-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 20, 2019, 02:07:07 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION  (Read 38452 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #325 on: January 28, 2016, 11:48:10 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.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  Wink 
Logged
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #326 on: January 28, 2016, 12:06:07 PM »

It seems that some/most people are more wrapped up in their political affiliation than the actual issues out there. I always get the feeling the political parties are there just to brainwash us into thinking their way is the only way. I always used to think of parties as a philosophy, but they are now just a way to hide or brush-off bad ideas and behaviors.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #327 on: January 28, 2016, 06:23:16 PM »

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.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  Wink 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #328 on: January 29, 2016, 07:24:07 AM »

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.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  Wink 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.
Emily - it is of no consequence as to who is involved in wrong-doing.  Prosecute them all. 

Taking one's information from one network "brand" is being uninformed in my opinion. But, I do tend to wonder about the disrespect towards Fox.  Politicians are only afraid of public embarrassment.  And politics used to be focused on  the "ground game" with a few well-placed radio ads and now TV ads, 

Now, the media is an equal player with the "ground game" of stand-outs at high volume traffic areas, hand-shakes outside of bingo halls, supermarkets, senior citizen events, polling, etc. 

JMHO
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #329 on: January 29, 2016, 08:21:27 AM »

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.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  Wink 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.
Emily - it is of no consequence as to who is involved in wrong-doing.  Prosecute them all. 

Taking one's information from one network "brand" is being uninformed in my opinion. But, I do tend to wonder about the disrespect towards Fox.  Politicians are only afraid of public embarrassment.  And politics used to be focused on  the "ground game" with a few well-placed radio ads and now TV ads, 

Now, the media is an equal player with the "ground game" of stand-outs at high volume traffic areas, hand-shakes outside of bingo halls, supermarkets, senior citizen events, polling, etc. 

JMHO
Part of what I was saying is that Rupublicans think Democrats get away with malfeasance when it isn't there and vice versa.
I don't think getting one's information from any TV network is a very good idea at this point. They are all hyping so much to get viewers away from the Internet that none are serious. They are all just melodrama and no more.
If the politicians who disrespect Fox News publicly believed that their voters had any respect for Fox News, they wouldn't disrespect them publicly. I suspect that many right-wing politicians disrespect Fox News privately, but they know their voters don't, so they keep it private.
Yes, mass media has become more important for campaigns, mainly because it's become a bigger part of the population's focus.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #330 on: January 29, 2016, 08:39:10 AM »

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.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  Wink 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.
Emily - it is of no consequence as to who is involved in wrong-doing.  Prosecute them all. 

Taking one's information from one network "brand" is being uninformed in my opinion. But, I do tend to wonder about the disrespect towards Fox.  Politicians are only afraid of public embarrassment.  And politics used to be focused on  the "ground game" with a few well-placed radio ads and now TV ads, 

Now, the media is an equal player with the "ground game" of stand-outs at high volume traffic areas, hand-shakes outside of bingo halls, supermarkets, senior citizen events, polling, etc. 

JMHO
Part of what I was saying is that Rupublicans think Democrats get away with malfeasance when it isn't there and vice versa.
I don't think getting one's information from any TV network is a very good idea at this point. They are all hyping so much to get viewers away from the Internet that none are serious. They are all just melodrama and no more.
If the politicians who disrespect Fox News publicly believed that their voters had any respect for Fox News, they wouldn't disrespect them publicly. I suspect that many right-wing politicians disrespect Fox News privately, but they know their voters don't, so they keep it private.
Yes, mass media has become more important for campaigns, mainly because it's become a bigger part of the population's focus.
So, Emily, where does one get the news? 

Fox Business is the number one news network.   It is too bad that it is subscription-based because not everyone can access it.

There is a perception of selective enforcement of the laws.  Tags like right-wing and left-wing are big turnoffs to me.  There are shades of moderation in both.   Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #331 on: January 29, 2016, 09:39:24 AM »

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.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  Wink 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.
Emily - it is of no consequence as to who is involved in wrong-doing.  Prosecute them all. 

Taking one's information from one network "brand" is being uninformed in my opinion. But, I do tend to wonder about the disrespect towards Fox.  Politicians are only afraid of public embarrassment.  And politics used to be focused on  the "ground game" with a few well-placed radio ads and now TV ads, 

Now, the media is an equal player with the "ground game" of stand-outs at high volume traffic areas, hand-shakes outside of bingo halls, supermarkets, senior citizen events, polling, etc. 

JMHO
Part of what I was saying is that Rupublicans think Democrats get away with malfeasance when it isn't there and vice versa.
I don't think getting one's information from any TV network is a very good idea at this point. They are all hyping so much to get viewers away from the Internet that none are serious. They are all just melodrama and no more.
If the politicians who disrespect Fox News publicly believed that their voters had any respect for Fox News, they wouldn't disrespect them publicly. I suspect that many right-wing politicians disrespect Fox News privately, but they know their voters don't, so they keep it private.
Yes, mass media has become more important for campaigns, mainly because it's become a bigger part of the population's focus.
So, Emily, where does one get the news? 

Fox Business is the number one news network.   It is too bad that it is subscription-based because not everyone can access it.

There is a perception of selective enforcement of the laws.  Tags like right-wing and left-wing are big turnoffs to me.  There are shades of moderation in both.   Wink
I see that Fox Business had the most viewers one week due to hosting a debate. That says nothing about its quality. In what other way is it number one?
One can find serious current events news writing and analysis in some print periodicals and on some websites.
When I say 'right wing' or 'left wing' I am not talking about moderates.
Agreed, both 'wings' think that there is selective enforcement of the law by and for the other 'wing'.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #332 on: January 29, 2016, 10:40:51 AM »

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.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  Wink 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.
Emily - it is of no consequence as to who is involved in wrong-doing.  Prosecute them all. 

Taking one's information from one network "brand" is being uninformed in my opinion. But, I do tend to wonder about the disrespect towards Fox.  Politicians are only afraid of public embarrassment.  And politics used to be focused on  the "ground game" with a few well-placed radio ads and now TV ads, 

Now, the media is an equal player with the "ground game" of stand-outs at high volume traffic areas, hand-shakes outside of bingo halls, supermarkets, senior citizen events, polling, etc. 

JMHO
Part of what I was saying is that Rupublicans think Democrats get away with malfeasance when it isn't there and vice versa.
I don't think getting one's information from any TV network is a very good idea at this point. They are all hyping so much to get viewers away from the Internet that none are serious. They are all just melodrama and no more.
If the politicians who disrespect Fox News publicly believed that their voters had any respect for Fox News, they wouldn't disrespect them publicly. I suspect that many right-wing politicians disrespect Fox News privately, but they know their voters don't, so they keep it private.
Yes, mass media has become more important for campaigns, mainly because it's become a bigger part of the population's focus.
So, Emily, where does one get the news? 

Fox Business is the number one news network.   It is too bad that it is subscription-based because not everyone can access it.

There is a perception of selective enforcement of the laws.  Tags like right-wing and left-wing are big turnoffs to me.  There are shades of moderation in both.   Wink
I see that Fox Business had the most viewers one week due to hosting a debate. That says nothing about its quality. In what other way is it number one?
One can find serious current events news writing and analysis in some print periodicals and on some websites.
When I say 'right wing' or 'left wing' I am not talking about moderates.
Agreed, both 'wings' think that there is selective enforcement of the law by and for the other 'wing'.
IIRC it was the Neilson ratings.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.237 seconds with 21 queries.