-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 03:42:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION  (Read 92973 times)
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #300 on: January 26, 2016, 09:08:09 PM »

To the right wingers who have been drinking the Kool aid, I told ya so.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/planned-parenthood-activists-indicted/
Thanks ORR. Funny that the 'liberal media' still gave the majority of the quotes over to a bunch of ranting anti-choicers.
Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #301 on: January 26, 2016, 09:49:55 PM »

To the right wingers who have been drinking the Kool aid, I told ya so.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/planned-parenthood-activists-indicted/
Thanks ORR. Funny that the 'liberal media' still gave the majority of the quotes over to a bunch of ranting anti-choicers.

Yes, they had run of Republican Presidential candidates continuing to spread the lies. I saw a funny one. Repblicans want to insure that no low income women can get abortions so they can then poison the babies with lead once they are born.

Anyway, the very conservative Texas grand jury not only cleared PP of all allegations in the hoax videos but charged the hoaxers with actual trafficing in baby parts.
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #302 on: January 27, 2016, 05:57:39 AM »

Thank you for posting the link and the complaint.  And, I am thinking that the "undercover" role that the defendants engaged in was not so different from the role of the police, the CIA, FBI or news media for their investigations.  They generally devise an alter ego, dummy corporations, Facebook pages, etc., to advance their investigations.  

In the early part of the complaint (I haven't read the whole thing, yet) the defendants are characterized as Operation Rescue alumni and not citizens who are exposing the trafficking of human tissue (and organs) which is a global problem.  

The factor in this for me, is not the Roe v. Wade issue which I think they are trying to conflate (a new word) with the tissue trafficking, which they have since admitted to, and have subsequently "said" that they have ceased in their practice.  Roe v. Wade is not the issue.  

So, the question is...only whether the tactics of the undercover operation are any different from police, feds, state investigations, or done by the media.  

We can discuss.   Wink
Sorry FdP, I never saw this response until now.
Even if they were acting as law enforcement, there'd still be the issue of entrapment; though admittedly LE gets away with a whole lot of stuff that they shouldn't. I'd hope though that even with the above-the-law treatment that LE is sometimes accorded, they wouldn't be able to get away with presenting their findings to the media or posting them on the internet before presenting them to the DA. Then if it was found that they'd edited the videos that they presented, certainly the videos would not be admissible as evidence and hopefully the crooked cops would be at minimum suspended.
Emily - Entrapment is on the law enforcement side.   Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #303 on: January 27, 2016, 06:18:57 AM »

Yeah. That's what I was saying.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #304 on: January 27, 2016, 06:38:45 AM »

Yeah. That's what I was saying.
Amateur video has become a tool of exposure and enforcement.  And an indictment does not provide a forum for the defense. 

Let's remember that it takes two to enter into a contract.  Where is the other party who had the goods? 

My prediction is that this will serve to help the Republicans and 3rd party people. Just sayin'  Wink


Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #305 on: January 27, 2016, 07:21:57 AM »

Yeah. That's what I was saying.
Amateur video has become a tool of exposure and enforcement.  And an indictment does not provide a forum for the defense. 

Let's remember that it takes two to enter into a contract.  Where is the other party who had the goods? 

My prediction is that this will serve to help the Republicans and 3rd party people. Just sayin'  Wink



Yes but manipulate video is not credible.
I don't understand your second paragraph and to elections, I don't think it will make any difference. The lines have been drawn for decades. Nobody's shifting their vote for this. That's why anti-choices are pursuing legal disruptions. They know they won't win by vote.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #306 on: January 27, 2016, 07:41:22 AM »

Yeah. That's what I was saying.
Amateur video has become a tool of exposure and enforcement.  And an indictment does not provide a forum for the defense. 

Let's remember that it takes two to enter into a contract.  Where is the other party who had the goods? 

My prediction is that this will serve to help the Republicans and 3rd party people. Just sayin'  Wink
Yes but manipulate video is not credible.
I don't understand your second paragraph and to elections, I don't think it will make any difference. The lines have been drawn for decades. Nobody's shifting their vote for this. That's why anti-choices are pursuing legal disruptions. They know they won't win by vote.
Emily - we don't know the full uncut video.  I don't anyway.  There are people who are separating out the issues, here. And separating the "choice" from the contract issues.  It would be hard to argue that those voices did not match those persons.  Edited for time?  Or was the camera running while the filmers went to the gas station or grocery store or had private conversations after leaving the facility?   We don't know that.   

The charges look like "purchase of tissue" or something like that. I have not read the charging documents. 

In a contract scenario there is generally something "of value" (tissue/organs, etc.) that an entity or person has control over. (PP)  And there is a prospective buyer. (Whistleblowers)

Tonight there is a debate.  We'll see if this issue is raised.   

So, it will affect the election because it is related to campaign contributions of candidates. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #307 on: January 27, 2016, 09:05:16 AM »

Yeah. That's what I was saying.
Amateur video has become a tool of exposure and enforcement.  And an indictment does not provide a forum for the defense. 

Let's remember that it takes two to enter into a contract.  Where is the other party who had the goods? 

My prediction is that this will serve to help the Republicans and 3rd party people. Just sayin'  Wink
Yes but manipulate video is not credible.
I don't understand your second paragraph and to elections, I don't think it will make any difference. The lines have been drawn for decades. Nobody's shifting their vote for this. That's why anti-choices are pursuing legal disruptions. They know they won't win by vote.
Emily - we don't know the full uncut video.  I don't anyway.  There are people who are separating out the issues, here. And separating the "choice" from the contract issues.  It would be hard to argue that those voices did not match those persons.  Edited for time?  Or was the camera running while the filmers went to the gas station or grocery store or had private conversations after leaving the facility?   We don't know that.   

The charges look like "purchase of tissue" or something like that. I have not read the charging documents. 

In a contract scenario there is generally something "of value" (tissue/organs, etc.) that an entity or person has control over. (PP)  And there is a prospective buyer. (Whistleblowers)

Tonight there is a debate.  We'll see if this issue is raised.   

So, it will affect the election because it is related to campaign contributions of candidates. 
It appears that key quotes were edited out of the videos, among other things: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/31/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-deceptively-edited/205264
You apply your standards for vetting sources very inconsistently.
I know what a contract is. I just don't understand what point you are trying to make regarding contracts. Regarding contributions - I think this sort of thing fires up both sides and probably causes more single-issue candidate success (which is good for some extremists but not good for the country) on both sides of the question. People like me are more likely to be giving money to PP's PAC and I suppose people like you are more likely to give money to anti-PP PACs. It balances on the sides but overall makes our whole government stupider.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #308 on: January 27, 2016, 09:45:44 AM »

Yeah. That's what I was saying.
Amateur video has become a tool of exposure and enforcement.  And an indictment does not provide a forum for the defense. 

Let's remember that it takes two to enter into a contract.  Where is the other party who had the goods? 

My prediction is that this will serve to help the Republicans and 3rd party people. Just sayin'  Wink
Yes but manipulate video is not credible.
I don't understand your second paragraph and to elections, I don't think it will make any difference. The lines have been drawn for decades. Nobody's shifting their vote for this. That's why anti-choices are pursuing legal disruptions. They know they won't win by vote.
Emily - we don't know the full uncut video.  I don't anyway.  There are people who are separating out the issues, here. And separating the "choice" from the contract issues.  It would be hard to argue that those voices did not match those persons.  Edited for time?  Or was the camera running while the filmers went to the gas station or grocery store or had private conversations after leaving the facility?   We don't know that.   

The charges look like "purchase of tissue" or something like that. I have not read the charging documents. 

In a contract scenario there is generally something "of value" (tissue/organs, etc.) that an entity or person has control over. (PP)  And there is a prospective buyer. (Whistleblowers)

Tonight there is a debate.  We'll see if this issue is raised.   

So, it will affect the election because it is related to campaign contributions of candidates. 
It appears that key quotes were edited out of the videos, among other things: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/31/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-deceptively-edited/205264
You apply your standards for vetting sources very inconsistently.
I know what a contract is. I just don't understand what point you are trying to make regarding contracts. Regarding contributions - I think this sort of thing fires up both sides and probably causes more single-issue candidate success (which is good for some extremists but not good for the country) on both sides of the question. People like me are more likely to be giving money to PP's PAC and I suppose people like you are more likely to give money to anti-PP PACs. It balances on the sides but overall makes our whole government stupider.
Emily - you are making a judgment on my editing speculation.  They are not standards.  When film or video is taken there is always stuff if it is a continuous loop of tape or digital that gets edited out.  Even news footage.

Let's not rush to judgment as to liberal or conservative because criminal activity is just that. There were standards in place for PP and appears that they violated them as the evidence in testimony is a changed policy which was announced on the CSPAN congressional hearing testimony.  They would not announce a change if they did not do something wrong. 

They are alleging a contract for sale as part of the basis of the indictment.  Purchase of body parts/tissue. Was there an exchange?  Did we see a package of tissue?  I have not.  Is that what is left out here?  The delivery of the goods?

Contributions of over $10,000 were routinely given to certain candidates by PP who have two set up accounts to avoid co-mingling of their funds.  It is not $100 to a candidate per election cycle.  Let's not call people extremists because we don't like a moderate position.  There are factions of Dems now.  Clinton is calling Sanders (who runs as a Democrat) a Socialist so there are huge splits of philosophy in the party ranks.

So, where does the parsing of labels stop? 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #309 on: January 27, 2016, 10:25:57 AM »


It appears that key quotes were edited out of the videos, among other things: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/31/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-deceptively-edited/205264
You apply your standards for vetting sources very inconsistently.
I know what a contract is. I just don't understand what point you are trying to make regarding contracts. Regarding contributions - I think this sort of thing fires up both sides and probably causes more single-issue candidate success (which is good for some extremists but not good for the country) on both sides of the question. People like me are more likely to be giving money to PP's PAC and I suppose people like you are more likely to give money to anti-PP PACs. It balances on the sides but overall makes our whole government stupider.
Emily - you are making a judgment on my editing speculation.  They are not standards.  When film or video is taken there is always stuff if it is a continuous loop of tape or digital that gets edited out.  Even news footage.

Let's not rush to judgment as to liberal or conservative because criminal activity is just that. There were standards in place for PP and appears that they violated them as the evidence in testimony is a changed policy which was announced on the CSPAN congressional hearing testimony.  They would not announce a change if they did not do something wrong. 

They are alleging a contract for sale as part of the basis of the indictment.  Purchase of body parts/tissue. Was there an exchange?  Did we see a package of tissue?  I have not.  Is that what is left out here?  The delivery of the goods?

Contributions of over $10,000 were routinely given to certain candidates by PP who have two set up accounts to avoid co-mingling of their funds.  It is not $100 to a candidate per election cycle.  Let's not call people extremists because we don't like a moderate position.  There are factions of Dems now.  Clinton is calling Sanders (who runs as a Democrat) a Socialist so there are huge splits of philosophy in the party ranks.

So, where does the parsing of labels stop? 

Hi FdP, I hope you're having a lovely day and that there's snow on the ground enough to make the world beautiful without causing you difficulties!
Besides that, given the fact that the videos were extensively edited and at least in a few places the meaning of what was being said was altered, I'm surprised you still find these videos to be creditable sources. Also, you know that the people making the videos have a strong bias/agenda - which you've stated before causes you to view a source with hefty skepticism.
Regarding politics, I think that anti-choice people are likely to interpret the effort by the videographers, and the result, as you are interpreting it and pro-choice people are likely to interpret it as I am, regardless of whose interpretation is wrong or right. So again, I don't think it has an effect on voting and I think it will generate more donations on both sides on the single issue. PP donations have reportedly spiked in response to this and I'm sure some anti-PP donations have increased as will. It's mostly sturm und drang to get people all excited but in the end is a distraction more than anything.
>>"They would not announce a change if they did not do something wrong." This is not rigorous thinking. I expect they'll change lots of policies as a result of these videos. Primarily their policies regarding security, I'd hope. But obviously PP has a lot of people trying to paint what they do as wrong so changing a policy to make that harder would make sense. Most large organizations have policies that regard their image as well as their legal procedures.

I understand now what you are saying regarding the contract - you are referring to the indictment. I haven't read it, but reports of it make no reference to a contract having been made. The reports are that the indictment is for a "misdemeanor related to trying to buy human organs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/us/politics/indictment-deals-blow-to-gop-over-planned-parenthood-battle.html). Obviously that terminology is not from the indictment, so we'll see. But if there was a contract, I doubt there would be an indictment for the purchaser but not the seller, so I'll be very surprised if there was one. I suppose if the Texas grand jury had found that PP had likely done something illegal, they would've indicted them.
I don't understand your point regarding labels.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #310 on: January 27, 2016, 10:54:20 AM »


It appears that key quotes were edited out of the videos, among other things: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/31/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-deceptively-edited/205264
You apply your standards for vetting sources very inconsistently.
I know what a contract is. I just don't understand what point you are trying to make regarding contracts. Regarding contributions - I think this sort of thing fires up both sides and probably causes more single-issue candidate success (which is good for some extremists but not good for the country) on both sides of the question. People like me are more likely to be giving money to PP's PAC and I suppose people like you are more likely to give money to anti-PP PACs. It balances on the sides but overall makes our whole government stupider.
Emily - you are making a judgment on my editing speculation.  They are not standards.  When film or video is taken there is always stuff if it is a continuous loop of tape or digital that gets edited out.  Even news footage.

Let's not rush to judgment as to liberal or conservative because criminal activity is just that. There were standards in place for PP and appears that they violated them as the evidence in testimony is a changed policy which was announced on the CSPAN congressional hearing testimony.  They would not announce a change if they did not do something wrong.  

They are alleging a contract for sale as part of the basis of the indictment.  Purchase of body parts/tissue. Was there an exchange?  Did we see a package of tissue?  I have not.  Is that what is left out here?  The delivery of the goods?

Contributions of over $10,000 were routinely given to certain candidates by PP who have two set up accounts to avoid co-mingling of their funds.  It is not $100 to a candidate per election cycle.  Let's not call people extremists because we don't like a moderate position.  There are factions of Dems now.  Clinton is calling Sanders (who runs as a Democrat) a Socialist so there are huge splits of philosophy in the party ranks.

So, where does the parsing of labels stop?  

