Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

22 Million vs 30 Thousand

Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 4:27:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

hypocrisy in government? um is this new to you? does this somehow justify what someone else has done? yup a cover up is a cover up, that's government for ya, what else is new?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 4:28:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

I had no respect for Bush but...this administrstion made him look like a saint. I thought that was impossible but...it's a deep mud puddle one sits in when Egypt, I repeat...Egypt...declares you a conspirator with Islamic terrorist organizations. Nevermind the leap frogging of Congress by order of totalitarian absolute monarchy politics.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 4:31:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 4:22:53 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Link didn't work. What's the title of the article?

Both links worked for me. But it's 'The George W. Bush White House 'Lost' 22 Million Emails' Newsweek by Nina Burleigh 9-12-16

"Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?" Polifact.com By Louis Jacobson 5-12-14
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 4:42:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 4:27:56 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

hypocrisy in government? um is this new to you? does this somehow justify what someone else has done? yup a cover up is a cover up, that's government for ya, what else is new?

Hypocrisy among critics also isn't new. That's what I hope to show. You'll see all kinds of stuff bashing hillary for sh!t others have done an no one blinks an eye. And if you think Trump doesn't o this kind of stuff if not shadier on the international business scale then you're fooling yourself. Hell the man even admits stiffing US workers.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

On the emails, the problem is that Hillary rolled her own server. This is not carelessness, nor is it lack of technical expertise. It's a very deliberate act. And why would she create her own server? There can be only one reason: So she could delete incriminating emails if she ever got in hot water. Which is what she did. Hard to imagine what she deleted, based on what she overlooked!

So there was no need for hearings and all that jazz - the facts of the two scandals are right out in the open.
This space for rent.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:21:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 4:31:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:22:53 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Link didn't work. What's the title of the article?

Both links worked for me. But it's 'The George W. Bush White House 'Lost' 22 Million Emails' Newsweek by Nina Burleigh 9-12-16

"Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?" Polifact.com By Louis Jacobson 5-12-14

It was the mobile device. The article is kind of specious... those emails were eventually recovered (via Barricuda actually, an archiver). Why they haven't been turned over to the public is something different.

But, as I've stated numerous times in numerous places... some people will find the 'other' at fault for everything, while the 'other' will find some people at fault for everything. Partisan bickering depending on ideology.

Then there are those of us who KNOW DEFINITIVELY that both sides are one in the same in regards to lack of transparency and trying to paint themselves in the best light possible, all the while demonizing the other.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:28:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

On the emails, the problem is that Hillary rolled her own server. This is not carelessness, nor is it lack of technical expertise. It's a very deliberate act. And why would she create her own server? There can be only one reason: So she could delete incriminating emails if she ever got in hot water. Which is what she did. Hard to imagine what she deleted, based on what she overlooked!

So there was no need for hearings and all that jazz - the facts of the two scandals are right out in the open.

I didn't fully read the article, but was there classified information in those emails on an unsecured server? Was was the equivalent of "bleaching" that they used back then? I don't think the severity and possible repercussions of the 2 events are very equal either.
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:31:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

So this whole thing about Benghazi is about Hillary's post event explanation for it?

On the emails, the problem is that Hillary rolled her own server. This is not carelessness, nor is it lack of technical expertise. It's a very deliberate act. And why would she create her own server? There can be only one reason: So she could delete incriminating emails if she ever got in hot water. Which is what she did. Hard to imagine what she deleted, based on what she overlooked!

That is indeed a problem. As I understand Powell also had a private email server. I imagine there are probably many in the house and Senate do too.

I would highly recommend that the gov put in methods to send information back to FBI should any classified material end up on a non authorized device or server.

Congress should also write some clear laws about classified info on private hardware.

So there was no need for hearings and all that jazz - the facts of the two scandals are right out in the open.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 6:16:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:31:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

So this whole thing about Benghazi is about Hillary's post event explanation for it?

On the emails, the problem is that Hillary rolled her own server. This is not carelessness, nor is it lack of technical expertise. It's a very deliberate act. And why would she create her own server? There can be only one reason: So she could delete incriminating emails if she ever got in hot water. Which is what she did. Hard to imagine what she deleted, based on what she overlooked!

That is indeed a problem. As I understand Powell also had a private email server. I imagine there are probably many in the house and Senate do too.

I would highly recommend that the gov put in methods to send information back to FBI should any classified material end up on a non authorized device or server.

Congress should also write some clear laws about classified info on private hardware.

So there was no need for hearings and all that jazz - the facts of the two scandals are right out in the open.

How about have the NSA and FBI spy on them instead of us!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 8:02:48 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:31:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

So this whole thing about Benghazi is about Hillary's post event explanation for it?


It is to me. I mean yeah, she's been totally incompetent as a sec of state, but that's not really a scandal. The fact that this administration routinely takes the side of our enemies is the real scandal. It's totally unacceptable. Did Roosevelt get up after Pearl Harbor and say the Japs were protesting our trade policies?

On the emails, the problem is that Hillary rolled her own server. This is not carelessness, nor is it lack of technical expertise. It's a very deliberate act. And why would she create her own server? There can be only one reason: So she could delete incriminating emails if she ever got in hot water. Which is what she did. Hard to imagine what she deleted, based on what she overlooked!

That is indeed a problem. As I understand Powell also had a private email server. I imagine there are probably many in the house and Senate do too.


I thought Powell had his own email address, which is a completely different thing. But regardless, wrong is wrong, even if Powell did it. I very much doubt anybody in the House or Senate does this, because anybody other than a Clinton would go to jail for it. You might claim incompetence if you sent classified info over gmail or something, but having your own server on your own hardware is obviously very deliberate and requires non-trivial technical savvy.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 8:10:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:28:30 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

On the emails, the problem is that Hillary rolled her own server. This is not carelessness, nor is it lack of technical expertise. It's a very deliberate act. And why would she create her own server? There can be only one reason: So she could delete incriminating emails if she ever got in hot water. Which is what she did. Hard to imagine what she deleted, based on what she overlooked!

So there was no need for hearings and all that jazz - the facts of the two scandals are right out in the open.

I didn't fully read the article, but was there classified information in those emails on an unsecured server? Was was the equivalent of "bleaching" that they used back then? I don't think the severity and possible repercussions of the 2 events are very equal either.

Eh, don't get lost in the weeds. That's what they want you to do, but just ask yourself: Do you have your own email server? Do you know anybody who does? If you do, they are hobbyists, right? There is no reason to have your own server. It's like putting your own gas pump in your yard, there's just no reason to do it. Unless you want to be able to permanently erase emails at some point.

For a government employee, as with private employees, you don't really own your own emails. Your work product belongs to the corp you work for, and Hillary's emails belong to the govt. What she did is just outrageous on the face of it, that's what the mainstream media is effectively burying here.

It's like an accountant who keeps all the company books in his home library, maybe that would be a good analogy. Would you think maybe he's up to no good? And could any accountant other than a Clinton get away with such behavior?
This space for rent.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 8:40:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 8:10:30 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:28:30 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

On the emails, the problem is that Hillary rolled her own server. This is not carelessness, nor is it lack of technical expertise. It's a very deliberate act. And why would she create her own server? There can be only one reason: So she could delete incriminating emails if she ever got in hot water. Which is what she did. Hard to imagine what she deleted, based on what she overlooked!

So there was no need for hearings and all that jazz - the facts of the two scandals are right out in the open.

I didn't fully read the article, but was there classified information in those emails on an unsecured server? Was was the equivalent of "bleaching" that they used back then? I don't think the severity and possible repercussions of the 2 events are very equal either.

Eh, don't get lost in the weeds. That's what they want you to do, but just ask yourself: Do you have your own email server? Do you know anybody who does? If you do, they are hobbyists, right? There is no reason to have your own server. It's like putting your own gas pump in your yard, there's just no reason to do it. Unless you want to be able to permanently erase emails at some point.

For a government employee, as with private employees, you don't really own your own emails. Your work product belongs to the corp you work for, and Hillary's emails belong to the govt. What she did is just outrageous on the face of it, that's what the mainstream media is effectively burying here.

It's like an accountant who keeps all the company books in his home library, maybe that would be a good analogy. Would you think maybe he's up to no good? And could any accountant other than a Clinton get away with such behavior?

yeah that's what I thought, good analysis btw, so basically this is a poor attempt at a distraction by pointing the finger to someone else and trying to say they did the same thing, while what they did may have also been wrong, it's still not the same thing, doesn't matter anyway, 2 wrongs don't make a right, but apparently 2 wrongs do make a left (i'm sure you'll get that, I'll leave it up to you to explain it to them if you want)
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 9:02:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
It's only bad when Cheney does it because we all know he's Darth Vader, Lord Palpatine, and the new guy from The Force Awakens that looks like a huge Golem from LOTR.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 9:05:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 8:40:05 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
...

yeah that's what I thought, good analysis btw, so basically this is a poor attempt at a distraction by pointing the finger to someone else and trying to say they did the same thing, while what they did may have also been wrong, it's still not the same thing,

You inspired me, so I looked it up: http://www.politifact.com...

So yeah, Powell had his own email address, but not his own server, so it's apples and oranges.
This space for rent.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 10:34:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

So even though Obama called it an act of terror you're mad about faulty intelligence? Oh boy if only conservatives had this passion for the Iraq war.

On the emails, the problem is that Hillary rolled her own server. This is not carelessness, nor is it lack of technical expertise. It's a very deliberate act. And why would she create her own server? There can be only one reason: So she could delete incriminating emails if she ever got in hot water. Which is what she did. Hard to imagine what she deleted, based on what she overlooked!

Im sure Bush hid those 22 million emails for the same reason, but crickets is all I hear from the right. Also seeing how the FBI dropped all charges, she's not in hot water anymore.

So there was no need for hearings and all that jazz - the facts of the two scandals are right out in the open.

There were no need for the banghazi hearings either, especially if all you got is the above criticism, but such is life.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 11:55:09 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:34:42 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

So even though Obama called it an act of terror you're mad about faulty intelligence? ...


Not even close to what I said.
This space for rent.
Davery79
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:11:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 11:55:09 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:34:42 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

So even though Obama called it an act of terror you're mad about faulty intelligence? ...


Not even close to what I said.

The issue here is that the person in question is running for the Presidency. We are comparing a past president, who actually won the election, to a candidate who is trying to earn our vote. If Bush had been involved in something like this before he earned the presidency, you are damned right it would have been front and center of every opposing media outlet, and he may not have won . But, he was already president, and now it is a dead issue. This isn't hypocrisy, this comparison is also apples to oranges.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:39:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:34:42 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

So even though Obama called it an act of terror you're mad about faulty intelligence? Oh boy if only conservatives had this passion for the Iraq war.


And the other thing, btw, to back up a bit, is that we never should have been in Libya in the first place. Khadaffi was a bad egg, no doubt, but he had backed down when confronted by the US, years earlier. We want to send the message to all 2 bit dictators that if you back down, we'll leave you alone. So the damage done by us taking out Khadaffi for no particular reason - it really ranks up there with taking out Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, and we see how that turned out long term.

Why did Obama/Hillary do it? I guess it was some sophomoric idea that they could do regime change better, 'cuz Obama went to Harvard, you know. But it didn't turn out so well. And now she wants to be President? Trump is right - she could write a book on how not to do Secretary of State'ing.
This space for rent.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 5:34:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 3:39:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:34:42 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

So even though Obama called it an act of terror you're mad about faulty intelligence? Oh boy if only conservatives had this passion for the Iraq war.


And the other thing, btw, to back up a bit, is that we never should have been in Libya in the first place. Khadaffi was a bad egg, no doubt, but he had backed down when confronted by the US, years earlier. We want to send the message to all 2 bit dictators that if you back down, we'll leave you alone. So the damage done by us taking out Khadaffi for no particular reason - it really ranks up there with taking out Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, and we see how that turned out long term.

Criticizing conservative cold war logic in Iran? Are you feeling ok?

Why did Obama/Hillary do it? I guess it was some sophomoric idea that they could do regime change better, 'cuz Obama went to Harvard, you know. But it didn't turn out so well. And now she wants to be President? Trump is right - she could write a book on how not to do Secretary of State'ing.

If I remember correctly it was France and other European countries that took the lead in over throwing Gaddafi while the US as a NATO ally supported it.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 6:05:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 5:34:17 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 3:39:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:34:42 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

So even though Obama called it an act of terror you're mad about faulty intelligence? Oh boy if only conservatives had this passion for the Iraq war.


And the other thing, btw, to back up a bit, is that we never should have been in Libya in the first place. Khadaffi was a bad egg, no doubt, but he had backed down when confronted by the US, years earlier. We want to send the message to all 2 bit dictators that if you back down, we'll leave you alone. So the damage done by us taking out Khadaffi for no particular reason - it really ranks up there with taking out Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, and we see how that turned out long term.

Criticizing conservative cold war logic in Iran? Are you feeling ok?


I would define conservatism as following the constitution and the general views of the founders. Nothing particularly conservative about that operation. It was cold war, and people forget that, that we were coming off the mother of all existential threats, and the great bear was gobbling up countries in the aftermath.


If I remember correctly it was France and other European countries that took the lead in over throwing Gaddafi while the US as a NATO ally supported it.

What would NATO have to do with it? Libya was no threat to anybody. I'm just saying, it was very bad foreign policy, and this is part of her track record.
This space for rent.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 6:10:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 6:05:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2016 5:34:17 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 3:39:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:34:42 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:01:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:18:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
A cover up is still a cover up, but let's put things in perspective. http://www.newsweek.com...

