ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [367] -- Hillary's Very Good Week

[ Posted Friday, October 23rd, 2015 – 16:55 PDT ]

Hillary Clinton just had the best week of her campaign yet. Not only did she shine at the Benghazi hearing yesterday, three of her Democratic opponents dropped out of the presidential nomination race. Joe Biden was never actually in the race, but his announcement that he wouldn't run was more significant than Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee ending their campaigns. This leaves Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, and Lawrence Lessig. Of those four, only Sanders and Clinton have any chance at winning the nomination, and Hillary's doing better in the polls than Sanders. So, all in all, a very good week for Hillary Clinton.

Republicans are getting a little worried, as they should. One House member from Alabama is already on the case, though, warming up the all-but-inevitable "Impeach Hillary Clinton Committee." No, really. Here's what Mo Brooks had to say about Hillary Clinton: "She will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November, because the day she's sworn in is the day that she's subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors." Good thing Republicans are planning ahead, eh?

Speaking of Republicans planning ahead, the coronation of Paul Ryan is apparently now officially going to happen. In a hilarious turnabout, Ryan met with the Tea Partiers and issued his own list of demands to them. Shoe's on the other foot now, guys! If you don't like Ryan making take-it-or-leave-it demands of you, perhaps you should think for one tiny minute about how the rest of the country feels when you do it to us.

Ryan does not want to do all that boring fundraising that normally guarantees a hungry politician a job like speaker of the House. He'd rather play with his kids. And who can blame him, really? Take the kids to a football game versus call some plutocrat and beg for a fat check? That's a pretty easy call. Ryan also laughably demanded that the Tea Partiers stop knifing the speaker in the back so often. However, we seriously doubt that the Tea Partiers are going to play nice, sit down, and shut up for very long. It's not really who they are, to state the glaringly obvious.

There was quite a bit of marijuana news in the past week, beginning with Gallup announcing that support for outright legalization is now at 58 percent of all Americans -- the highest it has ever been. [Pause, so you can make a "How high is it?" type of joke....] Kidding aside, that's a pretty astounding amount of the country that wants our current marijuana laws to go the way of Prohibition. Sooner or later the politicians will notice this trend, and stop being weaselly about "supporting medical marijuana" and just come out for full legalization.

Speaking of politicians being weaselly about medical marijuana, we have a Chris Christie update. Of all the candidates running for president, Christie has been most supportive of moving the country backwards in the War On Weed. The questions he's been getting on the issue are getting a lot more specific, pointing out a basic contradiction in his political stance. In a recent town hall in Iowa, someone has asked Christie the exact question I wanted to hear him answer. A veteran asked Christie directly about the issue of marijuana being a federal Schedule I substance, defined as having "no medicinal value." Christie tried to explain that medical marijuana was somehow different because a doctor prescribes it. The questioner pointed out that he was flat-out wrong about that: "But under federal law, a doctor can't write a prescription. They can only recommend. Because it's a Schedule I substance. That's the problem." Christie went on to -- again, wrongly -- state that the president can't change the law, Congress must act. In fact, the attorney general can change the classification just by signing a piece of paper. The more this issue gets raised in questions to politicians, the closer we come to actually admitting that state-level medical marijuana has not changed federal law one bit. Kudos to Shelly Van Winkle for pinning down Chris Christie, who has staked out the most reactionary position of any candidate on marijuana.

One aspect of federal law has changed for the better, and a federal judge just smacked down the Justice Department over its refusal to accept the new reality. Medical marijuana providers -- even in states where it is legal by state law -- are still being persecuted by federal attorneys. Democrat Sam Farr and Republican Dana Rohrabacher put together a bill in the House to ban this abuse of power, by zeroing out the budget for the Justice Department for any resources used to target medical marijuana operations in states where it is legal. Federal judge Charles Breyer just confirmed that this new law means exactly what it says it means and that the Justice Department should just cease and desist trying to reinterpret it to mean something else. So while medical marijuana is still a Schedule I substance and is illegal, the feds now won't be able to do anything about it in states that have changed their own laws. This is not the perfect solution -- the law itself needs to be changed at the federal level -- but this is Congress effectively using the "power of the purse" to temporarily halt such persecution. The Justice Department should not appeal this ruling, but rather they should wholeheartedly embrace the new law.

And finally, we end this introduction with parachuting beavers. Just because.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

A case could be made for Elijah Cummings to receive this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Cummings has had the thankless task, for many moons now, of rebutting all the nonsense leaks that have come from the Republicans on the "Committee To Take Down Hillary Clinton," pretty much ever since it started. Cummings is the ranking Democrat on the committee, and he finally had his moment in the spotlight yesterday.

Cummings responded to the new obsession of the Republicans on the committee over Sidney Blumenthal by demanding that Blumenthal's nine hours of testimony before the committee be made public. After all, if Blumenthal is such a bugaboo to Republicans, there must be a reason why and that reason should be found in the questions they asked him and the answers he gave, right? Demonizing Blumenthal doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but then nothing about the Benghazi committee makes a whole lot of sense, so it fits right in, we suppose. Still, the vocal argument Cummings got into with Trey Gowdy was the actual highlight of yesterday's hearing. Cummings has been saying stuff like this for a long time now, but the press has ignored him in favor of blindly reprinting the leaks from the Republicans on the committee. Finally, Cummings got to make his case in a very public way.

Still, even with his impressive performance yesterday, Cummings only gets an Honorable Mention this week. Because there was someone even more impressive in that hearing.

Without doubt, Hillary Clinton was the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Not only did three Democratic challengers fall by the wayside this week, but we finally got polling results which showed that most Democrats thought she won last week's debate. She has reversed her slide in the polls, and is climbing back towards 50 percent support.

And that was all before the Benghazi committee hearing.

Hillary Clinton sat for something like 11 hours before a House committee specifically formed to do her maximum political damage. This is the eighth major Benghazi investigation, for anyone who's keeping count, so Clinton already knew what to expect.

What was billed as the major takedown of the strongest Democratic presidential candidate, however, did not happen as the Republicans had planned. Clinton clearly got the better of the committee members, and provided zero fireworks and zero scandalous revelations. As I had predicted earlier in the week, the focus was all on the questioners, and not Clinton. Very early on, it was obvious that they had no new surprises to reveal, and that for all the noise about emails, there simply was no scandal contained within them. Sidney Blumenthal? That's all you got? Wow -- can we the American taxpayers get our money back? This investigation has dragged on far too long (so that it could schedule hearings during the presidential campaign), and spent far too much money for what we saw on display yesterday.

Hillary rose above it all in spectacular fashion. She never lost her cool, and provided no "gotcha" moments at all. She looked, in a word, presidential. Hillary Clinton was clearly the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week last week.

[As a rule, we do not provide links to campaign sites, so you'll have to search Hillary Clinton's contact information yourself if you'd like to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

In the "too much information" category, we have this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, former Obama aide David Axelrod felt the need to share with us all an interesting fact. Oh, and we warn everyone that the next paragraph contains strong language, so send the kids into the next room before you read it.

Axelrod, in a recent interview about the time he was asked to become an official aide to President Obama, said: "I've spent my whole life setting myself up so I could tell anybody I wanted to go fuck themselves. And I've walked out of campaigns and work situations when I thought that it wasn't right. And I said [to Obama] 'you can't say that to the president of the United States.'" Obama responded, according to Axelrod: "You can tell me to fuck myself, just don't do it in front of anybody else."

That's enough to disappoint people who have an ideal of the way politics is supposed to happen, and those who just don't like profanity. But that's not what disappointed us. It was the last line of the story which won Axelrod this week's MDDOTW: "Axelrod didn't elaborate in the interview whether he ever actually told Obama to go fuck himself in the White House."

C'mon, Dave! If you're going to tell a story like that, you should back it up by answering the real question: did you ever do so? In what particular circumstance? That's more interesting than just having the green light to do so if the need arose.

So not for what he demanded, and not for the language used, but rather for being a tease (what, are we going to have to wait for him to write a memoir to know?), David Axelrod is this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[David Axelrod is now a private citizen, and our longstanding policy is not to provide contact information for those not in public office.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 367 (10/23/15)

A mixed bag this week, with a few jabs at Jeb! thrown in for good measure. Enjoy, and as always, use responsibly.

 

1
   Find Benghazi on a map

This would be a fantastic game to play with any of the Republicans on the committee. Try it yourself to see how well you do!

"I would like to challenge the Republicans on the Benghazi committee to find Benghazi on an unmarked map of the world. The Washington Post has a page up to see how close you can get, and I'd really like to know how far off the members of the Benghazi committee would be. I got within 47 miles when I tried, can the people investigating Benghazi do better?"

 

2
   Release the transcript!

This is a handy one to whip out whenever any Republican utters the name "Sidney Blumenthal."

"I'm not sure why Republicans are obsessing over Sidney Blumenthal, but since you seem to be, why not make his testimony public? If Sidney Blumenthal is truly the key to understanding what went on with Benghazi -- which Republicans seem to be making the case for, considering the number of times they brought him up in the hearing -- then why not make the nine hours of him testifying before the committee public? Release the transcript, Chairman Gowdy! Let America see what Blumenthal had to say for himself, or stop bringing him up as some sort of bugaboo. Release the transcript!"

 

3
   Either terrorists are responsible, or not

Jake Tapper made an excellent point, in the midst of the fracas between Jeb! Bush and Donald Trump over 9/11. Rather than reframing this as a talking point, instead we're just going to provide the actual questions Tapper asked Jeb! recently (Jeb! didn't answer the question, so his blathering has been omitted for being irrelevant):

Obviously Al Qaeda was responsible for the terrorist attack of 9/11, but how do you respond to critics who ask, if your brother and his administration bear no responsibility at all, how do you then make the jump that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are responsible for what happened at Benghazi?

. . .

Well that's, that's kind of proving the point of the critics I was just asking about, because you don't want to have your brother bear responsibility for 9/11 and I understand that argument and Al Qaeda's responsible, but why are the terrorists not the ones who are responsible for these attacks in Libya?

 

4
   Bush tanks campaign economy

Speaking of Jeb!...

"Jeb Bush's entire campaign was supposed to be built around how he would magically make the American economy grow by leaps and bounds. That was his whole purpose in running. Now it seems that he can't even make his own campaign's economy grow. I hear he's cutting back something like half his staff, and having to economize across the board. So why should we elect him president, again? Because he knows how to make the economy grow? I don't see any proof of that from his campaign, personally."

 

5
   Paul Ryan, savior

You could almost visualize the Republicans prostrating themselves while chanting: "We are not worthy!"

"Did Paul Ryan just get elected Pope? I even heard some Republicans were tweeting things like 'we have white smoke' when Ryan announced he'd reluctantly take the job of speaker of the House -- as long as he didn't have to work too hard at it. Ryan is being hailed as the savior of the House Republicans, but my guess is that this honeymoon is going to be pretty darn short. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Ryan eventually quits the job in frustration, just like John Boehner did. Paul Ryan doesn't actually walk on water or anything -- he's still got the job of governing the most ungovernable group of people in Washington. I mean, good luck to him and all, but I'm not exactly expecting miracles."

 

6
   Our tax dollars at work

The Justice Department released a report yesterday, which was largely ignored by the media.

"Have you seen the inspector general's report on the Drug Enforcement Agency? It seems that D.E.A. agents who were doing things like hosting prostitutes 'on a regular basis' in government-leased quarters -- and then assaulting one of them as well -- didn't have to worry about their bonuses even after this misconduct came to light. Five of the ten individuals under investigation for soliciting prostitutes received bonuses of thousands of dollars each during the investigation. These agents still work for the D.E.A., after getting slapped on the wrist with letters of reprimand. If Congress has a bunch of spare time to investigate things, the D.E.A. would be a dandy place to start."

 

7
   O Canada!

Meanwhile, up north...

"The new Liberal prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, has indicated that he's open to legalizing marijuana for all Canadians. This means people could soon be able to drive from Portland, Oregon all the way to Anchorage without having to worry about getting busted for that roach in the ashtray. I applaud Canadians for electing a leader who is showing some common sense on ending the War On Weed. I wish America had people brave enough to take such a stand while running for our highest office, in fact. If Canada legalizes recreational use of marijuana there will be a large chorus of O Canada echoing from all over this country, that's my guess."

-- 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

 

180 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [367] -- Hillary's Very Good Week”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I haven't gotten past the parachuting beavers movie yet, but I was just knocked out by the quality of the color photography and the lush soundtrack by the Idaho Fish and Game Orchestra. All for a mere $700 - although the first of the Star Wars Franchise probably had about the same budget, adjusted for inflation. I was a bit puzzled by the repeated flashbacks that can only described as some guy fondling a beaver. I guess that's an Idaho thing. Or maybe that's the Just Because.

    Fun fact: a group of parachuting beavers is called a stick.

