ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [304] -- Brain Damage

[ Posted Friday, May 16th, 2014 – 17:24 PDT ]

Karl Rove successfully manipulated the entire news media this week, so we are going to play along today. Rove's specialty is to take what could be considered a reasonable idea, and then twist it beyond recognition while dragging it through the swampiest mud he can dream up. Well, that's admittedly a terrible (and mixed) metaphor, but I think you get the general idea.

This week, Rove spoke out about the non-controversial idea: "Hillary Clinton will likely face scrutiny on her age and health if she runs for president" -- which is true, and would be true for anyone of her age and medical history. The problem was, ol' Karl decided to take a detour through the looney bin. Speaking of what Republicans used to deride as her "Benghazi flu" (the fall Hillary Clinton suffered which put her in the hospital for three days), Rove insinuated:

Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she's wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what's up with that.

Classic Rove, really. Later, he insisted that he never said anything like "Hillary Clinton is brain damaged," which only served to fuel the fires by causing everyone else to start using the term. Karl is a virtuoso at this sort of thing, and he largely succeeded in his real goal.

But we have noticed a lack, in the media, of a reference which really should be quite obvious. And so we aim to rectify this omission, by surrounding our introductory news blurbs this week with the lyrics from the Pink Floyd song "Brain Damage," the penultimate song on their masterpiece album Dark Side Of The Moon. Enjoy!

The lunatic is on the grass
The lunatic is on the grass
Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs
Got to keep the loonies on the path

While Democrats have mostly been disappointed in their eagerness to see Tea Party lunatics win Republican nominations for high office in the primaries this year, California may buck the trend. Tim Donnelly, leading the polls for the Republican side of the governor's race so far, may provide some amusement if he wins the chance to lose massively to the popular Democratic governor this November. Jerry Brown's re-election to a record-breaking fourth term leading the Golden State is not in jeopardy at all, rest assured. So why not have the Republican candidate be a guy who founded a "Minuteman" vigilante border-protection group, compares Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Kim Jong Il, voted against a bill to ban state-run stores from selling Confederate flag items, and is currently on probation for bringing a loaded gun into an airport in his briefcase? His better-funded Republican foe seems to recognize the danger, and has launched a new ad with Donnelly's face pasted over the old anti-John Kerry "windsurfing/flip-flop" ad. So it looks like there'll be plenty of lunacy to watch, at least until the June primary!

Or, if that's not enough for you, you can check out the gubernatorial debate among Idaho Republicans, which may indeed qualify for the looniest film clips of the entire election cycle. In addition to the two "normal" candidates, we also have on the stage a biker and a religious extremist, both seemingly right out of central casting ("Send over two random lunatics to spice up the debate, will you?"). The whole video can be seen on the Idaho Public Television site, in all its loony-tunes splendor.

The lunatic is in the hall
The lunatics are in my hall
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And every day the paper boy brings more

Every day the paper boy brings more, indeed. I wrote an article earlier this week about tomb robbing (of all things), but I had no idea a modern example would pop up in the news so quickly. President James A. Garfield's tomb, located in a cemetery in the suburbs of Cleveland, was broken into this week. The thieves ignored a cash donations box, and instead stole some relatively-worthless commemorative spoons from Garfield's inauguration. Amusingly, according to the cemetery's spokeswoman, the burglars also left behind "a broken stained-glass window, a T-shirt, two cigarette butts and, of course, an empty bottle of Fireball cinnamon whiskey."

Even more amusing was the funniest "getting primaried" story of the year. Saira Blair is only 17 years old, and will not be eligible to vote until she turns 18 in July. Nevertheless, the high school senior just won the Republican primary for a seat in West Virginia's legislature, beating out a two-term sitting delegate, Republican Larry Kump. In Blair's words, "I think I'm fully capable of doing the job, and I don't think it's rocket science by any means -- not if you just listen to the people." Definitely a race to watch in November!

And if the dam breaks open many years too soon
And if there is no room upon the hill
And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon

In the "heads exploding" category, we have none other than Rick Santorum, who has apparently traveled to what Republicans consider the dark side of the moon: endorsing a form of single-payer health insurance. Speaking last week, Santorum was addressing the issue of Obamacare's mandate that employers provide birth control in their insurance coverage. Here's what Santorum had to say about it:

It would be less objectionable to me for the government to go out and say we're going to pay for all the pharmacies to stock contraception and give them out free. Am I paying for it indirectly? Yes, through my taxes, but I pay for a lot of things with my taxes that I don't like.

Santorum went on to explain that President Obama wasn't interested in such a simple plan, because Obama was more interested in forcing Christians to "bow to Caesar" instead.

There actually was a plan to do precisely what Santorum is suggesting, but it didn't just stop at birth control coverage. The plan would have removed all the middlemen from the health insurance system, and paid everyone directly from the federal government. It was called "single-payer," remember? Santorum obviously hasn't thought this through, folks. Maybe it was a full moon, or something.

The lunatic is in my head
The lunatic is in my head
You raise the blade, you make the change
You rearrange me 'till I'm sane
You lock the door and throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me.

In the "full frontal lobotomy" category this week we find a police commissioner from New Hampshire who is not afraid to keep the light of his unreconstructed racism under a bushel. Robert Copeland, age 82, is one of three people who make the hiring and firing decisions for the small local police force of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. He loudly stated in a local restaurant that he no longer watches television because he keeps seeing Barack Obama on the screen. Except that's not quite how he identified the leader of our nation. In fact, the words he used were (and I sincerely apologize for even reporting such vile language, but this is a direct quote): "that fucking nigger." When a citizen complained, his written response was:

While I believe the problems associated with minorities in this country are momentous, I am not phobic. My use of derogatory slang in reference to those among them undeserving of respect is no secret. It is the exercise of my 1st Amendment rights. I believe I did use the 'N' word in reference to the current occupant of the Whitehouse [sic]. For this I do not apologize -- he meets and exceeds my criteria for such.

Well, it's good to know the guy has some standards for using two of the vilest words in the English language to describe the President of the United States. One of his fellow commissioners chimed in with "[Copeland] said some harsh words about Mr. Obama, and here we are. This woman, she's blowing it all out of proportion."

Wow. I mean, just... wow.

And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon

To be fair, we conclude this litany of lunacy with a bit of outdated thinking from the Democratic side of the aisle. It's nowhere near as bad as the preceding items, but has to at least be acknowledged. Lanny Davis, ex-Clintonite mover and shaker, has a new plan to combat all the misinformation likely to arise from the House's new Benghazi committee. Davis is going to take a page straight out of the 1990s, and will sit at a table outside the hearing room, passing out printed copies which will "truth squad" the lunacy from the actual committee members. Got that? Printed lists. In 2014. He has been roundly ridiculed for not realizing that there are a whole bunch of new ways to communicate information which didn't exist when Bill Clinton took office, and rightly so.

Speaking of the Big Dog himself, Bill Clinton is in the news for a rather embarrassing comment as well. Seems he didn't get the memo that populism is a big thing in the Democratic Party these days. Speaking to Tim Geithner, who used to be Treasury Secretary, Clinton talked about the populist movement and how they could never be satisfied, even with the human sacrifice of the CEO of Goldman Sachs: "You could take Lloyd Blankfein into a dark alley and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days. Then the blood lust would rise again."

Hoo boy. Should his wife run for president, Hillary's biggest challenge is going to be (as always) keeping the Big Dog on a very short chain.

OK, this is running way long, so let's quickly touch on some media news and some marijuana news and then get right to the awards. The Associated Press is apparently laying down new guidelines to try to get everyone in its network to write much shorter stories, because it's not like anyone needs to read anything longer than a few hundred words these days, right? What was amusing was that this was followed the very next day by a story which came over the AP feed -- which has got to be the longest and most extensive and microscopic examination of every single possible candidate for the presidency in 2016 that I have yet seen. I mean, the article is just massive. Even The New Yorker would probably have cut this puppy down by a third. Now, don't get me wrong -- I loved the article and I also loved the "in your face" nature of its length, right after the story on the AP wanting shorter articles. Somebody somewhere within the bowels of the AP obviously responded to the edict: "Shorter stories? Ha! In your dreams! Here are 10,000 words right back atcha!"

In other cheerful media news, Ann Curry was saved by a Boy Scout troop, when she injured herself on a nature hike. No, really! You can't make this stuff up, folks.

In marijuana news, the head of the Drug Enforcement Agency is continuing to inspire calls for her resignation, for not getting on board with new Justice Department policies on marijuana. Just this week, she seized a shipment of hemp seeds which were to be used in a hemp (not marijuana, but non-psychoactive hemp) planting program that was just authorized by Congress. She's also against the new sentencing reforms Congress is considering, along with a few other former Drug Warriors. By week's end, however, it seems Eric Holder took her out to the woodshed and had a little talk with her, and she has now dialed her rhetoric down. For the moment, at least. Color us not impressed. She needs to go, period.

And finally, in Colorado -- months after legalizing recreational marijuana sales -- crime rates are still down, showing that the crime wave predicted by those against legalization still has not appeared. Color us not surprised, personally.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Whew! OK, the rest of this will be shorter, I promise.