Hi FdP, I hope you're having a lovely day and that there's snow on the ground enough to make the world beautiful without causing you difficulties!
Besides that, given the fact that the videos were extensively edited and at least in a few places the meaning of what was being said was altered, I'm surprised you still find these videos to be creditable sources. Also, you know that the people making the videos have a strong bias/agenda - which you've stated before causes you to view a source with hefty skepticism.
Regarding politics, I think that anti-choice people are likely to interpret the effort by the videographers, and the result, as you are interpreting it and pro-choice people are likely to interpret it as I am, regardless of whose interpretation is wrong or right. So again, I don't think it has an effect on voting and I think it will generate more donations on both sides on the single issue. PP donations have reportedly spiked in response to this and I'm sure some anti-PP donations have increased as will. It's mostly sturm und drang to get people all excited but in the end is a distraction more than anything.
>>"They would not announce a change if they did not do something wrong." This is not rigorous thinking. I expect they'll change lots of policies as a result of these videos. Primarily their policies regarding security, I'd hope. But obviously PP has a lot of people trying to paint what they do as wrong so changing a policy to make that harder would make sense. Most large organizations have policies that regard their image as well as their legal procedures.

I understand now what you are saying regarding the contract - you are referring to the indictment. I haven't read it, but reports of it make no reference to a contract having been made. The reports are that the indictment is for a "misdemeanor related to trying to buy human organs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/us/politics/indictment-deals-blow-to-gop-over-planned-parenthood-battle.html). Obviously that terminology is not from the indictment, so we'll see. But if there was a contract, I doubt there would be an indictment for the purchaser but not the seller, so I'll be very surprised if there was one. I suppose if the Texas grand jury had found that PP had likely done something illegal, they would've indicted them.
I don't understand your point regarding labels.
Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. LOL

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.


 
« Last Edit: January 27, 2016, 11:03:43 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #311 on: January 27, 2016, 11:23:45 AM »


Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. LOL

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.


 
Already moved on to mud eh? A drawback of snow - but you've found the silver lining in the beauty of mud.
So everything that a congressional hearing enters into testimony and everything that prompts a congressional hearing is credible to you?
I did not paint those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers. I said that this will cause more funding to single issue candidates which is good for extremists on both sides but not for anyone else (or the country.)
>>"There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics." -- I don't think this is true. But I think over the last 50 years a lot of conservative Catholics have moved to the Republican party. I don't think it has to do with Benghazi or with funding. If you have unbiased polls that show that people are moving parties over these issues, I'll be surprised: I don't think anyone cares or thinks there was an issue with Benghazi except people who were predisposed to. Republican and Democratic politicians alike have symbiotic relationships with their funders. All politicians do. It's the nature of the system. So anyone who interprets it as a Democratic problem was predisposed to.
This thing with PP does have to do with the choice to have an abortion because that's the agenda of the people who made the video and the only people who buy it are those who were predisposed to have a problem with PP. They have not been shown to do anything wrong so only people who want to believe they've done something wrong will believe they have. And the people who want to believe that are people who are anti-choice.



Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #312 on: January 27, 2016, 11:38:01 AM »


Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. LOL

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.
Already moved on to mud eh? A drawback of snow - but you've found the silver lining in the beauty of mud.
So everything that a congressional hearing enters into testimony and everything that prompts a congressional hearing is credible to you?
I did not paint those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers. I said that this will cause more funding to single issue candidates which is good for extremists on both sides but not for anyone else (or the country.)
>>"There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics." -- I don't think this is true. But I think over the last 50 years a lot of conservative Catholics have moved to the Republican party. I don't think it has to do with Benghazi or with funding. If you have unbiased polls that show that people are moving parties over these issues, I'll be surprised: I don't think anyone cares or thinks there was an issue with Benghazi except people who were predisposed to. Republican and Democratic politicians alike have symbiotic relationships with their funders. All politicians do. It's the nature of the system. So anyone who interprets it as a Democratic problem was predisposed to.
This thing with PP does have to do with the choice to have an abortion because that's the agenda of the people who made the video and the only people who buy it are those who were predisposed to have a problem with PP. They have not been shown to do anything wrong so only people who want to believe they've done something wrong will believe they have. And the people who want to believe that are people who are anti-choice.
There is always a silver lining. 

Conservative Catholics? The church is in disarray as a result of the pedophile scandal - highlighted in Spotlight.  Sunlight on a scandal is a beautiful thing.  There are Catholics who are very conservative and connect with the old Latin Tridentine Mass.  They are few and far between, geographically.  It is hard to assign a political party to them.  Most sermons involve social awareness and tolerance, hardly a Republican agenda item.  I'd question that they have left the Democratic Party as the Republican mantra is inconsistent with the social agenda of the Church in general.

The tissue bartering may help the pro-lifers, indirectly, but because of the unintended consequences of science and technology, and very sophisticated ultrasounds, rather than a moral premise promoted by political party leaders.  It is a lightning-rod issue.  But, the over-riding issue is the trafficking.

And, vets I know, are furious about Benghazi, and if one group I hear going Republican, even if it is just a temporary party switch for the general election, it would be them.  This year is the perfect storm for change and transparency.  And, luscious mud (I think it was e.e. cummings.)  LOL

 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #313 on: January 27, 2016, 12:19:07 PM »


Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. LOL

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.
Already moved on to mud eh? A drawback of snow - but you've found the silver lining in the beauty of mud.
So everything that a congressional hearing enters into testimony and everything that prompts a congressional hearing is credible to you?
I did not paint those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers. I said that this will cause more funding to single issue candidates which is good for extremists on both sides but not for anyone else (or the country.)
>>"There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics." -- I don't think this is true. But I think over the last 50 years a lot of conservative Catholics have moved to the Republican party. I don't think it has to do with Benghazi or with funding. If you have unbiased polls that show that people are moving parties over these issues, I'll be surprised: I don't think anyone cares or thinks there was an issue with Benghazi except people who were predisposed to. Republican and Democratic politicians alike have symbiotic relationships with their funders. All politicians do. It's the nature of the system. So anyone who interprets it as a Democratic problem was predisposed to.
This thing with PP does have to do with the choice to have an abortion because that's the agenda of the people who made the video and the only people who buy it are those who were predisposed to have a problem with PP. They have not been shown to do anything wrong so only people who want to believe they've done something wrong will believe they have. And the people who want to believe that are people who are anti-choice.
There is always a silver lining. 

Conservative Catholics? The church is in disarray as a result of the pedophile scandal - highlighted in Spotlight.  Sunlight on a scandal is a beautiful thing.  There are Catholics who are very conservative and connect with the old Latin Tridentine Mass.  They are few and far between, geographically.  It is hard to assign a political party to them.  Most sermons involve social awareness and tolerance, hardly a Republican agenda item.  I'd question that they have left the Democratic Party as the Republican mantra is inconsistent with the social agenda of the Church in general.

The tissue bartering may help the pro-lifers, indirectly, but because of the unintended consequences of science and technology, and very sophisticated ultrasounds, rather than a moral premise promoted by political party leaders.  It is a lightning-rod issue.  But, the over-riding issue is the trafficking.