    On to the rest of the Friday Column.

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    FTP 2 is begging for a T-shirt slogan:

    Free the Blumenthal Nine!

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I'm so glad that Biden's friends didn't call HilRod their enemy while they savaged her at the show trial. That would've been truly dreadful.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very funny.

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "she won’t be held accountable until we have a nominee in a general election debate who will hold her accountable.” - Carly "people just say things" Fiorina

    Meanwhile, Fiorina will always be a fact-free, incoherent, corporate troll as long as she's a fact-free, incoherent, corporate troll.

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Has anybody else seen the video of Justin Trudeau throwing himself down a staircase? I would really like to see JEB give that a try. He needs some attention.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    "She will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November, because the day she's sworn in is the day that she's subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors." Good thing Republicans are planning ahead, eh?

    Can you dispute the validity of the statement??

    No?? Didna think so.. :D

    If you don't like Ryan making take-it-or-leave-it demands of you, perhaps you should think for one tiny minute about how the rest of the country feels when you do it to us.

    Or how the Democrat Party does it to the rest of the country, eh? :D

    One aspect of federal law has changed for the better, and a federal judge just smacked down the Justice Department over its refusal to accept the new reality. Medical marijuana providers -- even in states where it is legal by state law -- are still being persecuted by federal attorneys. Democrat Sam Farr and Republican Dana Rohrabacher put together a bill in the House to ban this abuse of power, by zeroing out the budget for the Justice Department for any resources used to target medical marijuana operations in states where it is legal. Federal judge Charles Breyer just confirmed that this new law means exactly what it says it means and that the Justice Department should just cease and desist trying to reinterpret it to mean something else. So while medical marijuana is still a Schedule I substance and is illegal, the feds now won't be able to do anything about it in states that have changed their own laws. This is not the perfect solution -- the law itself needs to be changed at the federal level -- but this is Congress effectively using the "power of the purse" to temporarily halt such persecution. The Justice Department should not appeal this ruling, but rather they should wholeheartedly embrace the new law.

    It's funny.. If we had a GOP POTUS, he (or she) would be taking ALL the blame for the actions of their Justice Department..

    I'm just sayin'...

    She looked, in a word, presidential.

    Yea, coughing fit and all.. SHE even choked on her own testimony! :D

    I'll leave ya'all with one important FACT and one simple question..

    Over 60% of Americans think that the ONE word that describes Hillary Clinton is LIAR...

    Is THIS the best that the Democrat Party can offer!??

    SERIOUSLY??

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    What was billed as the major takedown of the strongest Democratic presidential candidate, however, did not happen as the Republicans had planned.

    Considering it was ONLY the Democrats who billed it that way, is it so surprising??

    . Hillary Clinton was clearly the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week last week.

    And all it took for was her to get 4 of her employees killed...

    Impressive??

    I wouldn't describe it that way, but maybe that's just me.. :^/

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    TheStig wrote:

    FTP 4

    Bushlite! "Great taste, less fulfilling." "The heir apparent of beers"

    Apparently marked only in Florida.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    WTF????

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whew!

    Thought I broke Weigantia...

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    This means people could soon be able to drive from Portland, Oregon all the way to Anchorage without having to worry about getting busted for that roach in the ashtray.

    @cw

    i realize the comment was tongue in cheek, but that particular scenario really ought not be the case. now don't get me wrong, i'm in favor of legalizing mj for use in private homes or public areas where tobacco smoking is legal. however, driving under the influence of mj is still dangerous and still illegal under the same law that governs alcohol DUI.

    JL

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I'll leave ya'all with one important FACT and one simple question.. Over 60% of Americans think that the ONE word that describes Hillary Clinton is LIAR...

    @michale,

    i think you misread those polls. the percentages cited for "liar" or "dishonest" are 13%, not 60%. i understand your confusion though; there was a different question that polled at sixty, something like whether the private e-mail server was something to be concerned about. i'm not hiding from the true facts, just disputing the false ones.

    JL

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    i think you misread those polls. the percentages cited for "liar" or "dishonest" are 13%, not 60%. i understand your confusion though; there was a different question that polled at sixty, something like whether the private e-mail server was something to be concerned about. i'm not hiding from the true facts, just disputing the false ones.

    Nope, no misreading..

    The poll I am thinking of had over 60% of Americans, using one word to describe Clinton, saying "liar", "dishonest" and "untrustworthy"... Granted they are 3 different descriptions, but they all, in effect, say the same thing...

    Semantics aside, I think we can agree that Hillary Clinton has a HUGE credibility problem with the majority of American people insofar as her honesty and integrity are concerned..

    The fact that she is the best that the Democrat Party can come up with says LOADS about the Party...

    Don'tcha think?

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/jlynn_12/status/651271334392037376

    Apparently, I am not alone in the 60% of Americans thinking Hillary is a liar.. :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    whose poll are you citing, michale? quinnipiac and USAtoday both had similar results, in the neighborhood of 10% for liar itself, 25% overall responses suggesting any form of dishonesty. according to mediaite, around 35% total negative responses, which also happens to be the approximate bloc of reliably republican voters.

    thus, even if the result you cite as factual happens to exist, that would make it a significant "outliar," so to speak.

    most folks are fully aware of Clinton's problematic areas as a candidate - but in terms of what will actually sway people's votes?

    anyone opposed to hillary also has quite a few positive perceptions to overcome. for example, that she's incredibly smart, politically savvy, highly experienced, and capable of getting positive results both in washington and in the world. which is part of why the benghazi hearings, reputedly intended to harm Clinton politically, have backfired so spectacularly.

    JL

  18. [18] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the mediaite story really is worth a read, by the way. it dissects the quinnipiac results in terms of both positives and negatives.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-new-data-from-that-hillary-clinton-liar-poll-tells-a-different-story/

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Well, I had my whole team come over to my house and we sat around eating Indian food and drinking wine and beer. That's what we did. It was great."
    -Hillary Clinton

    Yea.... Great....

    Too bad Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods weren't there to toast your "victory", Hillary...

    But they couldn't be there because they were DEAD...

    Killed by your incompetence.. And then you sullied their memory by LYING about how they were brutally murdered..

    Enjoy your partying, Clinton... A special place in hell is reserved for trash such as you....

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    anyone opposed to hillary also has quite a few positive perceptions to overcome. for example, that she's incredibly smart,

    Would a "smart" person have tried to set up their own email server outside of the government system??

    I don't think so...

    politically savvy,

    you DO realize that is a strike AGAINST her, right??

    and capable of getting positive results both in washington

    How do you think she can get "positive results" in Washington by referring to Republicans as "terrorists" and "the enemy"???

    which is part of why the benghazi hearings, reputedly intended to harm Clinton politically, have backfired so spectacularly.

    How so??

    Did they change ANYONE's mind about Hillary??

    Not a bit..

    Those that hate her have MORE reason to hate her.

    Those that love her won't listen to facts or reason anyways...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Those that hate her have MORE reason to hate her. Those that love her won't listen to facts or reason anyways...

    That doesn't sound very independent of you, Michale ... oh, wait ... Heh.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    You just have to ask yourself one question, Joshua....

    What would the Left's reaction to Hillary's actions be if Hillary had a '-R' after her name..

    You and I both know that the Left's reactions would be nearly identical to the reactions of the Right in the here and now...

    That says it all....

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    That doesn't sound very independent of you, Michale ... oh, wait ... Heh.

    Actually, it does..

    Because Independents have the same low opinion of Hillary that I do...

    Hell, with one or two exceptions, everyone here has the same opinion of Hillary that I do... :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously Liz..

    If Biga, JFC and I all have the same opinion of Hillary, how can it POSSIBLY be wrong?? :D

    Of course, now that it's out that we are in agreement, they will back-pedal like crazy!! :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You misunderstand the point I was making, Michale ...

    You say that already held a poor opinion of her have more REASON to hold that opinion of her after her recent congressional testimony and that those that loved her won't listen to facts or reason, anyways.

    It's your typical MO - heads you win, tails everyone else loses. That's why I don't take the vast majority of your "arguments" very seriously and it's why I don't believe you are a true independent. Sure, you may be registered that way but, that doesn't make it so.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You misunderstand the point I was making, Michale ...

    You say that those who already held a poor opinion of her have more REASON to hold that opinion after her recent congressional testimony and that those who loved her won't listen to facts or reason, anyways.

    It's your typical MO - heads you win, tails everyone else loses. That's why I don't take the vast majority of your "arguments" very seriously and it's why I don't believe you are a true independent. Sure, you may be registered as one but, that doesn't make it so.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's why I don't take the vast majority of your "arguments" very seriously and it's why I don't believe you are a true independent. Sure, you may be registered that way but, that doesn't make it so.

    That's your opinion and I respect that..

    But it IS undeniable that, of all the residents of Weigantia, I am the most Independent in the political sense...

    "Yea... I can live with that.."
    -Keannu Reeves, THE REPLACEMENTS

    :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Please disregard [25] ... very bad grammar. :)

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But it IS undeniable that, of all the residents of Weigantia, I am the most Independent in the political sense...

    Not even by an Olympic caliber long shot!

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  31. [31] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    What would the Left's reaction to Hillary's actions be if Hillary had a '-R' after her name..

    But she does have an R after her name: Rodham :D

    But it IS undeniable that, of all the residents of Weigantia, I am the most Independent in the political sense...

    Actually, I think that is quite deniable...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    But she does have an R after her name: Rodham :D

    heh Touche' :D

    Actually, I think that is quite deniable...

    Of course you do...

    But that doesn't change the facts..

    You simply CANNOT find ANY instance where ANY Weigantian (sans the Gran Poobah hisself) has slammed the Democrat Party as much as I have slammed the Republican Party...

    Never has happened...

    Ergo, I am the most Independent Weigantian here...

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not even by an Olympic caliber long shot!

    Prove it..

    Find me ANY time that a Weigantian (sans the Grand Poobah) has slammed the Democrat Party as much as I have slammed the Republican Party..

    You can't because it never happens.. :D

    The Democrat Party is perfect and the Republican Party is nothing but a band of evil terrorists..

    At least, that's the common "wisdom" around here...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-Independents-think-of-Hillary-Clinton

    The only people who are going to vote for Hillary are the ones who put PARTY before COUNTRY...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is what you fail to grasp, Michale ...

    The Republicans, by their own actions, deserve far MORE slamming than the Democrats.

    You seem to think the parties are equally to blame for everything and that this sort of thinking makes you an Independent.

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Democrat Party is perfect and the Republican Party is nothing but a band of evil terrorists..

    The funny thing is, Michale, is that no one around here believes that, no matter how many times you tap it out.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Republicans, by their own actions, deserve far MORE slamming than the Democrats.

    Thereby PROVING my point that I am more Independent than anyone here..

    BOTH Partys are EQUALLY guilty of whatever you accuse JUST the GOP of...

    The funny thing is, Michale, is that no one around here believes that, no matter how many times you tap it out.

    And yet, the GOP is demonized on a DAILY basis and the Democrat Party is given a pass..

    Remember when Obama politicized the Roseburg shootings??

    Not ONE single person said BOO about that except me..

    And yet, when a GOP'er stated an obvious fact ya'all screamed POLITICIZING!!!!!! to the high heavens..

    That's a PERFECT example of what I am talking about..

    Ya'all can deny it til yer blue in the face..

    But the FACTS clearly prove otherwise...

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It really is odd that comments are critical of the Greedy Old Predators on this website owned by a guy who writes talking points for the Democratic party. Has anyone ever noticed this sort of phenomenon at any other website?

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    You seem to think the parties are equally to blame for everything and that this sort of thinking makes you an Independent.

    Yes, that is EXACTLY what it means.. :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    It really is odd that comments are critical of the Greedy Old Predators on this website owned by a guy who writes talking points for the Democratic party. Has anyone ever noticed this sort of phenomenon at any other website?

    No, it's not odd...

    It's EXACTLY as I say...

    Everyone (except our illustrious leader) here is critical of the GOP and gives the Democrat Party a pass...

    THAT's the point..

    "DOOOOYYYYYYYYYY"
    -Vanillope Von Schweet, WRECK IT RALPH

    Thank you for agreeing with my point..

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "If Biga, JFC and I all have the same opinion of Hillary, how can it POSSIBLY be wrong?"

    Wow. This trollish lie again? I agree with Bill Maher. I'm pretty sure you don't.

    "Sometimes you don’t get the fish, you have the chicken." - Bill Maher

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow. This trollish lie again? I agree with Bill Maher. I'm pretty sure you don't.

    Actually, I agree with Bill Maher on quite a few things..

    So, you're wrong...

    But thanx for playing.. :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow. This trollish lie again? I agree with Bill Maher. I'm pretty sure you don't.

    What I tell ya, Liz...

    Back-Pedal City.. :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "THAT's the point."