Earning at least an Honorable Mention this week was none other than Clay Aiken, who is now the Democratic candidate for a North Carolina House seat. He was leading his Democratic rival by a few hundred votes, and a recount was on the horizon, when Aiken's opponent dropped dead. This cleared the way for Aiken, and although he doesn't have much of a prayer in a district that went for Romney by almost 60 percent, we still celebrate his willingness to be a celebrity candidate instead of just sniping at politics from the sidelines (as many celebrities on both sides of the aisle are wont to do).

Representative Alan Lowenthal from California also deserves an Honorable Mention for introducing a bill which would provide federal rules for redistricting, to depoliticize the process. He makes an excellent case for his proposal this week in the Huffington Post, if you'd like more details. Redistricting reform has already happened in California, but it happened by ballot initiative. The chances of Lowenthal's "Let The People Draw The Lines Act" actually passing are slim, but we have to at least salute his efforts, since it is such a worthy goal.

But this week's coveted Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennet. Udall and Bennet have written a proposed constitutional amendment which would go a long way towards reversing the Supreme Court's insistence that money equals speech in politics. Harry Reid also wins his own MIDOTW, because he is going to throw his support behind the effort and schedule it for "multiple votes" on the Senate floor.

Now, amending the Constitution is difficult. This effort is likely to fail, at least the first time around. The bar for ratification is incredibly high. But that doesn't mean the attempt shouldn't even be made. Reversing such odious Supreme Court decisions as Citizens United (and all the rest of the "corporations are people" decisions) is a worthy cause indeed. Since the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, the only real way to bring back campaign finance reform is to amend the Constitution itself -- something that does not require the Supreme Court's imprimatur. In fact, we have called for Democrats to push a few such amendments as recently as a few weeks ago, right here in this space. So we feel bound to salute such efforts when they become reality.

For proposing some serious pushback on the idea of "corporate personhood," Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennet deserve their Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards, and Harry Reid also deserves one for forcing the Senate to vote on the issue in an election year.

[Congratulate Senator Michael Bennet on his Senate contact page, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on his Senate contact page, and Senator Tom Udall on his Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

It certainly will be disappointing if Representative John Conyers doesn't appear on the ballot this year. Conyers is currently the longest-serving House member there is (he was first elected in 1964). But his campaign hit a snafu when a whopping big chunk of the signatures they turned in were ruled invalid. Conyers is now suing to get his name on the ballot, challenging the requirement that signature collectors must be registered voters of the district. But, even if he loses the court fight, we assume he'll probably be re-elected as a write-in candidate anyway (seeing as how he's been there for 50 years, his constituents must like him).

But there was one Democrat who exceeded the word "disappointing" this week, and crossed over into the realm of "downright disgustingly gross." Here is the entire news story (complete with video, if you really want to see it):

Rep. Joe Garcia (D-Fla.) is about to learn a valuable lesson: C-SPAN is always watching.

During a House Judiciary Committee meeting last week, the Democrat picked his ear and ate whatever he found there while Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) testified.

We cannot personally recall when a winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week made us physically retch before. Seriously, if you've just eaten, do not watch that video. Maybe we should call it the Most Downright Disgustingly Gross Democrat We've Ever Seen award, this week.

Ugh.

[Contact Representative Joe Garcia on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 304 (5/16/14)

We have a somewhat special version of the talking points this week, because six out of seven of these are direct quotes. And, for what we think is the first time ever, one of them is from none other than Newt Gingrich himself.

Now, for all of these to morph into useable Democratic talking points, all you have to do is preface them with something like: "As Newt Gingrich recently said," or: "Don't you agree with the following quote?" We've got two quotes on the Karl Rove/Hillary Clinton "brain damage" controversy, two quotes from Senator Barbara Boxer on the Benghazi hearings, and then three unrelated talking points to finish up with. We saved the best one for last, as usual.

 

1
   Exactly what's wrong with American politics

We have to open with Newt Gingrich, just because. Newt answered back a Huffington Post reporter's question asking his reaction to Karl Rove's Clinton comments by writing the following (Note: we suspect, from the number of corrections, that this was transmitted through some form of social media):

[I] am totally opposed and deeply offended by Karl Rove's comments about Secretary Clinton. I have many policy disagreements with Hillary but this kind of personal charge is exactly whats [sic?] wrong with [A]merican politics. [Rove] should apologize and stop discussing her health. [I] was angry when people did this to Reagan in 1980 and I am angry when they do it to her today.

 

2
   Bubba shows us how it's done

Bill Clinton weighed in, and reminded us all that he and his wife have had lots of practice in how to respond to right-wing lunacy in the past. He went on to state how sharp Hillary's brain still is and what good health she now enjoys, but not after first making his point in fine Clinton style. When asked about Rove's comments, Bill responded:

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. First they say she faked her concussion; now they say she's auditioning for a part on The Walking Dead!"

 

3
   Republicans have only one goal

These next two quotes come from an opinion piece Senator Barbara Boxer wrote this week, on the lunacy of holding more hearings on Benghazi. Her argument is strongest when she starts quoting the facts and figures.

Ever since the tragic attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012 -- which claimed the lives of four Americans and wounded two others -- it has been obvious that the GOP's obsession with Benghazi has never been about getting to the truth of what happened or preventing future attacks against U.S. personnel overseas.

Republicans have only one goal: to turn this tragedy into a scandal. Their relentless campaign to use the events in Benghazi to score cheap political points ahead of the midterm elections is appalling.

Over the last 20 months, the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2012, attacks have received unprecedented scrutiny:

  • 9 different House and Senate committees have already investigated the attacks
  • 13 hearings have been conducted
  • 50 briefings have taken place
  • 25 transcribed interviews have been conducted
  • 8 subpoenas have been issued
  • more than 25,000 pages of documents have been reviewed
  • 6 congressional reports have been released

But, dissatisfied with the results of these exhaustive reviews, the GOP has now decided to create an openly partisan panel with only one goal: to further politicize this tragedy.

 

4
   During the Bush administration, there were 166 attacks, which killed 116 people, including 18 Americans

The first paragraph of this should be memorized by every single Democrat, in preparation for the media circus that now looms on the horizon. Seriously, every Democrat should be able to accurately quote these figures at the drop of a hat, in the upcoming months.

Between 1998 and 2013, there were at least 501 significant attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel in 70 countries, which resulted in the deaths of 586 people, including 67 Americans. During the Bush administration, there were 166 attacks, which killed 116 people, including 18 Americans.

Those attacks were all terrible tragedies. The difference is that we never had a political party spend years exploiting them for political gain.

I remember serving in the House back in 1983 when a truck bomb exploded outside the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 American service members. It was the deadliest attack on Marines since Iwo Jima, and it came just six months after 17 Americans were killed in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.

Tip O'Neill was the House speaker at the time. But rather than launching a partisan witch hunt that focused on President Reagan, the House conducted bipartisan oversight and produced a completely bipartisan report.

Unfortunately, Republicans never intended to conduct a fair review of the facts in the Benghazi attacks. Blinded by their anger at President Obama, they ignore the fact that he called the attacks "acts of terror" the day after they occurred. And in their mad dash to discredit former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, they never mention that she was the first person to convene an independent investigation of the attacks.

 

5
   The Constitution does not give corporations a vote

This one's from Harry Reid, from the prepared text of remarks he planned to make on the Senate floor in support of the constitutional amendment discussed above. He sums things up nicely, in a single paragraph.

The Supreme Court has equated money with speech, so the more money you have, he more speech you get, and the more influence in our democracy. That is wrong. Every American should have the same ability to influence our political system. One American, one vote. That’s what the Constitution guarantees. The Constitution does not give corporations a vote. And the Constitution does not give dollar bills a vote.

 

6
   Outspent fifteen to one

Here's another handy figure every Democrat should know. Because someone took the time to quantify things. This one is our only talking point this week that isn't a direct quote, we should mention.

"An independent analysis of political advertising money spent gives some insight as to the headwinds the Obamacare system has faced in the public's mind. From 2010, when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed into law until now, the anti-Obamacare side has outspent the pro-Obamacare side to the tune of fifteen-to-one. While $27 million was spent on advertising the benefits of Obamacare, a whopping $418 million was spent on almost 900,000 anti-Obamacare ads -- many of which were misleading if not downright deceitful. Anyone looking at why the public is so massively misinformed as to what Obamacare does and does not do need look no further than the overwhelming ratio of 15-to-1. No wonder it's been such a struggle to get the real facts out!"

