Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 9, 2014 9:14:42 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 9, 2014 9:14:42 GMT -5
Fair point. My statement was most aimed at the cottage industry that is trashing Clarence Thomas. He is often lambasted for his reticence. I suspect that criticism is more rotted in his opinions and votes than his silence.
Sotomayor might want to take a page from his book and shut her mouth a bit more often.
I do not agree with her philosophy nor most of her votes. Under the same measure that the Left likes to trash Thomas, I suggest she is equally unfit based upon her ideology.
Sauce for the goose.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on May 9, 2014 9:19:21 GMT -5
Fair point. My statement was most aimed at the cottage industry that is trashing Clarence Thomas. He is often lambasted for his reticence. I suspect that criticism is more rotted in his opinions and votes than his silence. Sotomayor might want to take a page from his book and shut her mouth a bit more often. I do not agree with her philosophy nor most of her votes. Under the same measure that the Left likes to trash Thomas, I suggest she is equally unfit based upon her ideology. Sauce for the goose. I'm not necessarily in disagreement that Supreme Court justices should talk rarely, if ever, about the day's hot button issues. Thus, I assume we can agree that Justice Scalia should also take a page from CT's book and shut his mouth a bit more? Here's one example of him talking out of school: abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/justice-antonin-scalias-provocative-comments-gay-issues/story?id=18791020&page=2As for Justice Sotomayor's votes, are there specific cases that you believe reveal her to be unfit to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 9, 2014 9:20:29 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? Every single point you make is so saturated with political spin that it's hard to know where to even begin. 1) Nonsensical explanation that the video caused the attacks. The video did lead to violent protests and riots in other Middle Eastern regions. Nonsensical does not exactly describe it. 2) When you have to use your secret method of getting inside Hillary's mind to make your point, it's getting a little desperate. 3) Saying that Obama sympathized with the attackers and blamed America's values ON THE NIGHT OF THE ATTACK is a different world than Obama's response. I genuinely don't understand how you can equate the two. 4) Please see point three. Your response reads like a chain email. Such little substance, but wrapped in things you *know* that can't be unproven because you just know.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 9, 2014 9:24:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 9, 2014 9:24:26 GMT -5
I occur wholeheartedly that Supreme Court justices should be heard only in writing.
As for specific votes, we now tread into dangerous territory. I believe her to be wrong on many votes, including most recently on affirmative action.
As for unfit, she is as fit as Thomas, whom I am sure my friends on the Left believe to be wholly unqualified based upon his voting record.
Again, sauce for the goose.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 9, 2014 9:25:12 GMT -5
Fair point. My statement was most aimed at the cottage industry that is trashing Clarence Thomas. He is often lambasted for his reticence. I suspect that criticism is more rotted in his opinions and votes than his silence. Sotomayor might want to take a page from his book and shut her mouth a bit more often. I do not agree with her philosophy nor most of her votes. Under the same measure that the Left likes to trash Thomas, I suggest she is equally unfit based upon her ideology. Sauce for the goose. I would say Kagan was probably the least qualifed out of all the current justices. Not sure why she always gets ignored, but there's a reason her nomination went smoothly--there was no real record for anyone to question her on.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on May 9, 2014 9:29:33 GMT -5
I occur wholeheartedly that Supreme Court justices should be heard only in writing. As for specific votes, we now tread into dangerous territory. I believe her to be wrong on many votes, including most recently on affirmative action. As for unfit, she is as fit as Thomas, whom I am sure my friends on the Left believe to be wholly unqualified based upon his voting record. Again, sauce for the goose. I don't want to get in to specific cases either. All I'll say is that I don't think it is Thomas's VOTING record that leads folks to believe him to be unqualified. By that standard, Justice Scalia would also be unqualified, and, as much as he rankles the left (except when deciding a Fourth Amendment case), I don't think anyone actually believes him to be UNQUALIFIED.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on May 9, 2014 9:32:50 GMT -5
Fair point. My statement was most aimed at the cottage industry that is trashing Clarence Thomas. He is often lambasted for his reticence. I suspect that criticism is more rotted in his opinions and votes than his silence. Sotomayor might want to take a page from his book and shut her mouth a bit more often. I do not agree with her philosophy nor most of her votes. Under the same measure that the Left likes to trash Thomas, I suggest she is equally unfit based upon her ideology. Sauce for the goose. I would say Kagan was probably the least qualifed out of all the current justices. Not sure why she always gets ignored, but there's a reason her nomination went smoothly--there was no real record for anyone to question her on. This is hard to argue -- that Kagan was less qualified, on paper, than Sotomayor, Alito, or Roberts -- but I don't think anyone could argue that she did not possess the basic qualifications necessary to do the job.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 9, 2014 9:36:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 9, 2014 9:36:34 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? Every single point you make is so saturated with political spin that it's hard to know where to even begin. 1) Nonsensical explanation that the video caused the attacks. The video did lead to violent protests and riots in other Middle Eastern regions. Nonsensical does not exactly describe it. 2) When you have to use your secret method of getting inside Hillary's mind to make your point, it's getting a little desperate. 3) Saying that Obama sympathized with the attackers and blamed America's values ON THE NIGHT OF THE ATTACK is a different world than Obama's response. I genuinely don't understand how you can equate the two. 4) Please see point three. Your response reads like a chain email. Such little substance, but wrapped in things you *know* that can't be unproven because you just know. 1. They knew the video was a canard when Rice went on TV. 2. Hillary has very deftly distanced herself from this and dismisses any questions with "I am satisfied and anyone who questions this further does so for pure politics." 3. Both Romney and Obama acted out of pure raw political ambition in what they said. Romney appealed to his supporters and Obama wanted to cover his ass. I will cop to be being partisan on this issue but please climb down off your morally superior position long enough to admit the same.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 9, 2014 9:46:33 GMT -5
I think everyone needs to relax a bit.
Here, this is fun. Watch Al Sharpton try to pronounce words....
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 9, 2014 10:05:35 GMT -5
1. They knew the video was a canard when Rice went on TV.
- This is the accusation, not a fact. Still unsure as to how this would be a massive scandal worthy of these investigations and have not heard a response to why THIS issue should be getting this level of attention at the expense of others.
2. Hillary has very deftly distanced herself from this and dismisses any questions with "I am satisfied and anyone who questions this further does so for pure politics." - What should she be doing different here? Seriously, a politician not embracing an event that has been twisted and disgustingly exploited by an opposition party for political gain? That is a serious controversy?
3. Both Romney and Obama acted out of pure raw political ambition in what they said. Romney appealed to his supporters and Obama wanted to cover his ass. - Again, there is a massive substantive difference in what they said. He accused the president of sympathizing with terrorists who just killed a US Ambassador and blaming American 'values.' The night it happened. Do you really believe there's an equivalence there?
It's not a matter of moral superiority, it's a matter of reality. When your basic points on a scandal require such slanted commentary to explain the issue, it's completely fair to call it out.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 9, 2014 10:15:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 9, 2014 10:15:31 GMT -5
Now I get it. Since you know what happened I will simply defer to your judgment. Thank you for saving me the time of waiting for a thorough review.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 9, 2014 10:28:58 GMT -5
Lame. Nowhere in any response do I claim to know what happened. All I've said is that YOUR claims were not facts. And they're not.
That's the whole point with this 'scandal.' People outraged by it can't even explain what the problem is without parroting desperately twisted claims. Then they wonder why others aren't outraged. Save me the sanctimony and sarcasm. I asked what the issues are here and you respond with nonsense and then get upset and make petty attacks when called out for it.
There is talk of impeachment over this. There have been multiple hearings and this has dominated the news cycle. Forgive me for not riding shotgun with a nakedly partisan witchhunt that is having trouble justifying its own existence.
I would support these types of hearings on other Obama administration issues, even if it lead to impeachment. This, however, is a cynical joke.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 9, 2014 10:42:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 9, 2014 10:42:43 GMT -5
I would love to know the issues on which you would support hearings.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 9, 2014 10:48:02 GMT -5
Use of drone strikes (against Americans or foreign nationals), NSA/FBI domestic surveillance (probably my number one), stonewalling Wall Street prosecutions. I'm sure there are others that I'm not thinking of or aren't particularly passionate about, but I'd fully support any of those.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
May 9, 2014 10:51:05 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on May 9, 2014 10:51:05 GMT -5
A very reasonable list. Thanks.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 9, 2014 10:56:06 GMT -5
Appreciated, and I never mean to get too touchy.
It's what frustrates me particularly about the attention given to Benghazi. In my belief it comes at the expense of other serious issues both parties are more than willing to look past together. But I guess it isn't reasonable to expect either Democrats or Republicans to address systemic problems from which they both benefit.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on May 9, 2014 10:57:40 GMT -5
Amen to that. I think we can agree to a pox on both their houses.
