Archive for huh wha?

Anthony Weiner is ba-a-a-ack. But WTF did he tweet?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

wait what smaller

weiner butt tweet

Link

Guess who showed up on Twitter? Yes  indeedy, your eyes are not deceiving you, Anthony Weiner is back. But his return wasn't exactly auspicious.

In fact, your guess is as good as mine what that tweet was about. Oh, but I kid the former representative whose previous Twitter misadventures led to his political demise.

Nevertheless, let the fun begin. Pocket tweeting can lead us to all kinds of interpretation!

So, in response to Mr. Weiner, jfieowgq. And I mean that sincerely.

And I'm sure I wouldn't be speaking out of turn if I were to add:

scott brown tweet  bqhatevwr

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe opposes Republican nominee Chuck Hagel because he's... Republican.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

going in circlesVia

In an interview with WABC's Aaron Klein, Republican Senator James Inhofe voiced his opposition to Chuck Hagel as President Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense. Why is he so against a fellow Republican? Well, duh! Because Hagel's a fellow Republican.

If that's not typical GOP "logic" I don't know what is.

Via BuzzFeed:

"I like Chuck Hagel ..." Inhofe said. "But philosophically he is right along with Obama and I can see Obama saying, 'Well here is a conservative Republican former senator who agrees with me on all this so this is bipartisan.' Well I don't want that label of bipartisanship to follow on all of his policy toward North Korea, Syria, Iran and even Egypt. So I am very much concerned about giving him that added impetus to do the things that I think are destroying America."

So bipartisanship-- Obama wanting to work with a Republican, nominating a Republican to a position of power-- would destroy America. Got it.

Who's on first with title

 

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: Soledad O'Brien grills GOP Rep. Joe Heck on his bizarre quasi-defense of Susan Rice

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Soledad O'Brien does it again. The hypocrisy of Republicans looking for any reason to scream "Impeach!!" is stunning. Of did Joe just get his Rices confused?

What the Heck?

GOP Rep. Joe Heck of Nevada:

You don't put somebody out who doesn't know about the issue and just have them go out to feed us the information that the administration wants put out. So we have to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi, and certainly the Senate will hold confirmation hearings, if she's nominated..."

O'Brien:

"Isn't that exactly analogous to what happened to Condoleezza Rice, who John McCain supported, and who Lindsey Graham supported?"

Heck:

"Condi Rice was in a position to be able to be the face, and the information was wrong. But here we had wrong information, and weeks later we had the administration coming back saying, well this person had nothing to do with the situation..."

O'Brien:

"Let's walk through that more slowly — let me walk through that more slowly so you don't lose me. So you're saying the issue in both cases, weapons of mass destruction and information intelligence coming to the U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, both cases the information was wrong. What you take exception with is what the White House did later. Is that what you're saying?"

Heck:

"Exactly."

O'Brien:

"You've lost me completely."

"Charles Blow, help me. Forgive me. I'm not being facetious at all.... He's saying nobody said that Condoleezza Rice didn't have anything to do with the situation."

Charles Blow:

"What I was trying to figure out is, are you saying that Condoleezza Rice actually should have known, because she had more intimacy with the information and then still said something that she knew was wrong-- In fact, Susan Rice is a sacrificial lamb because she was put out as the face of the administration but she didn't know anything? In fact, it's more of a defense of Susan Rice than it is a condemnation of Susan Rice."

O'Brien:

"Forgive me sir, will you walk us through this one more time. You think it’s different because Condoleezza Rice actually had first-hand knowledge?"

Heck:

"Blahblahblahblah... public face... Rice Rice Rice... failures... blahblahblah."

O'Brien:

"I feel like you're saying, from your own comments, that Susan Rice had nothing to do with either of those things. She didn't have something to do with the intelligence failures, which I believe you just said. And it looks as if she also had no knowledge at the time, so she's cleared on that front... Why would you possibly blame her then?"

Heck:

"I'm not blaming Ambassador Rice."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO- OOPS! Chris Matthews: "When people hear the word 'Santorum' for better or for worse they listen."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Chris Matthews:

"What I've learned in this business is that when people hear the word 'Santorum' for better or for worse they listen... they're interested."

Psst! Chris! Mostly "for worse." Google it.

And you can bet that a whole lot of people were interested alright.

And then a whole lot of people were nauseous.

Here's the entire segment. The above clip came in at the very end:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare