• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm going to copy/past a response I read from another forum simply because I can't see myself saying it better. All credit where it's due.

Yup, the thing that is most frustrating is that this info was out there. I heard a lot about the fact state took out mentioning AQ as somekind of revelation this week.

Um... petraus said as much in November from last year. And he gave a reason why the specific group was left out, they didn't want them to know they knew

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/w...etraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html?_r=0

David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

But its being presented as some kind of political conspiracy. None of this stuff is new but its become "new" because FOX and the mainstream media which is dying to be accepted as "bipartisan" pretends like it is.

Its being dragged out now because it prevents the Obama administration from dealing with other issues (guns, climate, immigration, etc.). Yesterday Carbon passed 400 parts per million the highest its been in Human History, and I don't think there was a single question about that at the press conference, all the GOP wants to do is tar and feather obama and prevent Hillary from running.
 
What is really funny is watching so many people here try to pretend they don't mind this administration lying about the deaths of 4 Americans to political purposes. And they don't mind this administration's IRS (I know, they are "independent"... give me a break) admitting to targeting political opponents. These are two legitimate causes for serious concern.

If I'm going to blame Obama for anything related to Benghazi, it's first going to be getting involved in Libya in the first damn place. Second will be using consulates as fronts for CIA activity, which is an invitation for attack. But conservatives support all those things. I view the "Benghazi scandal" as it is being promoted by Rupert Murdoch's Fox as strictly a partisan affair.
 
Also Rand Paul has gone full retard

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...globalists-plotting-against-our-constitution/

Dear fellow Patriot,
Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

You see, only hours after re-election, Barack Obama immediately made a move for gun control…

On November 7th, his administration gleefully voted at the UN for a renewed effort to pass the “Small Arms Treaty.”

But after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut — and anti-gun hysteria in the national media reaching a fever pitch — there’s no doubt President Obama and his anti-gun pals believe the timing has never been better to ram through the U.N.’s global gun control crown jewel.

I don’t know about you, but watching anti-American globalists plot against our Constitution makes me sick.

This Spring, the United Nations went back into session to finalize their radical so-called “Small Arms Treaty.”

With the treaty finalized, a full U.S. Senate ratification showdown could come any time President Obama chooses and there will be very little time to fight back.

If we’re to succeed, we must fight back now.

That’s why I’m helping lead the fight to defeat the UN “Small Arms Treaty” in the United States Senate.

And it’s why I need your help today.

Will you join me by taking a public stand against the UN “Small Arms Treaty” and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey right away?

Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps.

But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

I’m sure I don’t have to tell you this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

Ever since its founding 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.

To the petty dictators and one-world socialists who control the UN, the United States of America isn’t a “shining city on a hill” — it’s an affront to their grand designs for the globe.

These anti-gun globalists know that as long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.

And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.

That’s why I was so excited to see the National Association for Gun Rights leading the fight to stop the UN “Small Arms Treaty!”

Will you join them by going on record AGAINST global gun control and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey today?

The truth is there’s no time to waste.

You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.

The fact is the last thing the gun-grabbers at the UN and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical agenda.

They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the UN Small Arms Treaty into law since the mid-1990s.
But now time may not be on our side.

And worse… the UN Small Arms Treaty is no longer the only UN scheme threatening our gun rights.

More and more of the UN’s radical agenda is slipping through covertly, under the cover of domestic legislation.

Not long ago, Obama told Sarah Brady from the anti-gun Brady Campaign, “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

In fact, Hillary Clinton’s State Department recently bragged that Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious are implementations of the UN’s anti-gun agenda!
And I’d place a wager that Obama’s M1 Rifle Re-importation Ban was also the UN’s agenda dutifully executed by his administration.

Anti-gun UN policy that NEVER received a single vote in the United States Congress!
The UN met recently to pass a final version of the “Small Arms Treaty” to be sent for ratification by the Senate.

So if you and I are going to defeat them, we have to turn the heat up on Washington now before it’s too late!

1. Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the supreme law of the land?

2. Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your Constitutional rights must be opposed?

If you said “Yes!” to these questions, please sign the survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.

But I hope you’ll do more than just sign your survey today.

With your help, the National Association for Gun Rights will continue to turn up the heat on targeted Senators who are working to implement the UN “Small Arms Treaty.”