    From what I can tell, you're the only one around here with a reading comprehension issue. We understood your point every one of the hundred thousand boring times you've spammed it. So what? You’re the only one who thinks there’s something profound about something so obvious. So is it your mission to be as boring as possible?

    In no way does repetitive spam validate your hyperbolic strawman that LizM shot down in #36. The fact that I actually belong to some other party (I don’t just un-persuasively call myself “independent”) kind of proves that I’m not uncritical of the Dems. On the other hand, I find them preferable to the GOP in almost every way. I have read almost nothing from anybody else here to make me believe that they think the Dems are perfect.

    You claim to have voted for Obama. I have never voted for Obama, so your claim that I think that he and his party are perfect and that I'm lying about Hillary are just additional proof of your bizarre reading comprehension issue.

    OK. Spam something really boring about Winning!

  45. [45] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "I agree with Bill Maher on quite a few things."

    Ooh. Good job of missing the point. I was talking about his opinion of Hillary (which I posted).

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Hillary Clinton missed an excellent opportunity at the recent congressional hearing on Benghazi to articulate, in no uncertain terms, what were the lessons learned about adequate diplomatic security, or lack thereof, at US embassies, consulates and outposts in places where that security is most at risk.

    Rep. Tammy Duckworth - D, from Illinois, an Iraq war veteran and purple heart recipient, handed this opportunity to Clinton on more than one occasion during the hearing as she asked the most enlightened questions of the day, all having to do with what was being done, in the aftermath of Benghazi, to improve diplomatic security and prevent the Benghazi tragedy from happening again.

    Clinton was not very clear about what the State Department under her leadership had done in this regard nor did she elaborate on what the State Department does with very limited resources.

    I was hoping that she would take this opportunity to advocate for the State department and call on Congress to radically alter its thinking on how the State department and the Department of Defense
    are resourced and how this relates to the roles each must play in executing an effective US foreign policy.

    She mentioned, only in quick passing, that State's budget accounts for only 1%, more or less, of the entire US federal budget. This still amazes me, given the challenges that the US faces today, in a post-9/11 world.

    A simple comparison of the budgets of the Defense department and State department would clearly show a dangerous lack of balance in view of their respective and equally critical roles in protecting the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners around the world.

    The discussion that should be happening, especially in the wake of the tragic loss of American life in Benghazi, should be centered around how best to use and resource all of the instruments of US power - hard and soft - and whether an over-reliance on America's military power to the relative exclusion of America's diplomatic power allows for effective and creative solutions to the many and varied foreign policy challenges that the US must contend with.

    Vice President Biden has a saying that people should be paying great attention to and that is that America leads best when it leads less exclusively by the example of its power and more by the power of its example, taking advantage of all of its available assets and using them in a proportionally effective manner, militarily and diplomatically.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    From what I can tell, you're the only one around here with a reading comprehension issue.

    Yea, you and Biga (where did he get to?? :D) keep saying that..

    Funny that it ONLY comes from such a questionable source.. :D

    The fact that I actually belong to some other party (I don’t just un-persuasively call myself “independent”) kind of proves that I’m not uncritical of the Dems.

    And yet, you are not critical of the Democrat Party...

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    I have read almost nothing from anybody else here to make me believe that they think the Dems are perfect.

    Of course, you would say that..

    Yet the facts show otherwise.. :D

    OK. Spam something really boring about Winning!

    Once again, you prove it merely by responding..

    So my work is done... :D

    The Puppet Master

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Re #46...

    Well said...

    The question that burns in MY brain is this..

    Hillary Clinton missed an excellent opportunity at the recent congressional hearing on Benghazi to articulate, in no uncertain terms, what were the lessons learned about adequate diplomatic security, or lack thereof, at US embassies, consulates and outposts in places where that security is most at risk.

    WHY did Hillary Clinton ignore this opportunity??

    Because to address the issues you raise would require her to admit culpability and responsibility...

    In short, Hillary would have to say, "I frak'ed up..."

    You and I both know that Hillary is INCAPABLE of saying that..

    And THAT is why she is unsuitable for being the leader of the Free World...

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    In short, Hillary would have to say, "I frak'ed up..."

    You and I both know that Hillary is INCAPABLE of saying that..

    A woman who can't even ADMIT that it WAS a terrorist attack when it was plainly obvious to ANYONE non-political that it was, in fact, a terrorist attack....

    is NOT someone that should be the leader of the Free World...

    Men died....

    And Hillary lied....

    It's THAT simple....

    But, of course...

    What does it matter.....

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's approach this from a different angle..

    Would you agree that a person who cannot be trusted would NOT make a good leader..

    Can you agree with that??

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    WHY did Hillary Clinton ignore this opportunity?? Because to address the issues you raise would require her to admit culpability and responsibility...

    Her weakest moments during the hearing occurred when one of the Republican members of the panel was asking her about why the diplomatic security was so inadequate, why requests for increased security were denied - especially considering the context within which those requests were being made ... that is to say, the obviously increasing deterioration in overall security in Benghazi in the days and weeks and months leading up to the September 11 attack on the diplomatic mission there as well as the nearby CIA annex.

    Clearly, she could have done much better than to accept responsibility for those security failures by taking the opportunity to fully address what changes need to occur in the State department, in how Congress resources the State department and how State department officials responsible for the diplomatic security arrangements in Benghazi failed to adequately protect US personnel there.

    I don't know why she didn't take this opportunity but, this isn't the first time she failed to do so and I don't believe that she will ever be a strong advocate for what the State department needs to do its job or for what changes need to happen in how that department operates to play its important role in US diplomacy and foreign policy effectively. Which is why she is not my first choice to be the next US commander-in-chief.

    Having said that, there is something else that has bothered me since all of these investigations into what happened at Benghazi have taken place. Why are we not hearing about the role of the CIA and their intelligence failures in the lead-up to the Benghazi tragedy? We know that the "diplomatic mission post" in Benghazi had much less to do with diplomacy than with cover CIA operations, after all.

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Micahle,

    The sad situation - from my perspective, at least - is that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate currently standing who I believe is adequately qualified to take on the responsibilities of the office of the President of the United States and who could do a reasonably good job of promoting and protecting the national interests of the United States, at home and abroad.

    Sadder still, it didn't have to be that way.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said that, there is something else that has bothered me since all of these investigations into what happened at Benghazi have taken place. Why are we not hearing about the role of the CIA and their intelligence failures in the lead-up to the Benghazi tragedy?

    That's easy to address..

    Having been there and done that I can tell you that, in situations such as this, the CIA (for all intents and purposes) works for the State Dept...

    The sad situation - from my perspective, at least - is that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate currently standing who I believe is adequately qualified to take on the responsibilities of the office of the President of the United States and who could do a reasonably good job of promoting and protecting the national interests of the United States, at home and abroad.

    I would have to dispute the case that she is "adequately qualified"...

    The FACT that she has absolutely NO INTEGRITY WHATSOEVER proves to me that she is NOT qualified...

    Adequately or otherwise..

    But, you seem to have answered my question in comment #50... :^/

    The ONLY thing that qualifies Hillary for POTUS is the '-D' after her name.. :^/

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary lied..

    Hillary continues to lie..

    And ya'all give her a pass for that after savaging Bush for DECADES....

    And the really SAD thing is..

    Ya'all don't see ANY hypocrisy in that...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Sadder still, it didn't have to be that way.

    On THIS point, we are in complete agreement..

    It's a sad sad situation...

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    The day AFTER the Benghazi Terrorist attack, Hillary sent the following to Egyptian leaders.

    “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. . . . It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

    Yet for a full TWO WEEKS after the attack, Hillary and Obama were STILL trying to sell the American people on the totally BULLSHIT idea that it was a YouTube video that caused the non-existent protest that killed Americans..

    No amount of spin will change the utter CONTEMPT that the American people have for Hillary Clinton...

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale says: Over 60% of Americans think that the ONE word that describes Hillary Clinton is LIAR...

    Well, 75% of Americans believe the House Select Committee on Benghazi is a tax-payer funded Republican campaign to raise funds while damaging Hillary Clinton's reputation with fabricated lies and unfounded innuendo.

    That 75% beats your 60% Michale and that's a fact.

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,
    i read the article on the other end of the link, and i'd describe the change in public stance as a good start. however, i've come to distrust obama's people when it comes to education policy. they talk a good game and say things that sound positive, then somehow find a way to turn the policy application of those statements into something even more awful than before. yeah, maybe this time is different...

    @Mopshell,
    i have yet to encounter any true factual basis for that claim by michale. as best i can tell, he (or an article he's read) conflated two different polls - one which cites the word liar as the most common word association at 11%, and another which reports a 57-43 split when respondents were asked whether they tilt toward trustworthy or untrustworthy.

    JL

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    You and I both know that the Left's reactions would be nearly identical to the reactions of the Right in the here and now...

    no they would not, and that point does not necessarily speak well of them. dems would never have the backbone to stick to their guns for so long on an issue that was a political loser for them so far, secure in the belief that there would eventually be a breakthrough of some sort. it's an area where i believe the republicans are unequivocally better than the dems, regardless of whether or not the outcome ultimately justifies their faith.

    JL

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    another question for you michale, then i'll get off my orange crate:

    don't you agree with me that CW's comment about the roach in the ashtray doesn't hold water? even in states (or provinces) where marijuana use is a hundred percent legal, driving under the influence is still driving under the influence, is it not? as a cop, if you worked in a legalized state, wouldn't it still be your job to stop anyone who might be driving under the influence of THC?

    JL

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    yeah, maybe this time is different...

    Well, it's a hopeful sign that the administration is acknowledging that it may have been on the wrong track - a hard thing for most to admit.

    Of course, that kind of admission should be, by now, second nature for this administration. :)

    As it probably should be for most administrations, given the complex world in which we live. Still, an administration that can admit it is on the wrong course can be a valuable thing.

  62. [62] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Time lapse Bush Logo:

    JEB!

    JEB./

    JEB.__

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Well, 75% of Americans believe the House Select Committee on Benghazi is a tax-payer funded Republican campaign to raise funds while damaging Hillary Clinton's reputation with fabricated lies and unfounded innuendo.

    OK...

    So, we agree... 60% of Americans think Hillary Clinton is a liar.... :D

    Joshua,

    dems would never have the backbone to stick to their guns for so long on an issue that was a political loser for them so far,

    {{cough}} {{cough}} TrainWreckCare {{cough}}

    don't you agree with me that CW's comment about the roach in the ashtray doesn't hold water? even in states (or provinces) where marijuana use is a hundred percent legal, driving under the influence is still driving under the influence, is it not? as a cop, if you worked in a legalized state, wouldn't it still be your job to stop anyone who might be driving under the influence of THC?

    Unequivocally..

    But, considering my cop background and my well known and not entirely rational animosity towards illegal drugs, I am not the most objective person on the subject..

    Yea, I know, I know.. When has THAT ever stopped me.. :D

    Liz,

    Well, it's a hopeful sign that the administration is acknowledging that it may have been on the wrong track - a hard thing for most to admit.

    The Administration has admitted this??

    Do tell.. :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    dems would never have the backbone to stick to their guns for so long on an issue that was a political loser for them so far,

    I am also constrained to point out that, considering how far down Hillary's poll numbers have dropped, this issue is hardly the "political loser" you claim it to be...

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, 75% of Americans believe the House Select Committee on Benghazi is a tax-payer funded Republican campaign to raise funds while damaging Hillary Clinton's reputation with fabricated lies and unfounded innuendo.

    And, I am certain that if we polled the American people, they would say that Democrats politicized the Iraq War hearings, the 9/11 hearings and the Abu Ghraib hearings..

    But here's the point.. A point you are unwilling (or more accurately, unable) to address..

    Of the two political Partys, which Party has blatantly and unequivocally STATED that they were politicizing a tragedy??

    Either politicizing a tragedy is acceptable or it is not..

    Or are you, like JM, claiming that politicizing tragedies is acceptable when Democrats do it but it's unacceptable when Republicans do it..

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of the two political Partys, which Party has blatantly and unequivocally STATED that they were politicizing a tragedy??

    Either politicizing a tragedy is acceptable or it is not..

    Or are you, like JM, claiming that politicizing tragedies is acceptable when Democrats do it but it's unacceptable when Republicans do it..

    Or you can just concede the point that it was totally moronic and bonehead thing for Obama to say and we can done with it.. : D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or you can just concede the point that it was totally moronic and bonehead thing for Obama to say and we can done with it..

    Or you can just concede the point that it was totally moronic and bonehead thing for Obama to say and we can BE done with it..

    My bust... :^/

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, we agree... 60% of Americans think Hillary Clinton is a liar.... :D

    "Charlie doesn't listen to me at all."
    "That's not true!"
    "You're right. It's not true. You only hear what you want to hear."
    "So, I'm right.."

    -TWO AND A HALF MEN

    :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale:

    OK...