 

7
   Sulu approves, and so do we

George Takei helped this one go viral. The photo of a message board in front of Christ Lutheran Church shows that at least one minister is an absolute master at coming up with a poignant talking point. Seriously, folks, this one is the best bumpersticker slogan to come along since "We are the 99 percent" from the Occupy folks. It cuts right to the heart of the matter, it is incredibly memorable, and it shows the true spirit of what Christian love is supposed to be all about. The message board said, quite simply:

We support the separation of church and hate.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

96 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [304] -- Brain Damage”

  1. [1] 
    Hawk Owl wrote:

    It is very late here on the East Coast and I'm tired from nodding vigorously as I read along. I'll add only 2 brief remarks: Thanks for the Barbara Boxer quotes, especially for her concretely enumerating the GOP litany of Benghazi ranting ... and for Bill's deft use of Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self-Reliance" quote on how such [Benghazi]"consistency"really is a "hobgoblin" generated & regenerated by "foolish minds" in this context.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    For proposing some serious pushback on the idea of "corporate personhood," Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennet deserve their Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards, and Harry Reid also deserves one for forcing the Senate to vote on the issue in an election year.

    Hmmmmmm

    So, because Reid wants to limit First Amendment protections, he gets a MIDOTW???

    I was especially giggle-ified (an old word I just made up) to read where Reid (I was up all night coming up with THAT little gem.. :D) said that the federal government should be in charge of setting the election rules for who can donate to who and how much...

    Really!????

    One has to wonder if Reid would feel the same way if the GOP were in charge of the government?? :D

    You have to give the Democrats some credit..

    They are not even bothering to TRY and hide the fact that they are gaming the system in their favor.

    To hell with the country, Democrats just want to hold onto power..

    During the Bush administration, there were 166 attacks, which killed 116 people, including 18 Americans

    That stat is wrong..

    Near as I can recollect from my research, only ONE American was injured or killed. But that attack wasn't on a US Diplomatic Facility but rather a restaurant 3 blocks away...

    Sans that one, NO AMERICANS were injured or killed in ANY of the attacks spouted by the Left...

    And certainly, Bush NEVER tried to cover up those attacks by blatantly lying to the American people solely and completely to win an election...

    So, it's a non-argument..

    And finally, in Colorado -- months after legalizing recreational marijuana sales -- crime rates are still down, showing that the crime wave predicted by those against legalization still has not appeared. Color us not surprised, personally.

    Always wanted to ask..

    Why is the Left Pro-Marijuana but Anti-Smoking??? :D

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think we have a first here..

    I think this is the first time that a previous FTP commentary thread is still active while getting a new FTP commentary... :D

    Woot!!! :D

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since we HAVE a new http://FTP...

    AND a new Obama scandal.... :D

    "And the hits just keep on coming...."

    Veterans scandal risks engulfing Obama
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/328546c0-dd10-11e3-8546-00144feabdc0.html#axzz31uvHRdxe

    I can picture Obama in the Oval Office with his hands in his head...

    "So THIS is how Bush felt..."

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since we HAVE a new FRIDAY TALKING POINTS...

    AND a new Obama scandal.... :D

    "And the hits just keep on coming...."

    Veterans scandal risks engulfing Obama
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/328546c0-dd10-11e3-8546-00144feabdc0.html#axzz31uvHRdxe

    I can picture Obama in the Oval Office with his hands in his head...

    "So THIS is how Bush felt..."

    Michale

    NOTE TO CW: the above comment was made and went into Moderation Queue.. Couldn't figure out why until I noticed I had put 'FTP' with a period directly after it, which your system reads as a link..

    Anyways, you can kill the comment in the Queue...

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hoo boy. Should his wife run for president, Hillary's biggest challenge is going to be (as always) keeping the Big Dog on a very short chain.

    Ain't THAT the truth...

    Bill also said that it took SIX MONTHS for Hillary to fully recover from her blood clot/fall/whatever..

    Like it or not, the health of a POTUS is a legitimate issue.

    The Left made it an issue with Reagan and it's JUST as viable an issue with Hillary...

    The Left can't have it both ways, as much as they would like to..

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

    June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

    October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

    February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

    May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

    July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

    December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

    March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers.

    September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

    January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group, the Revolutionary Struggle, fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

    March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the Al Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

    July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

    September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

    Of course, if you only count the deaths of American diplomats as worthy of attention and all the other deaths as meaningless noise, then yes, you can narrow all these attacks down to one, just as you can narrow down the deaths at Benghazi to one.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Yea, that's the list I worked from. Let me dig up my last rebuttal and just paste it here..

    Give me a few minutes

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Found it..

    Yemen Consulate Attack, Sep 2008? No Americans killed..

    Istanbul Consulate Attack, July 2008? No Americans killed...

    Yemen Consulate Attack, Mar 2008?? Attack missed the consulate. No Americans killed..

    Syria Consulate Attack, Sep 2006?? Only casualties were the attackers. No Americans killed..

    Karachi Consulate Attack, Mar 2006?? The attack was actually against the Marriot Hotel, not against the Consulate itself. David Foy, FSO was the only American killed

    Tashkent Consulate Attack, Jun 2004?? No Americans killed..

    Let me ask you something..

    Why SHOULD I be concerned about non-American deaths?? Especially in light of the fact that MANY of the deaths you cite are the attackers themselves...

    Regardless, ya'all are bringing up the subject as a comparison to Benghazi..

    But there IS no comparison because none of those incidents you list had our Ambassador killed, let alone any American...

    Further, NONE of those incidents you mention resulted in the Administration blatantly lying to the American people about the cause of the attack, solely and completely to serve a political/re-election agenda..

    So, there is absolutely NOTHING to link that list you made with Benghazi..

    The ONLY common factor is that American assets were involved (sometimes not even then) and that people died.

    One has absolutely NO REFERENCE to the other...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't get me wrong..

    When innocent people are killed, that's sad...

    When terrorists are killed.. That's happy..

    But you can't point to those incidents and claim that they are relevant to Benghazi..

    It's like pointing the the France heatwave that killed 10,000 French and say that's relevant to the problems that Katrina had...

    One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other, other than the fact that it was weather related and people died..

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Of course you're absolutely right about everything, Michale except

    When innocent people are killed, that's sad...

    It would be more honest to say that when Americans who are not ambassadors are killed, that's too bad but not noteworthy in any way and when non Americans are killed, Americans couldn't care less.

  12. [12] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    I wonder where the money came from to fund that anti-Muslim video? To redub the Californian-made film? To plan it's release in time for the 9/11 anniversary of 2012? To make sure it was seen in Muslim countries at just the right time? In the hopes of sparking at least one incident like Benghazi? In an attempt to embarrass the current administration?

  13. [13] 
    TheStig wrote:

    From Boxer's source material:

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/225846.pdf

    I get 28 American personnel killed during years 2001 - 2009 by terrorist attacks, mostly security contractors.

    My quick Google of events confirms all the fatal attacks using independent news outlets, with some small variation between sources in the number of casualties between independent reports of the same incident.

    Bush was not President for 19 days of January 2001 and only 20 days of 2009. I get 23 US fatalities 2002 thru 2008; perhaps 5 were residents, but not citizens?

    The salient point of Boxer's comments hold up, end of story as far I'm concerned, until somebody can show otherwise with sourced info.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would be more honest to say that when Americans who are not ambassadors are killed, that's too bad but not noteworthy in any way and when non Americans are killed, Americans couldn't care less.

    It's not noteworthy when we are discussing the Administration failures during and in the aftermath of Benghazi..

    It's not noteworthy because it is not relevant.

    That's all I am saying..

    I wonder where the money came from to fund that anti-Muslim video? To redub the Californian-made film? To plan it's release in time for the 9/11 anniversary of 2012? To make sure it was seen in Muslim countries at just the right time? In the hopes of sparking at least one incident like Benghazi? In an attempt to embarrass the current administration?

    The Anti-Islam film was released in July, months before 11 Sep...

    It had absolutely NOTHING to do with Benghazi.

    It was nothing more than a convenient excuse that the Obama Administration could hide behind..

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Of course you're right, Michale, and this article backs you up 100%:

    http://liberalbias.com/post/3540/congressional-map-proves-benghazi-caused-video/

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    On July 1, 2012, a 14-minute-trailer of the film was uploaded to YouTube by "sambacile", thought to be one of Nakoula's aliases. Weeks later, right-wing Washington DC-based Coptic activist Morris Sadek sent the link to Gamel Girgis, an Egyptian reporter who writes about emigrant Copts for al-Youm al-Sabaa, a newspaper in Cairo.
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201291720158465768.html

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course you're right, Michale, and this article backs you up 100%:

    liberalbias.com/post/3540/congressional-map-proves-benghazi-caused-video/

    Have you LOOKED at that link, Mopshell??

    Because it DOES prove that the video was NOT the cause of Benghazi..

    This Congressional map proves Benghazi was NOT caused by a video!
    http://liberalbias.com/images/content/benghazi-lies.jpg

    I think that LiberalBias website you are quoting is a Right Wing website...

    Emphasis on THINK... :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    I asgree, it backs you up a 100%.

  19. [19] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Sorry, I'll try that again -

    Yes, I agree, Michale, it backs you up 100%. That's why I sent you the link. You are right again.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, I agree, Michale, it backs you up 100%. That's why I sent you the link. You are right again.

    Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!!! :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The most important thing is how we treat each other and how we think about the future...That means we have to be kinder...more empathetic..."
    -Hillary Clinton

    Does that mean the Left will just call Republicans "arsonists" and "hostage takers" instead of "arsonists", "hostage takers" AND "terrorists"???