Direct mail. Phones. E-mail. Blogs. Guest editorials. Press conferences. Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits. The whole nine yards.
Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.

But that’s not easy, and we may not have much time.
In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat the UN’s schemes, pro-gun Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!

So please put yourself on record AGAINST the UN Gun Ban by signing NAGR’s Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

But along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.

For Freedom,
Rand Paul
United States Senator


P.S. Only hours after re-election Barack Obama immediately made a move for gun control…

On November 7th, his administration gleefully voted at the UN for a renewed effort to pass the “Small Arms Treaty.”

What’s worse, the UN met in March to pass the final version of the treaty that will be sent to the Senate for ratification.

If we’re going to defeat the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” gun owners have to turn the heat up now before it’s too late!

Please return your Firearms Sovereignty Survey and put yourself squarely on the record AGAINST the UN “Small Arms Treaty.”

And if you can, please make a generous contribution to the National Association for Gun Rights of $250, $150, $100 or even just $35 right away!
And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Reads like the chain emails I get from my grandparents.

I also love the Irony of opposing mandatory gun registries but OK with signing a petition which clearly labels you as a gun owner.
 

Owzers

Member
i'm a little infuriated at how blatantly republicans are lying about the 12 revision talking points thing. The one thing that they hate the most was the thing that WAS NOT changed according to those emails, that it was a spontaneous attack in response to the Cairo protest/video.

I saw one of the republicans on the oversight committee go on fox today and say the state department took out the terrorist wordage and then added that it was a spontaneous attack, which they know is the second part is not true, but they want it to be true so they continue saying it even when the evidence they cite contradicts it.
 
The best possible 2016 matchup would be Biden vs. Paul. It would be this for the entire campaign

121011_biden_laughs_ap_605.jpg
 
IRS targeted conservative groups, official says

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...ing-conservative-groups-19151151#.UY59NrX-HqI

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-irs-conservative-20130511,0,2213444.story

This has probably already been covered ad nauseam(?) but it is kind of amazing to me that such a thing could happen.

I understand the stigma and political rhetoric, certain voters only looking out for the rich and trying to find ways to hide their income but....really? To target people in the opposition during election season like that? Government officials really need to take a hard look at themselves, because this is so far from good governance that everyone should be worried.

This is obviously going to be used as a political weapon, everything is these days, but you really don't want the other side ever going there. Just look at Russia where it's a common occurrence, these days people on the "other side" have to declare themselves as foreign agents and their property gets raided for asking too many questions.

Didn't the IRS do the same thing with Occupy Wall Street?
 

Jackson50

Member
The turnout rate for black voters was higher than white voters in 2012. Depending on the severity of non-response bias, this might the first recorded instance of blacks voting at a higher rate. The trend was driven largely by women. Perhaps the "war-on-women" narrative had an additive effect with voter suppression efforts. I admittedly have not followed the post-election literature, so this is mere speculation. But it seems reasonable.
 
The turnout rate for black voters was higher than white voters in 2012. Depending on the severity of non-response bias, this might the first recorded instance of blacks voting at a higher rate. The trend was driven largely by women. Perhaps the "war-on-women" narrative had an additive effect with voter suppression efforts. I admittedly have not followed the post-election literature, so this is mere speculation. But it seems reasonable.

The youth turn out from 2012 is deplorable. 41 % of people my age voted this election? Down 7.3%? Jesus.
 
Also Rand Paul has gone full retard

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...globalists-plotting-against-our-constitution/



Reads like the chain emails I get from my grandparents.

I also love the Irony of opposing mandatory gun registries but OK with signing a petition which clearly labels you as a gun owner.

Full Retard indeed. I guess that is a fundraiser letter sent out to collect money from poor Kentucky folk worried about the black man coming to their their gunz!

How about some reality? The small arms treaty has nothing to do with gun sales within the US, it is only about international illicit gun trade. The only nations that voted against it were Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Add Rand Paul to that list.

