Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.
-spence
actually, there's a sufficient body of sufficient lying to support the narrative and establish a trend for either Clinton.....I believe an esteemed American once accurately referred to Hillary as a "congenital liar".....that was long before these lies....but for some this is ...resume enhancement...particularly if you get away with it
So in that case, your previous statement, "How many investigations do you need", wouldn't apply as they had your so called 2 phases.
Well, in that case it was political. The Senate Dems couldn't get the Repubs to do anything unless they agrees to push off the Admin use of intel into a future phase. And then, the Repubs dragged their heels until the Dems took the Senate.
Quote:
I would say in any investigation you should be open to any and all information that will lead to the truth and rule out the bogus. You can't know the whole truth until all information is investigated.
There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.
That's a presumption of guilt.
Quote:
Common sense would say both would want to stonewall info if they didn't do their jobs, or open the flood gates of info if they had done a stellar job.
The Mullen investigation was pretty substantial and from everything I've read they had good cooperation by the Administration. They interviewed over 100 people and apparently made public attempts to solicit information. Why didn't these people come forth earlier? Because they were intimidated? Come on...
I'd also note (as I assume nobody here has taken a second to bother and read up about it) it lays plenty of blame on the State Department for not having better contingency plans on the table or responding to escalating threats.
This is the rub, all this whistle blower flack appears to just be some ticked off insiders stating things that have already been investigated.
actually, there's a sufficient body of sufficient lying to support the narrative and establish a trend for either Clinton.....I believe an esteemed American once accurately referred to Hillary as a "congenital liar".....that was long before these lies....but for some this is ...resume enhancement...particularly if you get away with it
And yet she exited the job with a 69% approval rating (Gallup).
I'd note her husband left the presidency with a 66% approval rating (Gallup).
And yet she exited the job with a 69% approval rating (Gallup).
I'd note her husband left the presidency with a 66% approval rating (Gallup).
-spence
YET 100% DISHONEST.......America is a wonderful place.....pretty sure Hill had her highest approval ratings when she was being seen or viewed as victim of Bill's transgressions.....odd world
GALLUP
The current rating is just one percentage point below her all-time high rating of 67%, from December 1998.
Clinton's popularity may be partly due to the nature of the secretary of state position, which is somewhat above the fray of partisan politics and focused on defending U.S. interests globally.
Yes 100% for sure. I guess that makes the majority a bunch of idiots. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
aren't we told that all of the time?
both probably enjoy a helpful tailwind thanks to the fact that they've been media darlings since hitting the national scene...through good and bad the MSM has propped them both up....should probably add that "contex" when comparing those #'s to others who didn't enjoy the mediagasm to the same degree.......
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
Yes but extrapolating the demographics established by ScottW that would mean his supporters are not idiots. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Whatever, you me and eben are on one-side of this song, Jim, Scott and Justplugit are on the other...
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
LOL, good one RRH, a bit extreme when it comes to me, but good try any way.
I think the "brilliance" is in his ability to write and sing a song that sucks strewn with mindless stereotypes and still get applause.....
and an AMEN from Eben....
kinda like poetry and art these days...you can get federal funding to assemble a pile of twigs and take a dump on it and exhibit it in an art museum and the critics will rave!.....
hey Eben....can liberals be hippies?...or hippies be liberals?....pot smoking, porn watching people in desperate need of a bath doesn't quite align with your definition....just wondering......
I said your biased because you knew the security team. If I had to wear a flak jacket after my plane was doing funny maneuvers, I'd think I was under fire as well... However. Under the risk of fire is different than under fire.
Yes I have a website. Google "the glass station Wakefield rhode island" Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"Under the risk of fire is different than under fire. "
Very, very different. No one could ever confuse being shot at, with having to have a security detail but never coming under fire. If the pressure of simply having to take precautions, causes her to have delusional episodes about being in a combat situation, obviously she is nowhere near fit to be president. But she's not delusional, she's just a liar. Which, in a rational world, would also make her unfit for the Oval Office. But not if your last name is 'Clinton' or 'Kennedy'. If you are a democrat with one of those names, no amount of repugnant, immoral, hedonistic, greedy, degenarate actions, will ever cause the sheep to turn their backs on you.
My wife is excited to browse. I genuinely wish I had some creative talent...
I guess that makes the majority a bunch of idiots. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You said it, not me...
I'd say 'clueless' rather than 'idiotic'. That, plus 99% of the media is in the bag for your side, and your side is great at putting a positive spin on an economically suicidal, and morally bankrupt, ideology.
My father, who is my hero, has a PhD in electrical engineering. He is brilliant. He, like most Catholics of his generation, grew up voting for Democrats, back in the 1950's, before the democrats got radicalized in the 1960's. Today, my Dad believes that as a conservative, I am out to steal his social security benefits. I can show him the numbers that clearly show that we need to either double the federal income tax, or make serious cuts to SS and medicare. He's not quite convinced, because every TV station except one, says that conservatives dislike old people and poor people.
Last edited by Jim in CT; 05-03-2013 at 08:12 AM..
"Under the risk of fire is different than under fire. "
Very, very different. No one could ever confuse being shot at, with having to have a security detail but never coming under fire. If the pressure of simply having to take precautions, causes her to have delusional episodes about being in a combat situation, obviously she is nowhere near fit to be president. But she's not delusional, she's just a liar. Which, in a rational world, would also make her unfit for the Oval Office. But not if your last name is 'Clinton' or 'Kennedy'. If you are a democrat with one of those names, no amount of repugnant, immoral, hedonistic, greedy, degenarate actions, will ever cause the sheep to turn their backs on you.
My wife is excited to browse. I genuinely wish I had some creative talent...
Jim. They are all liars! Ever single one. Republican and democrat.
The honest ones are the ones who lie less. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
hey Eben....can liberals be hippies?...or hippies be liberals?....pot smoking, porn watching people in desperate need of a bath doesn't quite align with your definition....just wondering......
Anyone can be anything in the country. Redneck cowboys can fall in love. Dirty hippies can listen to Metallica and watch NASCAR. Spence can wear his wife's underwear.... That's the beautiful thing about America. Of course there are consecrate Christian rightwing republicans who want to end all of that.
Sounds anti American to me. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim. They are all liars! Ever single one. Republican and democrat.
The honest ones are the ones who lie less. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I hear you. The vast majority of career politicians are flawed. Similarly, if I had a sister, I'd tell her nnot to believe everything a guy tells her in a singles bar.
But Nebe...come on...you have to admit, it takes a special kind of liar, to be able to say with a straight face that you came under sniper fire, when you know that never happened.
Or my current favorite, CT Senator #^&#^&#^&#^& Blumenthal, democrat. Mr Blumenthal was caught lying about serving in the Vietnam War, he never went anywhere near Vietnam. Yet he won his election easily. I don't understand that, especially in this day and age, when we recognize the sacrifices those guys made. How do you nominate and then elect, such a weasel?
Anyone can be anything in the country. Redneck cowboys can fall in love. Dirty hippies can listen to Metallica and watch NASCAR. Spence can wear his wife's underwear.... That's the beautiful thing about America. Of course there are consecrate Christian rightwing republicans who want to end all of that.
Sounds anti American to me. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So anyone can be anything and be American, except Christian right wing republicans can't be anything because that would be anti American.
Perhaps history is being re-written, but I seem to recall reading about very "right wing" Christians being instrumental in founding this country that allows anyone to be anything . . . except right wing Christian republicans, of course.
But Nebe...come on...you have to admit, it takes a special kind of liar, to be able to say with a straight face that you came under sniper fire, when you know that never happened.
Or my current favorite, CT Senator #^&#^&#^&#^& Blumenthal, democrat. Mr Blumenthal was caught lying about serving in the Vietnam War, he never went anywhere near Vietnam. Yet he won his election easily. I don't understand that, especially in this day and age, when we recognize the sacrifices those guys made. How do you nominate and then elect, such a weasel?
Yes, the worst kind of liars in my mind, egocentric liars who try to build themselves up and fool others into thinking they are more than they are,insecure and not to be trusted.
Phonies.
Redneck cowboys can fall in love. Dirty hippies can listen to Metallica and watch NASCAR. Spence can wear his wife's underwear.... Of course there are consecrate Christian rightwing republicans who want to end all of that.
Sounds anti American to me. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't want to end any of these....particularly Spence in womens panties I would fall into the right-wing Christian republican category....is there a vast conspiracy that I'm unaware of that is seeking to ban these things that you hold so dear ?
There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.
Spence- [/Quote] "that is an assumption of guilt."
No Spence ,it's just a red flag going up in an inquiring mind.
I'd say 'clueless' rather than 'idiotic'. That, plus 99% of the media is in the bag for your side, and your side is great at putting a positive spin on an economically suicidal, and morally bankrupt, ideology.
I assume you're exempting FOX News which is #1 on TV, Rush and Hannity who are #1 and #2 on talk radio, the WSJ which is the largest newspaper in the country (followed by USA Today which isn't exactly a liberal rag).
We don't even need to go into the conservative personalities like Will, Krauthamer, Brooks, Doutha, Parker etc... etc... etc... that contribute regularly to the largest newspapers you've accused of being liberal.
I'd say your 99% number is off by about a billion.
Quote:
My father, who is my hero, has a PhD in electrical engineering. He is brilliant. He, like most Catholics of his generation, grew up voting for Democrats, back in the 1950's, before the democrats got radicalized in the 1960's. Today, my Dad believes that as a conservative, I am out to steal his social security benefits. I can show him the numbers that clearly show that we need to either double the federal income tax, or make serious cuts to SS and medicare. He's not quite convinced, because every TV station except one, says that conservatives dislike old people and poor people.
He's probably like my father who believes he's paid into something with the assumption he's going to get a return in the form of income stability when they retire. He's made a deal with the country and believes the country has an obligation to make good on that contract.
I highly doubt your father with a PhD in EE has been brainwashed by the 99%.
more like interpolating....you made the idiot statement..actually, several now..I acknowledged that this is in fact what we are told essentially by the elitists and why their guidance administered through heaping helpings of government bureaucracy is deemed necessary to help us through our daily lives apparently.....idiots?...no....apathetic?...probab ly...
He's probably like my father who believes he's paid into something with the assumption he's going to get a return in the form of income stability when they retire. He's made a deal with the country and believes the country has an obligation to make good on that contract.
-spence
Here's is what my father, and you, don't get.
Yes, he paid into SS and Medicare.
HERE IS THE PROBLEM...
What they have paid into these programs, combined with interest income, is nowhere near enough to pay for the promised benefits. The ony way to pay for those benefits, is to borrow, meaning future generations will be burdened with that much more debt. Please tell me if I'm wrong anywhere?
Spence, when those programs were founded, there were more workers-per-retiree, retirees lived only a few years in retirement, medical costs were low, and interest rates were high. That made it feasible. Now, the math has turned upside down.
Do you deny that? Or are you just unable to grasp the mathematical reality? Those programs are underfunded by, according to some estimates, $100 trillion.
I conclude that if those programs are underfunded by $100 trillion, then the promised benefits are too rich. What other conclusion is there?
"He's made a deal with the country and believes the country has an obligation to make good on that contract."
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is to say that he was duped by Democrats who promised that if he voted for them, he would never let those mean Republicans take away his social security. That political tactic has been around for 70 years, because it works. It worked on my Dad. And sure as hell it worked on you.
Spence, I have asked you this many times, and I can't recall that you have ever answered. Let's try again. Since your side are the self-appointed guardians of all that is noble...how are you going to come up with the tens of trillions of dollars that are needed? Flower power? Electric cars? If you can propose a way to do that, which doesn't involve tax increases that even you would have to admit are crippling, I will support it. I truly will.
In summary, it doesn't matter what my Dad, or anyone else, feels they are entitled to. What matters is, we cannot begin to pay for the promised benefits.
This is why George Will says that liberals are actively hostile to arithmetic. You talk about how mean it is to propose cutting these popular programs (all Ponzi schemes are popular with those who cash out before it implodes), but you don't offer fixes to the problem.
Spence, exactly how much pay are you willing to confiscate from future generations, to pay for current benefits? Should our kids be levied 25 federal income tax points to pay for benefits for their grandparents' generation? That's not immoral, in your opinion?
It's a lot easier to criticize from the sidelines, than it is to offer solutions to the problem. For proof of that, see what happened when Paul Ryan proposed changes to Medicare. The reaction from your side speaks for itself.
This is the rub, all this whistle blower flack appears to just be some ticked off insiders stating things that have already been investigated.
-spence
Really? Just some ticked-off insiders on a political witch hunt?
Spence, tell that to Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the topDemocrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Ruppersberger probably knows almost as much about this story as you do, and he sees the need for further investigation, in light of recent revelations. He welcomes the upcoming House Oversight hearings on what happened in Libya, saying "That's what an investigation is about,” Ruppersberger told CBS. “Let's get the facts.”
I have no doubt that to you, these new revelations appear to be insignificant. Fortunately, for the sake of the families of the dead, that's not how it appears to some honest Democrats in the House.
Linear Mode
