Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 8, 2014 12:22:04 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 8, 2014 12:22:04 GMT -5
And further through the looking glass we go. Hillary Clinton, facing that hard-hitting inquisitor Robin Roberts, had no problem declaring the actions of that maniac in Nigeria to be terrorism while clinging to the belief that all questions surrounding Benghazi have been answered to her satisfaction and anyone still inquiring has ulterior motives.
Luckily there was intense follow up about her impending campaign prop, sorry grandchild, and whom she might choose to run as VP.
Sickening what passes for news in the good old USA.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on May 8, 2014 15:44:20 GMT -5
Does it ever get tiring trying to will Benghazi into Watergate 2? I mean I know that people whose Primary Directive isn't Hating Obama have been tired of it for months. But I mean do you get tired having to keep up with all that manufactured rage? I mean surely somewhere deep inside you there is a rational actor that knows that Benghazi is a massive scandal BECAUSE you hate Obama rather than you hate Obama BECAUSE Benghazi is a massive scandal, right? I would bet my right arm that if the EXACT same events happen under Bush/Rice your opinion of the same facts is metaphysically different. That is true and you can't even pretend to deny it. Doesn't that embarrass you?
Before you pretend I'm some Obama fanboy, a reminder that I have NEVER voted without voting for a Republican. And because of people like you (and my parents, and my parents-in-law) I can't stomach the sight of the GOP anymore. I intend to throw my vote on Libertarians until and if the GOP can become a grown up party of ideas rather than an childish, superstitious, xenophobic, party of obfuscation. This is how fruitful your Obama hatred is...you are making the next generation of conservatives detest the GOP. That's not going to end well for you.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 8, 2014 16:00:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 8, 2014 16:00:53 GMT -5
You presume my concerns are electoral here. They are not. But thank you for your paternalistic lecture.
Is it exhausting to be perpetually condescending?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on May 8, 2014 16:09:18 GMT -5
You presume my concerns are electoral here. They are not. But thank you for your paternalistic lecture. Is it exhausting to be perpetually condescending? To be honest it has been quite liberating to have almost completely removed politics from my life. Both parties are loaded with jerks, the system is broken, and the electorate are a bunch of chimps. Better to realize the president has about 5% of the power over our lives as we seem to think he does, particularly when we obsess about hating/loving the current one.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 8, 2014 16:29:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 8, 2014 16:29:34 GMT -5
So that's a no?
|
|
|
Post by rustyshackleford on May 8, 2014 18:31:42 GMT -5
Does it ever get tiring trying to will Benghazi into Watergate 2? I mean I know that people whose Primary Directive isn't Hating Obama have been tired of it for months. But I mean do you get tired having to keep up with all that manufactured rage? I mean surely somewhere deep inside you there is a rational actor that knows that Benghazi is a massive scandal BECAUSE you hate Obama rather than you hate Obama BECAUSE Benghazi is a massive scandal, right? I would bet my right arm that if the EXACT same events happen under Bush/Rice your opinion of the same facts is metaphysically different. That is true and you can't even pretend to deny it. Doesn't that embarrass you? Before you pretend I'm some Obama fanboy, a reminder that I have NEVER voted without voting for a Republican. And because of people like you (and my parents, and my parents-in-law) I can't stomach the sight of the GOP anymore. I intend to throw my vote on Libertarians until and if the GOP can become a grown up party of ideas rather than an childish, superstitious, xenophobic, party of obfuscation. This is how fruitful your Obama hatred is...you are making the next generation of conservatives detest the GOP. That's not going to end well for you. How was your response any better than information devoid manufactured rage? In at least one of the two new posts on the issue I linked a senate intelligence report that revealed the massive state department and CIA failures that occurred. That report was authored by such noted Obama haters as Sen. Feinstein, Rockefeller, Wyden and Mikulski among others. There's additional video where Sen. Feinstein asserts that the Benghazi deaths were preventable. That by itself is a legitimate story and issue with those departments and there should absolutely be heads that roll, reform that is made (not just more funding as the initial commission had laughably said was the issue), and culpability assigned. Additionally, the released email by Shapiro and the testimony by Rice and Carney where they admittedly trot out a motive that was known to be unconfirmed/false in order to (and this is directly from Rhodes' email) "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader policy failure" is disturbing because it suggests that elements of the administration are willing to promote falsehoods in order to try to maintain the illusion that their worldview is always correct. This is troubling because it is recurrent - whether it is a complete lack of preparation for Ukraine or an inability to handle situation in Honduras, South Ossetia, etc. Now you're absolutely right that any