And, vets I know, are furious about Benghazi, and if one group I hear going Republican, even if it is just a temporary party switch for the general election, it would be them.  This year is the perfect storm for change and transparency.  And, luscious mud (I think it was e.e. cummings.)  LOL

 

Yeah, non-Hispanic conservative Catholics used be a Democratic party stronghold but many have moved to the Republican party over issues like gay rights and abortion. And I don't mean Conservative Catholics; I mean conservative Catholics. The 'conservative' isn't meant to describe their religious attitude but their political attitude. And yes, I think across the board being conservative and Catholic are oxymoronic, but those two issues are sticklers for a lot of Catholics.

Regarding vets, they were predisposed to make a fuss about Benghazi. I was in the army under Clinton - near the beginning of his presidency - and the unpatriotic resistance to accepting a Democratic president was shocking to me. That's nothing new.

Again, regarding the effect of the PP kerfuffle - no-one except those predisposed to find problems with PP (anti-choicers)- believes that there was trafficking (as there's no evidence). So no one's mind is being changed.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #314 on: January 27, 2016, 12:34:16 PM »


Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. LOL

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.
Already moved on to mud eh? A drawback of snow - but you've found the silver lining in the beauty of mud.
So everything that a congressional hearing enters into testimony and everything that prompts a congressional hearing is credible to you?
I did not paint those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers. I said that this will cause more funding to single issue candidates which is good for extremists on both sides but not for anyone else (or the country.)
>>"There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics." -- I don't think this is true. But I think over the last 50 years a lot of conservative Catholics have moved to the Republican party. I don't think it has to do with Benghazi or with funding. If you have unbiased polls that show that people are moving parties over these issues, I'll be surprised: I don't think anyone cares or thinks there was an issue with Benghazi except people who were predisposed to. Republican and Democratic politicians alike have symbiotic relationships with their funders. All politicians do. It's the nature of the system. So anyone who interprets it as a Democratic problem was predisposed to.
This thing with PP does have to do with the choice to have an abortion because that's the agenda of the people who made the video and the only people who buy it are those who were predisposed to have a problem with PP. They have not been shown to do anything wrong so only people who want to believe they've done something wrong will believe they have. And the people who want to believe that are people who are anti-choice.
There is always a silver lining. 

Conservative Catholics? The church is in disarray as a result of the pedophile scandal - highlighted in Spotlight.  Sunlight on a scandal is a beautiful thing.  There are Catholics who are very conservative and connect with the old Latin Tridentine Mass.  They are few and far between, geographically.  It is hard to assign a political party to them.  Most sermons involve social awareness and tolerance, hardly a Republican agenda item.  I'd question that they have left the Democratic Party as the Republican mantra is inconsistent with the social agenda of the Church in general.

The tissue bartering may help the pro-lifers, indirectly, but because of the unintended consequences of science and technology, and very sophisticated ultrasounds, rather than a moral premise promoted by political party leaders.  It is a lightning-rod issue.  But, the over-riding issue is the trafficking.

And, vets I know, are furious about Benghazi, and if one group I hear going Republican, even if it is just a temporary party switch for the general election, it would be them.  This year is the perfect storm for change and transparency.  And, luscious mud (I think it was e.e. cummings.)  LOL

 

Yeah, non-Hispanic conservative Catholics used be a Democratic party stronghold but many have moved to the Republican party over issues like gay rights and abortion. And I don't mean Conservative Catholics; I mean conservative Catholics. The 'conservative' isn't meant to describe their religious attitude but their political attitude. And yes, I think across the board being conservative and Catholic are oxymoronic, but those two issues are sticklers for a lot of Catholics.

Regarding vets, they were predisposed to make a fuss about Benghazi. I was in the army under Clinton - near the beginning of his presidency - and the unpatriotic resistance to accepting a Democratic president was shocking to me. That's nothing new.

Again, regarding the effect of the PP kerfuffle - no-one except those predisposed to find problems with PP (anti-choicers)- believes that there was trafficking (as there's no evidence). So no one's mind is being changed.
Emily - Catholics were a Democratic stronghold. Think JFK. 

And the younger vets I know and regularly see, are indeed furious about Benghazi and will absolutely cross party lines to vote Republican this time, even if they are card-carrying Dems. The country is sick of the rhetoric, spin control, and the truth which must be subpoenaed from our officials. 

Bill Clinton really thought he could broker a Middle East in the 90's. I thought he was delusional. 

You were still a pioneer being a woman in the Army then. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #315 on: January 27, 2016, 03:28:56 PM »


Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. LOL

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.
Already moved on to mud eh? A drawback of snow - but you've found the silver lining in the beauty of mud.
So everything that a congressional hearing enters into testimony and everything that prompts a congressional hearing is credible to you?
I did not paint those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers. I said that this will cause more funding to single issue candidates which is good for extremists on both sides but not for anyone else (or the country.)
>>"There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics." -- I don't think this is true. But I think over the last 50 years a lot of conservative Catholics have moved to the Republican party. I don't think it has to do with Benghazi or with funding. If you have unbiased polls that show that people are moving parties over these issues, I'll be surprised: I don't think anyone cares or thinks there was an issue with Benghazi except people who were predisposed to. Republican and Democratic politicians alike have symbiotic relationships with their funders. All politicians do. It's the nature of the system. So anyone who interprets it as a Democratic problem was predisposed to.
This thing with PP does have to do with the choice to have an abortion because that's the agenda of the people who made the video and the only people who buy it are those who were predisposed to have a problem with PP. They have not been shown to do anything wrong so only people who want to believe they've done something wrong will believe they have. And the people who want to believe that are people who are anti-choice.
There is always a silver lining. 

Conservative Catholics? The church is in disarray as a result of the pedophile scandal - highlighted in Spotlight.  Sunlight on a scandal is a beautiful thing.  There are Catholics who are very conservative and connect with the old Latin Tridentine Mass.  They are few and far between, geographically.  It is hard to assign a political party to them.  Most sermons involve social awareness and tolerance, hardly a Republican agenda item.  I'd question that they have left the Democratic Party as the Republican mantra is inconsistent with the social agenda of the Church in general.

The tissue bartering may help the pro-lifers, indirectly, but because of the unintended consequences of science and technology, and very sophisticated ultrasounds, rather than a moral premise promoted by political party leaders.  It is a lightning-rod issue.  But, the over-riding issue is the trafficking.

And, vets I know, are furious about Benghazi, and if one group I hear going Republican, even if it is just a temporary party switch for the general election, it would be them.  This year is the perfect storm for change and transparency.  And, luscious mud (I think it was e.e. cummings.)  LOL

 

Yeah, non-Hispanic conservative Catholics used be a Democratic party stronghold but many have moved to the Republican party over issues like gay rights and abortion. And I don't mean Conservative Catholics; I mean conservative Catholics. The 'conservative' isn't meant to describe their religious attitude but their political attitude. And yes, I think across the board being conservative and Catholic are oxymoronic, but those two issues are sticklers for a lot of Catholics.

Regarding vets, they were predisposed to make a fuss about Benghazi. I was in the army under Clinton - near the beginning of his presidency - and the unpatriotic resistance to accepting a Democratic president was shocking to me. That's nothing new.

Again, regarding the effect of the PP kerfuffle - no-one except those predisposed to find problems with PP (anti-choicers)- believes that there was trafficking (as there's no evidence). So no one's mind is being changed.
Emily - Catholics were a Democratic stronghold. Think JFK. 