    Just curious...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    The true litmus test of the seriousness of the Benghazi incident is quite simple..

    How would the Left have reacted if it happened under a GOP Administration..

    One only has to look at the Left's hysterical reaction to Abu Ghraib (which was nothing worse than one sees on College Campuses during Pledge Week) to know that the Left would have gone absolutely bat-shit hysterical bonkers if Benghazi had happened under a GOP POTUS.

    There you have it.

    Proof positive as to the REAL seriousness of Benghazi...

    For the Left, it's a "faux" scandal SOLELY and COMPLETELY because it happened under The Messiah's watch...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Americans should care about no Americans killed in terrorist attacks against American embassies, consulates, and military installations because:

    Most consulate employees are no American locals hired by us. They are hired to represent us. Attacks against them are attacks against us. Just as attacks against our embassies and consulates are attacks against America, as embassies and consulates are American territory. And that means that the safety and security of ANYONE within OUR TERRITORY is OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

    Pretending that no other lives are of significance but our own is how terrorists think and act. If we want to convince the world to reject and renounce terrorism we have to stop thinking and acting like terrorists. "Do as I say, not as I do" is never a persuasive argument.

    Over 4000 Americans were killed by terrorists, on American soil, not mearly in technically American territory, under Bush. The specious attempts to justify the Benghazi obsession of the right as the result of the "significance" of four American deaths is ridiculous.--Like all the other rightwing Benghazi fantasies.--Apparently the deaths of four thousand Americans in New York City are far less "significant" than four in Benghazi.

    At least they are to Republicans when the 4000 occurred under Republicans while the four occurred under Democrats.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most consulate employees are no American locals hired by us. They are hired to represent us. Attacks against them are attacks against us. Just as attacks against our embassies and consulates are attacks against America, as embassies and consulates are American territory. And that means that the safety and security of ANYONE within OUR TERRITORY is OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

    The problem here is that ya'all are throwing up irrelevant shit up on the wall and HOPE something sticks...

    Let's say, for the sake of the argument that ya'all are right..

    That those irrelevant acts are somehow perfectly analogous to Benghazi..

    So???

    How does blaming Bush for his supposed incompetence somehow mitigate or excuse Obama's incompetence???

    Further, NONE of the supposed analogous incidents have Bush LYING to the American people, blaming an obscure and nonsensical old video solely and completely because of an election??

    So, the crap you are throwing up on the wall simply DOES NOT STICK...

    Sure, the "Yea, But...." defense is emotionally satisfying.. It gives ya'all the delusion of mounting a viable defense of Obama's indefensible actions..

    There was absolutely NO REASON for Obama to lie about the obscure video, save his re-election efforts..

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed"

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most consulate employees are no American locals hired by us. They are hired to represent us. Attacks against them are attacks against us.

    Yea, and illegal aliens are American citizens too.. :^/

    Funny how ya'all whine and cry about the US being the world's Police Force..

    Yet ya'all have NO PROBLEM with the US being the world's Welfare Agency..

    Funny, iddn't it... :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of things that are funny...

    A Left Wing MSM staple fires a woman because she complained about lack of pay equality...

    And the reaction from the Left???

    ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz

    Could the hypocrisy be ANY more blaring???

    It's just like have the nascent (titular?? :D) leader of the Democratic Party having more than a dozen accusations of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment against him..

    And the RIGHT is waging a "war on women"??

    Sheeeya, right. And Monkees are flying outta my butt...

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    The more I think about that (#26), the more I realize how the NYT has single-handedly royally frak'ed over the Democrats for the mid-terms..

    Think about it..

    The Democrats have been pushing this BS "The Right Is Waging A War On Women" mantra for months now.. It was going to be a pillar in defense of the 'crats hold on the Senate..

    And along comes the NYT firing of the first female editor because she complained about pay inequality..

    And Democrats aren't saying squat..

    Kinda decimates the Democrat's claim that they are championing women's rights, eh??

    Which simply proves what I have always said as fact..

    It's NOT about women's rights, or illegal immigrants or anything...

    For Democrats, it's all about political power..

    And Democrats will champion ANY cause if it helps keep Democriats in power..

    Once it becomes a drag on their quest for political power?

    They drop it like a hot potato...

    And THESE opportunistic and greedy cretins are the ones that you would choose to be our leaders???

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michael,

    You are the one throwing shit up on the wall and hoping it sticks. You claim terrorist attacks don't count, for some unknown reason, unless lots of Americans are killed. You claim the nine committees investigating Benghazi are warranted because because of the "seriousness" of four American deaths, (although now your claiming only Ambassador Sevens' death "counts?!) but the four thousand deaths on 9/11 under Bush only merited one. A distinction you ignore with your typical evasion of how irrelevant it is to compare Bush to Obama.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are the one throwing shit up on the wall and hoping it sticks. You claim terrorist attacks don't count, for some unknown reason, unless lots of Americans are killed.

    You are right. They don't count..

    But EVEN IF they DID count, how does that excuse the incompetence and the lying of the Obama Administration??

    You claim the nine committees investigating Benghazi are warranted because because of the "seriousness" of four American deaths, (although now your claiming only Ambassador Sevens' death "counts?!) but the four thousand deaths on 9/11 under Bush only merited one.

    First off, there were TONS more investigations than just one..

    Secondly, the Bush Administration was forthcoming with all the investigations.

    The Bush Administration didn't blatantly LIE and blatantly STONEWALL the investigations.

    THAT is why Benghazi is STILL in the news and STILL being investigated a year and a half later.

    Because Obama lied and continues to lie.

    Because the Obama White House is CONTINUING to obstruct and stonewall the investigations. As the email from Deputy National Security Adviser Dan Rhodes proves..

    You want the investigations to stop??

    Tell your guy, Obama to quit lying and quit stonewalling...

    By the way, you never answered my question..

    Is Obama the terrorist that you claim Bush and Reagan were??

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Irregardless of any of the false equivalencies ya'all want to indulge in, comment #22 proves beyond any doubt the seriousness of Benghazi..

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the hits just keep on coming....

    He KNEW! Obama told of Veterans Affairs health care debacle as far back as 2008
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/18/obama-warned-about-va-wait-time-problems-during-20/

    Seriously, people..

    The incompetence of the Obama Administration is well-documented...

    Yet ya'all STILL insist that The Messiah is still wearing the finest of livery!!???

    "Fascinating"

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:
  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House says Obama only learned of VA wait-list scandal on TV (just like the IRS, Fast and Furious and reporter snooping scandals)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2633103/White-House-says-Obama-learned-VA-wait-list-scandal-TV-just-like-IRS-Fast-Furious-reporter-snooping-scandals.html

    O... M... G...

    Maybe Obama should watch TV less and, oh I dunno..

    ACTUALLY BE A LEADER!!!

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding Hillary Health Questions??

    Nobody has said it better than Sarah Palin..

    https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10152438435338588

    If ya'all wonder why the Left (present company excepted, of course :D) disgust me so much...

    THAT ^^^ is why...

    It's not that they are mean-spirited, bigoted, hateful and hurtful.. They are...

    It's that they are so damn hypocritical about it..

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why are we paying for another #beencrazhi investigation?

    Anyone know how much taxpayer money we've spent on this Republican re-election campaign?

    -David

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why are we paying for another #beencrazhi investigation?

    Because Obama and his Administration won't come clean..

    Anyone know how much taxpayer money we've spent on this Republican re-election campaign?

    Probably BILLIONS less than Democrats spent going after Bush and Company..

    I am constrained to remind you that absolutely NOTHING came of all those hearings...

    I mean, if you want to talk WASTE OF TIME, I have mountains of facts for you...

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just think, David..

    NOW we're going to have #Obama's-VA-SUCKS investigations now too!!! :D

    I have always told ya'all...

    What goes around comes around... :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Ah, Michale. I fear you're becoming an angry old man wrapped up in Obama conspiracies.

    It's not worth it, my friend. Pretty soon you're yelling at random kids to get off your yard and screaming in the checkout aisle at the supermarket. Heheh ... :)

    I'm glad the issue w/ the VA is coming to light. Stuff like this needs to get fixed.

    It also highlights the impact of cuts to government funding. This is not just happening at the VA level, but with all government agencies across the board.

    Maybe veterans can help shine some light on this issue.

    -David

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm glad the issue w/ the VA is coming to light. Stuff like this needs to get fixed.

    It's been going on ALL of Obama's term..

    Are you going to hold him responsible??

    Of course not. It's all Bush's fault.. :D

    Ah, Michale. I fear you're becoming an angry old man wrapped up in Obama conspiracies.

    As opposed to when ya'all were angry and old about the Bush conspiracies, eh? :D

    Benghazi is going to be with us for a long, long time. Better get used to it. :D

    Pretty soon you're yelling at random kids to get off your yard and screaming in the checkout aisle at the supermarket. Heheh ... :)

    Did you ever watch STARGATE UNIVERSE?? :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    So what do you think about the fact that Obama learned about the VA issues from the news??