administration would likely try to suppress evidence that their views don't conform to reality but that doesn't give them an excuse for the blowback they should receive when they get caught doing so. For all your 'but but Bush' arguments the media absolutely did (and correctly so) savage Rumsfeld and Cheney about their interference in WMD reports (or for example doggedly pursued Scooter Libby in his outing of the least secretive secret agent ever). Now the people that are bs'ing share the same political views as them so the majority of them won't do the heavy lifting even if the person who headed the department that was responsible for these failures might be our president in 2 years. Any RATIONAL ACTOR would have taken 10 minutes to actually review the evidence and not just launch into a diatribe about how this is just a stupid conspiracy invented by partisans and 'controversialize' the issue so that nobody would actually look at the facts. The previous two posts contain a bunch of factual links of bi-partisan reports and released emails and one post taking shots at the credibility of Hillary Clinton. Guess what - she was Secretary of State at the time and her handling on this event should absolutely be fair game. That won't change regardless of the faux moralism and indignation you put out here while simultaneously including no analysis of the facts. But hey, you're a libertarian, so you're like totally kosher and unbiased.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 8, 2014 18:45:52 GMT -5
thebin, you are saying that, because I and other conservatives oppose President Obama's policies is because we hate him, with the probable implication it's because he's an African American. Not true. I dislike the fact that he's the president and his liberal agenda is the opposite of my political leanings. I voted for Senator Tim Scott and I strongly support Justice Thomas, both of whom are African Americans but both of whom are conservatives.
As for Benghazi, I don't know what I think but suspect the White House has been hiding information relative to it; and further suspect it's because of political considerations. If the White House would say "we screwed up. We didn't beef up the consulate when we should have. We honestly did not believe we could have sent any force capable of saving the lives of the ambassador and the others. We created the "demonstration in response to the video" purely for political purposes and that was a huge mistake". If I could hear them say that or something similar, I'd be happy and ready to move on.
You may choose to discount what I say but, if so, that's your problem.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on May 9, 2014 0:04:28 GMT -5
thebin, you are saying that, because I and other conservatives oppose President Obama's policies is because we hate him, with the probable implication it's because he's an African American. Not true. I dislike the fact that he's the president and his liberal agenda is the opposite of my political leanings. I voted for Senator Tim Scott and I strongly support Justice Thomas, both of whom are African Americans but both of whom are conservatives. As for Benghazi, I don't know what I think but suspect the White House has been hiding information relative to it; and further suspect it's because of political considerations. If the White House would say "we screwed up. We didn't beef up the consulate when we should have. We honestly did not believe we could have sent any force capable of saving the lives of the ambassador and the others. We created the "demonstration in response to the video" purely for political purposes and that was a huge mistake". If I could hear them say that or something similar, I'd be happy and ready to move on. You may choose to discount what I say but, if so, that's your problem. "But I have black friends!" Also, supporting Justice Thomas is an absolutely bizarre defense of ANYTHING. He is the least qualified, and least competent Justice that SCOTUS has seen in a long, long time.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 9, 2014 4:41:22 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 9, 2014 4:41:22 GMT -5
Luckily Sotomayor showed up to claim that mantle.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 9, 2014 5:02:43 GMT -5
thebin, you are saying that, because I and other conservatives oppose President Obama's policies is because we hate him, with the probable implication it's because he's an African American. Not true. I dislike the fact that he's the president and his liberal agenda is the opposite of my political leanings. I voted for Senator Tim Scott and I strongly support Justice Thomas, both of whom are African Americans but both of whom are conservatives. As for Benghazi, I don't know what I think but suspect the White House has been hiding information relative to it; and further suspect it's because of political considerations. If the White House would say "we screwed up. We didn't beef up the consulate when we should have. We honestly did not believe we could have sent any force capable of saving the lives of the ambassador and the others. We created the "demonstration in response to the video" purely for political purposes and that was a huge mistake". If I could hear them say that or something similar, I'd be happy and ready to move on. You may choose to discount what I say but, if so, that's your problem. "But I have black friends!" Also, supporting Justice Thomas is an absolutely bizarre defense of ANYTHING. He is the least qualified, and least competent Justice that SCOTUS has seen in a long, long time. You Don't like Clarence Thomas because he is African American. Same logic that you use.
