Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Profiling is not ok...Follow

#27 May 14 2013 at 4:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Guenny wrote:
The IRS thing makes me sympathize with the Tea Partiers more than anything before. I mean, talk about proving their point that the IRS is an arbitrary, biased, and a vindictive establishment.


It goes a bit deeper than that though. All of these things are examples of what happens when you put a bunch of people with an "ends justifies the means" ideology in key high level positions in the government, while simultaneously keeping a distance between the leaders and those implementing policy as a means of CYA. You get a ton of folks doing stuff they think their bosses want them to do ideologically, with no oversight from those bosses (cause they don't want to know). So the normal processes which might prevent say liberal IRS investigators from unfairly targeting conservative groups for auditing and investigation aren't in place. Ditto with those who might stop and ask if it really is a good idea to collect information on AP, or who might ask "should someone really make the changes to this intelligence report to make it say what they think we want to hear?".

I've never in my life seen an administration pass the buck downward to some unnamed bureaucrats as much as this one does. It's always "intelligence experts" or "security experts" or some kind of "expert". Um... How about we put those people in charge then, if they're the ones making all the decisions? That way someone's also responsible. Cause right now, it seems like the whole administration is structured to avoid responsibility for any decision that's made.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 May 14 2013 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If the GOP is running on Benghazi in 2016, they already lost the election.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 May 14 2013 at 5:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If the GOP is running on Benghazi in 2016, they already lost the election.


Because running on the failings of the previous administration is never a winning move. It's not just Benghazi though. It's that and Fast and Furious. And an out of control IRS. And an out of control DoJ. It's rampant corruption and favoritism from top to bottom in this administration. Ironically, it's this administration actually doing all the things they blamed the Bush administration for doing when running in 2008.

But beyond election politics, it's also trying to get America to wake up and set aside their own partisan assumptions and see what's really going on. Regardless of why or who, I think it should be clear that there are some really really questionable things going on in our government right now. And I think a lot of people have given the Obama administration a pass, or allowed themselves to believe that it's just conservatives making hay out of nothing, but at some point any rational objective person has to look at the sheer volume of "strange things" going on and conclude that something is wrong. If it were just one or even two such things, you might be able to dismiss it as partisan mudslinging, or honest mistakes, or whatever. But this is like 5 presidencies worth of scandals all under one president. Whether these events are intentional and coming from the top, or the result of the top not engaging and minding the store really shouldn't matter. It's a failure of leadership either way.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 May 14 2013 at 5:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, you're certainly one to tell us how elections are won. Tell presidents McCain and Romney hello. As I understand, both are destined to be winners.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 May 14 2013 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because running on the failings of the previous administration is never a winning move.


You mean cutting money that was meant to go abroad? Yea, that was the Republicans, who conveniently never mention that. Or the fact that more of the same deaths happened under W's watch with much less hearings? If this is the best that the Republicans have, it's already over.

gbaji wrote:
Regardless of why or who, I think it should be clear that there are some really really questionable things going on in our government right now.


This is ALWAYS true. If anyone believes that the government doesn't try to clean things up prior to releasing information (if at all), then that person is misinformed. It's crowd control.

#32 May 14 2013 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,440 posts
Saw this today.

Quote:
The PPP poll also notes some alarming news. Though Republican voters are in near hysteria over Benghazi, over 40 percent can't even name the country that it's in.

"One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess."


The other 60% had fast access to Google.

Also this.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#33 May 15 2013 at 1:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
#34 May 15 2013 at 7:06 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
gbaji wrote:
it's also trying to get America to wake up and set aside their own partisan assumptions
It's bipartisan as long as you're 100% conservative.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 May 15 2013 at 7:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Because running on the failings of the previous administration is never a winning move. It's not just Benghazi though. It's that and Fast and Furious. And an out of control IRS. And an out of control DoJ.

I was posting from my phone last night and didn't feel like expounding but here I am now. Just making the point that few people not already converted are thinking of Fast & Furious or Benghazi as "scandals". Most people aren't even following Benghazi (44% told Pew they were paying even moderate attention) and Clinton leads the GOP by ten points on who people trust on the issue. The DoJ is hardly "out of control" when they're following procedures and gaining lawful subpoenas from the courts. Had they been illegally getting records without court permission maybe you'd have a point but that doesn't appear to be the case.