Snopes does a good job explaining it all . . .
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Edit: BTW, Rand Paul is currently the leading GOP contender for 2016. LOL. Mitt had a chance . . . he was the son of a Respect Governor and he was (at one point) a moderate Republican that was governor of a New England state. Rand Paul is the son of a race-war and gold standard kook who is a Senator from Kentucky and trades in crazy conspiracy theories like this one. He is a non starter.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
The question that I want asked of Republicans and other Benghaziers (as I learned last night, apparently Glenn Greenwald is one as well), and the one that I think is the logical extension of their, uh, probing, is what do you actually want to come out of this? What should the end result look like?
 

AntoneM

Member
The question that I want asked of Republicans and other Benghaziers (as I learned last night, apparently Glenn Greenwald is one as well), and the one that I think is the logical extension of their, uh, probing, is what do you actually want to come out of this? What should the end result look like?

Pretty sure they want it to lead to impeachment of Obama.
 
The youth turn out from 2012 is deplorable. 41 % of people my age voted this election? Down 7.3%? Jesus.

Makes sense.

The youth group was the one hurt hardest in terms of employment prospcts from the election.

Romney offered no viable alternative so many who lost faith in Obama just stayed home.
 

Averon

Member
The question that I want asked of Republicans and other Benghaziers (as I learned last night, apparently Glenn Greenwald is one as well), and the one that I think is the logical extension of their, uh, probing, is what do you actually want to come out of this? What should the end result look like?

Obama impeachment. Huckabee said as much.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Just wanted to take a quick breakghazi, and ask what the problem is with that IRS/Tea Party thing? Even the reliably lefty blogs aren't defending this.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
But didn't Hillary personally murder like 50 people in Arkansas?

Yea but that's Arkansas

Just wanted to take a quick breakghazi, and ask what the problem is with that IRS/Tea Party thing? Even the reliably lefty blogs aren't defending this.

The IRS gave the Tea Party groups and super pacs more scrutiny than they needed to and didn't give that same level to the more liberal ones. It basically looks like favoritism because it sort of is (even though Obama has no real sway over the IRS). Basically it's a dick move.
 
i wonder if all the tea partiers up in arms about the IRS using politics as an excuse to go after certain non-profit political groups were also this angry when the government went after ACORN.

not that either situation is acceptable.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
The IRS gave the Tea Party groups and super pacs more scrutiny than they needed to and didn't give that same level to the more liberal ones. It basically looks like favoritism because it sort of is (even though Obama has no real sway over the IRS). Basically it's a dick move.

Does sound like a dick move.

Still, I wish people could just ignore it, instead of giving it legitimacy.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
i wonder if all the tea partiers up in arms about the IRS using politics as an excuse to go after certain non-profit political groups were also this angry when the government went after ACORN.

not that either situation is acceptable.

I doubt it.

Does sound like a dick move.

Still, I wish people could just ignore it, instead of giving it legitimacy.

I doubt it'll get too big. The big GOP donors don't want the spotlight on them. Right now it's just liberals saying that they're trying to buy elections, imagine if some of the guys at the NYT decided to start looking into the money trail. These guys are old enough to remember that's how Woodward and Bernstien got Nixon. Not that it's on the same level but you know what I mean.
 
So let me just get this straight. Many of you buy the excuse that details like the group responsible and the fact that we have specific threats prior to the attack were omitted from the administrations talking points five days after the attack because it would've interfered with the investigation? Really? Read the ABC reports. They knew very early on this was not the result of a demonstration and they knew who was responsible. They also didn't mention any YouTube video.

And I did mention that it isn't clear how much the White specifically was involved in the shaping of the false narrative about protesters and anti-Islamic videos. But I don't see that as a particularly good thing. A US ambassador is killed for the first time in decades and the White doesn't involve itself in the response? Instead they allow the State Department to heavily edit the talking points to the point that Patreaus is being quoted as saying they were "useless" and questioning whether they should be used at all. So while it isn't clear the White House was directly responsible for the narrative, if they were so out of the process, that is an entirely separate problem.

And at no point did I say the administration wanted anyone to die. But they made very significant mistakes in both the immediate response and their public response in the days after. And then rather than tell people the truth, they tried to cover up what happened. I can understand how there was confusion in the immediate aftermath. But almost a week after the attack we were still hearing from the White House about YouTube videos and protests. There is no good excuse for that. It was a lie. Read the ABC emails. Read what people in the media who previously thought this was nothing are saying now. And try to take off the blue googles. Hillary Clinton's State Department lied to try and cover its butt.
 
I'm going to copy/past a response I read from another forum simply because I can't see myself saying it better. All credit where it's due.

This. It's State v CIA shit. Did the White House drag its feet, and lie about the video's role in the attack? Yes. I don't think anyone denies that. But I think there's a difference between that, and some Watergate type scandal or (worse yet) incompetence that got people killed on purpose.

The problem with the Benghazi story is that republicans cannot decide which narrative they want. Do they want to focus on smearing Hillary, insinuating she sent Stevens and company to their deaths? Do they want to focus on Obama refusing to send military aid in order to minimize the situation? Or do they want to focus on Obama giving weapons to terrorists. You can't have all at once.

This isn't going to stop Hillary or hurt democrats in 2014, so the only point I see here is to just throw as much FUD at the White House as humanly possible while appeasing an extremist base. It's all about that bubble that already believes Obama hates the country/troops.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
i wonder if all the tea partiers up in arms about the IRS using politics as an excuse to go after certain non-profit political groups were also this angry when the government went after ACORN.

not that either situation is acceptable.

Pretty sure the situations aren't comparable, either. But what do you mean by "the government went after ACORN"?

The IRS gave the Tea Party groups and super pacs more scrutiny than they needed to and didn't give that same level to the more liberal ones. It basically looks like favoritism because it sort of is (even though Obama has no real sway over the IRS). Basically it's a dick move.

The complaints aren't that the IRS exhibited favoritism; the complaints are that the IRS targeted groups aligned with the president's political opponents for additional scrutiny (in some cases apparently in direct contradiction to official IRS policy):

AP said:
The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

A dick move, sure, but I don't think calling it "favoritism" quite captures what the IRS did.

Still, I wish people could just ignore it, instead of giving it legitimacy.

I don't understand this wish. There's little more legitimacy to be given, now that the IRS has admitted its wrong-doing. Your wish seems to be one to ignore what is incontrovertibly a legitimate concern.

I doubt it'll get too big. The big GOP donors don't want the spotlight on them. Right now it's just liberals saying that they're trying to buy elections, imagine if some of the guys at the NYT decided to start looking into the money trail. These guys are old enough to remember that's how Woodward and Bernstien got Nixon. Not that it's on the same level but you know what I mean.

Since we don't know who were the donors to these groups, how can you even make this assertion? Second, since these groups were applying for tax-exempt status, they couldn't have had political activity as their primary function--so they would be inefficient vehicles for "buying elections."
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Pretty sure the situations aren't comparable, either. But what do you mean by "the government went after ACORN"?



The complaints aren't that the IRS exhibited favoritism; the complaints are that the IRS targeted groups aligned with the president's political opponents for additional scrutiny (in some cases apparently in direct contradiction to official IRS policy):



A dick move, sure, but I don't think calling it "favoritism" quite captures what the IRS did.



I don't understand this wish. There's little more legitimacy to be given, now that the IRS has admitted its wrong-doing. Your wish seems to be one to ignore what is incontrovertibly a legitimate concern.



Since we don't know who were the donors to these groups, how can you even make this assertion? Second, since these groups were applying for tax-exempt status, they couldn't have had political activity as their primary function--so they would be inefficient vehicles for "buying elections."

When I said favoritism I was just looking for the easiest way to explain it. In a way it sort of was but you are right that it doesn't capture the whole thing. As for the rest of it I am still trying to wrap my head around what's going on, tax law isn't my specialty.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
They were specifically targeted by a "News organization" and then by republicans in government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now#Defund_ACORN_Acts

That's kind of what I thought you were referring to. The situations aren't comparable. Though no doubt motivated by politics, the government investigations and other acts were in response to what appeared to be malfeasance by the organization. In this case, the IRS targeted these groups based on having names associated with conservative causes. If ACORN had been targeted merely because of its political affiliation--and not in response to the apparent malfeasance--then the situations would be alike, but that wasn't the case.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
Probably not as much as we will hear her saying "what difference does it make" when talking about how and why 4 Americans were killed.
And what difference does it make? It's not bringing those people back. Step away from the Fox News talking points for a minute and realize how meaningless your statement is.

Meanwhile, instead of trying to help figure out the attack, Republicans would rather just try to manufacture a scandal. I'm sure the families of those killed really appreciate that.
 