    That almost 6 years into his administration, Obama was completely clueless as to the problems??

    Comments??

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Are you going to hold him responsible?

    I'll hold responsible who's responsible.

    I would suggest let's look at what happened, identify the issue, and get it fixed.

    (Or we could just go off half-cocked screaming about Obama ...)

    Benghazi is going to be with us for a long, long time. Better get used to it. :D

    Used to it ... Like other fake GOP political tactics, it's "comedy gold" as they say :)

    -David

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll hold responsible who's responsible.</I.

    That would be the President Of The United States..

    Or, more accurately, that would be a REPUBLICAN President Of The United States.. :^/

    I would suggest let's look at what happened, identify the issue, and get it fixed.

    So, when a DEM is responsible, ya want to fix the problem..

    When a GOP is responsible, ya want to fix the blame..

    Funny how that always is, eh? :D

    When the GOP is at fault, it's ALL about accountability... When a DEM is at fault, it's all about the problem...

    At least ya'all are consistent in your inconsistencies.. :D

    Used to it ... Like other fake GOP political tactics, it's "comedy gold" as they say :)

    As opposed to the fake DEM political tactics?? :D

    Like I said.. What goes around comes around...

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll hold responsible who's responsible.

    According to Weigantians, if there is a leader who has crap going on under his command and he doesn't know about it, that makes said leader "incompetent"..

    But once again, I guess that only applies to REPUBLICAN leaders...

    Dem leaders get a pass....

    IRS scandal...

    Fast & Furious scandal..

    Targeting Reporters scandal..

    VA scandal..

    Obama learned about ALL these scandals and many more, FROM THE MEDIA...

    Are you seeing the pattern???

    I await your defense of the indefensible.. :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, when a DEM is responsible, ya want to fix the problem.

    Nope. I wanted to fix the problem under Bush as well.

    I wanted to end the wars and end the tax handouts to the wealthy.

    If Republicans are willing to fix problems, I'm happy to work with them. Unfortunately, they often seem to have a problem admitting that there's problems.

    -David

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just answer me one question, David..

    Is Obama responsible for ANYTHING that happens in his administration??

    Or is Obama responsible for NOTHING that happens in his administration??

    Ya'all held Bush accountable for EVERYTHING..

    Ya'all hold Obama accountable for NOTHING..

    Why is that??? (as if I don't know.. :D)

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Obama learned about ALL these scandals and many more, FROM THE MEDIA.

    Easy, easy. No need to scream. Remember ... supermarket checkout aisles.

    BTW, I haven't seen Stargate Universe. You'll have to help me out w/ the connection.

    How else should he have learned about these issues?

    Isn't this how Bush learned about ... problems w/ Katrina and Homeland Security, Abu Ghraib, 9/11?

    The media is a vital component of our democracy. It brings attention to areas that often otherwise wouldn't receive the attention they should.

    -David

  47. [47] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just answer me one question, David.

    Once again ...

    Look at the problem, identify the issues, work to solve the problem.

    Do you have a better approach, Michale?

    I really don't give a rat's ass who's working to fix the problem, if they're working to fix the problem.

    -David

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    How else should he have learned about these issues?

    Oh I dunno... Maybe from his own departments and agencies...

    BTW, I haven't seen Stargate Universe. You'll have to help me out w/ the connection.

    There was this time travel episode where, in an alternate reality, the crew of the Destiny ended up 2000 years in the past and founded a new human civilization..

    The crew in the current timeline/reality came across visual records of their alternate selves..

    How the timelines merged was never really explained.. That's why Temporal Mechanics gives Geordie LaForge nosebleeds... :D

    Anyways, one of the crew, Dr Adam Brody was recorded as saying "Those damn kids! Always screaming and yelling and playing on my lawn!!" :D

    Yer comment made me think of that.. :D It was a pretty awesome story arc...

    Isn't this how Bush learned about ... problems w/ Katrina and Homeland Security, Abu Ghraib, 9/11?

    Nope.. Nope.. Nope..

    Bush heard it from his people, his subordinates... That's how a GOOD leader get's the information..

    A leader that gets news on his own administration from the news media??

    Ain't a leader...

    Look at the problem, identify the issues, work to solve the problem.

    That's a great plan..

    Why is it only implemented when the Democrats are in the hot seat??

    Why is it, when it's a GOP'er who is at fault, it's all about accountability??

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Obama responsible for ANYTHING that happens in his administration??

    Or is Obama responsible for NOTHING that happens in his administration??

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's an old axiom amongst trial lawyers..

    When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law.

    I think that's what we're seeing here..

    "If the Democrats are at fault, argue the problem. If Republicans are at fault, argue the blame."

    :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, ya'all want to give Obama credit for everything. But ya'all don't hold him responsible for ANYTHING..

    Sure, I may blame Obama for a lot..

    But I also GIVE credit when it's due..

    Ya'all never blame Obama for ANYTHING...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So it's all about credit and blame with you then?

    You don't really seem to care at all about the issue at the VA.

    Isn't that more important? Seriously ...

    -David

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't really seem to care at all about the issue at the VA.

    Not at all..

    MY beef is that ya'all don't care about the blame when it's a Democrat to blame..

    When it's a GOP'er that's to blame, then that is all ya'all care about...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    The VERY first step to fixing a problem is to establish accountability...

    How can you fix a problem if you don't identify WHO caused the problem and what they did to cause the problem.

    In the case of the VA, it's simple...

    To make Obama look good, they created two waiting lists. One public and one "shadow"...

    So, get rid of the people who caused the problem and THAT problem will be fixed..

    But my question really doesn't have anything to do with the VA.. Or Benghazi... Or Fast&Furious... Or the IRS targeting conservatives.. Or the DOJ targeting reporters..

    *MY* question is, why is it that when a GOP is the leader, the ignorance of said leader to the goings on under his leadership is a sign of incompetence..

    When a DEM is the leader, and doesn't have CLUE ONE what's going on under his leadership, no one here mentions incompetence at all.

    THAT is my question.. Doesn't have ANYTHING to do with fixing ANY of the problems..

    It has to do with ya'all's refusal to hold a Dem POTUS accountable..

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    In short, under Bush ya'all were ALL about "accountability"...

    Even after Bush left office, ya'all screamed and yelled about "accountability"...

    CIA torturing.. Ya'all demanded "accountability"...

    Rendition... Ya'all demanded "accountability"..

    Domestic Surveillance... Ya'all demanded "accountability"..

    Torture memos... Ya'all demanded "accountability"..

    Civil Rights violations.. Ya'all demanded "accountability"..

    NOW, we have a POTUS who has demonstrated, by YA'ALLS on litmus test, incompetence time and time again..

    NOW ya'all don't want "accountability" anymore...

    NOW ya'all just want to address the problem and chuck accountability out the window..

    And, what's worse, ya'all see absolutely NOTHING wrong with such a 180 degree flip flop.....

    So much so, that you refuse to even acknowledge it..

    "We are at war with Eurasia.. We have always been at war with Eurasia."

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    akadjian wrote:

    MY beef is that ya'all don't care about the blame when it's a Democrat to blame.

    Isn't that what I said?

    Your "beef" has nothing at all to do with the issue at the VA.

    You only care about the issue so much as you can use it to make Obama look bad.

    -David

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your "beef" has nothing at all to do with the issue at the VA.

    If it were the subject of the discussion, then it would be the subject of the discussion..

    But it's not, so it isn't...

    Tell ya what..

    Let's address THIS issue (the issue of why ya'all don't hold Obama accountable for ANYTHING) first and resolve THIS....

    THEN we can talk about the specifics of the VA issue..

    Sound fair??

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    You only care about the issue so much as you can use it to make Obama look bad.

    That is simply not true..

    Let's talk about Obama's totally awesome way of kicking ass and taking names with drone strikes..

    Let's talk about how Obama totally (and quite awesomely) ignores such outmoded notions like "Due Process" and simply eliminates terrorist threats BECAUSE they are threats..

    THAT, in my book, makes Obama TOTALLY frak'in awesome!!

    Do you want to talk about that??

    No???

    Didna think so... :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said that...

    There IS a common theme in all of my discussions..

    Let's see if you can figure it out.. :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    “After seven years of an Administration that has stretched our military to the breaking point, ignored deplorable conditions at some VA hospitals, and neglected the planning and preparation necessary to care for our returning heroes, America’s veterans deserve a President who will fight for them not just when it’s easy or convenient, but every hour of every day for the next four years.”
    -Senator Barack Obama, Nov. 2007

    Obama KNEW, even before he was elected POTUS, that the VA suffered from "deplorable conditions"...

    I guess he was just too busy golfing and smoozing with Hollywood stars and taking selfies with hot blond Prime Ministers to worry about mundane things like... Oh, I dunno...

    LEADING!!!!

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Let's address THIS issue (the issue of why ya'all don't hold Obama accountable for ANYTHING) first and resolve THIS.

    Nah. Doesn't interest me at the moment.

    There IS a common theme in all of my discussions.

    Obama fixation? Ok, ok. Kidding.

