Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Lizzie Warren to Ax Hillary?Follow

#52 Sep 25 2014 at 2:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Exactly what Obama did, no of course not.

Yeah, I was referring specifically to gaming the primary process as he did which is what I thought Omega meant by "pull an Obama". No arguments that we'll see some other non-establishment favorite be the Democratic nominee at some future point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Sep 25 2014 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
I'm fairly certain Howard Dean would have "pulled an Obama" & beat Kerry for the nomination, until that infamous scream. Like I said, I don't think its impossible someone like Warren could come along and beat Hillary, its just as unlikely as Obama's primary victory over Hillary was.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#54 Sep 25 2014 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not saying that she done a great a job...


This is the point at which we can stop the discussion. Why promote someone who didn't do a great job?

And btw, there's a massive range in between "didn't do a great job" and "failed to create world peace in 4 years". How about instead of leaping to the absurd straw man, we look at that range and base our evaluation on that? Yeah, crazy thought, I know!

In Clinton's case though, it was not just about her poor performance (honestly, just mediocre, but she was unfortunate enough to have things go wrong during her watch which made this more obvious than it might otherwise have been). It was about her response to her poor performance. She basically sat in front of a congressional committee hearing and testified that she didn't understand what the job of Secretary of State (the one she held) entailed, and didn't actually care (technically thought that it didn't matter). Her breakdown, captured on camera for the world to see, is more or less gold for any political enemy. Her angry insistence that it didn't matter why we were attacked in Benghazi speaks volumes about her mindset and how little she apparently cares about the rest of the "little people" whose lives her decisions affect.

Not a great advertisement if you want to become president. Hell. I can imagine an entire series of "what does it matter!?" political ads, designed to highlight all the different things which certainly do matter to us citizens, but might not to Clinton. That's the kind of mistake that is nearly impossible to come back from.


I always thought the "what does it matter!" was more along the lines of "It's not that 'someone' attacked the embassy, it's that 'the embassy was attacked' period." The who, to her, was less important than the security failures that led to the attack in the first place. Doesn't matter if it's ISIL, Al Qaida, or Jimmy's Gang of Suicidal 12 Year Olds. Someone within the intelligence agency should have caught a whiff of the attack, but it blindsided everyone.

Turns out the initial "revenge for that really stupid movie some dumb *** American made" was partially true, too. I don't see anyone apologizing to Susan Rice.
#55 Sep 25 2014 at 4:23 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Quote:
I always thought the "what does it matter!" was more along the lines of "It's not that 'someone' attacked the embassy, it's that 'the embassy was attacked' period." The who, to her, was less important than the security failures that led to the attack in the first place. Doesn't matter if it's ISIL, Al Qaida, or Jimmy's Gang of Suicidal 12 Year Olds. Someone within the intelligence agency should have caught a whiff of the attack, but it blindsided everyone.

Turns out the initial "revenge for that really stupid movie some dumb **** American made" was partially true, too. I don't see anyone apologizing to Susan Rice.


Partly.

Her reference of "What difference does it make" was specifically in reference to the talking points. The Republicans were trying to gin up a conspiracy where the Democrats were hiding the truth to protect President Obama in his reelection. She was saying that it doesn't matter if it were in response to a video, a planned attack and/or a random attack, that the point was that it happened and we have to find out how it happened and prevent it from happening in the future. People like Gbaji are just purely making stuff up to smear a candidate that they obviously fear.
#56 Sep 25 2014 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"What difference does it make" is this season's "You didn't build that".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Sep 25 2014 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"You didn't build that".


It was funny when that was going around, how many coworkers said "oh, hmm... I guess so." when shown the context of that statement.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#58 Sep 25 2014 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Quote:
We pick from those who actually decide to run and subdivide them into who actually has a chance of winning vs wasting votes on someone unelectable while the guys we DON'T want to win gain votes.

I think my beef is that really the people are ultimately figureheads and demagogues carefully maneuvered into place by all of the back-room special interests that simply have an agenda to push and any actual good for the public that comes from that agenda is a mere bi-product of their accumulation of power.
Smiley: tinfoilhat
If thinking this is some kind of neurosis.. well I can accept that.. but so far I have yet to be convinced otherwise.. quite the contrary.