    So, we agree... 75% of Americans believe the House Select Committee on Benghazi is a tax-payer funded Republican campaign to raise funds while damaging Hillary Clinton's reputation with fabricated lies and unfounded innuendo. Glad you finally agreed. :D

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But, considering my cop background and my well known and not entirely rational animosity towards illegal drugs, I am not the most objective person on the subject..

    my point is about LEGAL drugs, and keeping them out of the circulatory systems of drivers. As the tragedy this week at Oklahoma State demonstrates, driving under the influence is still a huge issue; when we as a society decide to change the legal status of a drug, we need to make damn sure people understand that NO drug, legal OR illegal, should be allowable for the driver of an automobile.

    JL

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    fabricated lies and unfounded innuendo.

    Fabricated lies??

    You mean our ambassador WASN'T killed!!!

    That's great!!!

    Unfounded innuendo??

    You mean, Hillary didn't try to pass off a bullshit fantasy about a phantom youtube video and a mythical protest??

    These are well documented facts that no one can rationally deny...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    my point is about LEGAL drugs, and keeping them out of the circulatory systems of drivers. As the tragedy this week at Oklahoma State demonstrates, driving under the influence is still a huge issue; when we as a society decide to change the legal status of a drug, we need to make damn sure people understand that NO drug, legal OR illegal, should be allowable for the driver of an automobile.

    Yer absolutely right.. I should have jumped on this from the get go...

    Mea culpa....

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    don't you agree with me that CW's comment about the roach in the ashtray doesn't hold water? even in states (or provinces) where marijuana use is a hundred percent legal, driving under the influence is still driving under the influence, is it not? as a cop, if you worked in a legalized state, wouldn't it still be your job to stop anyone who might be driving under the influence of THC?

    I would disagree for the most part. THC does offer some impairment but differs quite a bit from alcohol. Stoned drivers typically notice their impairment and overcompensate. That is they drive like old people. Many old people are certainly impaired compared to a younger adult but drive so dam slow their accidents rates are similar to everyone else. Then there is the problem of detecting THC in a persons system (easy) and detecting them being actively high (hard) as THC can be detectable in the system for days or weeks after being high and tolerance plays a huge part. Someone with a very high tolerance (they smoke often) could easily have a higher testable THC level while being completely "down" then someone who almost never smokes and is actively high. Wide ranging studies on marijuana are in the early stages but the results are looking like more people in accidents are testing positive for THC but stoned driving is not increasing accident rates. The correlation is there but the causal evidence is seriously lacking...

  74. [74] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Release the Blumenthal!

    *snort*

    I think it's hillari-ous (get it ... hillari-ous) that nothing could make Clinton look more presidential than 8 hours of owning Trey Gowdy (is Trey Gowdy three times the Gowdy? Gowdy kind of sounds like a disease no one would want 3x btw). This was better for her campaign than the Democratic debate.

    -David

    What I really want to know though is, what does Hillary know about Fugazi?

    http://www.dailydot.com/lol/hillary-clinton-fugazi-hearings/

  75. [75] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Gowdy-Benghazi! Disorder (GBD) is characterized by unreasonable thoughts and fears (obsessions) that lead to do repetitive behaviors (compulsions).

    With GBD, the victim may or may not realize that his obsessions aren't reasonable and may try to ignore them or stop them, but the Conservative Entertainment Complex only increases his distress and anxiety. Ultimately, he feels driven to perform compulsive, repetitive acts in an effort to ease his stressful anxiety and generate campaign ad sound bites.

    GBD often centers around themes such as a fear of getting exposed for ulterior motives, Sidney Blumenthal, or the relative height of various piles of paper. To ease his anxiety, he may compulsively lie about Hillary, but the talking heads are never satiated. This leads to more ritualistic behavior and the vicious cycle of increasingly redundant witch hunts that's characteristic of Gowdy-Benghazi! Disorder.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny...

    Ya'all ignore Hillary's lies completely and unequivocally, claim that it's the REPUBLICANS who are "lying" but can't point to a SINGLE lie..

    Funny, iddn't it. :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's because it's a farce, Michale. I don't think even the GOP knows what they were supposed to be mad about any more. They're just digging for something, anything, they can use on Hillary. The GOP doesn't give a shit about any dead Americans.

    It's about politics. And Republicans winning the election.

    The lie is that the committee has anything to do with the attacks in Benghazi. It's all about lowering Hillary's poll numbers, just like Kevin McCarthy said.

    November 5th, 2015, the entire thing disappears.

    -David

  78. [78] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Btw, hey Elizabeth ... what do you think of Trudeau's win in Canada? What's the word on the street?

  79. [79] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "November 5th, 2015, the entire thing disappears."

    Election Day is a very effective cure for many cancervative thought disorders. Last year it conquered the Ebolaphobia.

  80. [80] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I would disagree for the most part. THC does offer some impairment but differs quite a bit from alcohol. Stoned drivers typically notice their impairment and overcompensate. That is they drive like old people.

    the national institute on drug abuse did a study that found THC did impair driving ability, perhaps not in the same way as alcohol, but still in ways that are dangerous. it reduced reaction time and increased the effects of even small amounts of alcohol, which would otherwise be within legal limits. besides which, driving too slowly can at times be just as dangerous as driving too fast. perhaps in response to unreasonable attitudes of legalization opponents, I think a culture has developed among marijuana advocates that tends to minimize its real dangers - one of which is that driving under the influence really does increase the risk of causing an accident.

    JL

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all ignore Hillary's lies completely and unequivocally, claim that it's the REPUBLICANS who are "lying" but can't point to a SINGLE lie..

    Which proves one thing beyond ALL doubt...

    Lying is like politicizing tragedies...

    It's ONLY bad when Republicans do it..

    When Democrats do it, not only is it perfectly acceptable, it's actually ENCOURAGED and REWARDED...

    Yea.. NO hypocrisy here. :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    David,

    I was very pleased by the result of our election of a very strong majority Liberal government. Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau is in the process now of selecting a cabinet and he has a very good group of MPs to select from.

    I think most Canadians had tired either of the long tenure of the Conservatives under Harper's leadership or of the politics of fear campaign that Harper ran. Essentially, it was time for a change.

    The Aboriginal vote, generally speaking, turned out in very large numbers, too, for the Liberals, electing a record 10 Aboriginal MPs. I'll be watching very closely as to how the Trudeau government handles the issues that revolve around the relationship between Canada and First Nations, Metis, and Inuit - a relationship which continues to be in desperate need of repair and rebalance.

    So, we are in a wait and see mode right now. I, for one, am hoping to see Trudeau take quick action on his economic platform - including living with deficits in the short term while interest rates are low as we invest in infrastructure, raising tax rates on the wealthiest Canadians to pay for a middle class tax cut.

    Justin Trudeau proved that divisiveness and the politics of fear can be soundly defeated by the politics of "sunny days, my friends, sunny days". That may become my new motto. :)

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's because it's a farce, Michale. I don't think even the GOP knows what they were supposed to be mad about any more. They're just digging for something, anything, they can use on Hillary. The GOP doesn't give a shit about any dead Americans.

    Yea.. neither did Democrats during the 9/11 hearings, the Iraq War hearings and the Abu Ghraib hearings..

    What's yer point??

    It's about politics. And Republicans winning the election.

    JUST like Obama's and Hillary's lie was about politics... AND Democrats winning the election..

    Again.. What's your point??

    It's all about lowering Hillary's poll numbers, just like Kevin McCarthy said.

    Actually McCarthy said no such thing..

    But why interrupt such a nice hysterical tirade with.. yunno.. FACTS...

    November 5th, 2015, the entire thing disappears.

    OMG... David, did you SERIOUSLY just say that!?? :D

    Because that is, nearly word for word, the EXACT same thing you said about the 2012 Elections...

    But THIS time, it's true, right?? :D

    And I seem to recall that *I* said that Benghazi would likely be with us for the next 2 or 3 elections...

    Election Day is a very effective cure for many cancervative thought disorders. Last year it conquered the Ebolaphobia.

    It wasn't back in 2012 when this prediction was first made..

    Why do you think now it will be different??

    Oh yea, that's right. I forgot..

    Yer in the bag for the Democrat Party...

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Essentially, it was time for a change.

    Yea, that's what the American Left said back in 2008...

    It's worked out SOOO well.. :^/

    Justin Trudeau proved that divisiveness and the politics of fear can be soundly defeated by the politics of "sunny days, my friends, sunny days". That may become my new motto. :)

    Tired of HOPE AND CHANGE??? :D

    Can't say I blame ya...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    the national institute on drug abuse did a study that found THC did impair driving ability, perhaps not in the same way as alcohol, but still in ways that are dangerous. it reduced reaction time and increased the effects of even small amounts of alcohol, which would otherwise be within legal limits. besides which, driving too slowly can at times be just as dangerous as driving too fast. perhaps in response to unreasonable attitudes of legalization opponents, I think a culture has developed among marijuana advocates that tends to minimize its real dangers - one of which is that driving under the influence really does increase the risk of causing an accident.

    Well said, Joshua....

    I am willing to wager that if Bashi had to sponge body parts off of roadways due to DUIs, he would sing a much different tune...

    It's all about THEORY.. And little to no experience with the reality...

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    JUST like Obama's and Hillary's lie was about politics... AND Democrats winning the election..

    Which PROVES beyond any doubt the validity of comment #81...

    It's OK.. I know ya'all are COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of admitting it...

    Chalk it up to another win by forfeit...

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news... As a subject that is near and dear to my heart...

    Obama fuels the flames of the anti-cop movement
    nypost.com/2015/10/24/obama-fuels-the-flames-of-the-anti-cop-movement/

    Obama and the rest of the Left Wing cop haters should keep in mind one thing..

    http://sjfm.us/temp/line.jpg

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    one of which is that driving under the influence really does increase the risk of causing an accident.

    And yet that is not shown show far in the numbers from states that have legalized recreational weed...

  89. [89] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because that is, nearly word for word, the EXACT same thing you said about the 2012 Elections.

    In 2012, the focus was on Barack Obama. Notice how he's never mentioned anymore.

    Republicans realized they could resurrect it for Hillary. I wonder if it will be just as successful :).

    Neither did Democrats during the 9/11 hearings, the Iraq War hearings and the Abu Ghraib hearings.

    Except that's not true at all. The focus in all these investigations was on the actual events. I think this was true for the first Benghazi hearing. It is important to find out what we could do better.

    The problem is when it turns into a witch hunt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

    I mean, 8 investigations. Seriously? I bet if you interviewed 100 people on the street, not one could even tell you why they're still holding hearings.

    -David

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    In 2012, the focus was on Barack Obama. Notice how he's never mentioned anymore.

    Nice spin, but I ain't buying it..

    You said that Benghazi would "disappear" as an issue after the 2012 election...

    You didn't make ANY qualifiers...

    Except that's not true at all. The focus in all these investigations was on the actual events. I think this was true for the first Benghazi hearing. It is important to find out what we could do better.

    But that's NOT what you claimed above.. You claimed that the GOP didn't give a rat's ass about American lives..

    I stated that neither did the Democrats with THEIR hearings..

    I mean, 8 investigations. Seriously? I bet if you interviewed 100 people on the street, not one could even tell you why they're still holding hearings.

    And the SAME applies to ALL the hearings the Democrats held...

    You can't see it because of the Left Wing blinders you wear....

    Prove me wrong...

    Address comment #81...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, 8 investigations. Seriously? I bet if you interviewed 100 people on the street, not one could even tell you why they're still holding hearings.

    And if you interviewed 100 people and asked them about Abu Ghraib which BARELY rose to the level of college hazing, they would say the same thing..

    THAT is what you don't get...

    Democrats politicize things JUST as much, if not MORE, than Republicans...

    Hell, Democrats came out and blatantly STATED they want to politicize tragedies..

    I notice no one wants to address THAT little... yunno... FACT...

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ya'all are feeling too beat up on this issue, we can always discuss TrainWreckCare...

    The Decline of ObamaCare
    Fewer enrolles and rising loss ratios will force a rewrite in 2017.

    ObamaCare’s image of invincibility is increasingly being exposed as a political illusion, at least for those with permission to be honest about the evidence. Witness the heretofore unknown phenomenon of a “free” entitlement that its beneficiaries can’t afford or don’t want.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-decline-of-obamacare-1445807092

    TrainWreckCare is DOA.... :D

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hell, Democrats came out and blatantly STATED they want to politicize tragedies..

    I notice no one wants to address THAT little... yunno... FACT...

    Credit where credit is due..

    JM actually addressed this..

    He said it's perfectly acceptable for Democrats to politicize tragedies, but it is NOT acceptable for Republicans to politicize tragedies..

    Which is the same thing as *I* have been saying....

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, referring back to my comment #82, the correct phrase that is my new motto is ...

    "...sunny ways, my friends, sunny ways."