And the younger vets I know and regularly see, are indeed furious about Benghazi and will absolutely cross party lines to vote Republican this time, even if they are card-carrying Dems. The country is sick of the rhetoric, spin control, and the truth which must be subpoenaed from our officials. 

Bill Clinton really thought he could broker a Middle East in the 90's. I thought he was delusional. 

You were still a pioneer being a woman in the Army then. 
Yes, they were a Democratic stronghold. I think very few Democrats think that there's anything there in the Benghazi whoopdedoo so I'm not worried about people crossing the line for that. I certainly haven't seen any polls that indicate an issue. And all but the most delusional or idealistic, on both ends of the spectrum, and in the middle, think there's a substantial difference between the parties in terms of relying on spin, cronyism, rhetoric, what-have-you. Only the truly deeply partisan will tell you one party has an edge over the other in those terms.
Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #316 on: January 27, 2016, 06:19:54 PM »

Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #317 on: January 28, 2016, 05:22:19 AM »

Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!
ORR - First, thank you very much for your service.  It is interesting that there are other accounts of what happened. Young vets that I know as friends of my kids, and former students have talked about the video being a coverup. It does seem, however, that there are a lot of conflicts in accounts but what I don't understand is that Ambassador Stevens kept asking for more security and didn't get it. And that the accounts of the survivors tell a different story from the first "official" once blaming the attack on an inflammatory video, and the discrepancy in Clinton's email to her family that it was a terrorist attack. The families of those who died in the attack have a story that conflicts with Clinton's version.  

This is not a Republican issue. And, the EPA is run by the Obama Administration which is right now, Democratic. It is an agency under his control. The  Obama Administration has appointed the last three administrators, Jackson, Perciasepe, and McCarthy.  And, I don't care for any evangelical spin because we have a separation of Church and State in place to avoid theocracies and monarchies.
Rick Snyder, the Michigan governor, is a Republican, but the Mayor, Karen Weaver is a Democrat.  Lead in water is serious and having taught kids who were lead-paint poisoned, and who needed a great deal of early intervention, I share your outrage. Millions of dollars went to educate kids who were lead poisoned.  And the chemical companies had to be forced to remove it from paint and other products.    

What is interesting in the PP issue is that "if" the charging documents mention "fetal tissue" - then there was something on the PP end to sell.  

Did you listen to the BB's while in the service?  

Thank you again for your service.   Wink

« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 05:46:16 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #318 on: January 28, 2016, 06:53:19 AM »

Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!
ORR - First, thank you very much for your service.  It is interesting that there are other accounts of what happened. Young vets that I know as friends of my kids, and former students have talked about the video being a coverup. It does seem, however, that there are a lot of conflicts in accounts but what I don't understand is that Ambassador Stevens kept asking for more security and didn't get it. And that the accounts of the survivors tell a different story from the first "official" once blaming the attack on an inflammatory video, and the discrepancy in Clinton's email to her family that it was a terrorist attack. The families of those who died in the attack have a story that conflicts with Clinton's version.  

This is not a Republican issue. And, the EPA is run by the Obama Administration which is right now, Democratic. It is an agency under his control. The  Obama Administration has appointed the last three administrators, Jackson, Perciasepe, and McCarthy.  And, I don't care for any evangelical spin because we have a separation of Church and State in place to avoid theocracies and monarchies.
Rick Snyder, the Michigan governor, is a Republican, but the Mayor, Karen Weaver is a Democrat.  Lead in water is serious and having taught kids who were lead-paint poisoned, and who needed a great deal of early intervention, I share your outrage. Millions of dollars went to educate kids who were lead poisoned.  And the chemical companies had to be forced to remove it from paint and other products.    

What is interesting in the PP issue is that "if" the charging documents mention "fetal tissue" - then there was something on the PP end to sell.  

Did you listen to the BB's while in the service?  

Thank you again for your service.   Wink

Regarding the security, first, it wouldn't have helped as it would've been the wrong location; second, it's very much a hindsight thing to point to insufficient security as suspicious. The departments have to make decisions of where to put money and fighting power - these things aren't infinite - and there were plenty of hotspots. Obviously they didn't know this was going to happen. In hindsight, if there were more fighting power at that location things would've played out differently but that doesn't mean someone beforehand could've predicted that that was the spot where more security should go out of all the hotspots. Multiple locations were requesting more security.
Regarding the spin and various accounts, one can't expect the full story to ever really be clear let alone the day after; it is clear that there were film-related protests simultaneous to the attack. It's not indicative of a conspiracy or cover-up that things clarified over time. People require, rather unreasonably in my opinion, their public officials to supply an explanation immediately, before the officials have gathered and analyzed the data; then they unreasonably attack the officials if the immediate explanation turns out to be flawed. Also, as someone who apparently works in the law, you must be aware that first-hand accounts can only show the perspective of that person - not the whole picture - and how we would imagine the accounts of families of victims who have died would be useful testimony regarding what occurred, I have no idea.  
So, the government erred in providing the public, upon demand, with a premature and flawed explanation. That's what it comes down to.
Regarding PP, no one's suggested they didn't have tissue; of course they did. What there's no evidence for is that they sold or ever intended to sell it.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 06:56:28 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #319 on: January 28, 2016, 09:38:04 AM »

Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!
ORR - First, thank you very much for your service.  It is interesting that there are other accounts of what happened. Young vets that I know as friends of my kids, and former students have talked about the video being a coverup. It does seem, however, that there are a lot of conflicts in accounts but what I don't understand is that Ambassador Stevens kept asking for more security and didn't get it. And that the accounts of the survivors tell a different story from the first "official" once blaming the attack on an inflammatory video, and the discrepancy in Clinton's email to her family that it was a terrorist attack. The families of those who died in the attack have a story that conflicts with Clinton's version.  

This is not a Republican issue. And, the EPA is run by the Obama Administration which is right now, Democratic. It is an agency under his control. The  Obama Administration has appointed the last three administrators, Jackson, Perciasepe, and McCarthy.  And, I don't care for any evangelical spin because we have a separation of Church and State in place to avoid theocracies and monarchies.
Rick Snyder, the Michigan governor, is a Republican, but the Mayor, Karen Weaver is a Democrat.  Lead in water is serious and having taught kids who were lead-paint poisoned, and who needed a great deal of early intervention, I share your outrage. Millions of dollars went to educate kids who were lead poisoned.  And the chemical companies had to be forced to remove it from paint and other products.    

What is interesting in the PP issue is that "if" the charging documents mention "fetal tissue" - then there was something on the PP end to sell.  

Did you listen to the BB's while in the service?  

Thank you again for your service.   Wink

Regarding the security, first, it wouldn't have helped as it would've been the wrong location; second, it's very much a hindsight thing to point to insufficient security as suspicious. The departments have to make decisions of where to put money and fighting power - these things aren't infinite - and there were plenty of hotspots. Obviously they didn't know this was going to happen. In hindsight, if there were more fighting power at that location things would've played out differently but that doesn't mean someone beforehand could've predicted that that was the spot where more security should go out of all the hotspots. Multiple locations were requesting more security.
Regarding the spin and various accounts, one can't expect the full story to ever really be clear let alone the day after; it is clear that there were film-related protests simultaneous to the attack. It's not indicative of a conspiracy or cover-up that things clarified over time. People require, rather unreasonably in my opinion, their public officials to supply an explanation immediately, before the officials have gathered and analyzed the data; then they unreasonably attack the officials if the immediate explanation turns out to be flawed. Also, as someone who apparently works in the law, you must be aware that first-hand accounts can only show the perspective of that person - not the whole picture - and how we would imagine the accounts of families of victims who have died would be useful testimony regarding what occurred, I have no idea.  
So, the government erred in providing the public, upon demand, with a premature and flawed explanation. That's what it comes down to.
Regarding PP, no one's suggested they didn't have tissue; of course they did. What there's no evidence for is that they sold or ever intended to sell it.

Emily - An American Ambassador is accorded a heightened level of security beyond whatever might be the routine level.  When an ambassador calls out multiple times for enhanced security - the response is supposed to be "on the way." 

Hillary Clinton has a problem with truthfulness.  And, it is across-the-board, a problem with her campaign.   Credibility.  She doesn't have it. And this issue of a "stand down" order?  These are family survivors who are relying on those who were there.  The story conflicts.  And when emails come out from Clinton's email server which was supposed to be government property on government servers, which were "spoliated" on her order, and arrogantly so, (my opinion) - we have a problem. 

Clinton tells her daughter that it is a "terrorist attack" and she tells the mother of a victim that it was a "viral video."  The mother was recently interviewed on big bad Fox News.  She told the audience that Hillary lied to her next to the body of her son. 

So, she isn't getting a pass and chalking it up to a right wing conspiracy as she is now, is a cop-out.  In 2008, I would gladly have supported her.  Now, not so much.   She has a little problem with the truth.  I'd sooner vote for Bernie Sanders. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #320 on: January 28, 2016, 09:46:44 AM »

Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!
ORR - First, thank you very much for your service.  It is interesting that there are other accounts of what happened. Young vets that I know as friends of my kids, and former students have talked about the video being a coverup. It does seem, however, that there are a lot of conflicts in accounts but what I don't understand is that Ambassador Stevens kept asking for more security and didn't get it. And that the accounts of the survivors tell a different story from the first "official" once blaming the attack on an inflammatory video, and the discrepancy in Clinton's email to her family that it was a terrorist attack. The families of those who died in the attack have a story that conflicts with Clinton's version.  

This is not a Republican issue. And, the EPA is run by the Obama Administration which is right now, Democratic. It is an agency under his control. The  Obama Administration has appointed the last three administrators, Jackson, Perciasepe, and McCarthy.  And, I don't care for any evangelical spin because we have a separation of Church and State in place to avoid theocracies and monarchies.
Rick Snyder, the Michigan governor, is a Republican, but the Mayor, Karen Weaver is a Democrat.  Lead in water is serious and having taught kids who were lead-paint poisoned, and who needed a great deal of early intervention, I share your outrage. Millions of dollars went to educate kids who were lead poisoned.  And the chemical companies had to be forced to remove it from paint and other products.    

What is interesting in the PP issue is that "if" the charging documents mention "fetal tissue" - then there was something on the PP end to sell.  

Did you listen to the BB's while in the service?  

Thank you again for your service.   Wink

Regarding the security, first, it wouldn't have helped as it would've been the wrong location; second, it's very much a hindsight thing to point to insufficient security as suspicious. The departments have to make decisions of where to put money and fighting power - these things aren't infinite - and there were plenty of hotspots. Obviously they didn't know this was going to happen. In hindsight, if there were more fighting power at that location things would've played out differently but that doesn't mean someone beforehand could've predicted that that was the spot where more security should go out of all the hotspots. Multiple locations were requesting more security.
Regarding the spin and various accounts, one can't expect the full story to ever really be clear let alone the day after; it is clear that there were film-related protests simultaneous to the attack. It's not indicative of a conspiracy or cover-up that things clarified over time. People require, rather unreasonably in my opinion, their public officials to supply an explanation immediately, before the officials have gathered and analyzed the data; then they unreasonably attack the officials if the immediate explanation turns out to be flawed. Also, as someone who apparently works in the law, you must be aware that first-hand accounts can only show the perspective of that person - not the whole picture - and how we would imagine the accounts of families of victims who have died would be useful testimony regarding what occurred, I have no idea.  
So, the government erred in providing the public, upon demand, with a premature and flawed explanation. That's what it comes down to.
Regarding PP, no one's suggested they didn't have tissue; of course they did. What there's no evidence for is that they sold or ever intended to sell it.

Emily - An American Ambassador is accorded a heightened level of security beyond whatever might be the routine level.  When an ambassador calls out multiple times for enhanced security - the response is supposed to be "on the way." 

Hillary Clinton has a problem with truthfulness.  And, it is across-the-board, a problem with her campaign.   Credibility.  She doesn't have it. And this issue of a "stand down" order?  These are family survivors who are relying on those who were there.  The story conflicts.  And when emails come out from Clinton's email server which was supposed to be government property on government servers, which were "spoliated" on her order, and arrogantly so, (my opinion) - we have a problem. 

Clinton tells her daughter that it is a "terrorist attack" and she tells the mother of a victim that it was a "viral video."  The mother was recently interviewed on big bad Fox News.  She told the audience that Hillary lied to her next to the body of her son. 

So, she isn't getting a pass and chalking it up to a right wing conspiracy as she is now, is a cop-out.  In 2008, I would gladly have supported her.  Now, not so much.   She has a little problem with the truth.  I'd sooner vote for Bernie Sanders. 
As I said, there were multiple calls for security from many sources, all important. If they said "on the way" to each one, they'd probably have to raise taxes and renew the draft. I mean, have you ever managed a budget and a team of people? Everyone always has an emergency and a desire for more of everything. A big part of a manager's job is saying no. Even to the fancy people who work for you.
I think what you have to say about Hillary Clinton indicates that you are probably not thinking of Benghazi without bias. And the "body of the son" thing is obviously a way to get people to react to that information with emotion, not logic.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #321 on: January 28, 2016, 10:10:00 AM »

Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!
ORR - First, thank you very much for your service.  It is interesting that there are other accounts of what happened. Young vets that I know as friends of my kids, and former students have talked about the video being a coverup. It does seem, however, that there are a lot of conflicts in accounts but what I don't understand is that Ambassador Stevens kept asking for more security and didn't get it. And that the accounts of the survivors tell a different story from the first "official" once blaming the attack on an inflammatory video, and the discrepancy in Clinton's email to her family that it was a terrorist attack. The families of those who died in the attack have a story that conflicts with Clinton's version.  

This is not a Republican issue. And, the EPA is run by the Obama Administration which is right now, Democratic. It is an agency under his control. The  Obama Administration has appointed the last three administrators, Jackson, Perciasepe, and McCarthy.  And, I don't care for any evangelical spin because we have a separation of Church and State in place to avoid theocracies and monarchies.
Rick Snyder, the Michigan governor, is a Republican, but the Mayor, Karen Weaver is a Democrat.  Lead in water is serious and having taught kids who were lead-paint poisoned, and who needed a great deal of early intervention, I share your outrage. Millions of dollars went to educate kids who were lead poisoned.  And the chemical companies had to be forced to remove it from paint and other products.    

What is interesting in the PP issue is that "if" the charging documents mention "fetal tissue" - then there was something on the PP end to sell.  

Did you listen to the BB's while in the service?  

Thank you again for your service.   Wink

Regarding the security, first, it wouldn't have helped as it would've been the wrong location; second, it's very much a hindsight thing to point to insufficient security as suspicious. The departments have to make decisions of where to put money and fighting power - these things aren't infinite - and there were plenty of hotspots. Obviously they didn't know this was going to happen. In hindsight, if there were more fighting power at that location things would've played out differently but that doesn't mean someone beforehand could've predicted that that was the spot where more security should go out of all the hotspots. Multiple locations were requesting more security.
Regarding the spin and various accounts, one can't expect the full story to ever really be clear let alone the day after; it is clear that there were film-related protests simultaneous to the attack. It's not indicative of a conspiracy or cover-up that things clarified over time. People require, rather unreasonably in my opinion, their public officials to supply an explanation immediately, before the officials have gathered and analyzed the data; then they unreasonably attack the officials if the immediate explanation turns out to be flawed. Also, as someone who apparently works in the law, you must be aware that first-hand accounts can only show the perspective of that person - not the whole picture - and how we would imagine the accounts of families of victims who have died would be useful testimony regarding what occurred, I have no idea.  
So, the government erred in providing the public, upon demand, with a premature and flawed explanation. That's what it comes down to.
Regarding PP, no one's suggested they didn't have tissue; of course they did. What there's no evidence for is that they sold or ever intended to sell it.

Emily - An American Ambassador is accorded a heightened level of security beyond whatever might be the routine level.  When an ambassador calls out multiple times for enhanced security - the response is supposed to be "on the way." 

Hillary Clinton has a problem with truthfulness.  And, it is across-the-board, a problem with her campaign.   Credibility.  She doesn't have it. And this issue of a "stand down" order?  These are family survivors who are relying on those who were there.  The story conflicts.  And when emails come out from Clinton's email server which was supposed to be government property on government servers, which were "spoliated" on her order, and arrogantly so, (my opinion) - we have a problem. 

Clinton tells her daughter that it is a "terrorist attack" and she tells the mother of a victim that it was a "viral video."  The mother was recently interviewed on big bad Fox News.  She told the audience that Hillary lied to her next to the body of her son. 

So, she isn't getting a pass and chalking it up to a right wing conspiracy as she is now, is a cop-out.  In 2008, I would gladly have supported her.  Now, not so much.   She has a little problem with the truth.  I'd sooner vote for Bernie Sanders. 
As I said, there were multiple calls for security from many sources, all important. If they said "on the way" to each one, they'd probably have to raise taxes and renew the draft. I mean, have you ever managed a budget and a team of people? Everyone always has an emergency and a desire for more of everything. A big part of a manager's job is saying no. Even to the fancy people who work for you.
I think what you have to say about Hillary Clinton indicates that you are probably not thinking of Benghazi without bias. And the "body of the son" thing is obviously a way to get people to react to that information with emotion, not logic.
Emily - An American Ambassador is as close to the top. They get their jobs for political reasons.  They are treated like royalty as are their families when they are posted in those positions. They are housed, have domestic staff, drivers, the works. But they are generally given layers of security, both from State Dept. who oversee and coordinate their work as well as local security. 

This is ineptitude and damage control to minimize what was actually going on. It is consistent with the ISIS is a "JV team" nonsense.  And, any management roles, I have held, are immaterial on this forum. This is not about me.  This is about foreign policy gone wrong and an utter lack of transparency.   

They were not renewing the draft for any ambassador.  More than one family member was told the same b.s. story about a video as were the American people. An ambassador should not have to ask twice for security.  It falsely represented what the actual danger was.   They lied.  Now they are sorry, because they got caught. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #322 on: January 28, 2016, 10:36:55 AM »


As I said, there were multiple calls for security from many sources, all important. If they said "on the way" to each one, they'd probably have to raise taxes and renew the draft. I mean, have you ever managed a budget and a team of people? Everyone always has an emergency and a desire for more of everything. A big part of a manager's job is saying no. Even to the fancy people who work for you.
I think what you have to say about Hillary Clinton indicates that you are probably not thinking of Benghazi without bias. And the "body of the son" thing is obviously a way to get people to react to that information with emotion, not logic.
Emily - An American Ambassador is as close to the top. They get their jobs for political reasons.  They are treated like royalty as are their families when they are posted in those positions. They are housed, have domestic staff, drivers, the works. But they are generally given layers of security, both from State Dept. who oversee and coordinate their work as well as local security. 

This is ineptitude and damage control to minimize what was actually going on. It is consistent with the ISIS is a "JV team" nonsense.  And, any management roles, I have held, are immaterial on this forum. This is not about me.  This is about foreign policy gone wrong and an utter lack of transparency.   

They were not renewing the draft for any ambassador.  More than one family member was told the same b.s. story about a video as were the American people. An ambassador should not have to ask twice for security.  It falsely represented what the actual danger was.   They lied.  Now they are sorry, because they got caught. 
Hi FdP, I know that embassies are fancy digs and that they have a lot of security. I'm just saying that the Cabinet Secretaries have limited resources to deal with and they have a lot of people insisting that they have an emergency and need those resources, like any manager (I didn't mean to make that about you - I was just saying that this is the usual experience with a management position). I'm sure many ambassadors have asked many times for more security and never gotten it because resources are limited.
Regarding the video, the protesters were there. I don't believe there was a false representation.
But really the point is that I think it's evident that people predisposed to think it's a scandalous conspiracy think it's a scandalous conspiracy while people predisposed not to don't so there won't be many vote changes over it.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #323 on: January 28, 2016, 11:18:56 AM »


As I said, there were multiple calls for security from many sources, all important. If they said "on the way" to each one, they'd probably have to raise taxes and renew the draft. I mean, have you ever managed a budget and a team of people? Everyone always has an emergency and a desire for more of everything. A big part of a manager's job is saying no. Even to the fancy people who work for you.
I think what you have to say about Hillary Clinton indicates that you are probably not thinking of Benghazi without bias. And the "body of the son" thing is obviously a way to get people to react to that information with emotion, not logic.
Emily - An American Ambassador is as close to the top. They get their jobs for political reasons.  They are treated like royalty as are their families when they are posted in those positions. They are housed, have domestic staff, drivers, the works. But they are generally given layers of security, both from State Dept. who oversee and coordinate their work as well as local security.  

This is ineptitude and damage control to minimize what was actually going on. It is consistent with the ISIS is a "JV team" nonsense.  And, any management roles, I have held, are immaterial on this forum. This is not about me.  This is about foreign policy gone wrong and an utter lack of transparency.    

They were not renewing the draft for any ambassador.  More than one family member was told the same b.s. story about a video as were the American people. An ambassador should not have to ask twice for security.  It falsely represented what the actual danger was.   They lied.  Now they are sorry, because they got caught.  
Hi FdP, I know that embassies are fancy digs and that they have a lot of security. I'm just saying that the Cabinet Secretaries have limited resources to deal with and they have a lot of people insisting that they have an emergency and need those resources, like any manager (I didn't mean to make that about you - I was just saying that this is the usual experience with a management position). I'm sure many ambassadors have asked many times for more security and never gotten it because resources are limited.
Regarding the video, the protesters were there. I don't believe there was a false representation.
But really the point is that I think it's evident that people predisposed to think it's a scandalous conspiracy think it's a scandalous conspiracy while people predisposed not to don't so there won't be many vote changes over it.
Emily - no one would like to see a woman president more than I would. It is long overdue. Not her.  

That said, the history with The Clinton Foundation, the guest speaking deal, and now this, has put lives in danger.  She did not appoint the ambassadors, they are on the President's list after the election.  

The State Dept. have career employees  who see the political people come and go and instruct the ambassadors and their families on protocol, etc. with actual training and orientation to that specific country.  It is not a tail-gate operation.  When an ambassador calls for help - and now we have seven is killed in the line of duty, a red flag goes up to protect them.  Mark Lippert was slashed in the face in Seoul.  They all serve "at the pleasure" of the President.  Some are in inherent danger because of the posting location.  So when they want security, they generally get it without delay.    

It is not so much a conspiracy as recognizing ineptitude and damage control. It is a pattern of misconduct in my opinion, from the outset that her email server was not the official one as it fostered a policy of non-accountability among her staff.      

No amount of damage control and press release restraint to minimize "political damage at home" because of her political aspiration to be President, is excusable with a loss of life.  This one is on her and she needs to own it.  She would have done better to admit she messed up, said she was profoundly sorry and not participated in a nonsense defense of a viral video.  Last night there was a $2,700 fundraiser for Clinton, where they cut the ticket price to $50. That was in the Daily Mail.  We will see with these primaries.  

Only in the last few years, have I started watching Fox to balance the other liberal media I watch. I am impressed because even if they disagree philosophically they invite everyone to have their say.  A lot of their coverage is linked in yahoo news and they seemed to get the story, and the controversial guests, first.  I was intrigued but had followed Greta van Sustern on CNN and O'Reilly in another market where he started out.  

Last night O'Reilly interviewed Trump to try to convince him to participate in their debate and let go of what took place with Megan Kelly.  He was reasonable, respectful, and didn't convince Trump, but made real headway with a candidate who is writing his own ticket.  Trump did not control O'Reilly, nor did he disrespect him.  O'Reilly opened the door in a masterful way, didn't corner him, and reached him very professionally.  Trump was not changing his plans, of course, but seemed to be "disarmed" by O'Reilly's line of questions and discussion.  He even smiled a couple of times.  Every network has a philosophy and agenda.  That is a given.  But, they have had the Benghazi families on, and their story is a compelling one.  And Fox had the exclusive.  So that is where I went to hear their side.   Wink      
« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 11:29:42 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #324 on: January 28, 2016, 11:37:25 AM »


As I said, there were multiple calls for security from many sources, all important. If they said "on the way" to each one, they'd probably have to raise taxes and renew the draft. I mean, have you ever managed a budget and a team of people? Everyone always has an emergency and a desire for more of everything. A big part of a manager's job is saying no. Even to the fancy people who work for you.
I think what you have to say about Hillary Clinton indicates that you are probably not thinking of Benghazi without bias. And the "body of the son" thing is obviously a way to get people to react to that information with emotion, not logic.
Emily - An American Ambassador is as close to the top. They get their jobs for political reasons.  They are treated like royalty as are their families when they are posted in those positions. They are housed, have domestic staff, drivers, the works. But they are generally given layers of security, both from State Dept. who oversee and coordinate their work as well as local security. 

This is ineptitude and damage control to minimize what was actually going on. It is consistent with the ISIS is a "JV team" nonsense.  And, any management roles, I have held, are immaterial on this forum. This is not about me.  This is about foreign policy gone wrong and an utter lack of transparency.   

They were not renewing the draft for any ambassador.  More than one family member was told the same b.s. story about a video as were the American people. An ambassador should not have to ask twice for security.  It falsely represented what the actual danger was.   They lied.  Now they are sorry, because they got caught. 
Hi FdP, I know that embassies are fancy digs and that they have a lot of security. I'm just saying that the Cabinet Secretaries have limited resources to deal with and they have a lot of people insisting that they have an emergency and need those resources, like any manager (I didn't mean to make that about you - I was just saying that this is the usual experience with a management position). I'm sure many ambassadors have asked many times for more security and never gotten it because resources are limited.
Regarding the video, the protesters were there. I don't believe there was a false representation.
But really the point is that I think it's evident that people predisposed to think it's a scandalous conspiracy think it's a scandalous conspiracy while people predisposed not to don't so there won't be many vote changes over it.
Emily - no one would like to see a woman president than I would. It is long overdue. Not her. 

That said, the history with The Clinton Foundation, the guest speaking deal, and now this, has put lives in danger.  She did not appoint the ambassadors, they are on the President's list after the election. 

The State Dept. have career employees  who see the political people come and go and instruct the ambassadors and their families on protocol, etc. with actual training and orientation to that specific country.  It is not a tail-gate operation.  When an ambassador calls for help - and now we have seven is killed in the line of duty, a red flag goes up to protect them.  Mark Lippert was slashed in the face in Seoul.  They all serve "at the pleasure" of the President.  Some are in inherent danger because of the posting location.  So when they want security, they generally get it without delay.   

It is not so much a conspiracy as recognizing ineptitude and damage control. It is a pattern of misconduct in my opinion, from the outset that her email server was not the official one as it fostered a policy of non-accountability among her staff.     

No amount of damage control and press release restraint to minimize "political damage at home" because of her political aspiration to be President, is excusable with a loss of life.  This one is on her and she needs to own it.  She would have done better to admit she messed up, said she was profoundly sorry and not participated in a nonsense defense of a viral video.  Last night there was a $2,700 fundraiser for Clinton, where they cut the ticket price to $50. That was in the Daily Mail.  We will see with these primaries. 

Only in the last few years, have I started watching Fox to balance the other liberal media I watch. I am impressed because even if they disagree philosophically they invite everyone to have their say.  A lot of their coverage is linked in yahoo news and they seemed to get the story, and the controversial guests, first.  I was intrigued but had followed Greta van Sustern on CNN and O'Reilly in another market where he started out. 

Last night O'Reilly interviewed Trump to try to convince him to participate in their debate and let go of what took place with Megan Kelly.  He was reasonable, respectful, and didn't convince Trump, but made real headway with a candidate who is writing his own ticket.  Trump did not control O'Reilly, nor did he disrespect him.  O'Reilly opened the door in a masterful way, didn't corner him, and reached him very professionally.  Trump was not changing his plans, of course, but seemed to be "disarmed" by O'Reilly's line of questions and discussion.  He even smiled a couple of times.  Every network has a philosophy and agenda.  That is a given.  But, they have had the Benghazi families on, and their story is a compelling one.  And Fox had the exclusive.  So that is where I went to hear their side.   Wink     
Hi FdP,
I'm aware of the structure of the Foreign Service. Thanks though.
You and I will not agree on Benghazi. I, like many many people, think it's a non-issue. But I'm willing to agree that I was probably predisposed to think so.
You, like many many people, think there's a scandal there. But I expect you were probably predisposed to.
Fox, O'Reilly, Trump, controversial guests, family members - I don't take any of that seriously as news sources or as people who consider, or are even interested in considering, the issues of the day at a serious level.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.907 seconds with 21 queries.