No, it's not that you're wrong, it's just that anyone with an IQ over 80 figured this out by the time they're fifteen or so. Congratulations on catching up, I guess.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#59 Sep 26 2014 at 6:19 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
"What difference does it make" is this season's "You didn't build that".

Quick find a picture of Hillary with her feet up on a desk. Or does that only work to threaten racists who don't want to see a confident black guy. I'm so confused. She's a woman, right? Putting on makeup? That might work.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#60 Sep 26 2014 at 6:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I heard once she wasn't wearing a flag pin during the Pledge of Allegiance. Sure, you elitists might think it's trivial but this is what matters to real America!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Sep 26 2014 at 8:04 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I heard once she wasn't wearing a flag pin during the Pledge of Allegiance. Sure, you elitists might think it's trivial but this is what matters to real America!

It gives you insight into the fact that she isn't genuine. What we need is a Yale grad who summers in Kennebunkport clearing some brush in Texas. Real down to earth type of gent is what I'm saying.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#62 Sep 26 2014 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I can't imagine Hilary vacationing.

Do you think she's the type to be bathing on a Caribbean beach with a tropical drink in hand, or is she dining at some quaint side-walk cafe sipping on a glass of Burgandy and paging through the latest issue of Marie-Claire?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#63 Sep 26 2014 at 8:49 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Do you think she's the type to be bathing on a Caribbean beach with a tropical drink in hand, or is she dining at some quaint side-walk cafe sipping on a glass of Burgandy and paging through the latest issue of Marie-Claire?

I don't know. I'll ask her next time I'm at some ******** dinner eating $50,000 chicken.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#64 Sep 26 2014 at 4:04 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Elinda wrote:
I can't imagine Hilary vacationing.

Do you think she's the type to be bathing on a Caribbean beach with a tropical drink in hand, or is she dining at some quaint side-walk cafe sipping on a glass of Burgandy and paging through the latest issue of Marie-Claire?


Remember the media outcry when President Obama was on the beach topless, imagine the outcry for Hillary!
#65 Sep 29 2014 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Catwho wrote:
I always thought the "what does it matter!" was more along the lines of "It's not that 'someone' attacked the embassy, it's that 'the embassy was attacked' period." The who, to her, was less important than the security failures that led to the attack in the first place. Doesn't matter if it's ISIL, Al Qaida, or Jimmy's Gang of Suicidal 12 Year Olds. Someone within the intelligence agency should have caught a whiff of the attack, but it blindsided everyone.


Except that her comment was not about "who" attacked our embassy but "why" the attack happened.

In the aftermath of an event like this, one of the key actions to take is to determine why the event occurred, so you can make adjustments to prevent similar such events in the future. By saying that it didn't matter, Clinton was basically saying that one of the primary functions of the State Department (and the hearings resulting from the Benghazi attack) didn't really matter. Her job didn't matter, basically. Which was a pretty stunning admission.

Imagine someone whose job is to deal with racial inequality in the US justice system saying "why does it matter why black people are imprisoned more than white folks?", or someone in education saying "why does it matter why some students drop out of school?", or a car manufacturer saying "why does it matter why those brakes failed?". That's the equivalent of what she said as Secretary of State. She's supposed to have been running the department that figures out what is going on around the world and makes recommendations and takes actions to account for them, and she doesn't think it matters why one of our embassy's was attacked? That's a monumental failure to grasp the job she was appointed to do, even if one ignores the political aspects of the issue as a whole.


And yes, the whole thing was made all the more infuriating because the "why" was quite obviously manipulated by the White House in order to deflect criticism of Obama's foreign policy during the election. If the attack occurred because of a protest over a video that got out of hand, then the policy isn't to blame, it's all about hate speech instead. So there was a huge motivation to change the perception of "why" the attack occurred. One could also turn Clinton's question around: If it really didn't matter, then why did a white house staffer remove the section of the original draft of the intelligence report that talked about Al-Queda related groups in the area and insert a section about protests arising from a video? Clearly, it mattered a great deal to someone in the Obama Administration that people think the "why" was about a video.

Quote:
Turns out the initial "revenge for that really stupid movie some dumb **** American made" was partially true, too. I don't see anyone apologizing to Susan Rice.


Huh? You have a cite for this? I have not heard anything to suggest that the facts regarding this have changed.