The only one approaching "scandal" to anyone who isn't Rep. Issa would be the IRS fiasco.

That said, your fantasy that since Bush's spectacularly failed war and crashed economy doomed the Republicans in 2008, that means an attack on Benghazi dooms Clinton in 2016 is cute. Silly, but cute.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 May 15 2013 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
Clearly your numbers are oversampling. Everyone in the multiverse believes Obama playing golf is a scandal that will bring the liberal house of cards down.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 May 15 2013 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Regardless of why or who, I think it should be clear that there are some really really questionable things going on in our government right now.


This is ALWAYS true. If anyone believes that the government doesn't try to clean things up prior to releasing information (if at all), then that person is misinformed. It's crowd control.

Just to reiterate the point.

Edited, May 15th 2013 9:04am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#38 May 15 2013 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
Unless Republican.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 May 15 2013 at 9:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Unless Republican.
Well of course not, they're fair and balanced.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#40 May 15 2013 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,387 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Clearly your numbers are oversampling. Everyone in the multiverse believes Obama playing golf is a scandal that will bring the liberal house of cards down.
As soon as he plays enough that the white folks start mistaking him for Tiger and demanding he be impeached for cheating on his wife.
#41gbaji, Posted: May 15 2013 at 3:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ah. So since everyone lies, it's ok then? Wonderful methodology you've got going on there.
#42gbaji, Posted: May 15 2013 at 3:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Really? The response to a laundry list of scandals and abuse of political power is "republicans are dumb!"? What percentage of Democrats polled could name which country Benghazi is in? So no baseline then?
#43gbaji, Posted: May 15 2013 at 3:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You know what's funny? I've never mentioned Clinton in terms of a presidential run. I'm not aware of any conservative pundits talking about this, much less connecting the two. It's the Left who keep claiming this is all about weakening a Clinton run in 2016, and here you are repeating that. I guess it's just funny to me because I read and listen to various conservatives talking about this (and have for months), and I don't recall a single person even mentioning the 2016 election. For conservatives this is about the Obama administration, not a future Clinton one. It's about pointing out problems that are occurring right now.
#44 May 15 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Money that had nothing to do with security for our embassy or consulate in Libya. So why should it be mentioned?


Because you can't argue that the Democrats don't care for safety and/or are irresponsible for the safety of embassies and consulates when you are actively being counter productive to the cause.

Gbaji wrote:
Bush didn't attempt to blame insurgent attacks on angry clowns or something though.

So the whole war on Terror and WMD doesn't count?

Gbaji wrote:
It's not that we were attacked, or that people died, but that the Obama administration very clearly attempted to lielied to the American people about why were were attacked so that it matched a more politically beneficial narrative. Let's not forget that the attack occurred something like a week after Obama gave a big speech to the UN about how Al Queda was on the ropes and more or less a non-threat, so we should move on. Ooops!


The problem IS the fact that we got attacked and that people died. Whether or not if it were because of a video or a terrorist attack is irrelevant to the fact that it occurred. The reality that it might be politically motivated is moot as this entire debate is politically driven.

Gbaji wrote:
Ah. So since everyone lies, it's ok then? Wonderful methodology you've got going on there.

Only if you believe conspiracies as facts. It was admitted that the information was wrong, just like there were no WMD. That doesn't mean that the people didn't mistakenly act on the current intel that was thought to be real.
#45 May 15 2013 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Isn't that circular though? You'd label anyone who thinks they're scandals as "converted", right?

Sorry I thought you were smart enough to glean my meaning: Thinking this is a "scandal" breaks down along partisan lines with only Republicans making up a majority.
Quote:
And that couldn't at all have something to do with most of the media not really covering the issue until late last week, could it?

Hahahaha... you're adorable.
Quote:
I don't know what appears to be the case.

You don't get your news from anywhere. Noted.
Quote:
Lying to the American people about why we were attacked isn't a scandal?

Begging the question
Quote:
You know what's funny? I've never mentioned Clinton in terms of a presidential run.