And at no point did I say the administration wanted anyone to die. But they made very significant mistakes in both the immediate response and their public response in the days after. And then rather than tell people the truth, they tried to cover up what happened. I can understand how there was confusion in the immediate aftermath. But almost a week after the attack we were still hearing from the White House about YouTube videos and protests. There is no good excuse for that. It was a lie. Read the ABC emails. Read what people in the media who previously thought this was nothing are saying now. And try to take off the blue googles. Hillary Clinton's State Department lied to try and cover its butt.

and? i accept this, i just don't give a shit (and neither do most americans, including the fox news viewers, which is why they keep trying to make the scandal something that it isn't.) any lies that were made were corrected eventually. in fact, didn't obama himself confirm that it was a terrorist attack almost immediately after the attack? even if the state department tried to blame something else, they did a terrible job. no one was harmed anyway. the government always lies to us, this is some really small time stuff to get angry about.

the insinuation from people like rand paul and fox news is that there is some conspiracy involved that caused the deaths of 4 americans. that is crazy and completely overshadows any reasonable inquiries into the state department's response.
 
Pretty sure the situations aren't comparable, either. But what do you mean by "the government went after ACORN"?

didn't the republican congress defund ACORN because they were registering democrats to vote? that seems just as bad to me as some IRS employees going after tea party groups that were actually violating the tax code.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
When I said favoritism I was just looking for the easiest way to explain it. In a way it sort of was but you are right that it doesn't capture the whole thing. As for the rest of it I am still trying to wrap my head around what's going on, tax law isn't my specialty.

Fair enough. I still have quite a few questions of my own about this whole thing.

For instance, in the AP report from yesterday, Lerner, who "heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups," cast the blame on "low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware." Yet today, the AP reports that Lerner herself learned in late June 2011 that "groups with 'Tea Party,' 'Patriot' or '9/12 Project' in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny." Today's AP report, quoting from a Treasury Dept. investigation that will be released next week, then says that Lerner " instructed agents to change the criteria for flagging groups 'immediately.'" The Treasury report also reportedly says that on "Jan, 25, 2012, the criteria for flagging suspect groups was changed to, 'political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement.'" Yet, yesterday's apology from Lerner refers to the targeting as having occurred during the 2012 elections. If we try to reconcile these two reports, it would seem that the IRS was targeting conservative groups based on their names since as early as mid-2011, that Lerner was aware of this from at least that time, and that nothing changed until late 2012. (I know that this last conclusion requires dismissing the reported changes from the AP, but that's what the apology from Lerner seems to indicate.)

Another question is how high up the governmental hierarchy knowledge of this conduct went. The AP suggests that the IRS Commissioner would have known as of March 2012, if standard procedures were followed:

AP said:
At a congressional hearing March 22, 2012, Shulman was adamant in his denials.

"There's absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people" who apply for tax-exempt status, Shulman said at the House Ways and Means subcommittee hearing.

The portion of the draft report reviewed by the AP does not say whether Shulman or anyone else in the Obama administration outside the IRS was informed of the targeting. But it is standard procedure for agency heads to consult with staff before responding to congressional inquiries.

In any event, it'll be interesting to watch this develop.

EDIT:

Frank the Great said:
didn't the republican congress defund ACORN because they were registering democrats to vote? that seems just as bad to me as some IRS employees going after tea party groups that were actually violating the tax code.

It was ostensibly in response to the videos of misconduct by ACORN employees, though Republicans may have supported it because of the reason you claim. Even so, ACORN was at least accused of having done something wrong (not that this should be enough to warrant punishment), whereas the only thing the conservative groups targeted by the IRS did was include certain conservative-sounding terms in their applications. The IRS didn't have any reason to believe they were violating the tax code.
 
Wow look at all of you. We have a few who think its ok for the woman who was in charge of the State Department at the time these men died to basically say she doesn't care why they died. It doesn't matter whether if it was a protest, like her department said, or whether that was a lie constructed in an attempt to shift blame away from her and her staff. So it's ok if that was a poorly constructed lie because nothing will bring those 4 men back? Why bother investigating at all then, since nothing we will learn will bring those guys back to life? Really?