    Which, to be sure, will lead to many sunny days! :)

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem is when it turns into a witch hunt.

    Abu Ghraib was the textbook definition of a witch hunt..

    http://img07.deviantart.net/86ab/i/2013/012/6/2/star_trek_the_next_generation_drumhead_quote_by_ent2pri9se-d5h90ac.jpg

    Which is why no one here can address it...

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale,

    Of course the ambassador died. No-one, except you, has said he didn't. The LIE is that it hadn't nothing to do with anything Hillary Clinton did. She didn't cause it.

    You seem unaware that the attacks happened at a CIA building in Benghazi, not the embassy. So why isn't Harold Gowdy's super special little committee investigating the CIA? It was their building, their mission, not the State Department's. But oh no, they're not interested in going after the CIA.

    At no time did Hillary Clinton claim it was due to a video protest - it was the CIA which said that. Also, from the very first, Obama called it an act of terrorism - he's on video saying it! Mitt Romney was wrong and should have had the decency to apologize when he was proved wrong.

    Meanwhilem the CIA thought that because there were so many other anti-video protests in the Middle East at the same time, this was another one. Why would anyone not think this was the same? More than 30 violent anti-video protests but not this one? That defies common sense! Chances are, it was the video which sparked this attack too. But the Republicans covered it up because it didn't suit their narrative.

    They even made up stuff like an order to "stand down" - another total LIE from the Republicans. And they refused to take responsibility for the fact that it was them who cut the budget for security, by millions of dollars. Just last week Jason Chaffetz came out and said he voted to cut embassy security before Benghazi. He was not the only one.

    The State Department warned Republicans the year before the Benghazi attack that they were seriously undercutting embassy security. The State Department was right. But after the Benghazi attack, did the Republicans vote for raising security funding for embassies? No they did not. Apparently they're hoping for another such tragedy they can pin on someone they find threatening. They are big into killing Americans for their own ends.

  97. [97] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What is the alleged Hillary lie you want disproven, Michale?

    Of course I'm a bit skeptical that anything will convince you.

    -David

  98. [98] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Back from vacation.
    Offline and away from home... so nice.
    But back to the grind.

    Um, "Biden", Webb and Chafee dropping out is only good for Hillary if you assume they would hurt her chances for the nomination... and the evidence doesn't support that.
    (I suppose that splitting the corporatist, Iraq War supporting Dem vote with Biden could have helped Bernie early on)
    All three recognized they didn't stand a chance (sorry Liz) so calling it a win for Hillary is a stretch.

    Also, did you watch the hearings?
    I mean all 11 hours?
    There were so many people commenting on them who clearly did not, I just have to know if you managed to stomach it.

    I only checked out a few clips including a few that were supposedly ones where she "shined", but "presidential" is not the adjective that came to mind.
    Annoying.
    Lawyerly.
    Unenlightening.

    Granted, outshining the numbnut Repubs was obvious, but that is such a low bar, it's like a kid frying ants with a magnifying glass... neither difficult nor commendable.
    (my apologies to ants for the comparison, as they serve a vital role in ecosystems and work selflessly for the good of their societies unlike Repubs)

    The supposedly "good" polling numbers for Hillary are also suspect, as they essentially just reflect Biden being removed from polls he never should have been included in to begin with, so the uptick is rather manufactured. I recognize that's debatable, as Bernie could have gained more than he did, but her increase was not because Bernie's support decreased... though the establishment pundits tried desperately to spin it that way.

    Haven't had a chance to go back and read what I missed while I was gone yet, but I haven't seen much about Hillary's debate claims about the TPP despite not having access to the final text (according to the WH). It would seem her flip-flop was purely political after all, with a side serving of dishonesty... in other words, typical Clinton.

    Shrub the Younger cutting staff and salaries is too funny. Did he blow his huge wad or is he hoarding for the future?

    Ryan trying for Speaker suggests he knows his dreams for higher office are of the pipe variety.

    Speaking of pipe dreams, good to see Americans are continuing to grow greener.
    The numbers show that Bernie's position on the War on Weed makes Hillary's look completely regressive like so many of her other positions.
    Who knows, she keeps adopting his policies, so maybe she'll get to that one too.
    Of course, I'm in the camp that thinks she's actually just changing her words, not her beliefs, and that her supposedly progressive policies will evaporate if she is elected...

    ... and that will have to happen without my vote.

    A

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Of course the ambassador died. No-one, except you, has said he didn't. The LIE is that it hadn't nothing to do with anything Hillary Clinton did. She didn't cause it.

    Bush didn't cause anything about 9/11, Abu Ghraib..

    That didn't stop Democrats from blaming him.. Right??

    You seem unaware that the attacks happened at a CIA building in Benghazi, not the embassy.

    Actually, YOU seem unaware that there was no "embassy" in Benghazi.. You also seem unaware that there were TWO attacks in Benghazi.. The first attack was at the CONSULATE against Ambassador Stevens and party.. Heroic efforts by CIA people evacuated Stevens to a nearby CIA safe house...

    At no time did Hillary Clinton claim it was due to a video protest - it was the CIA which said that.

    I honestly do not know how to address such a blatant fantasy..

    Hillary told the FAMILY of those killed that they would prosecute the film maker of the video for what he did to their kin...

    Do you HONESTLY want me to get ALL the quotes of Hillary saying it was the video??

    Would it make any difference if I did?? Would it change your mind??

    Of course not..You would simply ignore the facts in favor of your fantasy...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is the alleged Hillary lie you want disproven, Michale?

    You see, that's EXACTLY the problem..

    With Hillary, with ANY Democrat, it's ALWAYS "alleged"..

    With Republicans, it's NEVER "alleged".. It's always "fact"...

    But hay, I'll play..

    Address these Hillary Lies...

    I doubt I will hear back, but it's worth a shot. :D

    LIE #1
    Hillary said that her "personal emails" contains emails between her and her husband... She lied. Bill said he only sent 2 emails in his life and that was back when he was POTUS...

    LIE #2
    Hillary said she never sent classified intel thru her email server. Several IGs have discovered over FOUR HUNDRED emails from Hillary's server that contained classified intel..

    Lie #3
    Hillary claimed that it was a YouTube video that caused a Benghazi protest that turned violent and killed Americans in Benghazi.. There was no protest and the video had NOTHING to do with the Benghazi attack. Hillary KNEW this, but told the video lie anyways..

    Lie #4
    Hillary claimed she had "NEVER HAD A SUBPOENA" for her emails or her email server. A Congressional Subpoena was issued to her on 4 Mar (Hay, that's my anniversary!! :D)

    Lie #5
    Hillary claimed that she used her own private insecure bathroom closet email server because she carries only one device.. She has been quoted AND seen in the past using and carrying several devices..

    Lie #6
    Hillary claims that her private insecure bathroom closet email server was "allowed" and "cleared" by the State Dept".. NO ONE at the State Dept has the authority to ALLOW or CLEAR such an insecure device.. No one at the State Dept even KNEW about the private insecure bathroom closet email server except those who were personally in Hillary's pocket..

    Lie #7
    I had to reach back for this one because it's just so damn funny!! Hillary claimed that when she landed in Bosnia they had to run to the terminal under sniper fire...

    I have about 20 or 30 more lies, but let's see if you address these first...

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    I only checked out a few clips including a few that were supposedly ones where she "shined", but "presidential" is not the adjective that came to mind.
    Annoying.
    Lawyerly.
    Unenlightening.

    Well, who would have thunked it!!

    Biga and I are in complete agreement!!

    Ya see, Liz!! It's exactly as I said!! :D

    It would seem her flip-flop was purely political after all, with a side serving of dishonesty... in other words, typical Clinton

    Exactly!!!

    Of course, I'm in the camp that thinks she's actually just changing her words, not her beliefs, and that her supposedly progressive policies will evaporate if she is elected...

    Well said.. Here here!!

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    You have to ask yourself one question..

    Why was the YouTube video even mentioned?? I can count dozens and dozens of times that Hillary mentioned the YouTube video in the context of the Benghazi attacks..

    So, there is no reason to even bring up the YouTube video at all!

    Everyone KNEW it was a terrorist attack from the get go... I called it within hours of the attack, fighting with EVERY Weigantian who claimed it was that awful YouTube video that was the culprit..

    The comments from Sep of 2011 here in Weigantia are VERY enlightening..

    But the long and short of it is that Hillary and the Administration TRIED to blame a Youtube video for the Benghazi attack.. Despite the fact that they KNEW it was a terrorist attack immediately.

    The youtube video had nothing to do with it so there was NO REASON to even bring up the video..

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    You're wrong Michale.

    There were over thirty violent protests in Middle Eastern countries over that YouTube video - WHY would any sane and sensible person consider this one attack out of thirty or more to be the one that's different? It was exactly like every other attack that night and that week. You are ignoring facts once again.

    Even the Egyptian government (and Egypt is located in the Middle East in case you didn't know) also believed it was because of the video because the attacks they experienced the same night were in protest of exactly that video.

    The CIA were advising the Executive. It was obviously the CIA's call as to what motivated the attacks. Ignoring that fact does not make the facts go away. Twisting the story so you can blame those you don't like does not make your story real.

  104. [104] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    I've never heard any Democrat blame George W for 9/11. There are of course the nutcases who think it was some government conspiracy but they are just that, nutcases. They don't belong to any party. They have some other party going on in their brains. So you're wrong. Democrats did not blame George W for 9/11.

    I know there is no embassy in Benghazi. I also know Ambassador Stevens wouldn't have been in Benghazi if the CIA hadn't assured him it was safe. The CIA, not the State Department.

    Ambassador Stevens was at a CIA compound, not a consulate. The Republicans called it a consulate to give the false impression that it was a State Department building. It wasn't. It was a CIA building.

    Ambassador Stevens was not evacuated from that building to a "safe house" - he was taken to a "safe room" where he and Information Management Officer Sean Smith were overcome with smoke inhalation. Stevens was taken from there to a hospital where efforts to revive him failed.

    Several hours later, a second assault targeted a different CIA compound about a mile away, killing two CIA contractors who worked for the CIA, not the State Department. Do you understand that the State Department is different from the CIA, Michale? And if you do get that, then tell us all why Harold Gowdy isn't bothering to investigate the CIA. I'm sure we'd all love to hear your expert opinion.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    There were over thirty violent protests in Middle Eastern countries over that YouTube video - WHY would any sane and sensible person consider this one attack out of thirty or more to be the one that's different?

    Uh... Because Americans were KILLED!!

    Seems like a good enough reason for me..

    But, you are confusing..

    First you say that Hillary didn't think that the Youtube video caused the attack, then you say that it was perfectly acceptable to think that the Youtube video caused the attack..

    Huh??

    The CIA were advising the Executive. It was obviously the CIA's call as to what motivated the attacks. Ignoring that fact does not make the facts go away. Twisting the story so you can blame those you don't like does not make your story real.

    That's your wishful thinking, not a fact..

    It was a STATE DEPARTMENT mission that was attacked, not a CIA station..

    Ergo, the State Dept was the lead agency involved..

    These are the facts whether you acknowledge them or not...

    Regardless, everyone in the Administration KNEW immediately that it was a terrorist attack..

    Everyone in the Administration KNEW....

    So, why even BRING UP the video??

    You have yet to answer this...

    So you're wrong. Democrats did not blame George W for 9/11.

    Bull crap... To this day, there are Democrats who blame Bush for 9/11 simply due to the fact that it happened on his watch..

    MANY Weigantians have made statements to that very point...

    I know there is no embassy in Benghazi. I also know Ambassador Stevens wouldn't have been in Benghazi if the CIA hadn't assured him it was safe. The CIA, not the State Department.

    The CIA has NOTHING to do with the State Dept security. The State Department has it's own security force (Bureau of Diplomatic Security or DS)..

    It was the security that Ambassador Stevens BEGGED Hillary to beef up..

    It was that LACK of security that got them all killed..

    Ambassador Stevens was at a CIA compound, not a consulate. The Republicans called it a consulate to give the false impression that it was a State Department building. It wasn't. It was a CIA building.

    Complete fabrication ..

    2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)
    3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)
    Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”
    About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)
    About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”
    Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.
    About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”
    About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”
    Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”
    6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)
    About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.”
    About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.
    Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

    11:12 p.m.: Clinton sends an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.” (The email was discovered in 2015 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It is written to “Diane Reynolds,” which was Chelsea Clinton’s alias.)

    You were right about one point, though. I did err on where Ambassador Stevens was killed. He was killed in the Consulate...

    But that is the ONLY part you are right about..

    It WAS a State Department Consulate, not a CIA station..

    The State Dept was the lead agency..

    Hillary Clinton blamed the attack on a non-existent protest caused by the youtube video..

    These are the facts, whether you admit it or not..

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ambassador Stevens was at a CIA compound, not a consulate.

    2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time.