Edited, Sep 29th 2014 7:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Sep 29 2014 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
At the risk of somewhat repeating myself:

Almalieque wrote:
Her reference of "What difference does it make" was specifically in reference to the talking points. The Republicans were trying to gin up a conspiracy where the Democrats were hiding the truth to protect President Obama in his reelection. She was saying that it doesn't matter if it were in response to a video, a planned attack and/or a random attack, that the point was that it happened and we have to find out howwhy it happened and prevent it from happening in the future. People like Gbaji are just purely making stuff up to smear a candidate that they obviously fear.


See why "why" matters? No one was confused about "how" we were attacked. A bunch of people armed with mortars and assault rifles attacked the compound. Why they did so is the more important question. The State Department is not the Defense Department. The latter might be more concerned about military hardware and how to defend against it. The State Department deals with diplomacy. And for that, knowing "why" we were attacked is of paramount importance.

So yes, when Clinton basically said that it didn't matter, she was showing that she had no clue what the department she was heading was supposed to do, and what her job was supposed to have been. Not really surprising given that she had no actual foreign policy experience upon taking the job, and it was clearly handed to her as a political feather in her cap and a bit of pay off for her support of Obama, but then maybe that's something we should look at and suggest not doing. But, of course, when Republicans questioned a number of Obama's appointments as being more political than practical we were just accused of being partisans and dismissed.


Maybe learn from those mistakes. Just a thought. Just because people are on different political sides doesn't automatically mean that their criticisms and concerns aren't legitimate anyway. Not everything is partisan or should be dismissed as such.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Sep 29 2014 at 9:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The State Department is not the Defense Department. The latter might be more concerned about military hardware and how to defend against it. The State Department deals with diplomacy. And for that, knowing "why" we were attacked is of paramount importance.

Right. This explains the umpteen attempts to pin "they asked -- BEGGED! -- for more security but Clinton said no" stuff on her. Because she just dealt with diplomacy and not the security aspect of it Smiley: rolleyes

Clinton started off being asked by Senator Johnson about security in Libya and whether she was aware of any requests for additional manpower. She mentions the "deteriorating threat environment" and security repairs. Then Johnson swings off on a tangent about Rice and the talking points and tries to make the discussion about the administration's statements on protests. Clinton's remarks were in the context of swinging the conversation back to the security situation and the importance of identifying and finding the people responsible.
Sec. Clinton wrote:
With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

gbaji wrote:
So yes, when Clinton basically said that it didn't matter, she was showing that she had no clue what the department she was heading was supposed to do

No, she was telling Johnson to maybe worry less about trying to score political points on C-SPAN and worry more about finding those responsible and working to prevent this from happening again (yes, even on a security level despite her not working for the Pentagon!). She was 100% correct to say so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Sep 30 2014 at 3:22 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
No one gives a fuck about Benghazi.

Still.

Focusing on useless show trial ******** is the reason you morons are going to lose a Senate race in Kansas. Kansas! I'd say it was impossible to ***** up taking the majority in the Senate, but you idiots might not manage it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#69 Sep 30 2014 at 4:05 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
See why "why" matters? No one was confused about "how" we were attacked. A bunch of people armed with mortars and assault rifles attacked the compound. Why they did so is the more important question. The State Department is not the Defense Department. The latter might be more concerned about military hardware and how to defend against it. The State Department deals with diplomacy. And for that, knowing "why" we were attacked is of paramount importance.


Uhh no. You, and Republicans alike, are just cherry picking certain aspects to create talking points. If your concern is "why?", then you care less about "FOUR DEAD AMERICANS!", you care less about the security, you care less about the lack of her knowledge and you care less about the "stand down order". You can't complain about all of those with your main concern being "why did the attack happen?". Those other concerns, while valid concerns, don't support the main concern. The main concern is, how did we let this happen and what can we do to prevent it from happening again. You see how that's more inclusive? The problem is, that doesn't support the conspiracy.

Gbaji wrote:
So yes, when Clinton basically said that it didn't matter,
Only if you disregard facts.

Gbaji wrote:
she was showing that she had no clue what the department she was heading was supposed to do, and what her job was supposed to have been. Not really surprising given that she had no actual foreign policy experience upon taking the job, and it was clearly handed to her as a political feather in her cap and a bit of pay off for her support of Obama, but then maybe that's something we should look at and suggest not doing.

Exactly what level of knowledge should she know from a random attack on an embassy? Where was all of this outcry when embassies were being attacked and people dying during the Bush years?