    My guess would be your views about what makes a good leader. I am genuinely curious though.

    -David

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nah. Doesn't interest me at the moment

    Color me shocked!! :D

    No one wants to talk about Obama's incompetence.. I wonder why... :D

    My guess would be your views about what makes a good leader. I am genuinely curious though.

    Not really...

    No, the common theme of ALL my comments is to point out the dangers of being enslaved by Political Ideology..

    I know you people..

    Ya'all would LOVE to scream from the high heavens about how bad it is to assassinate Americans w/o Due Process..

    Ya'all would LOVE to yell from the rooftops how bad it is to have such intrusive and suffocating Domestic Surveillance...

    Ya'all would LOVE to wallow hysterically how utterly wrong it is to use the IRS and the DOJ to settle political scores..

    But, because you are good Democrats, such actions are closed to you...

    Ya'all are prisoners of your faith...

    One only has to take the comments here under the Bush administration and compare them to the comments under the Obama Administration..

    Even though Obama has expanded Bush's CT policies to heights that would give Darth Cheney a wet dream and used the departments under his control in such a way that would make Nixon green with envy.....

    Despite all this that I *KNOW* for a fact that ya'all would like to denigrate and castigate...

    Ya'all can't...

    Because ya'all are good Democrats..

    And it's Party Uber Alles...

    That's the common theme..

    The loss of freedom when one sells one's soul to a political Party..

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I know you people.

    "What do you mean, you people?" - Robert Downey, Jr, Tropic Thunder

    No, the common theme of ALL my comments is to point out the dangers of being enslaved by Political Ideology.

    Heheh ... now that's funny.

    When you can show me a Republican willing to adequately fund government (including the VA) and stop handing out special tax exemptions to the wealthy, I'll vote for him or her.

    This is what's needed to solve the problem. I really could give a rat's ass who does it.

    -David

  64. [64] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What's your solution, Michale?

    I mean, other than b*tching about how other people should be blaming Obama. (Really, aren't there better things to do?)

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's your solution, Michale?

    Oh, that's easy..

    Get rid of the two Party system..

    Vote PEOPLE, Not PARTY...

    I mean, other than b*tching about how other people should be blaming Obama. (Really, aren't there better things to do?)

    I asked the EXACT same question during the Bush years.. Practically every day..

    "Don't ya'all have anything better to do than to bitch and moan how evil Bush is, what a War Criminal Bush is??"

    Even today.. Everyone bitches and moans what "terrorists" Republicans are, what "criminals" Republicans are, how "incompetent" Republicans are..

    Yet, when the spot light is on yer own Party??

    All of the sudden, ya'all have better things to do...

    Thereby proving, once again, the danger of being enslave by Party ideology...

    Once again.. What goes around comes around... :D

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    "What do you mean, you people?" - Robert Downey, Jr, Tropic Thunder

    hehehehehehehe Nice one.. :D

    When you can show me a Republican willing to adequately fund government (including the VA) and stop handing out special tax exemptions to the wealthy, I'll vote for him or her.

    Until then, it's Democratic Party Uber Alles...

    This is what's needed to solve the problem. I really could give a rat's ass who does it.

    And yet, when a Republican came up with an idea or two that WOULD solve some problems and actually SUPPORT the Democratic Party Platform, no one here supported it...

    Ya'all start from the position that everything from the Right is bad and then go from there....

    CW did a commentary IN SUPPORT of a Tea Party member that ya'all should have rallied around...

    {{{{chhiirrrrppppp}}}} {{chirrrrppppp}}

    It was Cricket City around here...

    Republicans wanted to reign in the NSA...

    Did ya'all support that???

    No ya didn't...

    So don't tell me that you would support Republican good ideas... We both know that's felgercarb... :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Yunno, my favorite thing about you, Michale.

    When you start making broad generalizations about people you don't even know.

    Just this year, for example, I helped a Tea Party group out of Bowling Green petition against the NDAA.

    They're called Panda Unite. They're young and their website is quite good.

    http://pandaunite.org/

    I'm telling you ... supermarket grocery line ... don't let it happen to you. I've seen it. Next come chemtrails and then ... the crazyhouse. :)

    -David

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans wanted to reign in the NSA...

    Did ya'all support that???

    No ya didn't...

    I mean, seriously, look at it.

    Ya'all had a TAILOR MADE FOR PROGRESSIVES issue..

    REIGN IN THE NSA!!!

    What could be more LEFT WING than that!???

    But, because the legislation originated from the RIGHT side of the aisle, ya'all wouldn't support it...

    So, please... Don't tell me ya'all would support legislation from the Right..

    "He's been brought up on insubordination!"
    "I have read your own file, General. Please."

    -RISING, Stargate: Atlantis

    :D

    It's clear that, as far as ya'all are concerned, everything RIGHT Wing is bad, regardless of whether ya'all actually AGREE with it or not...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Get rid of the two Party system.

    BTW, love it.

    It might help distinguish between good candidates and corporate candidates/party hacks.

    -David

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    It might help distinguish between good candidates and corporate candidates/party hacks.

    Exactly..

    But here's the rub...

    You have to QUIT supporting sub-standard candidates..

    You have to QUIT supporting Party and support people...

    How do you do that???

    By having a set of principles and NEVER compromising those principles...

    You have to quit thinking, "Well, XXX is doing somethings that I really abhor, but XXX IS doing some things that I agree with.. So, I'll settle.."

    Ya have to QUIT settling...

    Because once you say, "I'll settle", then you give up ALL power...

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Quiz: How Dumb Does Obama Think We Are?The Veterans Affairs policy fiasco is magnified by an insulting-public relations strategy.
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/quiz-how-dumb-does-obama-think-we-are-20140520

    And another scandal that the White House can deny and that the low-information voter suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome can lap up, not their heads and say, "See! The Messiah is NOT responsible. It's a faux scandal"...

    Yea, tell that to the families of the dead Veterans...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK David, since I know I won't get you to cop to Obama's incompetence, let's discuss what should be done about the VA..

    First and foremost, the Head Guy's head must roll...

    Fire him..

    No muss, no fuss, just "YOU'RE FIRED"...

    Agree???

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @ Michale [27]

    The Democrats have been pushing this BS "The Right Is Waging A War On Women" mantra for months now.. It was going to be a pillar in defense of the 'crats hold on the Senate..

    And along comes the NYT firing of the first female editor because she complained about pay inequality..

    And Democrats aren't saying squat..

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/harry-reid-jill-abramson_n_5333342.html

  74. [74] 
    Mopshell wrote:
  75. [75] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [22] -

    The true litmus test of the seriousness of the Benghazi incident is quite simple..

    How would the Left have reacted if it happened under a GOP Administration.

    OK, here you go. Reagan, Beirut, and Democrats' reaction:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/benghazi-beirut-bombing_b_5353757.html

    How's that for putting country before party? Unlike, you know, the Republicans of today...

    [24] -
    Let's say, for the sake of the argument that ya'all are right..

    That those irrelevant acts are somehow perfectly analogous to Benghazi..

    So???

    How does blaming Bush for his supposed incompetence somehow mitigate or excuse Obama's incompetence???

    The difference is how the opposition party reacted. Can you name one investigation during the Bush years that the Democrats drove, solely for political reasons? I can't. That's the difference, right there.

    [26] -

    Actually the reaction from the Left is what drove the story. Feminists were outraged. Not saying they're right or wrong, but they were the ones to push the story to the front pages. It wasn't ignored in the least.

    [27] -

    Name me ONE law Dems have pushed which have made women's lives harder. Just one. I can name you DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of laws passed by Republicans in the past few years, just on the subject of abortion alone, that the GOP has pushed. That's the difference. Why is the GOP against equal pay laws? No other explanation than the war on women -- not on "one woman" (as the examples the Righties keep trying to bring up for this supposed Dem "War on Women"), but on ALL WOMEN. Seriously, name me one law Dems have either passed or been in favor of. The GOP record is clear. Which is why they're losing all the single women's votes.

    [31] -

    Speaking of throwing shit at the wall... are you seriously going to contend that all VA problems can be laid at Obama's feet? Funny, I remember complaints about the VA back to the 1970s, and the Vietnam War vets, personally...

    [34] -

    OK, to be fair, when I read about Sarah Palin's complaints, my first reaction was "she does, indeed, have a point..."

    How's that?

    :-)

    akadjian [47] -

    I really don't give a rat's ass who's working to fix the problem, if they're working to fix the problem.

    That is a masterful statement, with which I agree completely. Seriously, that's almost a Zen koan. Well done!

    Michale [48] -

    OK, I have to admit, the only time-travel Stargate I know of is when they all became hippies. Or, more accurately, hooked up with a hippie van in the late 1960s, and traveled towards a telescope facility to figure out how to get back. I have to admit it was hilarious....

    :-)

    [50] -

    When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law.

    Isn't there a third part to that? "When both are against you, pound the table with your fist."

    That's exactly where the Republicans are on Benghazi.

    [54][55] -

    OK, fair point. I have been holding back on Shinseki (sp?) until his report is in. I was amazed that he promised a full report in three weeks, which is lightning speed in DC, but I decided to wait until it was out to draw any conclusions. Should he be fired? Should he resign? Should he be allowed to try to fix the mess? My jury is out, because we should have some answers within a few weeks. I do admit he might have gotten some MDDOTW awards in the meantime, but because he promised to investigate and report so quickly, I'm waiting to see what he has to say. With an open mind. But if the news is truly bad, I will (I promise you) come down on him like a ton of bricks, should I feel he deserves it. That'll have to do, for now.

    [60] -

    OK, again -- fair enough (if that Obama quote is accurate, which I am assuming you reported correctly). That's a good quote to bring up, right about now.

    [62] -

    You forgot: "except for Chris, who lives in a reality-based universe"...

    Heh.

    :-)

    akadjian [63] -

    You raise an excellent point that Michale really should address: the Left's complaint about the VA situation is that the GOP has been trying to cut the funding in their last few years of budget.

    If the VA needs more money, which political party has been trying to get them more money, and which has been trying to cut it?

    That's a very pertinent question to the debate, don't you think?

    Michale [in general] -

    I am putting on my Grammar Police hat here...

    It's "rein." When you restrict a horse, what do you do? You pull on the horse's reins. You "rein him in."

    "Reign" means something different. In your parlance, here's an example: "Why don't you admit the flaws of the reign of Obama?"

    Reign always equals "king" or "ruler".

    Rein means aleather strap to control a horse.

    Sorry, that one just bugs me no end....

    WHEW! Made it to the end! OK, have at my own answers now...

    :-)

    -CW

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    One Huffpo article does not the Left make..

    When you can show me the type of hysteria against this that the Left exhibits against the Right, then you'll have a point..

    As to the NSA issue. It was Nancy Pelosi who killed the anti-NSA legislation, not House Republicans..

    Regardless, even IF the House GOP watered down the legislation, ya'all STILL should have rallied behind it..

    Obama watered down TrainWreckCare and ya'all hated that.. Until it was passed and then ya'all loved it..

    Ya'all were against it, before you were for it. :D

    It still proves my point. Ya'all are Democrats first and Americans second.. Present company excepted, of course. :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW

    How's that for putting country before party?

    Of course.. He's a Kennedy... Did you ever watch TIMEQUEST?? It made me fall in love with Democrats all over again.. :D

    Unlike, you know, the Republicans of today...

    You think I am going to disagree with you?? :D

    The only thing worse than Republicans in the greed/power department are Democrats...

    The difference is how the opposition party reacted. Can you name one investigation during the Bush years that the Democrats drove, solely for political reasons? I can't. That's the difference, right there.

    Oh let's see.. Torture, Iraq War, More torture, CIA, More Iraq War, Still more torture...

    "Death, slavery. More slavery, more death."
    -Dr Daniel Jackson, STARGATE: CONTINUIM

    :D

    Actually the reaction from the Left is what drove the story. Feminists were outraged. Not saying they're right or wrong, but they were the ones to push the story to the front pages. It wasn't ignored in the least.

    See my response to Mopshell above Where's the quotes from ALL the Democrat leaders, like we see when a GOP'er is involved? Where's the week's worth of quips and sound bites??

    Nowhere to be found..

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA....

    Name me ONE law Dems have pushed which have made women's lives harder. Just one. I can name you DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of laws passed by Republicans in the past few years, just on the subject of abortion alone, that the GOP has pushed. That's the difference. Why is the GOP against equal pay laws? No other explanation than the war on women -- not on "one woman" (as the examples the Righties keep trying to bring up for this supposed Dem "War on Women"), but on ALL WOMEN. Seriously, name me one law Dems have either passed or been in favor of. The GOP record is clear. Which is why they're losing all the single women's votes.

    Let me answer by asking a question..

    Name me one law that Democrats have passed that have been in the best interests of new born children..

    You can't because Democrats are in a War On Newborn Children..

    You see my point???

    It's all in the spin...

    Speaking of throwing shit at the wall... are you seriously going to contend that all VA problems can be laid at Obama's feet? Funny, I remember complaints about the VA back to the 1970s, and the Vietnam War vets, personally...

    Obama KNEW that the VA was in shambles. His transition team was briefed in 2008. Obama USED the "deplorable conditions" argument to slam Bush in 2007...

    And Obama has almost SIX YEARS to make it better..

    He has made it worse..

    Who SHOULD be blamed?? Bush???

    The Buck Stops At The POTUS' desk... The CURRENT POTUS' desk..

    Am I wrong??

    OK, to be fair, when I read about Sarah Palin's complaints, my first reaction was "she does, indeed, have a point..."

    How's that?

    Excellent.. But getting YOU to see reality and concede reality has NEVER been any kind of problem whatsoever...

    Next to me, yer the most reasonable one here.. :D

    But getting the rest of Weigantia to see reason and logic and concede reality is a Herculean task. They would rather cut out their hearts with a spoon..

    "Why a 'spoon', cousin??"
    "Because, it is dull! It will HURT more, you twit!!"

    -Robin Hood: Prince Of Theives

    :D

    OK, I have to admit, the only time-travel Stargate I know of is when they all became hippies. Or, more accurately, hooked up with a hippie van in the late 1960s, and traveled towards a telescope facility to figure out how to get back. I have to admit it was hilarious....

    Yea, that was STARGATE SG1 and a really awesome episode..

    This was Stargate Universe. The episode arc on this particular storyline was pretty amazing. It's too bad Liberals had to kill SG:U... Another beef I have against the Left.. :D

    Isn't there a third part to that? "When both are against you, pound the table with your fist."

    That's exactly where the Republicans are on Benghazi.

    Time will tell. We already have one smoking gun.. Who knows how many more are out there..

    With an open mind. But if the news is truly bad, I will (I promise you) come down on him like a ton of bricks, should I feel he deserves it. That'll have to do, for now.

    We already KNOW the news is bad. This is fact..

    I can't see what kind of report will mitigate his responsibility in the issue. HE is the guy in charge..

    Let me put it this way. Would you want to hold off for Brownie's Katina Report BEFORE you ask for his head??

    Eh??? Eh??? :D

    OK, again -- fair enough (if that Obama quote is accurate, which I am assuming you reported correctly). That's a good quote to bring up, right about now.

    It's an accurate quote and there are several more like it.

    Like I mentioned above, Obama used the "deplorable conditions" at the VA to beat Bush over the head on MANY occasions..

    Obama KNEW even before he was POTUS that things were bad at the VA...

    And what has he done as almost 6 years as POTUS to make things better?

    Not a damn thing...

    Obama deserves AT LEAST a MDDOTW award. Better that he receive public condemnation from every Weigantian..

    THAT will be a cold day in hell, eh?? :D

    I am putting on my Grammar Police hat here...

    I stand corrected.. :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't because Democrats are in a War On Newborn Children..

    You see my point???

    It's all in the spin...

    Let me put it this way..

    Say you and I are in a race for Mayor of BumFuq California..

    Bumfuq is in the midst of crime sprees and vandalism committed by kids..

    I, being the LAW AND ORDER candidate say that if elected, I will impose a 2000hr curfew on anyone under 18..

    You, being the freedom-loving Peacenik candidate accuse me of engaging in a "War On Teenagers" because I want to restrict the freedom and rights of teenagers..

    You see the point??

    My GOAL is not to restrict the rights of teenagers but rather to re-establish the rule of law... The ANCILLARY effect of my legislation is that it restricts the rights of teenagers.. But it is not the intent.

    You are taking an ancillary and unintended consequence of an action and ascribing goal-oriented properties to it that have not been proven to exist..

    If it was my INTENT to restrict the rights of teenagers then, and ONLY then, could you accurately say that I am engaging in a "War On Teenagers"..

    So it is with this alleged "War On Women"..

    If the GOP's GOAL was to restrict women's rights, then your claim would be accurate..

    But the GOP's GOAL is to protect newborn babies and whatever else they are trying to do..

    You are taking an ancillary and unintended consequence of an action and ascribing goal-oriented properties to it that have not been proven to exist..

    In short. It's spin.. Spin unsupported by facts..

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    akadjian wrote:

    First and foremost, the Head Guy's head must roll.

    Agreed.

    I'd like to get the facts on what really went on too. As CW mentioned, Shinseki's promised these shortly. In my heart though I'm not sure if this matters to me. I still feel like they need someone new and hope Obama takes this step.

    By having a set of principles and NEVER compromising those principles.

    You bring up another great point here, Michale, that is very near and dear to my heart (and I believe CW's too).

    'NEVER' is a little extreme for me and has been even for the GOP. Especially when it comes to politics where, in order to get anything done, you have to compromise. So while a Ted Cruz sounds great in principle, a Ted Cruz always acting like a Ted Cruz would (and has) shut down everything. But I'm right there with you on fighting for principles. And electing better politicians.

    I do believe the Democratic Party a) doesn't talk about principles enough, and b) are often too willing to compromise.

    The issue I have with the GOP, on the other hand, are their principles. Correction. Not their principles but rather how they're used (or abused). That is, I agree with many of their stated principles. But the GOP often uses these principles to further a strict corporate agenda. For instance, hard work is great. Personal responsibility, great. Too often, however, they use these principles to fight for cheaper labor and the ability of the wealthy to not pay their dues. And yes, many Dems fight for some of these same things using different "principles".

    Most people, when they think of Congress, think of it as roughly a 50/50 split Dem/Republican. I think the best way to understand Congress is to look at it as split 75/25 Corporatist/Populist. This might be generous to the populists (it's probably more like 90/10).

    Look at Steve Beschear in Kentucky, for example. He's fighting to privatize schools. I know, right? This is a corporate fight. Or Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago. Or Andrew Cuomo in New York. Or Mary Landrieu. Or Max Baucus. Or numerous other corporate Dems. These are Dems I'm embarrassed of.

    Things will change when more populists are elected. Otherwise, we're quite likely going to keep getting the same corporate agenda of cheap labor (lower wages) and less revenue (tax handouts to corporations).

    Anyways ... well said!

    -David

  80. [80] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I suppose now we'll have to go back to fighting :)

    Heheh.

    Seriously though. Someday I hope to make it down to Florida for a beer. We can even set a rule that we don't discuss politics if you want.

    At this point, I think it'd just be fun to meet in person. Or if you're ever headed Ohio ways ... lemme know.

    -David

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd like to get the facts on what really went on too. As CW mentioned, Shinseki's promised these shortly. In my heart though I'm not sure if this matters to me. I still feel like they need someone new and hope Obama takes this step.

    Like I said to CW, what can be in that report that would make any difference to this guy's job??

    But I agree.. Wait to get the report..

    But regardless of what is in that report, FIRE the bastard..

    Anyways ... well said!

    Thanx.. :D

    My issue has always been the moral stance Democrats took during the Bush years was proven to be nothing more than cheap political maneuvering under Obama..

    I can respect a MORAL argument, even if I don't agree with it..

    But, an argument based on nothing but a Political Agenda..

    THAT sucks...

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously though. Someday I hope to make it down to Florida for a beer. We can even set a rule that we don't discuss politics if you want.

    It's actually rather ironic.. In person, I am somewhat of a shy guy that abhors confrontation.. :D

    At this point, I think it'd just be fun to meet in person. Or if you're ever headed Ohio ways ... lemme know.

    A slight possibility we might be moving to Arizona.. Maybe we can make a detour.. :D

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now THAT's funny..

    I just got a phone call from Ohio..

    Did you just try to call me, David?? :D

    hehehehehehehe

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I can respect a MORAL argument, even if I don't agree with it..

    I know, right?

    A slight possibility we might be moving to Arizona.. Maybe we can make a detour.. :D

    Nice ... South or North? I have some friends who live in Flagstaff so am out there every now and again.

    It's a beautiful state. The Sedona area is nothing short of amazing.

    And you'd be closer to CW in California. Anyhoo ... at some point we'll have to figure out how to make it happen.

    It's actually rather ironic.. In person, I am somewhat of a shy guy that abhors confrontation.. :D

    LOL ... I find that hard to believe!

    Anyways, goal wouldn't be confrontation. That's why I'm saying we could even set a ground rule of no politics. The goal would be beer!

    -David

  85. [85] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Did you just try to call me, David?? :D

    I have secret liberal spy tools you wouldn't believe ...

    *evil laugh* Muahahahahaha

    (Nah. The reality is much more boring. I'm hanging out in a Panera this morning at work on a website.)

    -David

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nice ... South or North? I have some friends who live in Flagstaff so am out there every now and again.

    Tucson.. It doesn't hold any good memories for me (it was were I last was with my mom) but my wife's parents settled there and they really want to be a part of their grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's lives..

    Anyways, goal wouldn't be confrontation. That's why I'm saying we could even set a ground rule of no politics. The goal would be beer!

    You had me at 'beer'... :D

    I have secret liberal spy tools you wouldn't believe ...

    *evil laugh* Muahahahahaha

    hehehehehehe

    (Nah. The reality is much more boring. I'm hanging out in a Panera this morning at work on a website.)

    Know much about Wordpress??? I am in a bind..

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Know much about Wordpress??? I am in a bind.

    Just enough that I'm dangerous. Might be able to help though.

    E-mail me at: akadjian@yahoo.com & we'll take offline.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Know much about Wordpress??? I am in a bind..

    "The Devil went down to Georgia, he was lookin' for a soul to steal.
    He was in a bind, cuz he was way behind and was willing to make a deal."

    -DEVIL WENT DOWN TO GEORGIA

    :D

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrat that likes eating ear wax also says that Democrats have PROVEN that "communism works"...

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/21/dem-congressman-weve-proved-that-communism-works/

    Yea, Democrats are the Party of the future, eh?? :D

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Opm9b2WDk

    I'll never disparage cats again.. :D

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think what it is, it's an epidemic of incompetence and neglect because --precisely because as every one of these other scandals unfolded the administration mouths words about accountability, talks about responsibility, some people like the Secretary of State, even the president, say the buck stops here, but the buck stops nowhere because no one pays, no one is fired, no one is demoted. The only person who got hurt in the Benghazi affair, hurt in terms of his career, was the guy in Tripoli, [Gregory] Hicks, the man who blew the whistle, the man who essentially heard his colleague dying at the other end of the phone, essentially. He got demoted because he said the truth. And that's what happens. Once that happens, it becomes epidemic and no one is responsible for anything so why should anybody stick their neck out
    -Charles Krauthammer

    Once again, Chuck nails it..

    NO ONE is accountable in the Obama Administration..

    NO ONE gets fired.

    NO ONE goes to jail.

    NO ONE accepts responsibility beyond limp-dicked sound bites..

    Hell, Obama himself doesn't even KNOW what's going on with his own Departments!

    About the ONLY good thing to come of the Obama Administration is that Jimmy Carter is kicking up his heels, knowing he is no longer the WORST POTUS of all time...

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Smoking Gun

    Obama transition team was told about 3 audits showing VA misreported wait times
    Inspector frustrated with efforts to dire situation

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/21/obama-transition-team-told-about-3-audits-showing-/#ixzz32RqwQQxm

    Obama knew....

    And did nothing...

    Don't tell me.. Let me guess.. It's another "faux scandal"...

    One really has to wonder what ya'all consider a REAL scandal...

    I am guessing ya'alls thought process is something along the lines of, "If it paints Obama in a bad light, it's a 'faux' scandal.."

    Color me surprised.. NOT..... :^/

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's an issue that has bothered me for a long time...

    Why don't they have mouse-flavored cat food??

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    As the Veterans Affairs (VA) fiasco rages on, the House passed a piece of legislation that would make it easier to fire VA managers and make the department more accountable. It was passed with bipartisan support, with the vote being 390 in favor to 33 against.

    There was only one problem. It failed to pass the U.S. Senate. Senate Democrats decided mark this Memorial Day by blocking this bill.

    For shame, Senate Democrats...

    For shame.....

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    The VA scandal proves quite adequately, beyond ANY doubt, that government simply CANNOT run a quality health care operation....

    Which explains why Obama kept this scandal under wraps...

    Even thought Obama knew about it, even BEFORE he was POTUS, he simply HAD to keep the problems hidden...

    And here we are..

    Dozens of dead Veterans and a broken health care system...

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here are Democrats touting Government run Healthcare...

    "Take the hospital system run by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest integrated health system in the United States. It is fully government run, much more “socialized medicine” than is Canadian health care with its private doctors and hospitals. And the system for veterans is by all accounts one of the best-performing and most cost-effective elements in the American medical establishment."
    NY Times Nicholas Kristof

    "Multiple surveys have found the VHA providing better care than most Americans receive, even as the agency has held cost increases well below those facing Medicare and private insurers…the VHA is an integrated system, which provides health care as well as paying for it. So it’s free from the perverse incentives created when doctors and hospitals profit from expensive tests and procedures, whether or not those procedures actually make medical sense."
    -Paul Krugman

    "Remarkably, Americans of all political stripes have long reserved for our veterans the purest form of socialized medicine, the vast health system operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (generally known as the V.A. health system). If socialized medicine is as bad as so many on this side of the Atlantic claim, why have both political parties ruling this land deemed socialized medicine the best health system for military veterans? Or do they just not care about them?"
    -Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton

    “If other health care providers followed the V.A.’s lead, it would be a major step toward improving the quality of care across the U.S. health care system.”
    -RAND Corporation

    “expanding the Veterans Health Administration to non-veterans” was “one of my favorite ideas.”
    -Ezra Klein

    “Every time I read about a Teabagger ranting about how socialized medicine will destroy this country I think of the VA system. There it is, a huge and vastly important universal healthcare system—government run, single payer and therefore socialist—right here in the brave and privatized United States: The Veterans Affairs hospitals.”
    -Jonathan Golob

    It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so tragically sad...

    Well, all of the Left can breath a sigh of relief..

    The US now has Veterans Administration style healthcare..

    May the gods have mercy on us all....

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.