    You were wrong.. Have the graciousness to admit it.

    I did..

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    At no time did Hillary Clinton claim it was due to a video protest - it was the CIA which said that.

    This is not factual either..

    The initial report from the CIA stated that it was a terrorist attack and it was likely the work of Ansar al-Sharia.. Hillary's State Dept altered the original report to remove any reference of a terrorist attack and play up the Youtube video angle..

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

    Once again, these are the facts, whether you admit them or not..

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, Clinton didn't publicly label the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack until 10 days AFTER the attack had taken place..

    This, despite knowing within HOURS that it WAS a terrorist attack....

    Once again, the facts are really inconvenient, eh? :D

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    This, despite knowing within HOURS that it WAS a terrorist attack....

    Hell, *I* knew within hours that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack.. :D

    Ya'all SURE ya don't want to talk about TrainWreckCare?? :D

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Addressing Republican lies about Hillary Clinton:

    #1: Whether she received emails from her husband or not has nothing to do with Benghazi. (It's an irrelevant distraction. Do try to stay on track.)

    #2: Clinton was right, she sent NO CLASSIFIED INTEL through her email server. The CIA redacted none of her emails because there was no sensitive material. Harold Gowdy lied when he said the CIA had redacted an email from Sidney Blumenthal. It was Gowdy himself who wielded the black felt pen and, after lying about it three times, he has now admitted he did it. He claims that he knows better than the CIA what should and should not be redacted.

    #3: That was not Clinton's call and if you were honest you'd know that and say so. It was the CIA's call. These attacks were on their facilities. They were expected to know what was happening. They advised the White House that it was in protest of the video, just as so many other Middle Eastern attacks had been. But the Republicans objected and refused to believe it so it was dropped. BUT captured suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala stated that the assault was in retaliation for the video. Why would he lie about that?

    #4: Clinton was right. The select committee did not subpoena her emails, they subpoenaed her to appear in person at a hearing about her emails. That interview took place last Thursday. Clinton was not asked to bring emails to the interview. Gowdy made that clear when he was asked about it at the time but the media deliberately misinterpreted what he said. For once Gowdy was not at fault for deliberately misleading the public. The media did that.

    #5: Clinton told reporters she set up the private email server because she did not want to carry two separate devices for personal and State Department communications. At no time did she say that she never carried more than one devise. Nor does the fact that she carried more than one devise prove what those devises were for. As usual, you are twisting her words to change their meaning to suit a story that just isn't true.

    #6: The State Department did know about the server even if you choose not to believe it. Anyone who saw the address she used had to know. The address was a giveaway even I would've recognized. A fact does not cease to be a fact just because you choose not to believe in it.

    #7: Oh at last you actually managed to find a lie she did tell - and had to correct and apologize for it. How many years ago was that? As you said, you had to reach back for it.

    No-one is perfect, Michale. No politician is a saint. Politicians on both sides of the aisle lie because they are human and that's what humans do. It's what they lie about that is telling. Clinton has not lied about the attacks on Benghazi no matter how hard you want to believe she did.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    #1: Whether she received emails from her husband or not has nothing to do with Benghazi. (It's an irrelevant distraction. Do try to stay on track.)

    My discussion with David vis a vis Hillary's lies is a different discussion not solely limited to Benghazi..

    In other words, THAT subject is Hillary's lies..

    #2: Clinton was right, she sent NO CLASSIFIED INTEL through her email server.

    That has already been proven as false. Over 400 emails sent thru Hillary's private insecure bathroom closet email server contained classified intel..

    This is documented fact..

    #3: That was not Clinton's call and if you were honest you'd know that and say so.

    Yet Clinton stated time and time again that the video caused the attack. She even told the families of the victims as much..

    It was a lie. Plain and simple...

    #4: Clinton was right. The select committee did not subpoena her emails, they subpoenaed her to appear in person at a hearing about her emails.

    WOW.. Now THAT is a tap dance worthy of the greats!!!

    It was a lie.. Clinton had a subpoena. She claimed she didn't...

    5: Clinton told reporters she set up the private email server because she did not want to carry two separate devices for personal and State Department communications.

    More tap dancing.. Next you will want to determine what the definition of "is" is.. :^)

    The State Department did know about the server even if you choose not to believe it.

    It's documented fact that the State Department did NOT know about her private insecure bathroom closet email server.

    Anyone who saw the address she used had to know. The address was a giveaway even I would've recognized. A fact does not cease to be a fact just because you choose not to believe in it.

    You are confusing email address with email server.. You might not be technically inclined, so it's no biggie..

    My email address is michale@blaablaa.com My email goes thru a Go Daddy Server.. I don't physically control or have access to the server beyond my one piddly email address...

    I *HAVE* run email servers in my time. I even ran one off of an old XBOX game console! :D

    If I were so inclined and worked for the State Dept and wanted my own vanity email (michale@istotallyawesome.com) I could approach the IT Dept at State and ask them to configure such an email WITHIN THE SECURITY OF THEIR SECURED SYSTEM...

    But if I was a lying, conniving scheming rhymes-with-witch who wanted to make sure that the US GOVERNMENT would not have ANY access to my emails, I would set up my own private email server or, as Hillary did, contract someone who was in my pocket to set up a server...

    Oh at last you actually managed to find a lie she did tell - and had to correct and apologize for it. How many years ago was that? As you said, you had to reach back for it.

    So, we agree. Clinton lied..

    Clinton has not lied about the attacks on Benghazi no matter how hard you want to believe she did.

    Yea, I know you believe that and that is really sad..

    But the facts say otherwise..

    "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son."
    -Hillary Clinton, talking to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, killed at Benghazi

    Doesn't get any clearer than that.

    Hillary Clinton lied about the Benghazi Terrorist attack...

    This is well documented...

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as Clinton's status as the Coronated Dem Candidate?? I couldn't be happier...

    You think the drip, drip, drip of Benghazi and the drip drip drip of her private emails server is bad??

    It is almost guaranteed that the GOP has some REALLY juicy and REALLY devastating opposition research that they are keeping to themselves for the General...

    Clinton is going to have to answer to scandals every day of the General Election..

    It's gonna be a hoot.. :D

    And all because the Democrat Party couldn't find ANYONE with a smidgen of integrity as a POTUS Candidate...

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
    -Hillary Clinton, 2230hrs 11 Sep, 2011

    Why bring up the Youtube video at all if she KNEW it had NOTHING to do with the terrorist attack??

    It's like saying, "With regards to the Roseburg OR shooting, we deplore the use of violence in an armed robbery that was committed in New York City"

    One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other...

    I am also constrained to point out that Hillary stated that there was a protest which is a COMPLETE and PROVABLE fabrication...

    At least with the video, the Left Wingery DOES have a modicum, an ingot, a smidgen of spin...

    But claiming that there was a protest is a COMPLETE and UNEQUIVOCAL fabrication. An out and out LIE...

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since the Hillary=Liar facts have been established (over 60% of Americans agree with me), we can move on to other subjects..

    Obama/Comey clash on Black Lives Matter...

    Iran's new aggression has Democrats worried...

    Take yer pick.. :D

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since the Hillary=Liar facts have been established (over 60% of Americans agree with me),

    Ooops.. Forgot to substantiate... :D

    Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 61 - 34 percent, her lowest score ever
    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me wish Hillary Clinton a happy birthday

    http://sjfm.us/temp/happybday.jpg

    :D

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    One poll showing that 60% of those surveyed are just as misinformed as you are does not make Hillary a liar. And it is not 60% of Americans as you well know. Saying that is a LIE, Michale.

    Iran doesn't have anyone worried more than normal. Your right wing sources are stirring up fear and loathing as usual. They don't know any other way to get your attention. Fear and loathing will do it every time.

    Your childish rantings about Hillary Clinton is just that - childish rantings. You hate her. We get it. She didn't lie but you're going to lie yourself stupid because that's what you want to believe the lies told about her. You are so easy. You're exactly the kind of person Frank Luntz had in mind when he came up with a way to turn people against Democrats. He used the same techniques Goebbels used.

    Luntz said that all Republicans had to do was to keep repeating their lies, distortions and disinformation and people like you would believe them. Congratulations. You fell for it. You are so deeply mired in the propaganda that you don't even know what a fact is any more.

    What you are citing aren't facts. You say they are but that doesn't make these fabrications facts, Michale. You believe any conspiracy theory no matter how often it's disproved. You twist people's words to make them fit what you want to believe, cherry-picking bits of sentences so the meaning is changed. You know you do this. Sadly, you think it's clever.

    Going on and on about the same old lies and distortions doesn't make any difference, Michale. You are indisputably wrong. Just because you belief it is not proof.

    Surely everyone here by now knows you will always be the same, live in your own little fantasy bubble. The irony is you use film quotes all the time, quotes from fiction stories that you think makes it sound like a fact. Well fiction isn't fact, Michale and you can't make it fact just by saying it is.

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    One poll showing that 60% of those surveyed are just as misinformed as you are does not make Hillary a liar. And it is not 60% of Americans as you well know. Saying that is a LIE, Michale.

    I made the statement and backed it up with a poll..

    If quoting a poll to substantiate a claim is a lie, then we're ALL liars.. :D

    Iran doesn't have anyone worried more than normal.

    Yea, but the facts say otherwise.. But it's nice that you concede that Iran's actions ARE worrisome.. :D

    Your childish rantings about Hillary Clinton is just that - childish rantings.

    No more childish than ya'alls rants against GOP'ers.

    Terrorists?? SERIOUSLY!??

    The difference between ya'alls rants and mine is that MINE are supported by... yunno.. FACTS..

    He used the same techniques Goebbels used.

    When I made the same observation against JFC, I was accused of a Godwin..

    Hypocrisy much? :D

    What you are citing aren't facts.

    Really!!?? Our ambassador DIDN'T die!!!???

    Hillary DIDN'T say, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son." to the father of a man killed in Benghazi??

    All I HAVE are facts.. But they are facts that none of ya'all want to hear.. Therefore you ignore them or your ridicule them..

    <Going on and on about the same old lies and distortions doesn't make any difference, Michale. You are indisputably wrong.

    Yet the FACTS say otherwise..

    Well fiction isn't fact,

    Somebody should let Hillary I-Was-Named-After-Edmund-Hillary-And-I-Dodged-Sniper-Fire-In-Bosnia Clinton...

    Because the world where Hillary actually has INTEGRITY and is a viable candidate for POTUS is as big of a fiction world as Harry Potter's world..

    And JUST as (non)believable...

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    But did you like my b-day present to Hillary?? :D

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    This past weekend, Joe and Jill Biden were interviewed by Norah O'Donnell on 60 Minutes. Raw Story mentioned it in an article titled: "Joe Biden slaps down Maureen Dowd’s version of ‘Beau Biden’s dying wish’ story".

    With regard to the version Maureen Dowd described in her New York Times article, Joe Biden said unequivocally that no such scene took place. Furthermore, he described Dowd's fiction as "Hollywood-esque".

    I said Dowd was lying and I got hammered for it. So thank you, Joe Biden, for vindicating me.

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Obviously, you still don't understand what happened or why you got "hammered" for what you said.

    Yes, of course there was no dying death bed wish for a presidential run. Sometimes, in a piece like the one in question from Maureen Dowd, you have to read between the lines and use your own judgement.

    You may or may not recall that the gist of Maureen's piece was accurate in that Beau Biden did indeed want his father to run.

  122. [122] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    BTW Mopshell, there was no mention of a dying, death-bed wish or conversation in Dowd's piece.

    That was something that you and many others projected onto the piece.

  123. [123] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hmmm ... 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi.

    Just like the Congressional investigation.

    Lie #3
    Hillary claimed that it was a YouTube video that caused a Benghazi protest that turned violent and killed Americans in Benghazi.. There was no protest and the video had NOTHING to do with the Benghazi attack. Hillary KNEW this, but told the video lie anyways..

    This has been repeatedly addressed. It was the intelligence at the time. From the 2012 report (released right before the election btw):

    "Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contradictory intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence."

    I expect your concession and apology shortly ;).

    -David

  124. [124] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Here's the link btw to the 2012 report.

    https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf

    Kind of funny how it went away for two years only to reappear as the Presidential election started ramping up.

  125. [125] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    BTW Elizabeth, I didn't refer to it as "a dying, death-bed wish". You are the one projecting that onto me. I was just quoting the Raw Story headline in case anyone wanted to look up the story.

  126. [126] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Elizabeth

    Of course Beau wanted his father to run. I never disputed that. It was common knowledge that Biden's family supported him and that he discussed his plans with all of them. I knew about that long befor beau died and I'm sure Dowd did too.

    You don't seem to get what a callous jerk Dowd is for making up this Hollywood-esque version of events. For someone who claims to be an admirer of Biden's, you sure didn't seem to care that Dowd exploited his son's death and his grief to inject a little Hollywood-esque drama into her column. Even when Joe Biden himself says no scene like that took place, you are still defending her over him.