|
|
|
Post by rustyshackleford on May 9, 2014 15:41:38 GMT -5
1. They knew the video was a canard when Rice went on TV. - This is the accusation, not a fact. Still unsure as to how this would be a massive scandal worthy of these investigations and have not heard a response to why THIS issue should be getting this level of attention at the expense of others. 2. Hillary has very deftly distanced herself from this and dismisses any questions with "I am satisfied and anyone who questions this further does so for pure politics." - What should she be doing different here? Seriously, a politician not embracing an event that has been twisted and disgustingly exploited by an opposition party for political gain? That is a serious controversy? 3. Both Romney and Obama acted out of pure raw political ambition in what they said. Romney appealed to his supporters and Obama wanted to cover his ass. - Again, there is a massive substantive difference in what they said. He accused the president of sympathizing with terrorists who just killed a US Ambassador and blaming American 'values.' The night it happened. Do you really believe there's an equivalence there? It's not a matter of moral superiority, it's a matter of reality. When your basic points on a scandal require such slanted commentary to explain the issue, it's completely fair to call it out. 1. That's because you ignore the actual substantive critiques. The Senate Intelligence Committee lays out the issues. Instead of having a sham internal review and finding no one culpable (except of course the need for more money) like the state department did the committee actually laid out actionable recommendations and pointed out serious issues. You haven't addressed that a single time and keep on screaming out 'conspiracy' so that your left wing compatriots don't have to use logic to actually analyze what happened (note the completely substance-less ny times op-ed that was posted here in lieu of the poster using any reason at all). Meanwhile the majority of right wingers who talk about this type of stuff froth at the mouth about how everything the President is doing is going to be the doom of the US and understandably lose credibility (unintentional truth telling? seriously?). 2. Hillary could have actually led and made changes and fired people who screwed up. It's what a leader of the state dept should do. However, like this administration she stonewalled, created a sham defense and now has tried to obfuscate the issue as a political one as opposed to a legitimate failure of policy and agencies. 3. Romney was a moron for saying that the administration sympathized with protesters/attackers. President Obama's administration were idiotic for deceitfully playing these games with a video tape that was at the time an impetus for a discussion on limiting free speech if it offended others. And are we seriously saying Justice Kagan was unqualified? Her academic and policy/advising legacy are very strong. Her law review articles are especially good (even if you don't agree with her views on free speech or on presidential power)
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 9, 2014 16:00:20 GMT -5
Right, the Senate Intelligence Committee laid out actionable recommendations and pointed out serious issues. That's what these new hearings are about, right? Gowdy was appointed to make sure that these recommendations are properly implemented, right?
My point is that this is artificially being pushed as a scandal for nakedly political reasons. Where do I keep pushing 'conspiracy' to make up for my lack of logic? I have not said that everything that happened surrounding the attacks was as perfect as it could have been. It's that even considering the Intelligence Committee's report, show me how this is a SCANDAL that requires these moves.
What is your point?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on May 13, 2014 14:23:18 GMT -5
theweek.com/article/index/261426/im-not-a-democrat-im-an-anti-republicanIts good to know that there are other natural conservatives/libertarians that see how ugly and childish is the current state of the GOP. "....You could say that I'm less a Democrat than an anti-Republican. I vote the way I do because I want the GOP to lose, lose badly, and keep losing until it comes to its collective senses, which at this point seems a very long way off indeed. There are so many reasons why I've come to this position that I almost don't know where to begin. So let's just start with recent headlines — which means the Benghazi Obsession. Four people died in the September 2012 attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. It was a tragedy. It was infuriating. It deserved to be investigated. And it has been. Nine times. Nine investigations. Nine reports. But that's not enough for House Republicans. Goaded by Fox News' nearly 24/7 obsessive-compulsive fixation on the story, the Republican caucus has finally persuaded House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to launch a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. Again. As Michael Tomasky pointed out in an important Daily Beast column last Friday, Benghazi mania looks even more outrageous when contrasted with the Democratic response to the horrific events of October 23, 1983. That, of course, is when, on Ronald Reagan's watch, two truck bombs destroyed the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American servicemen — the largest single-day loss of life for the Marines since World War II. And how did the Democrats who ran the House of Representatives respond? With a two-month-long investigation and some reprimands for the military. Then it was over. And Reagan went on to win re-election in a landslide less than a year later. That was the behavior of a party that put the good of the nation ahead of its own ideological fervor and electoral ambitions. As Tomasky points out, the same could be said of the GOP's relatively restrained response to the 1993 Black Hawk Down episode in Somalia, which occurred just under a year into Bill Clinton's presidency. Not even congressional Democratic oversight of the Iraq War — which was started to disarm a dictator of weapons he didn't possess, was badly run for years, and left 4,487 Americans dead and 32,223 wounded — compares to the severity of the House GOP's Benghazi obsession. It is the behavior of a party that now routinely places its own partisan advantage, as well as its own unhinged hatred for its ideological opponents, ahead of the good of the country. But my revulsion at the Republicans doesn't begin and end with Iraq and Benghazi. It's spread to many other issues over the years. Frankly, the GOP increasingly looks like a party in the grip of some form of hyperpartisan madness that takes self-destructive delight in alienating everyone who isn't a far-right ideologue......"
|
|