when Bush is gone and Republicans are the minority? Oh wait.

  10. ObozoMustGo May 13, 2013

    Just another pile of crap from the useful idiots that write in this sewer called The Memo. First off, Republicans did not cover up Benghazi. Cankles Clinton and Obozo did that. They are responsible for their own incompetence. Of course, there will be a political dimension to this cover up as there is in EVERY event. So stop the sanctimonious bulllsheet and whining about it. DemonRATS politicize every single event that comes along.

    Don’t worry, Cankles Clinton is already a has-been. She will go no where and even if she tried, some other DemonRAT contender will slaughter her in the primaries.

    BTW… what do you call using the IRS to harrass political opponents? Corruption, that’s what it is. And Obozo should be impeached for it.

    Have a nice day!

    “4 Americans are dead. What difference, at this point, does it make how they were killed?” — Hillary “Wide Load and Cankles” Clinton lying and shilling to change the topic in front of a sham of a Congressional inquiry

    1. walker442 May 13, 2013

      ‘Have a nice day!’

      Thanks troll, I will!

      1. Robert P. Robertson May 13, 2013


  11. HolyChrist May 13, 2013

    At what point will the GOP start being on the side of the American people instead of the simply waging wars?

    1. angelsinca May 13, 2013

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems the new sheriff is not affiliated with the GOP.

      1. HolyChrist May 13, 2013

        I was going to pick a quote from the article to point out how the GOP is blatantly just trying to tear down instead of actually having an point, but it was pretty much any line. Please re-read the article.

        1. angelsinca May 14, 2013

          A quote from THIS article? LOL. This is just another comedy piece by LOLGOP.

          I was pointing out how Obama has kept us in the losing battle called Afghanistan and has essentially disarmed Americans with the ‘be nice’ rules of engagement, making them vunerable to attack. More killed last week because of the policy. Nice going.

          But, more importantly, the GOP isn’t buying Obama’s horseh-t. Half of America applauds that last defense against further unwanted social change. The other half won’t be happy until everything is a boring shade of same.

          1. HolyChrist May 14, 2013

            More ignorant hatred from the Right… so glad you’re losing.

  12. montanabill May 13, 2013

    Those of us on the right certainly hope that Hillary is the left’s only hope for 2016. Why, the pure as driven snow, Hillary deserves to be President, no matter her complete history. After all, she’s a Democrat and there are no sins in Democrat land, unless a Republican does them.

  13. Suzanne Black-Jenkins May 13, 2013

    The behavior of the Republic Party has been deteriorating since their first secretive meeting immediately after Obama’s first election. They began to plot then to ensure Obama only serves one term, needless to say they failed miserably! Why? Because Americans are becoming more informed about what goes on behind a political party and who’s hand they’re shaking. And believe it or not, it’s not the average American worker’s hand. People are becoming disgusted with this type of bigoted mind set and egocentric behavior. The Republic Party is running blind and scared, and they have every reason to, Hillary Clinton has a great record of Secretary of the State: one that cannot be tarnished no matter how hard the Republican Party tries!

    1. idamag May 14, 2013

      This took place the day of the inauguration.

  14. angelsinca May 13, 2013

    Whatever you do, don’t tell the audience that the GOP seriously WANTS cackling Hillary to run for president in 2016. She’s the best hope for a Republican win.

  15. Jenna Wentworth May 14, 2013

    The repubs are just plain scared.

  16. Sue Copening May 14, 2013

    Yes, when it comes to the “Benghazi scandal,” the Obama haters are like a sweaty, pimply faced, teenage boy on prom night; hoping they are finally going to get to 3rd base. Again, though, they will be disappointed.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.