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on May 9, 2014 6:21:12 GMT -5
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on May 9, 2014 6:33:23 GMT -5
Luckily Sotomayor showed up to claim that mantle. I'm not sure if you're joking, but Sotomayor is one of the most/best qualified jurists appointed to the SC in recent history.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 9, 2014 7:12:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 9, 2014 7:12:35 GMT -5
Save for her ridiculous public statements about the need for the accumulation of political power perhaps.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on May 9, 2014 7:57:17 GMT -5
Save for her ridiculous public statements about the need for the accumulation of political power perhaps. That's your opinion, which has nothing with her qualifications as a SCJ.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 9, 2014 8:04:07 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 9, 2014 8:38:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 9, 2014 8:38:20 GMT -5
Save for her ridiculous public statements about the need for the accumulation of political power perhaps. That's your opinion, which has nothing with her qualifications as a SCJ. Good thing your statement is one of fact and not merely your opinion.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 9, 2014 8:47:07 GMT -5
Gowdy is a grandstanding clown. Yes, like a lot of politicians on both sides. But the fact that he was tapped for this role indicates that it's about getting sound bites more than anything else. Yes, he was a prosectuor. But he isn't there for his technical prowess, he's there to be a fire starter.
I still find this to be one of the most cynical political charades I've ever seen. I'm so tired of people hiding behind the 'don't you want to know the TRUTH' or 'four dead Americans!!!' excuses. Yes, of course people want the truth, and of course it's a tragedy when people are killed.
The issues is context and consistency. This is about attempting to damage Obama and the Democrats, and the only people who don't think so also think that 'voter fraud' is the reason for the recent Republican changes to electoral laws in the states.
It is so nakedly political and from step ONE, with Romney's disgusting response the same night, has been about searching for a real problem in a situation where they just *know* Obama is to blame somewhere. It is completely transparent.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 9, 2014 9:02:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 9, 2014 9:02:16 GMT -5
It is almost as transparent as the nonsensical explanation that a video caused the attacks.
It is almost as transparent as Hillary Clinton's desire to mind erase from the electorate the fact that it occurred on her watch.
It is almost as transparent as the fact that the White House response was as blatantly political as Romney'a.
The only unanswered question is whether Romney'a response or the White House response was better grounded in fact.
Care to wager?
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on May 9, 2014 9:09:33 GMT -5
That's your opinion, which has nothing with her qualifications as a SCJ. Good thing your statement is one of fact and not merely your opinion. I went with resumé. What did you use?
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on May 9, 2014 9:10:30 GMT -5
That's your opinion, which has nothing with her qualifications as a SCJ. Good thing your statement is one of fact and not merely your opinion. I don't really know what you meant by qualified, Elvado; if you mean unqualified based upon their resume, I actually don't think either was unqualified for the job. CT went to YLS and had been a state AAG, head of the EEOC, ran DOE office of civil rights (!), and then a judge on the D.C. Circuit. (I'm going to ignore, for the moment, the whole Anita Hill fiasco.) SS was an ADA, worked in private practice, and then -- and this is not true of any of her colleagues -- served as a district court judge before being appointed to the court of appeals. Those on the left argue that CT has been a terrible justice; those on the right I guess are going to start saying that about Sotomayor, but by traditional metrics, I think it is hard to seriously knock either's paper qualifications. Now, if you interpret "qualified" to mean whether or not the individual holds views on legal and political topics that one finds acceptable, well then I don't suspect there is any chance of coming to an agreement here.
|
|