Gbaji wrote:
But, of course, when Republicans questioned a number of Obama's appointments as being more political than practical we were just accused of being partisans and dismissed.

What is politics? No party is free from these types of behaviors.
#70 Sep 30 2014 at 4:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sec. Clinton wrote:
With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.


You honestly don't see a problem with those statements? If she believes that the purpose of the hearings/investigation is "to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again", isn't determining the motivations of those who attacked us kinda important? Her statements are nonsensical.

The point being that by attempting to spin the cause of the attack for political reasons during an election campaign the Obama administration was not just being dishonest with the American people, but also making it more likely that we'll suffer similar attacks in the future because people like Clinton are now forced to follow along with the narrative. That's why this is a problem. She's covering for the administration, and in so doing refusing to even allow discussion of the key purpose she herself states the investigation should focus on. Why did this happen? Kinda important, right? But she has to paint this into some kind of partisan political thing, which then turns the entire subject toxic. End result is that we don't learn from our mistakes and will likely repeat them again.


To be fair, I don't really blame Clinton for this. She was put in an impossible position because of this. That's why I said earlier that the Obama administration basically sabotaged her. I'm not even saying this was deliberate. She just happened to be in that position when one of the administrations many lies required her to say something completely ridiculous and damaging to her own career. She's not the only person that's been thrown under the bus in this manner, and if Obama's recent interview on 60 minutes is any indication, will not be the last (really? Blaming the intelligence agencies for not seeing ISIS? Lol!).

Edited, Sep 30th 2014 3:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Sep 30 2014 at 4:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If your concern is "why?", then you care less about "FOUR DEAD AMERICANS!", you care less about the security, you care less about the lack of her knowledge and you care less about the "stand down order". You can't complain about all of those with your main concern being "why did the attack happen?". Those other concerns, while valid concerns, don't support the main concern. The main concern is, how did we let this happen and what can we do to prevent it from happening again. You see how that's more inclusive? The problem is, that doesn't support the conspiracy.


Huh? Why can't we be concerned about all of those things? I'm not saying that the only thing that matters is "why". I'm saying that it's wrong to insist that the "why" doesn't matter at all. Which is what Clinton was claiming.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
So yes, when Clinton basically said that it didn't matter,
Only if you disregard facts.


Huh? What facts? She said "What does it matter <why we were attacked>?". WTF? It's right there in the damn quote.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
she was showing that she had no clue what the department she was heading was supposed to do, and what her job was supposed to have been. Not really surprising given that she had no actual foreign policy experience upon taking the job, and it was clearly handed to her as a political feather in her cap and a bit of pay off for her support of Obama, but then maybe that's something we should look at and suggest not doing.

Exactly what level of knowledge should she know from a random attack on an embassy?


Wow is that not the point. She doesn't need *any* knowledge about the attack to know that determining why the attack happened does, in fact, matter.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Sep 30 2014 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You honestly don't see a problem with those statements?

No. Wait... "You honestly do"?

Gotta phrase it with the false incredulity and all.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Sep 30 2014 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You honestly don't see a problem with those statements?

No. Wait... "You honestly do"?

Gotta phrase it with the false incredulity and all.


I'll note that you didn't actually answer the question.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Sep 30 2014 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I did. It was the very first word of my response. Are you honestly that bad at reading? Or are you just honestly that bad at comprehension?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Sep 30 2014 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I did. It was the very first word of my response. Are you honestly that bad at reading? Or are you just honestly that bad at comprehension?


Sorry. I thought you were disagreeing with the question itself.

So you don't see anything wrong with someone stating in one sentence that it doesn't matter why our embassy was attacked, and in the very next sentence saying that we should be focusing on figuring out what happened and how to prevent it from happening again? I find it far more likely that you're just saying that because it's circle the wagons time for liberals. I say this because I'm reasonably certain that you're not actually a complete idiot, and you'd have to be a complete idiot not to realize that figuring out why we were attacked is a necessary component to preventing similar attacks in the future. You literally cannot do what she says we should be doing if you don't answer the question of "why" we were attacked.

Edited, Sep 30th 2014 4:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Sep 30 2014 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sorry. I thought you were disagreeing with the question itself.

Comprehension then. Got it.
Quote:
So you don't see anything wrong with...

I didn't have a problem with her statement. I already said why upthread. My opinion hasn't changed since last night.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 278 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (278)