And then there is the guy who says it doesn't matter what happened because people get shot in America all the time. Yeah... No reason to bother with that nonsense. Let's try to focus on things that are even slightly relevant.

And then another one who says its ok that they lied an a weak attempt to shift blame away from themselves because the government lies all the time. I don't think they usually lie about people being killed. And when they do, I consider kind of a big deal. Especially when the people killed died in part because of our government's incompetence.
 
Is it that weird that groups with a professed Anti-tax stance modeling themselves off a group that didn't pay taxes is looked at more closely?

Theyre not being charged or prosecuted (I could be wrong) as far as I know. They weren't being shut down.
Wow look at all of you. We have a few who think its ok for the woman who was in charge of the State Department at the time these men died to basically say she doesn't care why they died. It doesn't matter whether if it was a protest, like her department said, or whether that was a lie constructed in an attempt to shift blame away from her and her staff. So it's ok if that was a poorly constructed lie because nothing will bring those 4 men back? Why bother investigating at all then, since nothing we will learn will bring those guys back to life? Really?
Now your just trolling or willfully ignorant
to what she said
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
That's kind of what I thought you were referring to. The situations aren't comparable. Though no doubt motivated by politics, the government investigations and other acts were in response to what appeared to be malfeasance by the organization. In this case, the IRS targeted these groups based on having names associated with conservative causes. If ACORN had been targeted merely because of its political affiliation--and not in response to the apparent malfeasance--then the situations would be alike, but that wasn't the case.

I wasn't comparing the situations, I assume that is what Frank was talking about.
 
And then another one who says its ok that they lied an a weak attempt to shift blame away from themselves because the government lies all the time. I don't think they usually lie about people being killed. And when they do, I consider kind of a big deal. Especially when the people killed died in part because of our government's incompetence.

they lied once, then corrected themselves. as i said, the government has a long track record of getting away with serious lies that cause wars. the benghazi case was just a combination of miscommunication between agencies and a temporary (as in, a couple of days) deception about the cause of the attack. who. the. fuck. cares.

i agree that we should approach this from a "better governance" perspective. if republicans want to have a reasonable discussion about improving inter-agency communications and the necessity to remain silent before all the facts are known, i welcome that discussion. but instead we are getting crackpot conspiracy theories and flame-stoking by desperate and radical right-wingers. they have zero interest in having a reasonable discussion about this, so instead i'd rather just move the fuck on.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
and? i accept this, i just don't give a shit (and neither do most americans, including the fox news viewers, which is why they keep trying to make the scandal something that it isn't.) any lies that were made were corrected eventually. in fact, didn't obama himself confirm that it was a terrorist attack almost immediately after the attack? even if the state department tried to blame something else, they did a terrible job. no one was harmed anyway. the government always lies to us, this is some really small time stuff to get angry about.

the insinuation from people like rand paul and fox news is that there is some conspiracy involved that caused the deaths of 4 americans. that is crazy and completely overshadows any reasonable inquiries into the state department's response.


They didn't lie though, they just didn't want to be brash. Who cares if they immediately called it a terrorist attack or not? Are we to assume that they knew every single detail of the attack immediately after it happened? This whole argument is so fucken stupid, I cannot stand it.
 
They didn't lie though, they just didn't want to be brash. Who cares if they immediately called it a terrorist attack or not? Are we to assume that they knew every single detail of the attack immediately after it happened? This whole argument is so fucken stupid, I cannot stand it.
The thing is they From DAY ONE talked about this being possibly a terrorist attack. they never lied and said, no it wasn't
 
Sorry, no. This is a nonsense Fox News talking point along the lines of "you didn't build that." Look at it in context and it's obvious what she meant. I'll also note that leading off with this casts doubt on everything else you say.

Actually that is exactly what she said. She said what difference does it make whether they died because of a spontaneous protests where people "got out of bed and decided to kill Americans" or it was a coordinated attack. The difference is she and her department lied about why it happened.
 
Wait, Glenn Greenwald is a Benghazi truther? The fuck?

I'm not a fan of Glenn Greenwald. He is basically the stereotype Blame-American-First person. I presume he's seen some bad things that the USA has done and has become so polarized that he blames the USA for everything now. And there is no doubt that the USA has done some bad things. But Glenn Greenwald sees evil US government everywhere he looks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom