Just curious (as an uninformed Canadian), what war the US Army (not the Navy, not the USAF, the Army) can really claimed it won in a century? Just leave after wrecking a country into ruins is not winning by definition (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.), looking for a clear "Mission Accomplished"?

Like, I'd call the USAF dropping of the H Bomb won WWII, it got Japan to surrender, treaty signed, etc. That's Mission Accomplished to me.

Um….it’s not a show, nor is it a trial. Derp.

It is about investigating, then handing over evidence for prosecuting, not persecuting those politically opposed to democracy that took actions to end it because they tried to cover up the certified, verified results of the election they lost in a historic landslide to Sleepy Joe. The prosecution comes afterwards, then the persecution.

It’s absolutely about covering up the truth about the 2020 election….it’s about investigating and eventually prosecuting those who tried to do that.

I think it’s funny that investigating Jan 6 is portrayed by the right as going after Trump, but you guys are so dumb you don’t realize that’s admitting Trump was leading the treasonous coup attempt. If investigating the Jan 6 attack is going after Trump, the two must be connected.

Right, CNN reported it, so it must be untrue. So stupidly ignorant, bob. CNN gets it right 197 times for every time your biased sources tell the truth. Not only that, the 2.5% they get wrong they report and offer retractions….without having to be sued for billions to get them to not lie. Not a single right wing propaganda outlet can say the same. Such sad infantile stupidity you show at every opportunity.

I guess you forgot, Trump actually admitted most of her testimony publicly, all the important parts, saying he wanted to go personally lead the attack but his secret service wouldn’t let him. Does the specifics of this tantrum of the dozens we’ve seen him have publicly make any difference? He’s not being charged with attacking them, he’s being charged (eventually) with leading a violent coup to overthrow the government, something you and everyone else knows quite well that he did. Leadership matters!

The Federalist?! Aaaaahahaha!! Truth..nope. News…nope. Try again traitorous loser. The Federalist is poorly written fantasy fiction compared to CNN, which isn’t the only source for this information by far but I knew a CNN report would trigger your stupidity. Mission accomplished.
You, on the other hand, have what to discredit her story? One anonymous claim from someone saying an unnamed someone else might say it didn’t happen? From the far right, racist, factless, conspiracy theory rag…The Federalist!? LMFAHS!! OMFG, you ijit! Bwaaaahahahahaha. Why not just quote Mike Pillow?

What part does the federalist deny anyway (I’m not going to read it). Do they just deny he grabbed the wheel? I would certainly believe his excuse, that he’s too fat and out of shape to grab the wheel, but also that he TRIED to, lunged for it but failed, yes, I believe that, does that change anything? Does that even contradict her testimony? No.
Do they deny he was outraged that they wouldn’t take him to personally lead the attack (and lynching of Pence)? He admitted that on national tv, so it’s too late to deny. D’oh!

More tears, they’re so yummy! Keep ‘em coming!

Just a reminder, Republicans didn’t want a non political investigation, they utterly refused, then they refused to be involved in the bipartisan investigation. The only investigation they were interested in was of Clinton, even in 2021. Now they whine they aren’t involved in the investigation (Trump now complains they should have been a party to it because he wants people inside who can warn his people of subpoenas and warrants so they can flee and destroy evidence).
No crying about it now, you chose to not be represented well on the panel.

Gives the “Mission Accomplished” banner a new meaning…perhaps they meant the mission of making their electorate so fearful and stupid that they would buy any excuse for any atrocity without question. It certainly makes much more sense looked at that way.

In my opinion Biden had one mission. Defeat Trump. Mission accomplished. Whatever he does now is small peanuts compared to your hero.

130 infected secret service agents is what the biggest spreader, Trump, has now.
Odd, covid didn't disappear on the day after the election. Must be a liberal plot.

10 million cases, just under 250000 dead with over 1000 more dying daily, (that's 2.5% mortality) over a million disabled, 2 million hit with massive hospital bills, and rising faster than ever. Good thing it's mission accomplished.
🤦‍♂️

Trump's response...give me more money for lawsuits that really pays my debts. Pence's response, finally a meeting of the covid response team in which he refused to wear a mask or social distance.

Fake leaders, and now fake fundraising for fake lawsuits. Mortgage your house and pony up, buddy. Trump wants your cash NOW!

More of a police action at this point I thought, but yeah, we didn't "win" yet, no mission accomplished, and now bounties on their heads. That said, we are in control of most areas aren't we? So the guerrilla fighters aren't winning either, they're losing territory but holding out.

None of my guns are sniper capable, my best bet at accomplishing anything would be my shotgun, and I doubt I could pump it fast enough to shoot twice, old and broken as I am, so I would be out quick too. Not what I would call a successful resistance.

I think if the military is part of a government takeover/crackdown, we don't have the slightest chance. The best we could do is identify ourselves as dissidents in need of quick execution.

But that's just like, my opinion, man. :-)

Any rocket that sets off car alarms is alright with me. Mission accomplished.

Kinda like a cigarette after boinking.

:Mission Accomplished:

step 1) "We need a feel good medical promo for our new controller!"

Step 2) Sends footage taken to game trailer editors.

Step 3) faked camera shake added!

Mission accomplished

I thought parts of it were cringeworthy, but that that was entirely intentional. Sometimes that cringe is precisely what a comic is going for.

Honestly, I don't remember any of these being a "roast" to the degree that this one was. Thinking back on them in Obama's era, all I can remember is the mic-drop moment when Obama turned the tables and said Dick Cheney was the worst president in his memory, and Keegan-Michael Key being Obama's anger translator. Obama could certainly handle light/moderate jabs directed at him, but I don't remember that being done much if any at these specific events. Maybe it was and I just don't remember it.

Anyway, I think that saying that this upped the ante and went for the jugular significantly more than in the past is almost certainly correct. But that doesn't make it "bad" or "disrespectful" or whatever. I don't care that Trump didn't attend, even though presidents "traditionally" do. Hell, given the whole "fake news" shtick that he is trying to sell, he should have barred any White House staff from attending -- even/especially Press Secretary Sanders.

BUT, then after the event he should have simply said that he didn't watch it and that he doesn't give a rats ass what was said there instead of sulking about it on twitter. Acting all offended just makes him look like a little bitch (and that goes for all the other R's that have whined also).


Anyway, I guess overall I thought her bit was a good but not great set. Doing that material with that mixed audience guarantees that there's going to be some uncomfortable silences and crickets, but she clearly anticipated and managed that quite well. Roasts aren't really my thing, but given the machismo image that Trump tries to push it may well have been the perfect way to bait him into looking like a crybaby in his inevitable response. Mission accomplished?

Hmm. I disagree with your description text, @ChaosEngine.

I've never shot something fully-automatic. I have shot an AR-15 semi-automatic, and I know where you're coming from when you say that hitting a target on full auto would be difficult, especially for a relatively untrained person (recoil control).

However, I think Vox and others are basically correct when they say that this modification (bump stock) contributed to the Las Vegas shooting being so deadly. Specifically in that sort of scenario.

The dude wasn't picking targets and sniping, going for accuracy. He picked an ideal shooting location (elevation with clear LOS) and sprayed into a crowd. He'd have been more accurate by keeping the weapon on semi-auto and actually aiming carefully, and certainly would have gotten more hits per bullet fired, but on the other hand the rate of fire difference would have so different that people would have had more time between shots to scramble for cover, etc.

He had position, an abundance of bullets, and lots and lots of time. Given those givens, having a rate of fire approximately equal to fully-automatic means a much higher body count than if he'd have been limited to traditional semi-auto.


The NRA is being more cunning than I figured they would, and has come out in favor of banning bump stocks. I agree with you that they see that mostly as a pointless concession, and a distraction from additional / better stuff that needs to happen.

But it isn't a pointless concession. If banning fully-automatic firearms in 1986 (minus the ones grandfathered in) was the right thing to do, extending that to include bump stocks is also the right thing to do. For the same reasons.

@newtboy is correct to note that technically, a rifle with a bump stock isn't a fully-automatic "machine gun". The user's finger still pulls the trigger once for every bullet that comes out -- semi-automatic.

However, I think that the "spirit" of the distinction is that with semi-automatic firing you have to think and consciously decide to pull the trigger each time you want to shoot a bullet, whereas with fully-automatic you consciously decide when you want to start and stop shooting. By the letter of the law, weapons with bump stocks are semi-automatic. But by that definition of the "spirit" of the law, they are fully-automatic. Pull the grip/barrel forward to start shooting, pull it back to stop.

It's a pretty frequent occurrence for technology to outpace the law. The definitions of semi vs fully automatic include the word "trigger" because they didn't anticipate this kind of conversion that makes the trigger sort of one step removed from the conscious decision to fire. The law would have similar hiccups if a weapon was developed that used a button or switch to fire, rather than a traditional trigger.

When those hiccups happen, the solution is to clarify the intent of the law and expand or clarify definitions as necessary. I'm pleasantly surprised that many legislators seem willing to do that with bump stocks, and that the NRA seems like it won't stand in the way. Mission accomplished, situation resolved? No. But a step in the right direction.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

The GOP never to this point kowtowed to that part of the base anyway until they decided to attempt to harness the energy of that faction to the point that this faction has a stranglehold of the party, and yet are wholly ignorant on the issues. We're talking about people who hold up signs that read "Keep your government hands off my medicare" caliber people. Or people who think Obama isn't an American. Or people who think Obama is "a complete socialized take over of health care". Stuff like that which is so obviously untrue, it's laughable.

And I want to be clear. I'm not accusing the right of having a monopoly on stupid people in their base. There's PLENTY of stupid liberals. The difference is the Democratic party is doing a far better job of keeping their idiots supporting them without enacting what those idiots want or succumbing to their idiocy.

Here's proof - how many times do you see Democratic leaders constantly say crap like George W. Bush is a war criminal for Iraq? Name a Democratic presidential candidate who actually has said over and over again that Ted Cruz isn't a US citizen? Donald Trump, the current GOP frontrunner, over and over again insists Obama isn't a US citizen, as have many many Republican Congressmen.

When the GOP signed the deal with the devil so to speak by trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement, this was the inevitable outcome. The Tea Party has been hijacked twice by my count because the people within it are so incredibly ignorant, they don't seem to realize what they stand for. It was Libertarian in the beginning both socially and economically. Then it got hijacked to become more socially conservative and economically conservative. Now, it's been hijacked by Donald Trump, who nobody actually even knows what he is socially or economically at this point overall.

Why did this happen? Because GOP support is so contaminated and dominated by so much ignorance, you can have a TV personality say a bunch of stupid crap they want to hear but is certifiably absurd, that he can become the front runner. Building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, no matter how you feel about illegal immigration as far as ideals go, is simply not a practical solution to stop illegal immigration. You can't make Mexico pay for a wall even if you built it. Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Replacing Obamacare with something "terrific" is NOT a policy proposal; it's non-specific anti-Obama BS to make people who hate Obama love you. He could replace it with "Trumpcare" which could be basically Obamacare, and that could be "something terrific" for all you know.

Trump and Cruz don't exist without the Tea Party, and the Tea Party wouldn't be a thing if the GOP didn't decide to eventually attempt to galvanize it. Well, mission accomplished, but you're never going to get the support of the growing minority segments of the population. You've forfeited the support of moderates like myself, too. And young people by enlarge are rejecting this version of the GOP big time. Women are increasingly rejecting it, too.

Your second point... Umm, big fat no.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/the-last-presidential-candidate-who-was-as-unpopular-as-donald-trump-david-duke/

Get people to stop what they're thinking and doing for at least a few moments? Mission accomplished.
Upon looking at it however my first thought was, if Bender was sixty feet tall and told you to kiss his shiny metal asshole, it would probably look something like that.

You people miss the possibility that everything after Coop falling into Gargantua is a relativistic effect of being crushed to a dimensionless point. Wish fulfilment before dying over the course of a trillion years.

"They" got Plan B to a planet. Mission accomplished. They're probably shaking whatever passes as heads as to why he'd jump into a black hole...