Law School Discussion

POTUS

Re: POTUS
« Reply #160 on: October 28, 2015, 05:45:35 PM »
hollow, cold, uncaring, and sinister......... she laughs and eats Indian food hours

Not sure that's illegal, impressive intestinal fortitude sure, but not illegal


and mixing up peoples names isn't proof of guilt or anything other than mixing up a name. At least she didn't say she was going to defend  "our allies in the north" of Korea............

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #161 on: October 29, 2015, 07:27:01 AM »
I watched hillary clinton's testimony about benghazi and think that it should have been held in private and not a public session just like all of the others.  And,  get depositions privately.  This should not have been done before the cameras, since, number one it has been a bone of contention for democrats who claim that the whole thing is fabricated to make clinton look foolish or incompetent so that it affects her ability to run for office. It has been a bone of contention for Republicans in that Americans had been killed in an attack and repeated security  requests went unattended by someone.  Also,  someone began an idiotic rumor that a YouTube video provoked an obvious, calculated military attack.

I'm an independent and some of us dont care which party is in power--- we look at the lowest common denominator.  Occam's razor, so to speak.  A. Security requests were not heeded but the system failed and perhaos not one individual is to blame.   The buck stops with the one at the top--that would be Clinton-- but she doesn't subscribe to that whole  heartedly since she still seeks higher office.  She admits to the letters and the dictionary meaning of the word "responsibility" and that is fine, too because she was not hands on responsible for the lack of security.

  But her email to her daughter marked against her words vibrating over the metal caskets of our murdered Americans into the ears of Chris Stevens mother and father and the other family members also SHAMEFULLY RESONATES with this Independent as hollow, cold, uncaring, and sinister.

Let me see. Your major point is that when you are confronted with information you don't like, your reaction is that it shouldn't have been public. I understand that cognitive dissonance is a problem we all have to face, but this may take the cake. One might just as easily observe that given the number of one-sided leaks to come from the Committee (many of which are later retracted), it is fascinating to see how poorly the public sessions go. It is also been interesting to observe that the GOP prefers to keep matters, depositions, and other issues secret. Because this has nothing to do with getting the truth- but just generating popcorn for the true believers. That's the problem with politics today.

Also, "someone" didn't start an idiotic rumor regarding the Youtube video. As you would know, if you had been following the matter, there were numerous demonstrations throughout the Middle East (check out Egypt) due to the Youtube video. It was originally believed that Benghazi was a part of that, however, the original points by the State Department explicitly stated that terrorism was a possibility- this was edited out by the CIA. This has been found by ... what, the last 11 or 12 Benghazi investigations?

I am also curious as to how you, personally, ascribe responsibility, given that the head of State doesn't micromanage every single embassy (and proto-embassy) in the World (nor should the head). Was George W. Bush responsible for Sept. 11? For anthrax? Was Clinton responsible for the prior WTC bombing? Was Reagan responsible for the death of the Marines in Lebanon? Isn't Benghazi, really, Obama's fault (heh, THANKS OBAMA!).


I read this great article, by Ben Shapiro, which while I don't agree with all of it, the tone, however of the piece is dead on reflective of Clintons character . 

You had me at Ben Shaprio. As I said before, after a while, the fault ins't with the liars- that's what they do. The fault is with the people who keep lapping up the lies. When people keep saying, "Why do we have these politicians?" the fingers they should be pointing should be directed at themselves- because you are the people that lap up what they are telling you.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #162 on: October 29, 2015, 07:53:33 AM »
hollow, cold, uncaring, and sinister......... she laughs and eats Indian food hours

Not sure that's illegal, impressive intestinal fortitude sure, but not illegal


and mixing up peoples names isn't proof of guilt or anything other than mixing up a name. At least she didn't say she was going to defend  "our allies in the north" of Korea............

The attack at Benghazi was horrible and the deaths were tragic but this could potential could have been prevented if the state department had not been so disorganized with regard to security issues.  It is a systemic failure. What is cold, disingenuous and sinister is factually acknowledging to a family member in an email and a foreign government official that the attack was an organized, calculated military attack and then standing over the dead bodies with family members present and telling them that a video caused the deaths.

Do you understand?

Shapiro was expressing that after being questioned about the details of what happened doesn't say she further contemplated how we should honor the dead and find ways to prevented it from happening again-- instead she details ordering Indian food and partying with her camp.  The dead and the seriousness of the Benghazi event are an after thought to Hillary Clinton.

I see why Republicans, independents and now some democrats are done with her.  Jj

Re: POTUS
« Reply #163 on: October 29, 2015, 08:26:29 AM »
Loki,

Your pushback is partisan.  And intelligent people see through the bureaucratic bullshitt.  You have obviously drank the Democrat party talking points. You mischaracterize the FBI investigation in that you don't realize that Hillary Clinton and her own actions as well as her staff are being investigated by the FBI.  James Comey made a statement expressing how he will not comment on the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email setup.  You can't separate Hillary out of the equation.  Her emails didn't write themselves.

If you want to believe that a YouTube video was responsible for Benghazi and not some demonstration in Cairo, so be it.

I for one dont believe the bullshittt. I know now that Clinton is in deep doo doo.

So you may want to re read what you seem to believe yourself.

You are obviously a partisan Democrat talkin point guy.

I dont care who screwed up at the state department.  Maybe Clinton isn't to blame, it is a bloated bureaucratic department with system failures. Get it now loki???

Clinton knew it was an organized military attack and she boldfaced lied to the dead American families.  She blamed the event on a YouTube video but she admitted to her daughter what she truly knew.  That is a fact, not a talking point, my friend.

Have popcorn and watch the fall if a politician from grace--stop drinking the koolaide you dont even know you have been drinking.


Re: POTUS
« Reply #164 on: October 29, 2015, 08:44:24 AM »
Clintons testimony should have been private because all the others were private.  Her answers to the YouTube video questions were pathetic and it made her look like an uncaring cold human being.  It humanized her and exposed her disingenuous attitude towards other human beings.  She lied about the video, she knew it was a planned military attack and admitted as much but seems to be able to live with herself.

A private session would have spared the dead victims families the pain of watching her pathetic obfuscation and untruths.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #165 on: October 29, 2015, 02:05:43 PM »
Clintons testimony should have been private because all the others were private.  Her answers to the YouTube video questions were pathetic and it made her look like an uncaring cold human being.  It humanized her and exposed her disingenuous attitude towards other human beings.  She lied about the video, she knew it was a planned military attack and admitted as much but seems to be able to live with herself.

A private session would have spared the dead victims families the pain of watching her pathetic obfuscation and untruths.

Let's try this again, what, with the basic facts and understanding.

1. "All the others were private." I realize you were born yesterday, but this is surprising. You know that there are hours, and hours, and hours of prior footage of the people that they've had before them, but you've been too uninterested to watch? You can google it! Heck, there's this thing called "Youtube" that the secretive Benghazi committee posts selected videos too. Or, if you don't have much computer knowledge, you can watch C-SPAN. Of course, since your only real point is that testimony you don't like should be secret, so as not to interfere with what you want to be true, I suppose you could have a place in Stalin's Russia.
2. Yes, it was a terrorist attack. Of course, had you paid attention to what I said, or the prior dozen or so investigations, you would have known that already. You would have already known that the State Department was going to say that this was a possibility early on, and that the CIA (not State, not the Administration) changed that. Also- it wasn't her lying. Small point, but still. Attribution is so important, isn't it?
3. As I explained to you before, I'm not partisan. I tried to explain the whole thing about polling, Bayesian predictions, and my own personal desire that facts get recounted instead of partisan BS. I'd rather Clinton didn't win- but I may end up voting for her over some of the current GOP candidates. We'll see. It's choosing between the evil of lessers. On the other hand, at least I take some small comfort in not projecting my personal "pathetic obfuscations and untruths" on to other people- so there's that, I guess.

Also? I don't seek out law discussion boards to rant about my personal and political insecurities. So I also have that working for me.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #166 on: October 29, 2015, 02:43:43 PM »
Politics!  8)

That is an awesome response Loki.

It does appear that politicians lie or manipulate the truth, which includes Hilary Clinton. I was completely shocked to learn of this as I thought politicians were well known for always making the absolute right decision and never bending the truth to keep power. I was disappointed that American political system was the first ever where power-hungry people that sought elected office bent rules and maybe even lied to both stay in power and increase their power. I am not aware of any other civilization in history where this kind of things happened or any other current country, with a similar political climate.

What will be disclosed next? Cops don't always make the right decision? Doctors make mistakes? Banks cheat people out of money? I hope none of that is true, otherwise my sense of the real world beign absolutely perfect will be forever shattered.  :'(




Re: POTUS
« Reply #167 on: October 29, 2015, 04:43:34 PM »
hollow, cold, uncaring, and sinister......... she laughs and eats Indian food hours

Not sure that's illegal, impressive intestinal fortitude sure, but not illegal


and mixing up peoples names isn't proof of guilt or anything other than mixing up a name. At least she didn't say she was going to defend  "our allies in the north" of Korea............

The attack at Benghazi was horrible and the deaths were tragic but this could potential could have been prevented if the state department had not been so disorganized with regard to security issues.  It is a systemic failure. What is cold, disingenuous and sinister is factually acknowledging to a family member in an email and a foreign government official that the attack was an organized, calculated military attack and then standing over the dead bodies with family members present and telling them that a video caused the deaths.

Do you understand?

Shapiro was expressing that after being questioned about the details of what happened doesn't say she further contemplated how we should honor the dead and find ways to prevented it from happening again-- instead she details ordering Indian food and partying with her camp.  The dead and the seriousness of the Benghazi event are an after thought to Hillary Clinton.

I see why Republicans, independents and now some democrats are done with her.  Jj
I understand that the parts of your post that I responded to had jack to do with what you are asking if I understand. Do YOU understand? No. No you don't.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #168 on: October 29, 2015, 08:32:28 PM »
hollow, cold, uncaring, and sinister......... she laughs and eats Indian food hours

Not sure that's illegal, impressive intestinal fortitude sure, but not illegal


and mixing up peoples names isn't proof of guilt or anything other than mixing up a name. At least she didn't say she was going to defend  "our allies in the north" of Korea............

The attack at Benghazi was horrible and the deaths were tragic but this could potential could have been prevented if the state department had not been so disorganized with regard to security issues.  It is a systemic failure. What is cold, disingenuous and sinister is factually acknowledging to a family member in an email and a foreign government official that the attack was an organized, calculated military attack and then standing over the dead bodies with family members present and telling them that a video caused the deaths.

Do you understand?

Shapiro was expressing that after being questioned about the details of what happened doesn't say she further contemplated how we should honor the dead and find ways to prevented it from happening again-- instead she details ordering Indian food and partying with her camp.  The dead and the seriousness of the Benghazi event are an after thought to Hillary Clinton.

I see why Republicans, independents and now some democrats are done with her.  Jj
I understand that the parts of your post that I responded to had jack to do with what you are asking if I understand. Do YOU understand? No. No you don't.

Oh, I get it you were pointing out the things that weren't illegal that mrs. Clinton did and making a joke about here constitution. Very funny. Sorry, I didn't mention it earlier. 

That's right maybe she didn't do anything illegal. Who cares, the FBI are handling Clintons litigation at the moment. That's something to make a joke about, right?

To the average independent voter who smells typically republican stupid bullshitt with Clintin its  her warped personality and ethics that have driven son of us, and continuing to drive us away from her.
She's unscrupulous maybe not legally culpable with regard to Benghazi.

So sorry if I offended you.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #169 on: October 29, 2015, 09:03:33 PM »
Clintons testimony should have been private because all the others were private.  Her answers to the YouTube video questions were pathetic and it made her look like an uncaring cold human being.  It humanized her and exposed her disingenuous attitude towards other human beings.  She lied about the video, she knew it was a planned military attack and admitted as much but seems to be able to live with herself.

A private session would have spared the dead victims families the pain of watching her pathetic obfuscation and untruths.

Let's try this again, what, with the basic facts and understanding.

1. "All the others were private."Hillary requested it be public her celebrity brings tv cameras.  The other depositions were not blown out on commercial news channels. Plus, victims families got to listen to the bulkshitt all over again. Get it? I realize you were born yesterday, but this is surprising. You know that there are hours, and hours, and hours of prior footage of the people that they've had before them, but you've been too uninterested to watch?oh? I could have watched Sydney Blumenthal in real time? Missed that one. You can google it! Heck, there's this thing called "Youtube" that the secretive Benghazi committee posts selected videos too. Or, if you don't have much computer knowledge, you can watch C-SPAN. Of course, since your only real point is that testimony you don't like should be secret, so as not to interfere with what you want to be true, I suppose you could have a place in Stalin's Russia.
2. Yes, it was a terrorist attack. Of course, had you paid attention to what I said, or the prior dozen or so investigations, you would have known that already. You would have already known that the State Department was going to say that this was a possibility early on, and that the CIA (not State, not the Administration) changed that. Also- it wasn't her lying. Small point, but still. Attribution is so important, isn't it?I dont give a *&^% about the initial release by Hillary and her staff its what she said over the dead peoples dead bodies with their grieving family members. And the email to her daughter where she divulged what she truly knew.
3. As I explained to you before, I'm not partisan. I tried to explain the whole thing about polling, Bayesian predictions, and my own personal desire that facts get recounted instead of partisan I do believe that but you have a stronger lean to the democratic party because you are using their talking points.  Dont answer but think about when you last voted fir a rwpublican I'd rather Clinton didn't win- but I may end up voting for her over some of the current GOP candidates. [] We'll see. It's choosing between the evil of lessers. any candidate but trump would be the lesser of two evils. That is funnyOn the other hand, at least I take some small comfort in not projecting my personal "pathetic obfuscations and untruths" on to other people- so there's that, I guess.

Also? I don't seek out law discussion boards to rant about my personal and political insecurities. So I also have that working for me. oh, ok perhaps you don't rant but you do. But who cares. That's your style. Venting in a way and i accept it. I ginon this board because my work right after law school is  awesome but time consuming and I like to vent about  politics at this time in our election cycles 


Ask yourself this, when Clinton said that she still believes that a YouTube video might have had something to do with the attack on Benghazi do you honestly believe her?

I think you lean mostly to the left. Besides, I truly think bernie might be the only one standing in a few months.