    Obviously you and I have very different concepts of what is truth and what is decent.

  127. [127] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Mopshell,

    "When I made the same observation against JFC, I was accused of a Godwin.. Hypocrisy much?"

    See? This is the Republican concept of "personal responsibility" in action. You are a hypocrite because somebody (not you) said something. This should help you understand why Hillary is personally responsible for faulty CIA "intelligence" and Obama (or one of the Clintons. Take your pick.) is personally responsible for the rolling disasters that occurred on King George W's watch.

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    This has been repeatedly addressed. It was the intelligence at the time.

    No it was not. The intelligence at the time was that it was a terrorist attack..

    Hillary posted that via email to family members and foreign governments..

    The ONLY place that the youtube/protest fantasy was, was in the spin of the Obama Administration.

    This is documented fact..

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is documented fact..

    But what's the use of bringing facts to the discussion..

    Ya'all actually believe that Hillary is a person of integrity who never lies..

    I guess since Hillary has clinched her coronation ya'all have changed your tune about her...

    Color me surprised.. :D

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hmmm ... 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi.

    The email server is part and parcel to the Benghazi investigation..

    It's WHY the Benghazi investigation has taken so long.

    If Hillary had used the State Dept's system as she was supposed to, then all the emails would have been available...

    You just don't get it...

    Hillary is a everything you CLAIM to hate......

    But because she has a '-D' after her name, you HAVE to support her and sing her "praises"...

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-clinton-evaded-questions-on-benghazi-stonewall/article/2574845

    The length and the cost of the Benghazi??

    Completely and utterly Clinton's fault...

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    See? This is the Republican concept of "personal responsibility" in action. You are a hypocrite because somebody (not you) said something.

    Nice try sunshine.. :D

    But Mopshell is being hypocritical because she uses a Godwin (according to YOU anyways) but doesn't say anything when others are (falsely) accused of committing a Godwin...

    But I don't expect you to be able to comprehend the intricacies...

    Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit..

    Lame beatnik coffee house idiotic statements is pretty much your par for the course.. :D

    But, once again.. Thanx for playing.. :D

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Dear chatbot,

    Haha. You clearly have no idea what the word "hypocrite" even means. I'm not surprised. Here's a hint: you should never use the word "idiotic".

    Congratulations on your Winning!

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Haha. You clearly have no idea what the word "hypocrite" even means. I'm not surprised. Here's a hint: you should never use the word "idiotic".

    Ahhhhhh The old I-KNOW-YOU-ARE-BUT-WHAT-AM-I rebuttal..

    As I said... Pretty much what we have come to expect from you.. :D

    Congratulations on your Winning!

    Why, thank you.. Your concession means.... absolutely nothing to me. :D

    The Puppet Master

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is the fact that ya'all refuse to accept..

    NO INTELLIGENCE *EVER* stated that the phantom video/protest was the cause of the Benghazi attack..

    *ALL* the intelligence, plus my own assessment here mere hours after the attack stated unequivocally *AND CORRECTLY* that the Benghazi was, in fact, a terrorist attack..

    It was only the politicizing of the Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration that put out the TOTALLY BOGUS and LIE that an internet video and non-existent protest was the cause of the Benghazi attack..

    Let me repeat that because ya'all seem to have a comprehension problem..

    NO INTELLIGENCE *EVER* stated that the phantom video/protest was the cause of the Benghazi attack..

    *ALL* the intelligence, plus my own assessment here mere hours after the attack stated unequivocally *AND CORRECTLY* that the Benghazi was, in fact, a terrorist attack..

    It was only the politicizing of the Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration that put out the TOTALLY BOGUS and LIE that an internet video and non-existent protest was the cause of the Benghazi attack..

    These are the facts...

    And they are indisputable...

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    And these facts are PROVEN by ya'alls own two-faced arguments..

    On the one hand, ya'all claim that Hillary "never claimed that the youtube video/non existent protest was the cause of the attack...

    Yet, in the VERY same breath, ya'all make the TOTALLY BS claim that intelligence DID state that the youtube video/non existent protest was the cause of the attack..

    Do you see how badly ya'all are tripping over yersleves to protect Hillary, a KNOWN and PROVEN liar that over 60% of the American people agree that she is liar/dishonest/untrustworthy...

    I get it.. Hillary is ya'all's coronated queen.. I understand that..

    I just never thought those who support this rhymes-with-witch would sell their souls and their integrity to do so....

    Color me saddened...

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    We are indeed in agreement about Hillary being dishonest, like you, but I definitely do not agree with all of your crazy wingnut rants... so don't celebrate too much.
    In fact, very little of what you are going on about is relevant or accurate... let alone "independent" or original.

    Why are you resorting to trollery, dishonesty and hyperbole when an honest, contextual and factual case can easily be made?

    If your aim is to convince, your ridiculous excesses are hurting your effort.

    For example, absolving Bush of his responsibility for the implementation of torture as US policy is beyond irrational lying.
    And that's just the tip of your crazytown iceberg.

    You keep claiming your "independent" status is proven because you often rag on Repubs, though I have yet to witness it despite numerous compelling opportunities, but all we get is right wing partisan defending of every bit of Repub bull, including brainless revisionism most Repubs have by now admitted to be false.

    Get your head out of your rear.
    Integrity need not be a casualty in order to make a point.

    A

  138. [138] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This is documented fact.

    Where? In what document?

    Again, from the (Republican) document:

    "Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contradictory intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence."

    https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf

    -David

  139. [139] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Clearly, you need to go back a re-read Dowd's piece but, this time, try to do so without allowing your apparent disdain for her (because she spent the first two-thirds of her piece being critical of Hillary?) to skew your reading of what she was saying about the vice president and his son and, more to the point, what she was not saying.

    There simply was no "Hollywood-esque version of events" or anything untoward in her piece about the Biden family.

    If you are honest with yourself, you will see that you are upset with the piece only because it was highly critical of Hillary Clinton.

  140. [140] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Truth be known, I don't always agree with everything Maureen Dowd writes ... but, I know to take whatever she says with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of humour.

    I just didn't think that what she wrote about the vice president and his son rose to the level of being so offended by it. I'm not sure the vice president was referring to her in his remarks to 60 minutes.

    I also think Maureen Dowd feels like she needs to make amends for how she has treated Biden over the years, especially with respect to her pieces having to do with his "plagiarism" episode in the 1988 presidential race. I think she truly feels bad about her treatment of him and knows that America has really missed an opportunity in 2016 to have Biden in the mix.

  141. [141] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Elizabeth,

    If you were honest, you would see that your defense of Dowd, even defending her against Biden, is because you loathe Hillary Clinton and you wanted Biden to run against her. You couldn't care less what was best for Joe Biden and his family.

    http://wonkette.com/595318/maureen-dowd-is-a-idiot-says-joe-biden-and-everyone-else

  142. [142] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Joe Biden would never call anyone an idiot.

    If you knew anything about Joe Biden, you would know that.

    We're done here.

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biga,

    We are indeed in agreement about Hillary being dishonest,

    That's what I said..

    We are in complete agreement about Hillary being dishonest...

    David,

    Again, from the (Republican) document:

    Come'on David!

    I was born at night, but not LAST night. :D

    That was from the DEMOCRAT rebuttal of the Republican document..

    The fact is that the CIA issued it's initial report that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack most likely from the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group..

    That report went to the State Department which altered the text, taking out all reference of terrorism and playing up the mythical protest...

    But you still aren't addressing the point.

    DID Hillary blame the video for the attack or didn't she??

    I am getting two different stories here..

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biga,

    For example, absolving Bush of his responsibility for the implementation of torture as US policy is beyond irrational lying.

    NO ONE mentioned Bush/torture issues so how could I absolve Bush of that??

    But, since you bring it up, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with torturing scumbag terrorists for intel...

    It's well documented (plus my own personal experiences in the field) that coercive interrogations (torture, for those with the stomach) produces high quality actionable intel and directly lead to dozens, if not hundreds of terrorist attacks being exposed and destroyed...

    It also lead directly to the elimination of public enemy #1, Osama Bin Laden..

    So, yea.. I CHEER President Bush that he had the integrity and the outright cajones to ignore the namby pamby Democrats and ignore politics and do what's right for this country..

    Frakin' A, Mr President!!

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    David, Mopshell...

    Let's forget about Hillary's lies to the families of the dead... Let's forget about the bogus Youtube video excuse and the mythical protest that never happened..

    Let's concentrate on what we KNOW..

    Ambassador Stevens sent the State Department over SIX HUNDRED requests for security upgrades..

    Hillary's response??

    I didn't get the memo...

    Forget everything else about Benghazi and concentrate on that..

    Four good Americans were brutally murdered because Hillary "didn't get the memo"...

    In 2008, Hillary made the claim that SHE was the best qualified to answer the 0300 emergency call..

    Hillary got SIX HUNDRED 0300 emergency calls...

    But she had her ringer off..

    And THAT is who you want as our next POTUS...

    Seriously!!???

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama weighs moving U.S. troops closer to front lines in Syria, Iraq
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-weighs-moving-us-troops-closer-to-front-lines-in-syria-iraq/2015/10/26/4ae2f36c-7bec-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html

    What have I always said??

    You can't accomplish jack sheet w/o boots on the ground..

    "Leading From Behind" is not a viable strategy.. It's cowardice...

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Frakin' A, Mr President!!

    "14-13 Michigan! Way to go, Mr President!!"
    -Steward, AIR FORCE ONE

    :D

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I was born at night, but not LAST night. :D

    That was from the DEMOCRAT rebuttal of the Republican document..

    If you had bothered to read the report, you would know what akadjian quoted was in the summery to which a couple of full pages in the main report went in to more detail. The minority rebuttal was not quoted but is appendix 2 if you are interested...

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you had bothered to read the report, you would know what akadjian quoted was in the summery to which a couple of full pages in the main report went in to more detail. The minority rebuttal was not quoted but is appendix 2 if you are interested...

    It still doesn't jibe with the yunno... FACTS...

    Since it was such total bullshit, I just assumed it was from the Democrats...

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, NONE of what David posted is even PART of the report that he gave the link for..

    So, I stand by my original assertion..

    It's complete and utter fabricated bullshit..

    The ONLY intelligence assessments coming from the CIA was that it was a terrorist attack..

    The Administration was watching it in real time, fer christ's sake!!

    The video had NOTHING to do with the Benghazi attack.

    This is FACT...

    There WAS NO PROTEST WHATSOEVER...

    THIS is fact...

    I realize ya'all have problems with facts..

    But, like the cop said in MEN IN BLACK..

    "It's your problem.."

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    There’s a feminist civil war brewing over Caitlyn Jenner
    http://nypost.com/2015/10/26/theres-a-feminist-civil-war-brewing-over-caitlyn-jenner/

    Ya'all can't see it, but I am laughing my ass off! :D

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, if you want the CURRENT facts about Benghazi, you just need to read the facts that were posted..

    yea, I know, I know...

    Ya'all don't need no stinkin' facts..

    Hillary is pure as the driven snow and no amount of FACTS or reality will get ya'all to say any different..

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you are honest with yourself, you will see that you are upset with the piece only because it was highly critical of Hillary Clinton.

    Anyone who is critical of Queen Hillary MUST be silenced!!!

    The ONLY "facts" allowed are the lies.. er.. "facts" that paint Hillary in the best possible light..

    Anything else is just the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" even if it's from President Obama..

    That is the way it's going to be from now until she implodes...

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Actually, NONE of what David posted is even PART of the report that he gave the link for..

    You could not even bring yourself to read five paragraphs? Because it's right there, page one, paragraph five...

    So, I stand by my original assertion..

    It's complete and utter fabricated bullshit..

    Yes, we understand your fact finding methodology pretty well at this point.

    The ONLY intelligence assessments coming from the CIA was that it was a terrorist attack..

    I understand that if five paragraphs is beyond your reading abilities, making it to page 26 would be really difficult, but should your make the plunge, I think it pretty clearly states who is uttering "fabricated bullshit" in this thread...

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think it pretty clearly states who is uttering "fabricated bullshit" in this thread...

    yep... It IS clear...

    ANYONE who is saying that the CIA report stated that the video and non-existent protest were the cause is fabricating utter bullshit..

    The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “[i]nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed.

    I realize it's impossible for ya'all to admit when yer wrong...

    But there it is, in black and white.. Your Democrat report notwithstanding...

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, it's funny..

    Ya'all were slamming and castigating Hillary right along with me a little bit ago..

    Once she became the inevitable candidate, ya'all jump to her defense...

    Funny, iddn't it. :D

    Michale

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi, David,

    Ask yerselves ONE question..

    If the intelligence was so sure-fire well known that it was a YouTube video and a protest of same that cause Benghazi..

