the republicans don't like being blamed for anything. paul ryan was directly responsible for not appropriating money for adequate security to our embassies. they had been asked for more security and the funding was cut by ryan and the republicans. hillary even pretty much stated that in her testimony. but the witch hunt will continue...
plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
the republicans don't like being blamed for anything. paul ryan was directly responsible for not appropriating money for adequate security to our embassies. they had been asked for more security and the funding was cut by ryan and the republicans. hillary even pretty much stated that in her testimony. but the witch hunt will continue...
plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...
I do think if a woman wants one of these jobs she deserves to be beaten up just like a man would be. Hillary took it like a champ yesterday. Impressed by her I was.
the republicans don't like being blamed for anything. paul ryan was directly responsible for not appropriating money for adequate security to our embassies. they had been asked for more security and the funding was cut by ryan and the republicans. hillary even pretty much stated that in her testimony. but the witch hunt will continue...
plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...
I do think if a woman wants one of these jobs she deserves to be beaten up just like a man would be. Hillary took it like a champ yesterday. Impressed by her I was.
they would not talk to a man the same way they talk to the women. look at what they did to sotomayor in her hearings. look what they did to anita hill in the clarence thomas situation.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...
Can you really not see past your own bias enough to understand that has more to do with ideology than gender? Or do you purposefully obscure that to force a narrative?
plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...
Can you really not see past your own bias enough to understand that has more to do with ideology than gender? Or do you purposefully obscure that to force a narrative?
no, i have history of watching these proceedings, and i have no problem calling a spade a spade. they bully women in these proceedings. and they don't like it when people like hillary tell them to essentially go fuck themselves. rand paul and john mccain were DISGRACEFUL yesterday. they had no interest in having a civil conversation, and it was obvious to anyone who watched it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Granted, I only saw snippets, but I think the questioning wouldn't have been much different with a man there instead of her. The "war on women" thing seems sometimes to be used as haphazardly/gratuitously as sexual harrassment - takes away from those with legitimate beefs.
I also take exception to dismissing what precipitated this whole clusterfuck. How is that unimportant? Is there nothing to be learned from what happened, from what caused it to happen?
How is that unimportant? Is there nothing to be learned from what happened, from what caused it to happen?
Nutshell.............US foreign embassy in an unstable land which happens to be Arab who the US isn't making too many friends with for the past couple of decades, toss in the aniversary of 911, along with some loose, free weapons from the Colnel's regime, in the right or wrong hands, a little bit of tinder around the old box and voila.
I listened to that last night and it amazes me how stupid some people in government can actually be and how low they can sink.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
i believe that this article sums it up nicely.. they ran a poor candidate who screwed up by talking to the press before the facts were in and it cost the gop the election. they are mad that obama has not been damaged politically by it.
i remember being all butt hurt too when kerry lost.
As Republicans grilled Hillary Clinton on the Obama administration's response to Benghazi in congressional hearings Wednesday, they repeatedly hit on a talking point that doesn't seem like it'd do them a lot of good: It's been four months. "Here we are, four months later, and we still don’t have the basic information," Sen. John McCain told Clinton Wednesday. "I’m not trying to be obnoxious here, I’m just trying to get the answers I believe the American people deserve to hear. It’s been four months," Sen. Ron Johnson told a Milwaukee radio show after he and Clinton had a testy exchange. "More than four months later its unacceptable that the State Department has made it so difficult" to conduct oversight, Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot told Clinton. Clinton will have to respond later in writing, because Chabot used up all of his time with his statement. But they all raise a good question: What have we been debating for four months?
"The media has moved on," Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf lamented on the House floor, separately from the hearing, on Wednesday. Despite the frenzy of coverage of the Clinton hearings, he's mostly right. But that has at least something to do with the confused case Republicans have made in arguing that the Obama administration did something wrong in Benghazi. Initially, it was that President Obama supposedly apologized to the terrorists. This was the thrust of Mitt Romney's statement, issued hours after the attack, that Romney himself came to regret. This charge was mostly discarded. Then the focus was that Obama didn't call the attacks terrorism until two weeks later, a complaint Obama deflected during a presidential debate, when Obama demanded moderator Candy Crowley "check the transcript" of his Rose Garden speech the day after the attacks and he did use the word "terror," although rather obliquely: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..."
So, take three: Republicans moved on to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice who said on five different Sunday shows that the attacks were inspired by protests in Cairo over an anti-Islam video. This charge was stickier, and cost Rice the Secretary of State nomination. But Rice's scalp did not end the Benghazi debate. In Wednesday;s hearings, Republicans had tough questions for Clinton, even if they didn't always allot enough time for her to answer them. Benghazi is still a rallying call for conservatives. But what do they think is the scandal?
How come no one was punished?
"To my knowledge, no one was held accountable" for the insufficient security, Sen. Bob Corker said. But four state department officials have been placed on administrative leave. Clinton said she did not read the cables related to the security situation at the Benghazi consulate. "I am the secretary of state and the [Accountability Review Board] made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the assistant secretary level and below," she said.
How come no one got fired?
"People who make judgement errors should be fired and replaced," Sen. Rand Paul said. "Had I been president... I would have relieved you from your post." But Clinton explained that federal statute prohibits the state department from firing people for failure of leadership. (It's actually very difficult to fire civil servants.)
We circled back to, Wait, but the Sunday shows?
"I’m going back to then Ambassador Rice five days later going on Sunday shows and what I would say purposefully misleading the American public," Johnson said. Clinton said she had no role in preparing Rice's talking points. The Atlantic Wire has speculated that the obsession with Sunday talk show appearances might have something to do with how much senators love going on Sunday shows. He mentioned that in the hearings -- especially Rice's chief antagonist, John McCain. McCain mentioned his Sunday show cred in the hearings, saying, "By the way, as I said at the time -- I just happened to be on one of those talk shows -- people don't bring RPGs and mortars to spontaneous demonstrations. That's a fundamental."
Given that Rice was punished for her Sunday show performance, what does that mean the hearing is really about? For a clue, look at the statement of Rep. Matt Salmon, who referenced another incident that no level of congressional Republican obsession could turn into a major issue. "From Operation Fast and Furious, where Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly misled the American people and Congress…to U.N. Secretary Susan Rice who on five separate occasions went before the American people days after the attacks on Benghazi talking about a demonstration at the facility that never happened," Salmon said.
Perhaps the fixation on Benghazi has something to do with the fact that Republicans have been attacking Obama on Benghazi for four months and it hasn't damaged him. Let's review the incident: It was a terror attack, in which four Americans died. In Libya, a country whose dictator Obama controversially decided to help overthrow despite the advice of many staffers. On the anniversary of 9/11. As big anti-American protests spread across the Middle East. It's should have sunk Obama, but Romney, in his own words, "screwed up." Could you blame the GOP for wanting a do-over?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
We shouldn't have even been there in the first place. Let these animals burn their countries to the ground on their own.
plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...
Can you really not see past your own bias enough to understand that has more to do with ideology than gender? Or do you purposefully obscure that to force a narrative?
no, i have history of watching these proceedings, and i have no problem calling a spade a spade. they bully women in these proceedings. and they don't like it when people like hillary tell them to essentially go fuck themselves. rand paul and john mccain were DISGRACEFUL yesterday. they had no interest in having a civil conversation, and it was obvious to anyone who watched it.
If you're seeing that pattern based solely on gender, it's confirmation bias.
We shouldn't have even been there in the first place. Let these animals burn their countries to the ground on their own.
While I agree with your first sentence, your second sentence is kind of harsh.
With all your talk on needing weapons to arm against foreign or domestic threats, Unsung, something tells me you might not exactly embrace a foreign presence perceived as a threat. Would that make you an animal?
From Rand Paul's lips to his daddy's flock's ears.
Liberty!
So the guy who argues for vague concepts of gun control and acknowledges a misunderstanding of basic terminology is accusing others of not being free thinkers. Got it.
From Rand Paul's lips to his daddy's flock's ears.
Liberty!
So the guy who argues for vague concepts of gun control and acknowledges a misunderstanding of basic terminology is accusing others of not being free thinkers. Got it.
Still don't have an answer as to why anyone needs an assault rifle, do you?
We shouldn't have even been there in the first place. Let these animals burn their countries to the ground on their own.
While I agree with your first sentence, your second sentence is kind of harsh.
With all your talk on needing weapons to arm against foreign or domestic threats, Unsung, something tells me you might not exactly embrace a foreign presence perceived as a threat. Would that make you an animal?
I believe in a non-intervention foreign policy. I don't approve of funneling arms to Libya, Syria, or Mexican drug cartels. Hillary is now on the record as saying that arms are not being sent, it'll bite her in the future.
"However, Rand Paul’s desire to score points and show himself to be a ‘tough guy’ serves only to reveal how incredibly unprepared and unqualified he is to be holding elective office as a County dog catcher let alone considering a run for the highest office in the land."
From Rand Paul's lips to his daddy's flock's ears.
Liberty!
So the guy who argues for vague concepts of gun control and acknowledges a misunderstanding of basic terminology is accusing others of not being free thinkers. Got it.
Still don't have an answer as to why anyone needs an assault rifle, do you?
Because it's a question with a logical pitfall. My general answer was "protection, sport, and recreation." You don't feel that's adequate and there are a couple million people who agree with you. However, if I was asked the same question by my buddy Joe and gave the same response he would find my answer entirely adequate. As would a couple million other people. So now what?
You can't make laws based on what people like and don't like. That's how we arrive at things like prohibition, a war on drugs, and states refusing to recognize same sex marriages. If you want to advocate for particular gun regulations you have to identify an outcome that you hope to achieve and evidence that your regulations will achieve that outcome. Both things which were entirely missing from our conversation no matter how many times I asked you.
Still don't have an answer as to why anyone needs an assault rifle, do you?
Because it's a question with a logical pitfall. My general answer was "protection, sport, and recreation." You don't feel that's adequate and there are a couple million people who agree with you. However, if I was asked the same question by my buddy Joe and gave the same response he would find my answer entirely adequate. As would a couple million other people. So now what?
You can make laws based on what people like and don't like. If you want to advocate for particular gun regulations you have to identify an outcome that you hope to achieve and evidence that your regulations will achieve that outcome. Both things which were entirely missing from our conversation no matter how many times I asked you.
Admittedly, our past conversation does not rank high in my memory. Not a slight against you, it is just that I have had many such conversations on this issue.
But that said, was "protection, sport, and recreation" your general answer? I thought you were the one who told me I did not deserve an answer (paraphrasing) because I did not have a detailed plan for the removal of assault rifles? (Am I confusing you with someone else? Are you confusing me with someone else?)
Anyway, my point from the very beginning and long before Sandy Hook is that all assault weapons should be banned. I know, I know, there are loopholes that allow some weapons which are quite clearly assault weapons to slip through without being classified as such. Those loopholes should be closed.
Protection...fine, although arguing you need an assault rifle to protect you or your family is a stretch.
Sport and recreation...that is where these guns become nothing more than toys.
Less assault weapons in the country = less access to assault weapons = less Adam Lanza's being able to commit mass murder in minutes. That is what a ban would achieve. I don't think that is vague at all.
Admittedly, our past conversation does not rank high in my memory. Not a slight against you, it is just that I have had many such conversations on this issue.
But that said, was "protection, sport, and recreation" your general answer? I thought you were the one who told me I did not deserve an answer (paraphrasing) because I did not have a detailed plan for the removal of assault rifles? (Am I confusing you with someone else? Are you confusing me with someone else?)
Anyway, my point from the very beginning and long before Sandy Hook is that all assault weapons should be banned. I know, I know, there are loopholes that allow some weapons which are quite clearly assault weapons to slip through without being classified as such. Those loopholes should be closed.
Protection...fine, although arguing you need an assault rifle to protect you or your family is a stretch.
Sport and recreation...that is where these guns become nothing more than toys.
Less assault weapons in the country = less access to assault weapons = less Adam Lanza's being able to commit mass murder in minutes. That is what a ban would achieve. I don't think that is vague at all.
Sorry, man...I already sent your thread here way off topic, so my final point and I'll back off:
You can't ban "assault weapons." You're creating loopholes by using a vague term that can have multiple meanings. If you have an understanding of what you're advocating to take away from people and how it can be effectively done, you are failing to demonstrate that with your language. If you're not able to make the foundation of your points within the scope of reality, nothing you say following that makes any logical sense.
Educate yourself on definable attributes of firearms that can be regulated (auto vs. semi-auto, actual classifications, magazine capacities, types of ammo, accessories, etc.) and see if you can find instances where those regulations have decreased violent crime in a given municipality.
Admittedly, our past conversation does not rank high in my memory. Not a slight against you, it is just that I have had many such conversations on this issue.
But that said, was "protection, sport, and recreation" your general answer? I thought you were the one who told me I did not deserve an answer (paraphrasing) because I did not have a detailed plan for the removal of assault rifles? (Am I confusing you with someone else? Are you confusing me with someone else?)
Anyway, my point from the very beginning and long before Sandy Hook is that all assault weapons should be banned. I know, I know, there are loopholes that allow some weapons which are quite clearly assault weapons to slip through without being classified as such. Those loopholes should be closed.
Protection...fine, although arguing you need an assault rifle to protect you or your family is a stretch.
Sport and recreation...that is where these guns become nothing more than toys.
Less assault weapons in the country = less access to assault weapons = less Adam Lanza's being able to commit mass murder in minutes. That is what a ban would achieve. I don't think that is vague at all.
Sorry, man...I already sent your thread here way off topic, so my final point and I'll back off:
You can't ban "assault weapons." You're creating loopholes by using a vague term that can have multiple meanings. If you have an understanding of what you're advocating to take away from people and how it can be effectively done, you are failing to demonstrate that with your language. If you're not able to make the foundation of your points within the scope of reality, nothing you say following that makes any logical sense.
Educate yourself on definable attributes of firearms that can be regulated (auto vs. semi-auto, actual classifications, magazine capacities, types of ammo, accessories, etc.) and see if you can find instances where those regulations have decreased violent crime in a given municipality.
Feel free to hit me up in one of the gun threads as it is an interesting discussion.
This administration is hiding something BIG and if the facts were all out, im sure there would be some major firings or Impeachements!
Hating Obama is one thing. Casually tossing around calls for impeachment is something else. The man has been duly elected twice by a majority of American voters. He shouldn't be impeached because his politics do not match your own.
This administration is hiding something BIG and if the facts were all out, im sure there would be some major firings or Impeachements!
Hating Obama is one thing. Casually tossing around calls for impeachment is something else. The man has been duly elected twice by a majority of American voters. He shouldn't be impeached because his politics do not match your own.
Exactly... and I haven't heard one republican member of congress suggest that he be impeached either, and they have much more access to classified info than any the people claiming that the administration is "hiding something BIG".
It's easy to throw out accusations with absolutely no proof, or do it in the asinine "just asking the question..." form that the talk radio hacks do.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Rand Paul is an embarrassment to carbon-based lifeforms. An attention whore, a cry baby, a bratty entitled little shit who has never really had a job he didn't suck at doing.
The ultimate snobby boob who thinks having a rich and well-known daddy makes him qualified to do things he isn't qualified to do.
Hillary would be totally within her rights to take off her shoe and hurl it at him.
Rand Paul is an embarrassment to carbon-based lifeforms. An attention whore, a cry baby, a bratty entitled little shit who has never really had a job he didn't suck at doing.
The ultimate snobby boob who thinks having a rich and well-known daddy makes him qualified to do things he isn't qualified to do.
Hillary would be totally within her rights to take off her shoe and hurl it at him.
It is unfortunate that I will never be able to vote against Ron Paul's baby boy.
Hilary had four months to rehearse her act.....She did very well with her performance....GOP dropped the ball just like Romney did in the debates.....I do not know why the GOP does not ask questions that need answering....Where did Rice get her information? Where were you when this was happening?...when did you find out it was not about a protest? Why was the ambassador there? Who gave the order to stand down?
It's all BS..... both sides putting on an act as if they care. :x
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Hilary had four months to rehearse her act.....She did very well with her performance....GOP dropped the ball just like Romney did in the debates.....I do not know why the GOP does not ask questions that need answering....Where did Rice get her information? Where were you when this was happening?...when did you find out it was not about a protest? Why was the ambassador there? Who gave the order to stand down?
It's all BS..... both sides putting on an act as if they care. :x
You don't think Hillary cared? I thought her emotion was very genuine.
I am somewhat of an Andrew Sullivan fan and was curious why he did not blog about the hearings yesterday. He explains:
"Just to remind readers who asked why we didn't cover the hearings yesterday, even though they had some great TV moments: we don't cover non-stories. We have covered the legitimate issue that there was not enough security in Benghazi, that there should have been, and that the State Department failed in its foresight and planning. But we are not going to cover a spectacle created entirely by a fake cable news network as a way to save a losing election campaign. Hillary's face yesterday said all we needed to."
We shouldn't have even been there in the first place. Let these animals burn their countries to the ground on their own.
While I agree with your first sentence, your second sentence is kind of harsh.
With all your talk on needing weapons to arm against foreign or domestic threats, Unsung, something tells me you might not exactly embrace a foreign presence perceived as a threat. Would that make you an animal?
I believe in a non-intervention foreign policy. I don't approve of funneling arms to Libya, Syria, or Mexican drug cartels. Hillary is now on the record as saying that arms are not being sent, it'll bite her in the future.
The Mexican cartels buy their guns from republican owned gun shops in Texas so if one is for unrestricted gun sales in the US, one is supporting guns for Mexican cartels.
Comments
plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I do think if a woman wants one of these jobs she deserves to be beaten up just like a man would be. Hillary took it like a champ yesterday. Impressed by her I was.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Can you really not see past your own bias enough to understand that has more to do with ideology than gender? Or do you purposefully obscure that to force a narrative?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I also take exception to dismissing what precipitated this whole clusterfuck. How is that unimportant? Is there nothing to be learned from what happened, from what caused it to happen?
Nutshell.............US foreign embassy in an unstable land which happens to be Arab who the US isn't making too many friends with for the past couple of decades, toss in the aniversary of 911, along with some loose, free weapons from the Colnel's regime, in the right or wrong hands, a little bit of tinder around the old box and voila.
I listened to that last night and it amazes me how stupid some people in government can actually be and how low they can sink.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
i remember being all butt hurt too when kerry lost.
What's Behind the GOP's Fixation on Benghazi?
http://news.yahoo.com/whats-behind-gops ... 12344.html
As Republicans grilled Hillary Clinton on the Obama administration's response to Benghazi in congressional hearings Wednesday, they repeatedly hit on a talking point that doesn't seem like it'd do them a lot of good: It's been four months. "Here we are, four months later, and we still don’t have the basic information," Sen. John McCain told Clinton Wednesday. "I’m not trying to be obnoxious here, I’m just trying to get the answers I believe the American people deserve to hear. It’s been four months," Sen. Ron Johnson told a Milwaukee radio show after he and Clinton had a testy exchange. "More than four months later its unacceptable that the State Department has made it so difficult" to conduct oversight, Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot told Clinton. Clinton will have to respond later in writing, because Chabot used up all of his time with his statement. But they all raise a good question: What have we been debating for four months?
"The media has moved on," Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf lamented on the House floor, separately from the hearing, on Wednesday. Despite the frenzy of coverage of the Clinton hearings, he's mostly right. But that has at least something to do with the confused case Republicans have made in arguing that the Obama administration did something wrong in Benghazi. Initially, it was that President Obama supposedly apologized to the terrorists. This was the thrust of Mitt Romney's statement, issued hours after the attack, that Romney himself came to regret. This charge was mostly discarded. Then the focus was that Obama didn't call the attacks terrorism until two weeks later, a complaint Obama deflected during a presidential debate, when Obama demanded moderator Candy Crowley "check the transcript" of his Rose Garden speech the day after the attacks and he did use the word "terror," although rather obliquely: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..."
So, take three: Republicans moved on to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice who said on five different Sunday shows that the attacks were inspired by protests in Cairo over an anti-Islam video. This charge was stickier, and cost Rice the Secretary of State nomination. But Rice's scalp did not end the Benghazi debate. In Wednesday;s hearings, Republicans had tough questions for Clinton, even if they didn't always allot enough time for her to answer them. Benghazi is still a rallying call for conservatives. But what do they think is the scandal?
How come no one was punished?
"To my knowledge, no one was held accountable" for the insufficient security, Sen. Bob Corker said. But four state department officials have been placed on administrative leave. Clinton said she did not read the cables related to the security situation at the Benghazi consulate. "I am the secretary of state and the [Accountability Review Board] made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the assistant secretary level and below," she said.
How come no one got fired?
"People who make judgement errors should be fired and replaced," Sen. Rand Paul said. "Had I been president... I would have relieved you from your post." But Clinton explained that federal statute prohibits the state department from firing people for failure of leadership. (It's actually very difficult to fire civil servants.)
We circled back to, Wait, but the Sunday shows?
"I’m going back to then Ambassador Rice five days later going on Sunday shows and what I would say purposefully misleading the American public," Johnson said. Clinton said she had no role in preparing Rice's talking points. The Atlantic Wire has speculated that the obsession with Sunday talk show appearances might have something to do with how much senators love going on Sunday shows. He mentioned that in the hearings -- especially Rice's chief antagonist, John McCain. McCain mentioned his Sunday show cred in the hearings, saying, "By the way, as I said at the time -- I just happened to be on one of those talk shows -- people don't bring RPGs and mortars to spontaneous demonstrations. That's a fundamental."
Given that Rice was punished for her Sunday show performance, what does that mean the hearing is really about? For a clue, look at the statement of Rep. Matt Salmon, who referenced another incident that no level of congressional Republican obsession could turn into a major issue. "From Operation Fast and Furious, where Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly misled the American people and Congress…to U.N. Secretary Susan Rice who on five separate occasions went before the American people days after the attacks on Benghazi talking about a demonstration at the facility that never happened," Salmon said.
Perhaps the fixation on Benghazi has something to do with the fact that Republicans have been attacking Obama on Benghazi for four months and it hasn't damaged him. Let's review the incident: It was a terror attack, in which four Americans died. In Libya, a country whose dictator Obama controversially decided to help overthrow despite the advice of many staffers. On the anniversary of 9/11. As big anti-American protests spread across the Middle East. It's should have sunk Obama, but Romney, in his own words, "screwed up." Could you blame the GOP for wanting a do-over?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
If you're seeing that pattern based solely on gender, it's confirmation bias.
While I agree with your first sentence, your second sentence is kind of harsh.
With all your talk on needing weapons to arm against foreign or domestic threats, Unsung, something tells me you might not exactly embrace a foreign presence perceived as a threat. Would that make you an animal?
So the guy who argues for vague concepts of gun control and acknowledges a misunderstanding of basic terminology is accusing others of not being free thinkers. Got it.
Still don't have an answer as to why anyone needs an assault rifle, do you?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I believe in a non-intervention foreign policy. I don't approve of funneling arms to Libya, Syria, or Mexican drug cartels. Hillary is now on the record as saying that arms are not being sent, it'll bite her in the future.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... n-tragedy/
"However, Rand Paul’s desire to score points and show himself to be a ‘tough guy’ serves only to reveal how incredibly unprepared and unqualified he is to be holding elective office as a County dog catcher let alone considering a run for the highest office in the land."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Because it's a question with a logical pitfall. My general answer was "protection, sport, and recreation." You don't feel that's adequate and there are a couple million people who agree with you. However, if I was asked the same question by my buddy Joe and gave the same response he would find my answer entirely adequate. As would a couple million other people. So now what?
You can't make laws based on what people like and don't like. That's how we arrive at things like prohibition, a war on drugs, and states refusing to recognize same sex marriages. If you want to advocate for particular gun regulations you have to identify an outcome that you hope to achieve and evidence that your regulations will achieve that outcome. Both things which were entirely missing from our conversation no matter how many times I asked you.
Admittedly, our past conversation does not rank high in my memory. Not a slight against you, it is just that I have had many such conversations on this issue.
But that said, was "protection, sport, and recreation" your general answer? I thought you were the one who told me I did not deserve an answer (paraphrasing) because I did not have a detailed plan for the removal of assault rifles? (Am I confusing you with someone else? Are you confusing me with someone else?)
Anyway, my point from the very beginning and long before Sandy Hook is that all assault weapons should be banned. I know, I know, there are loopholes that allow some weapons which are quite clearly assault weapons to slip through without being classified as such. Those loopholes should be closed.
Protection...fine, although arguing you need an assault rifle to protect you or your family is a stretch.
Sport and recreation...that is where these guns become nothing more than toys.
Less assault weapons in the country = less access to assault weapons = less Adam Lanza's being able to commit mass murder in minutes. That is what a ban would achieve. I don't think that is vague at all.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Sorry, man...I already sent your thread here way off topic, so my final point and I'll back off:
You can't ban "assault weapons." You're creating loopholes by using a vague term that can have multiple meanings. If you have an understanding of what you're advocating to take away from people and how it can be effectively done, you are failing to demonstrate that with your language. If you're not able to make the foundation of your points within the scope of reality, nothing you say following that makes any logical sense.
Educate yourself on definable attributes of firearms that can be regulated (auto vs. semi-auto, actual classifications, magazine capacities, types of ammo, accessories, etc.) and see if you can find instances where those regulations have decreased violent crime in a given municipality.
Feel free to hit me up in one of the gun threads as it is an interesting discussion.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Hating Obama is one thing. Casually tossing around calls for impeachment is something else. The man has been duly elected twice by a majority of American voters. He shouldn't be impeached because his politics do not match your own.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Exactly... and I haven't heard one republican member of congress suggest that he be impeached either, and they have much more access to classified info than any the people claiming that the administration is "hiding something BIG".
It's easy to throw out accusations with absolutely no proof, or do it in the asinine "just asking the question..." form that the talk radio hacks do.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I will. There are certainly no shortage to choose from.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Rand Paul is an embarrassment to carbon-based lifeforms. An attention whore, a cry baby, a bratty entitled little shit who has never really had a job he didn't suck at doing.
The ultimate snobby boob who thinks having a rich and well-known daddy makes him qualified to do things he isn't qualified to do.
Hillary would be totally within her rights to take off her shoe and hurl it at him.
It is unfortunate that I will never be able to vote against Ron Paul's baby boy.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It's all BS..... both sides putting on an act as if they care. :x
You don't think Hillary cared? I thought her emotion was very genuine.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Just to remind readers who asked why we didn't cover the hearings yesterday, even though they had some great TV moments: we don't cover non-stories. We have covered the legitimate issue that there was not enough security in Benghazi, that there should have been, and that the State Department failed in its foresight and planning. But we are not going to cover a spectacle created entirely by a fake cable news network as a way to save a losing election campaign. Hillary's face yesterday said all we needed to."
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... ghazi.html
Yes, that sounds about right.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."