Right. "And yes Hillary. It matters." was just, you know, in case she was sitting at home watching some Caso Cerrado and idly wondering what role Benghazi plays in the world and if her remarks before the Senate were justified Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, May 15th 2013 5:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 May 15 2013 at 4:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Let's not forget that the attack occurred something like a week after Obama gave a big speech to the UN about how Al Queda was on the ropes and more or less a non-threat, so we should move on

I realize that, again, you don't get your news from anywhere so I'll just gently inform you here rather than chastise you: When Obama speak of Al'Qaeda being on the ropes or whatever, he's referring to the core organization which previously revolved around Osama bin Laden. Now, any bunch of yahoos can refer to their group as Al'Qaeda as well, and they do. There's literally dozens of splinter groups with no formal attachment to or coordination with the group responsible for 9/11. This isn't the Susan G. Komen foundation we're talking about here and Al'Qaeda isn't going to send their trademark lawyers to Somalia or Libya or Nigeria to demand that Al'Qaeda al-Shabaab stop using the name or face the wrath of a thousand lawsuits. Eventually a group may become prominent enough to warrant some communication with the real heads but just using the name is like forming a modern **** party -- you just call yourself ***** and no one is going to make you stop. This doesn't mean that you're the same guys who tromped around Poland in 1939.

Also your "we should move on" remark is off the target but I wouldn't have expected anything better.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 May 15 2013 at 4:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

Money that had nothing to do with security for our embassy or consulate in Libya. So why should it be mentioned?


Because you can't argue that the Democrats don't care for safety and/or are irresponsible for the safety of embassies and consulates when you are actively being counter productive to the cause.


Except that The money had nothing to do with security for our embassy or consulate in Libya. This is so relevant I had to say it twice.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Bush didn't attempt to blame insurgent attacks on angry clowns or something though.

So the whole war on Terror and WMD doesn't count?


Count as what? An excuse for the Obama administration to blame the deaths of our embassy personnel on a film rather than a planned attack by existing terrorist organizations? No. It doesn't count.

Quote:
The problem IS the fact that we got attacked and that people died. Whether or not if it were because of a video or a terrorist attack is irrelevant to the fact that it occurred.


If it was so irrelevant, then why lie about it? Why change the language in the intelligence reports to match one while downplaying the other? Why then send Rice out on the Sunday shows to say directly that it was one and not the other? Clearly someone in the Obama administration thought it mattered a great deal.

Quote:
The reality that it might be politically motivated is moot as this entire debate is politically driven.


The decision to try to claim this was an outgrowth of protests over a film was politically driven as well. Obviously, any response to that will also be politically driven. I'm not sure how that somehow nullifies the accusations present though. So the Obama administration can lie to the American people for political reasons, and we should dismiss any criticism of this on the grounds that the criticism is political? You've just justified our government getting away with anything it wants. You get that any criticism of actions taken by the government can be called political, right?

That's a monumentally stupid reason to dismiss something like this. Argue that it didn't happen. Or that the decisions that were made were not as bad as they seemed. Or that they honestly thought it was what they said. Anything like that is legitimate. Saying "it's politically driven" isn't a good counter argument at all. Show that it's *only* driven by politics, and you might have a point.

Quote:
Only if you believe conspiracies as facts.


Wait? So it's a conspiracy to say that somewhere between the intelligence reports from the field to the official intelligence briefing, key information was removed which resulted in downplaying the planned nature of the attack? It's not. It's a fact. It's also a fact that several drafts were written and rejected until said changes were made. This is not some "what if" scenario here. The intelligence was "fixed" to match the agenda of the Obama administration. They wanted to sell the whole "We killed OBL and Al Queda is on the run" story to the American people for the election. The attack in Libya made that difficult to do. Surely you can see how if they could convince people that it wasn't a planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, but just a protest that got out of hand, then they could protect their foreign policy narrative.

There was a clear and obvious political motivation for lying. What's so strange is how many people are insisting there's nothing to this even with all the facts that are present now. At this point, it's not really a question of whether someone lied, or even why they did. It's a question of who lied, and how far up the chain it goes. Was it just some mid level folks at State acting on their own? Was Clinton involved directly? Was someone on Obama's staff involved? Someone told someone else to downplay the "planned terrorist attack" side of this. Who?

Quote:
It was admitted that the information was wrong, just like there were no WMD. That doesn't mean that the people didn't mistakenly act on the current intel that was thought to be real.


Except that it wasn't that the information was wrong. The information was correct. Someone changed the information which ended out in the official briefing so that it said something different. That was not an accident. It's not like every intelligence report from the field said X, but it turned out to be Y instead. In this case, every intelligence report said Y, the briefing draft said Y, but then it was changed to say X instead. And X just happened to be more beneficial to a president engaged in a re-election campaign at the time than Y.

Is it really so hard to connect those dots?

Edited, May 15th 2013 4:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 May 15 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Isn't that circular though? You'd label anyone who thinks they're scandals as "converted", right?

Sorry I thought you were smart enough to glean my meaning: Thinking this is a "scandal" breaks down along partisan lines with only Republicans making up a majority.


And? How does that dismiss the scandals themselves? It seems to indicate more the willingness of most Democrats to circle the wagons and protect their party and president. If it's partisan because most of those who think these are scandals are Republican/Conservative, isn't it also partisan because most of those who think they are not scandals are Democrats/Liberals? Making that observation doesn't tell us whether any of these are, in fact, a legitimate scandal.

It's a meaningless point for you to make is what I'm saying.

Quote:
Quote:
Lying to the American people about why we were attacked isn't a scandal?

Begging the question


And? Do we just assume something isn't true and not investigate? And we do this based on political alignment? Is that how you think things should work? If the media only investigated or speculated about possible abuses of power when they were already proven in court to be true, it would never happen. What criteria do you think we should use here Joph?

Quote:
Quote:
You know what's funny? I've never mentioned Clinton in terms of a presidential run.

Right. "And yes Hillary. It matters." was just, you know, in case she was sitting at home watching some Caso Cerrado and idly wondering what role Benghazi plays in the world and if her remarks before the Senate were justified


Hillary was the person who testified before Congress and rhetorically asked "What does it matter" with regard to the motivation for the attack. So what? Now I can't mention that I disagree with her statement without it somehow being just a politically aligned attack on her possible future bid for president? Um.... Does it occur to you that I disagree with her because I disagree with her? And I mentioned her name because she's the one who testified.

How many times on this forum have I stated that I disagreed with Holder about something he said? Is he running in 2016 as well? Is Susan Rice running for president? Amazing how I can criticize the statements people make that I disagree with even when they are not running for president in 4 years. Freaking amazing!

Is that really the best dismissal you have? That's nuts Joph. Stop parroting what the loons on MSNBC are saying. Do your own thinking. I criticize what she said because I disagreed with what she said. I don't care at all if she's running for president or not. I care about what's going on right now. It is telling though, that during a scandal that essentially derives from an attempt to spin an event for political advantage in an election, the first thing the Left is obsessed over is how it might affect the next election. Just can't help yourselves with the whole "end justifies the means" approach I guess.

Edited, May 15th 2013 4:14pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 May 15 2013 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And? How does that dismiss the scandals themselves?

They're not scandals.

Quote:
And? Do we just assume something isn't true and not investigate?

No, you don't assume it's true prior to it being investigated.

Quote:
Hillary was the person...

I know. You're full of shit to pretend presidential aspirations aren't part of this.

Look, I get it. Like so many other things, you're operating off your "It's true because I know it is and if you disagree it's all media brainwashing!" stance. You've already shown a wealth of ignorance about all three events. which is fine, no one says you have to know about stuff before you start yapping about it. Probably be better for your blood pressure if you tried to move the needle either towards "education" or "unconcern" since this middle ground can't be healthy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 May 15 2013 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Quote:
Money that had nothing to do with security for our embassy or consulate in Libya. So why should it be mentioned?


Do you have some kind of learning disability?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#51 May 15 2013 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Given that the "consulate" was basically a CIA outpost, it is possible that increased diplomatic security funding wouldn't have made it to Benghazi. funding for it may have been handled on a different set of books.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)