    "HOW DID I KNOW WITHIN HOURS THAT IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK!??"

    It's hilarious..

    Ya'all call Republicans TERRORISTS and criminals and hostage takers, yet you are QUOTING their report as if it's gospel!!

    THAT is hilarious.. :D

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    ANYONE who is saying that the CIA report stated that the video and non-existent protest were the cause is fabricating utter bullshit..

    Unless they were literate. The report specifically mentions one early report from the CIA about protests.

    I realize it's impossible for ya'all to admit when yer wrong...

    But there it is, in black and white.. Your Democrat report notwithstanding...

    What's black and white? That you can't read? Nothing in your quote disproves that there was a CIA report about a protest in Benghazi.

    You seem to be really going out of your way to not read that report. Why is that?

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biga,

    If your aim is to convince, your ridiculous excesses are hurting your effort.

    "Convince"!???

    I am not trying to "convince" anyone.. I know that THAT is impossible..

    I would have a MUCH better chance to convince Obama to have a booty call with Rush Limbaugh than I would to convince ya'all that Democrats ARE part of the problem and not part of the solution....

    My goal here is to make a sincere effort to TRY and keep ya'all SOMEWHAT planted in reality..

    For example...

    Mopshell claimed that it wasn't a consulate that was attacked, that it was a CIA station.

    I have proven that wrong with the FACTS...

    David claimed that Hillary never blamed the video and mythical protest for the deaths...

    I have proven THAT wrong with the facts...

    And so on and so on and so on..

    I have them so befuddled and on the ropes, they have to quote REPUBLICAN REPORTS to justify their positions!! :D

    Just a day in the life here in Weigantia... :D

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I have them so befuddled and on the ropes, they have to quote REPUBLICAN REPORTS to justify their positions!! :D

    Just a day in the life here in Weigantia... :D

    Yawn.

  161. [161] 
    Paula wrote:

    I think one of the other things I really like about Hillary is that, as a result of being the recipient for years of the kind of utter nonsensical, baseless abuse exemplified by the Benghazi witch-hunt, she has no stars in her eyes about dealing with this radical Republican party. If she wins, she knows going in that she will get nothing but hatred from these people and she's prepared for that. And I think that's what we need.

    The Repubs have spent 30+ years (give or take) demonizing everything not-them and consequently many, many of us really just despise them. They wanted us to hate them and they are really good at being hateful so now we do. And we don't want to reach out to them anymore; we don't want to be reasonable with them and we don't have any doubts left to give them the benefit of.

    The thing with Hillary is that there will be no pretense and wasted time. If she gets in, or Bernie, I hope she/he does everything legally and ethically possible to make them irrelevent. The Repubs want a showdown -- let's have it.

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    The Repubs have spent 30+ years (give or take) demonizing everything not-them and consequently many,

    I wonder if you can appreciate the complete and utter irony of this statement. :D

    The Repubs want a showdown -- let's have it.

    Be careful what you wish for..

    Hillary's health is none too good...

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    The Repubs have spent 30+ years (give or take) demonizing everything not-them and consequently many,

    I wonder if you can appreciate the complete and utter irony of this statement. :D

    The Repubs want a showdown -- let's have it.

    Be careful what you wish for..

    Hillary's health is none too good...

    Michale

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yawn.

    I accept ya'all's concession... :D

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unless they were literate. The report specifically mentions one early report from the CIA about protests.

    A mention that I cannot find ANY WHERE in the report that David linked..

    You seem to be really going out of your way to not read that report. Why is that?

    Because, there is this really nifty feature called --"CTRL-F"-- that allows me to search ENTIRE TEXT for specific words or word combinations called "sentences" (Pay attention, there will be a test later)..

    Now, here is where it gets complication. To utilize the --"CTRL-F"-- feature, you ALSO have to be familiar with another concept called --"Cut & Paste"--... (I am not going too fast for you, am I??) Using --"Cut & Paste"-- I extract (--"CUT"--) a combination of words (called --"sentences"--). I then switch screens to David's link, hit (that means press the key(s)) --"CTRL-F"--, then --"PASTE"-- (--"CTRL-V"--) into the search box and click on SEARCH.

    This miraculous process searches the entire document for the specified word combinations called --"sentences"--...

    It's an amazing process!!

    When I use this amazing and miraculous process on ANY word combinations (called --"sentences"--) in David's quote, there is absolutely NOTHING found...

    Now, there is an added twist, since this is a PDF document being viewed thru a CHROME plug-in, but I don't want to overwhelm you..

    Suffice it to say that the quote David made is not part of the link he sent...

    Class dismissed..

    "Zombie, don't forget your hatchets.."
    -Clyde, WRECK IT RALPH

    :D

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of the issue of the irrelevant Youtube Video and the phantom/mythical protest that didn't exist, here is one fact that NONE of you can address..

    Ambassador Stevens sent SIX HUNDRED request for upgraded security...

    SIX HUNDRED 3AM phone calls to Hillary Clinton..

    ALL of them un-answered, un-addressed.. Because Hillary had her phone off the hook..

    So, quote ALL the GOP reports you want..

    But it won't change the fact that Hillary was incompetent as SecState...

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a totally unrelated note, I have a question..

    Cops in Maryland are disguising themselves as homeless people to catch cell phone texting drivers..

    Cop poses as homeless man to catch texting drivers
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/27/cop-poses-as-homeless-man-to-catch-texting-drivers/?intcmp=hphz09

    While I applaud the idea and think it's great, here's where I have a question..

    During the two-hour sting, police issued 56 traffic citations and 22 warnings for a range of infractions, according to WTOP. A texting ticket cost offenders $70 and a ticket for talking on the phone while driving is an $83 hit.

    It seems to me that TEXTING while driving is a LOT more, a HELLUVA lot more distracting than simply TALKING on the phone..

    So, why is the fine for TALKING more than the fine for TEXTING???

    That's insane!!

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in still other news..

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-appears-show-cop-body-slamming-student-s-c-classroom-n451896?hootPostID=ddc47d50e6e942fc252780d064524b0c

    Once again, a cop does his duty against an unruly and violent black person and HE is the bad guy...

    You couldn't PAY me enough to be a cop these days...

    No, that's not true... But it's increasingly exasperating that cops are being demonized simply for doing a near impossible job with honor and integrity and unruly thugs are being hero-worshipped..

    Michale

  169. [169] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    A mention that I cannot find ANY WHERE in the report that David linked..

    Page 26 paragraph 1 for those who are not too lazy to read (or even skim) the document.

    When I use this amazing and miraculous process on ANY word combinations (called --"sentences"--) in David's quote, there is absolutely NOTHING found...

    That's because your knowledge of computers and file types is seriously lacking (and you are too lazy to read). It's a government PDF. Which means it's just a scan of paper documents. If you want to search it, you will have to OCR the document...

    But your technical diatribe confirms my long held suspicion about your reading abilities...

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Fine.. I see your point and I stand corrected.. In that regard, you were right and I was wrong..

    You see how that works, Bashi?? You should try it some time...

    Oh, that's right.. I forgot. Ya'all ARE NEVER wrong about ANYTHING...

    But ya'all STILL ignore the FACTS..

    It wasn't the CIA's initial assessment.

    The CIA sent their initial assessment to the State Department and the State Department omitted the terrorism angle and inserted the bullshit about the video and the protest...

    So, in essence, it was the STATE DEPARTMENT's initial assessment..

    Why is it ya'all can't answer three simple questions??

    1. WAS the attack at a STATE DEPARTMENT Consulate??

    YES, it was..

    2. DID Hillary Clinton blame the video in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack..

    YES she did..

    3. DID Hillary Clinton ignore over 600 requests from Ambassador Stevens for security upgrades..

    YES she did...

    You can spout off with all the GOP reports you want to...

    But the FACTS clearly show Hillary's incompetence....

    Ya'all can't address the questions because ya'all can't admit ya'all are wrong...

    It's that simple...

    Michale

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Fine.. I see your point and I stand corrected.. In that regard, you were right and I was wrong..

    You see how that works, Bashi?? You should try it some time...

    Oh, that's right.. I forgot. Ya'all ARE NEVER wrong about ANYTHING...

    But ya'all STILL ignore the FACTS..

    It wasn't the CIA's initial assessment.

    The CIA sent their initial assessment to the State Department and the State Department omitted the terrorism angle and inserted the bullshit about the video and the protest...

    So, in essence, it was the STATE DEPARTMENT's initial assessment..

    Why is it ya'all can't answer three simple questions??

    1. WAS the attack at a STATE DEPARTMENT Consulate??

    YES, it was..

    2. DID Hillary Clinton blame the video in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack..

    YES she did..

    3. DID Hillary Clinton ignore over 600 requests from Ambassador Stevens for security upgrades..

    YES she did...

    You can spout off with all the GOP reports you want to...

    But the FACTS clearly show Hillary's incompetence....

    Ya'all can't address the questions because ya'all can't admit ya'all are wrong...

    It's that simple...

    Michale

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's SO simple I had to post it twice!! :D

    Michale

  173. [173] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You see how that works, Bashi?? You should try it some time...

    What's that? Resist concession in hopes the conversation moves on then only grudgingly concede when it becomes blatantly obvious you can't get away with it any longer? :D

    1. WAS the attack at a STATE DEPARTMENT Consulate??

    If it was a consulate, who was the consul? Can you name them?

    2. DID Hillary Clinton blame the video in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack..

    Yes, but was that due to conflicting intelligence and making the wrong call or a specific conspiracy?

    3. DID Hillary Clinton ignore over 600 requests from Ambassador Stevens for security upgrades..

    Now this is an interesting question. Hillary says they never made it to her. The requests were to the state department, not specifically to Hillary and those below her did not pass them on. I personally think Hillary and the state department were not the only actors in the decision. There has been a few stories about the CIA using the diplomatic compound as a front for some operation. The weapons to Syria angle has been shot down but some articles point to understanding the local terrorist connections as well as buying and funneling weapons to other rebel groups in Africa. There is something fishy with Benghazi. Unfortunately that fishiness is likely to remain classified until long after anyone is interested in it. Maybe wikileaks will come up with something...

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's that? Resist concession in hopes the conversation moves on then only grudgingly concede when it becomes blatantly obvious you can't get away with it any longer? :D

    While I wouldn't have put it in those terms, Yes..

    Admit when you are wrong when the facts clearly show you are..

    *I* can do that..

    Can you??

    No, you cannot..

    If it was a consulate, who was the consul? Can you name them?

    Ambassador Stevens...

    Yes, but was that due to conflicting intelligence and making the wrong call or a specific conspiracy?

    The WHY wasn't the question...

    It was specifically stated here that Hillary DID NOT blame the attack on the video..

    I PROVED that she DID blame the attack on the video.

    Now this is an interesting question. Hillary says they never made it to her.

    The buck stops with her, Bucko..

    SHE was in charge...

    If she DIDN'T know about it, she SHOULD have known about it..

    THAT WAS HER JOB....

    She either knew and did nothing or she didn't know what was going on in her own department..

    Either way, she was incompetent..

    At least, she would be if she had a '-R' after her name...

    But she was a Democrat so, as far as ya'all are concerned, she is as pure as the driven snow..

    Michale

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know why I even bother any more..

    I proved Mopshell wrong, she just bails..

    I proved David wrong, he just bails..

    Bashi proves ME wrong, I have the decency and courtesy to stick around and concede the point...

    It's tough always having to be the adult around here..

    Oh well, it's a bear I must cross, I spose....

    Michale

  176. [176] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Bashi proves ME wrong, I have the decency and courtesy to stick around and concede the point...

    Actually akadjian proved you wrong. I was just pointing that out...

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually akadjian proved you wrong. I was just pointing that out...

    Regardless...

    The point is, is that *I* acknowledge when I am wrong and someone else is right..

    In that, I am unique amongst Weigantians...

    But, as I said, while extremely annoying, it's not why I am here...

    "Doesn't that bother you? I mean, no recognition, no credit.."
    "Well, I could probably say the same things about you. I mean, with your discoveries, you could have won the Nobel Prize like 5 times over already.."
    "Too true.. Well, I guess none of us signed up to get famous, huh?"
    "Nope.. We did it for the money.."

    -STARGATE ATLANTIS

    :D

  178. [178] 
    Paula wrote:

    One of the other things I like about Hillary is her nerdy wonkishness. I'm quite sure she could talk by the hour about every issue confronting this nation -- she's a natural student and she cares about learning. Unlike the blowhards there is depth. She doesn't always make choices I agree with and I worry about her hawkishness but, unlike so many others, she has shown herself to be able to evaluate the success or failure of efforts and course-correct. Go Hillary!

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    A true believer..

    Kudos... :D

    It's going to be so rough for you when she is jailed or has a stroke....

    When that happens, lean on your fellow Weigantians.. We'll get you thru it...

    Michale

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:
Comments for this article are closed.