(10-08-2015, 05:02 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]That you defend and accept her dishonesty is kind of puzzling.
I don't think you're puzzled, I think you're confused.
If you want to point out where I defended and accepted her proven dishonesty, I'll be glad to help clear things up.
Suggesting that the 9
th investigation into the Benghazi incident should result in the disbanding of the costly 'special' committee (if it turns up nothing different than the other 8 investigations after she testifies) would mean there remains no proven dishonesty upon which to base punitive measures or file charges.
That's a rational stance, in my opinion. Then again, I didn't insist that she was guilty of a conspiracy or cover-up in the first place. Nor have I insisted that she wasn't and objected to the fact that she's been so heavily investigated to date.
The FBI investigation is not Benghazi-specific, as you just acknowledged. The FBI is not part of the Special House Committee on Benghazi. If the FBI finds something that merits punitive action or charges against Clinton during its own investigation into system security breaches, it will act upon it.
If it finds content that happens to relate to the Benghazi-specific investigation by the House, it can turn it over to the appropriate Congress persons to be addressed at that time, even if that were to happen after Oct. 22
nd (without a special committee and staffers being funded, in the meantime, by taxpayers).
Good for you HotD, your opposition to the committee is to save taxpayer money! I'm all for that!
I'd argue Hillary could have helped the committee shut down by providing full and accurate accounting of her emails.
But she hasn't, and the beat goes on. She keeps insisting she has of course, until more emails keep turning up.
At any rate, to argue that her withholding emails should not be a concern of the committee seems counterintuitive, at least to my tiny little brain. If I was smarter and not intellectually inferior, it might make me think she was incompetent, hiding something, or both.
We can agree to disagree. You think it's a targeted attempt because of a mush mouthed congressman, and I think it's a legitimate investigation. I'm cool with leaving it there.
(10-08-2015, 07:29 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Good for you HotD, your opposition to the committee is to save taxpayer money! I'm all for that! I'd argue Hillary could have helped the committee shut down by providing full and accurate accounting of her emails.
But she hasn't, and the beat goes on. She keeps insisting she has of course, until more emails keep turning up.
At any rate, to argue that her withholding emails should not be a concern of the committee seems counterintuitive, at least to my tiny little brain. If I was smarter and not intellectually inferior, it might make me think she was incompetent, hiding something, or both.
We can agree to disagree. You think it's a targeted attempt because of a mush mouthed congressman, and I think it's a legitimate investigation. I'm cool with leaving it there.
You can leave it there. But for the record, you're not qualified to change and voice my thoughts, Jimbone.
As I've said many times, i think a legitimate investigation was warranted.
And, I never said what should or shouldn't be a concern of the special committee.
If emails with new Benghazi-specific information that incriminates anyone in the Obama Administration exist, they apparently haven't been unearthed yet.
If something like that is turned up later, there are Congressional means for investigating and addressing it at that time, without having to keep one of the longest such special investigative committee in history in-tact and funded by the tax payers until then.
I think McCarthy probably meant what he said, but didn't mean to say it. I think he was bragging about how the special committee has been used to damage Clinton's campaign (though it's produced no evidence that Clinton is directly culpable for the Benghazi tragedy or tried to cover up wrong doing by herself or others). That's politics. But, I don't think tax-payers should be paying for it at this point.
That's my opinion, clearly stated by the one person qualified to do so, regardless of the fact that it doesn't suit your fancy.
I think McCarthy probably meant what he said, but didn't mean to say it. I think he was bragging about how the special committee has been used to damage Clinton's campaign (though it's produced no evidence that Clinton is directly culpable for the Benghazi tragedy or tried to cover up wrong doing by herself or others). That's politics. But, I don't think tax-payers should be paying for it at this point.
This argument could be used in the Planned parenthood mess.
(10-08-2015, 09:41 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]This argument could be used in the Planned parenthood mess.
I guess I can see some similarities.
Of course, the Planned Parenthood staff made their statements when dealing with what they thought were fetal tissue brokers.
But, I agree that in the unedited videos, the PP reps said what they meant. They've not claimed otherwise.
PP apologized for the cavalier tone of the discussion and for the fact that such a meeting didn't take place in a clinical setting.
It instead took place over lunch, as seen in the sting video set up by politically-motivated anti-abortionists who want to defund the organization.
Of course, no laws were broken by PP, according to all state investigations conducted since. And no criminal charges have been filed.
But, some Republicans in Congress are politicizing the issue for all they can and asking for a special investigative committee.
Maybe those Congresspersons will succeed in getting funding for another special committee. Maybe they'll succeed in defunding the biggest provider of birth control and screening services to women across the country in order stop women from getting safe legal abortions, or in making it more inconvenient for women to do so. Maybe they'll shutdown the government for political gain. Maybe they'll find what nobody else has found - evidence of legal wrong doing. Maybe they'll turn up nothing in the process and will spend millions of tax payer dollars in a futile exercise.
Stay tuned.
![[Image: oreilly_billy_050715.jpg]](http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/2015/05/07/640/360/oreilly_billy_050715.jpg)
BILL O'REILLY on Fox News Live Five tonight:
If you don't think the Benghazi thing is political, of course it's political. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't know what exactly happened, and why the Secretary of State was ignorant about the security problems in Benghazi, Libya.
But if you think those guys, those Republicans on that panel don't want to bring down Hillary Clinton, you're six years old. Because they do. So it is political. But it is also incumbent upon the most transparent human being that's ever lived, according to herself, Hillary Clinton. And you know I think Claude Rains in The Invisible Man is offended by that, all right?
It is incumbent upon her to explain a lot of things that she hasn't explained. So I don't mind that it's political. I just want to get to the bottom of it. And here is the bottom of it: Hillary Clinton will not be President of the United States if the FBI comes back and says she broke the law. And they may well. So that's it. It's the FBI, it's not the House Committee on Benghazi. Whatever they say isn't going to matter to Hillary Clinton. The FBI will matter, and we should have that I would say in three or four months.
(I'll post video when it becomes available)
(10-08-2015, 08:19 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]You can leave it there. But for the record, you're not qualified to change and voice my thoughts, Jimbone.
As I've said many times, i think a legitimate investigation was warranted.
And, I never said what should or shouldn't be a concern of the special committee.
If emails with new Benghazi-specific information that incriminates anyone in the Obama Administration exist, they apparently haven't been unearthed yet.
If something like that is turned up later, there are Congressional means for investigating and addressing it at that time, without having to keep one of the longest such special investigative committee in history in-tact and funded by the tax payers until then.
I think McCarthy probably meant what he said, but didn't mean to say it. I think he was bragging about how the special committee has been used to damage Clinton's campaign (though it's produced no evidence that Clinton is directly culpable for the Benghazi tragedy or tried to cover up wrong doing by herself or others). That's politics. But, I don't think tax-payers should be paying for it at this point.
That's my opinion, clearly stated by the one person qualified to do so, regardless of the fact that it doesn't suit your fancy.
As you try to demonstrate every day in almost every exasperatingly long and condescending post, you are so much smarter than the rest of us.
Kudos to your brilliance!
Obviously, you missed the point of my long post. The irony; responding by telling me again what I believe.
When you tell me what I think or said, and it's not what I think or said, I'll continue to set the record straight if I feel like it. I am, in fact, smarter than you when it comes to knowing my own opinions, obviously.
However, I've never considered myself more intelligent than you or most others here in general, but I guess you do. So, thanks.
P.s. There's no penalty for not reading posts that are too long for your liking or written by people whose style rubs you so wrong. It won't hurt my feelings if you use your freedom of choice in regards to my posts Jimbone.
(10-09-2015, 05:48 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
Holy shit, I agree with Bill O'Reilly.
Don't feel bad. I've caught Jesse Ventura on t.v. a few times and find myself agreeing with him. He was on t.v. the other night declaring that the two party system is ridiculous and that Americans ought to have other viable voting options, that special interests rule the roost...all positions that I agree with.
(10-09-2015, 05:48 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
Holy shit, I agree with Bill O'Reilly.
Dick just shot a load in his pants.
Now he's enjoying a smoke.
Barney is actually a master debater. Since he has held office he has been saying the same thing and rarely changes his mind. He has the questions memorized before they think them up. Jesse is right that Americans deserve him or Trump.
Bernie has conviction, no doubt. Whereas, Trump has flip flopped as much or more than Hillary Clinton. Unlike Trump, Bernie isn't flamboyant and has only modest personal financial wealth.
It could be an interesting finals debate and run off between two very different types of men.
I see them both as Independents. Bernie on the left and forced under the Democrat umbrella in order to be a viable candidate, and more right-leaning Trump forced under the Republican umbrella to order to be a viable candidate.
I hear people say a lot that Trump just says what everyone else is thinking. Trump hardly ever says what I'm thinking. I think it's more accurate to say that Trump says what a significant percentage of Republican voters think.
Bernie says what I think more often than Trump. But, I don't agree with Bernie on aspects of his immigration, foreign policy, and gun control platforms.
I would vote for Bernie without hesitation, if an election between he and Trump were held today. But, I might vote for Rubio if it was down to Bernie vs. Rubio today.
Anyway, Bernie has done a great job carving out a sizable support base and generating a lot of enthusiasm through grass-roots strategies. I'm really interested to see if his first national debate appearance on Tuesday will help him steal some of Hillary's supporters.
More Accusations of Ethics Violations and Impropriety against the House Select Committee on Benghazi
![[Image: ABC-WN-HillaryonBenghazi-2014-05-30-280x158.jpg]](http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/resize/2013/ABC-WN-HillaryonBenghazi-2014-05-30-280x158.jpg)
Timeline:
- Two weeks ago, Kevin McCarthy suggested to FOX's Sean Hannity that the Committee's goal of driving down Clinton's poll numbers and showing her as untrustworthy had been successful.
- Clinton quickly capitalized on McCarthy's public remarks in an ad campaign aimed to bolster her claim that while the Committee claims to be conducting the ninth fact-finding investigation into the 2012 Embassy murders in Libya, it is primarily a tax-payer-funded anti-Clinton political campaign.
-Since then, Kevin McCarthy has dropped out of the running for Speaker of the House.
-On Wednesday, Democratic Representative Alan Grayson of Florida filed an ethics complaint against McCarthy and the committee's chairman, Trey Gowdy, saying that federal funds for the Benghazi committee were being used for political purposes.
-On Thursday night, Bill O'Reilly told FOX News viewers that of course the Committee was politically-driven with a Republican panel who wanted to take Clinton down.
- Yesterday, Saturday, Major Bradley Podliska, an intelligence officer in the Air Force Reserve on active duty in Germany, alleged that he resisted pressure to focus his investigation into the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi on Clinton's role. He was an investigator for the Committee for 10 months and claimed he was fired, in part, for his objection to focus almost exclusively on targeting Clinton instead of investigating the facts of the incident itself. The Committee counters that Podliska was fired for cause and is just striking back and lying now for personal gain. Podliska will be interviewed on CNN tonight. Story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/1...I320151010
The timing of all of which is quite favorable to Clinton, IF she manages her communications well.
The first Democratic presidential candidate debate will take place day after tomorrow, and Clinton is scheduled to testify in front of the now beleaguered special Committee in less than two weeks.
Benghazi Victim's Mother Says Committee Should be Targeting Hillary Clinton
![[Image: Sean_Smith_Pat_Smith_1-220x110.jpg]](http://cdn5.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Sean_Smith_Pat_Smith_1-220x110.jpg)
Sean Smith's mother, Patricia Smith, says Hillary Clinton promised her answers after her son was killed in Beghazi and hasn't come through on that promise.
Ms. Smith has blamed Hillary Clinton for her son's death in the past because Clinton was at the top of the chain of command in her son's assignment.
Yesterday, Ms. Smith was interviewed by CNN again and says she's still impatiently waiting and she's been treated like dirt; she's hoping Trey Gowdy can get answers she needs from Hillary Clinton.
The other congressional and independent investigations have put the responsibility for the deaths of the four slain Americas "squarely on the terrorists". I don't know if Hillary Clinton has answers that can help Ms. Smith, but I do hope Ms. Smith gets the answers she needs to find some peace.
Phone interview:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/10/11/...ws-videos/
Back in the day when I was in management, I found "shit" sometimes did go "upstream"!
Hillary was management, so . . . !
Where Clinton's Policies Differ from Obama's
After she stepped down as the president's secretary of state and began her long period of pondering a presidential bid, Clinton largely kept quiet about President Obama's policies. And until a few weeks ago, she was a big proponent of his policies.
In the last two months or so, she appears to be distancing herself from her former boss's positions on several key issues where she said she would have acted differently or gone further than he has. Here are some of those issues, which will likely be broached in tomorrow night's debate.
![[Image: polls_clinton_vs_obama_2730_157635_poll_xlarge.jpeg]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000417751/polls_clinton_vs_obama_2730_157635_poll_xlarge.jpeg)
1. Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement: "As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it," Clinton said in an interview with the PBS News Hour lat week in regards to the Tran-Pacific Partnership. She had championed it while Sec of State and in her 2014 book. "I'm worried about currency manipulation not being part of the agreement. We've lost American jobs to the manipulations that countries, particularly in Asia, have engaged in. I'm worried that the pharmaceutical companies may have gotten more benefits, and patients and consumers fewer. I think that there are still a lot of unanswered questions."
2. Immigration: Clinton supported the president's actions to defer deportation for millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally during his time in office, but criticized him for deporting too many people during an interview with Telemundo last week; suggesting he did so in order to win Republican support for a comprehensive immigration program (which STILL hasn't been pushed through). Clinton pledged to go further than Obama has by devoting more resources and personnel to the system to help people change their immigration status. She has also promised she would not deport parents or break up families.
3. Cadillac Tax portion of Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare): The Affordable Care Act includes a tax on high-cost insurance plans known as the "Cadillac Tax." If Clinton is elected, that tax is gone.
"Too many Americans are struggling to meet the cost of rising deductibles and drug prices. That's why, among other steps, I encourage Congress to repeal the so-called Cadillac Tax, which applies to some employer-based health plans, and to fully pay for the cost of repeal," Clinton said in a statement last month when she began talking about ways to improve Obamacare. She has also pledged to crack down on high prescription drug costs and lower out-of-pocket costs for families.
(continued)
4. U.S. Intervention in Syria: Clinton advised Obama that we should be arming and backing the Syrian rebels back in 2012; he disagreed. She believes that was a bad decision that led to a failed policy which has worsened with time.
5. Energy and Environment: Obama has aggressively tackled pollution and clean energy, mandating a 32 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. Clinton called that plan a "significant step forward", but has pledged to be far more aggressive and to defend Obama's existing plans against "Republican doubters and defeatists" if she's president. She recently also objected to Obama's recent approval of drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.
6. Gun Control: Clinton acknowledges that the powerful gun lobby and the Congressional Republicans it backs make it very difficult to pass what she considers common sense gun control legislation. She pledges to get Universal Background Checks passed, require private sellers who conduct high volume transactions to become licensed dealers, repeal the law that prohibits victims from suing gun manufacturers and dealers... Clinton says she won't hesitate to push through such laws using Executive Action if Congress fails to cooperate.
Ref:
http://www.cbsnews.com/media/where-has-h...h-obama/6/