Author Topic: Politics, Religion, etc.  (Read 83259 times)

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15580
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2015, 11:28:08 pm »
First, after months and months of Hilary insisting that she had done nothing wrong and that there was absolutely no story there, and having her apologists do the same, finally she admits that she really screwed up, and she apologizes.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-private-email-mistake-im/story?id=33608970

Now it is almost as if this is written directly to otto....
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-apologies-email-213133#ixzz3lHiupSsu

Being a Clinton Apologist is a Hard Life
By JACK SHAFER 09/09/15, 06:40 PM EDT

From the outside at least, being a friend of the Clintons looks like a demeaning occupation. You defend them, you defend them some more, you lie down in front of tanks for them and then—when you least suspect it—they reverse gear and betray you.
Hillary Clinton did that to her most ardent supporters yesterday. After six months of indignant responses, classic stonewalling, legalistic prevarication, dismissive jokes and a sustained and coordinated counter-attack by her allies, she finally capitulated to critics yesterday, telling David Muir of ABC News that running a personal email account and server during her tenure as Secretary of State was a “mistake” and that she was “sorry about that.” Compare this, if you will, to Bill Clinton’s denial of an affair with Monica Lewinsky that caused scores of his supporters to prop up his lies until he ultimately folded.

Hillary’s regret came exactly one day after she told the Associated Press she had no reason to apologize, downplaying the email controversy as a “distraction.”
She also used the ABC News interview to apologize for previous, inadequate attempts to explain her conduct. “I really didn’t perhaps appreciate the need to do that,” she said. But even in this minor act of self-criticism, Clinton reflexively added the qualifying word of “perhaps” to pave an escape route should she need to abandon the apology six months from now. “I take responsibility,” she added, which is politician-speak for, “Now, will you leave me alone?”
You can decide for yourself how sincere these devious and dissembling comments by Clinton are. What interests me is how dramatically this turnaround ditches the surrogates who rushed to the airwaves and to defend her conduct. In early March, when the story broke, Clinton defenders (and intimates) David Brock, Lanny Davis, Maria Cardona, Jennifer Granholm, James Carville and Karen Finney advanced with absolute certainty that the Clinton email/server story was, in Granholm’s words, “just a nothingburger.” Brock’s pro-Clinton advocacy organization Correct the Record called the email affair a “manufactured controversy” and a “tempest in a teapot.” Carville called the email dispute “made up” and Clinton a victim of a double standard (“Colin Powell does the same thing. Jeb Bush does the same thing.”). About the emails, Davis said, “All preserved. And if deleted you know they can be found.” Cardona had so much faith in Clinton that she said, “I don’t think she needs to say anything more until she actually announces her campaign.”
Clinton has now conceded on national TV that the email story is not quite a nothing burger. It’s actually a Royale With Cheese—maybe a Double Royale With Cheese and Pineapple. Nothing was “manufactured” and indeed, yes, some of the emails were deleted. In recognition of these facts, will these Hillary loyalists volunteer to return to the TV chat shows to acknowledge their errors? Better yet, will the shows revisit the issue to illustrate how Clinton’s proxies attempted to roll them? Nah, but it would make great TV, wouldn’t it?
Did the surrogates even know what they were talking about? According to a Washington Post story from the opening week of the “scandal,” some “supporters in Congress and others were willing to go on cable television to defend Clinton” were dismayed by the fact that her aides did not prepare talking points to help them help her. “A lot of people were flying blind,” one anonymous Democratic ally told the Post. As the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf noted in a splendid follow-up to the Post account, two levels of political sleaze were revealed: First, the Clinton defenders sought talking points—rather than the truth—about the emails for use in their rebuttals; and second, when given none, some winged it on pure faith in their patrona.
Clinton isn’t the first candidate to reward the blindly loyal with a kick to the teeth. Even at the semi-pro levels, politics demands the occasional human sacrifice to that the higher ups can go even higher up. But the suicide missions completed by people like David Brock, Lanny Davis, et al. are almost never life- or career-ending. For psychological reasons I cannot plumb here, they seem not to mind being used. To them, giving an uneducated defense of someone you love is the highest form of friendship. Like video-game deaths, the death that comes from shame is only temporary. Besides, the TV press doesn’t discriminate against sources who talk out of their hat. What would cable news be if it couldn’t book guests who dissembled, stonewalled and cast false aspersions? Today, every one of the friends and party hacks who rose—armed with only the flimsiest understanding of the underlying facts and driven by the basest impulses—to champion the email hygiene of Hillary Clinton remain welcome across the dial to spout more slipshod and ill-informed opinions.
Why is that? If Clinton is so “sorry” about her “mistake,” if she really thinks she “could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier,” why shouldn’t we hold her supporters to the same standard? So I invite Lawrence O’Donnell, Erin Burnett, Christi Paul, and others who hosted the Clinton apologists to invite their guests back on ask if they regret about endorsing Clinton’s mistake comes close to equaling hers.
Like Clinton, I’ll bet they’d say they’re sorry, too. But like Clinton, I’ll bet they won’t mean it.

Pekin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8941
  • Location: Duh!
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2015, 09:38:41 am »
The truth about Benghazi is slowly coming to light...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2015/09/11/exclusive-new-emails-in-benghazi-weapons-mystery/?intcmp=hplnws



Turi provided Fox News with emails he exchanged - in early April 2011 - with Chris Stevens to alert him to the proposed weapons deal. The emails were previously cited by the New York Times, but Fox News has made the message traffic public.

Stevens replied with a "thank you " and wrote "I'll keep it in mind and share it with my colleagues in Washington."

As Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge first reported, a heavily redacted email released to the Benghazi committee in May clearly states that on April 8, 2011, a day after the Turi/Stevens exchange, Clinton was interested in arming the rebels using contractors:

"FYI. the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered," Clinton wrote. Significantly, the state department released emails blacked out this line, but the version given to the Benghazi select committee was complete.

In May 2011, Turi got a brokering approval from the State Department for Qatar. Federal court documents show that on June 14th, a Russian businessman wrote to Turi indicating Chris Stevens was the State Department's point man for arming the rebels.

Document 55, exhibit F, contains an email from the Russian, stating "I sent you an email days back and no answer from you....anyhow, Mr. Stevens the American embassedor (sic) in benghazi (sic) has been informed of the arrangement...and things should be ok."




Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15580
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2015, 10:42:30 am »
Without all of the attribution, that is pretty much what Glen Beck had been saying from as early as December of 2012.

chifaninva

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3188
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2015, 11:37:22 am »
I see Rick Perry dropped out, bye bye. Now how about Huckabee and a few others. Get this thing down to about 8 people. I'm surprised Bush is so lost in the backdrop, not that I'm sorry..

packrat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7901
  • Location: Minonk , IL
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2015, 12:41:52 pm »
Hillary dropped below 40% in late poll.

packrat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7901
  • Location: Minonk , IL
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2015, 12:44:07 pm »
Price of 87 octane gasoline was $2.039 in Bloomington, on 9/11.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15580
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2015, 12:57:26 pm »
I see Rick Perry dropped out, bye bye. Now how about Huckabee and a few others. Get this thing down to about 8 people. I'm surprised Bush is so lost in the backdrop, not that I'm sorry..

Am I the only person who said flatly that neither Bush nor Clinton would get their nominations?

Oh, and Obama is toast.

chifaninva

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3188
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2015, 03:59:44 pm »
It's not over, but Hillary sure is flopping, and Bush looks lost..

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15580
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2015, 04:12:08 pm »
It's not over, but Hillary sure is flopping, and Bush looks lost..

In an anti-establishment year, it was over for both of them before it started.

otto105

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4368
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2015, 05:52:36 pm »
legal aid


What election is our President Barack Hussein Obama running in again?



Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15580
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2015, 06:42:56 pm »
legal aid


What election is our President Barack Hussein Obama running in again? 

I give up, otto, but since you have raised the question, perhaps you could tell us what election you think he's running in.

otto105

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4368
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2015, 06:52:52 pm »
I'm just wondering why an idiot libertarian would post "Oh, and Obama is toast" after he just won a major victory on the Iran agreement and is not running for any office again.

Maybe YOU can explain such an asinine statement.

Maybe you can or can't and will just minutia some crap....

otto105

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4368
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2015, 07:02:39 pm »
Under the category of HA one finds....


September 11, 2015 - Trump Is Most Loved - And Unloved - In Iowa Gop Caucus, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Walker Falls From Top Spot To No. 10


Donald Trump has the support of 27 percent of Iowa likely Republican Caucus participants, with 21 percent for Ben Carson and 9 percent for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to the results of a July 1 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pe-ack) University showing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 18 percent, with Trump and Carson at 10 percent each.

Today, Walker is at 3 percent, way behind in the pack. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has 6 percent of Iowa likely Republican Caucus participants, with 5 percent each for Carly Fiorina, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. No other candidate tops 4 percent, with 4 percent undecided.




Moron davepbart

What do I have to worry about with governor dull and boring?
« Last Edit: September 12, 2015, 07:26:29 pm by otto105 »

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15580
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2015, 07:21:31 pm »
I'm just wondering why an idiot libertarian would post "Oh, and Obama is toast" after he just won a major victory on the Iran agreement and is not running for any office again.

Maybe YOU can explain such an asinine statement.

Maybe you can or can't and will just minutia some crap....

The explanation is quite simple.  I am guessing others who have been posting here for the last few years caught it immediately.

You, not so much.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15580
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2015, 07:28:00 pm »
Maybe you can or can't and will just minutia some crap....

Since you truly love the word "minutia," you might be interested in knowing that it is an noun, and if you an an "l" to the end of it, the word can become and adjective, but it is never a verb.