Oh and while we're putting things in perspective, who wants to take a guess at how many embassy staff died under Bush? http://www.politifact.com...

Yeah, nice try, but the problem with Behghazi isn't that people died. That can happen when there's an attack. The problem is that Hillary/Obama blamed the attack on an American - it was all the fault of a nasty YouTube video, don't you know. It's basically the equivalent of a teacher telling the principal "No sir, he did do his homework, but the dog ate it. That's what he told me. The dog ate his homework. So we have to prosecute that dog".

So even though Obama called it an act of terror you're mad about faulty intelligence? Oh boy if only conservatives had this passion for the Iraq war.


And the other thing, btw, to back up a bit, is that we never should have been in Libya in the first place. Khadaffi was a bad egg, no doubt, but he had backed down when confronted by the US, years earlier. We want to send the message to all 2 bit dictators that if you back down, we'll leave you alone. So the damage done by us taking out Khadaffi for no particular reason - it really ranks up there with taking out Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, and we see how that turned out long term.

Criticizing conservative cold war logic in Iran? Are you feeling ok?


I would define conservatism as following the constitution and the general views of the founders. Nothing particularly conservative about that operation. It was cold war, and people forget that, that we were coming off the mother of all existential threats, and the great bear was gobbling up countries in the aftermath.

You think Conservatism has a monopoly on following the Constitution? lol cute.

So was the overthrow of Iran justified then because as you say Russia was gobbling up countries? Your message is confusing.

If I remember correctly it was France and other European countries that took the lead in over throwing Gaddafi while the US as a NATO ally supported it.

What would NATO have to do with it? Libya was no threat to anybody. I'm just saying, it was very bad foreign policy, and this is part of her track record.

Umm because NATO is a military alliance and we supported the military actions of our allies? Her track record? Again, France took the lead.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 7:46:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 6:10:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

You think Conservatism has a monopoly on following the Constitution? lol cute.


Well, that IS what conservatism is all about - it's about the limited government principles enshrined in the Constitution. And the founders cautioned against "foreign entanglements". Now, people can legitimately disagree on when such interference is wise. I'm just pointing out that interfering in Iran was not motivated by any particularly conservative principles that I can think of.

So was the overthrow of Iran justified then because as you say Russia was gobbling up countries? Your message is confusing.


I didn't say it was justified, I said it wasn't conservative, which was the charge you made.

If I remember correctly it was France and other European countries that took the lead in over throwing Gaddafi while the US as a NATO ally supported it.

What would NATO have to do with it? Libya was no threat to anybody. I'm just saying, it was very bad foreign policy, and this is part of her track record.

Umm because NATO is a military alliance and we supported the military actions of our allies? Her track record? Again, France took the lead.

Yeah, I get it, we probably felt like we owed them one since they all supported us in Afghanistan. So, fair point. But I distinctly remember how this administration acted like they were going to show Bush how it was done, and they screwed up royally instead.
This space for rent.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 5:45:55 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 7:46:05 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2016 6:10:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

You think Conservatism has a monopoly on following the Constitution? lol cute.


Well, that IS what conservatism is all about - it's about the limited government principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Since the founding the Federal government has gotten bigger and bigger (usually for good reason), if that's your definition of conservative then there are no conservatives in the US. Hell, Lincoln is a liberal by your standards.

And the founders cautioned against "foreign entanglements".

Lol yea and Washington warned against forming political parties - but the Whigs and Democratic-Republicans that followed didn't seem to heed the warning. Sh!t our founders ignored the Constitution they themselves signed. Adams passed the Alien and Sedition act making it illegal to criticize the President. Jefferson had no Constitutional authority to purchase the Louisiana Territory. And no foreign entanglements was never heeded - we engaged in Empire and international trade, and isolationism was no longer an option in both WW1 and WW2.

Now, people can legitimately disagree on when such interference is wise. I'm just pointing out that interfering in Iran was not motivated by any particularly conservative principles that I can think of.

Who would you say best represented conservative ideas? Because when men like Bush can call themselves conservative either the GOP is not conservative or there are no conservatives.

So was the overthrow of Iran justified then because as you say Russia was gobbling up countries? Your message is confusing.


I didn't say it was justified, I said it wasn't conservative, which was the charge you made.

But you cast conservatism as the ideal, the Cold War meant in order for the American (conservative) way of life to survive - such values had to be abandoned.

If I remember correctly it was France and other European countries that took the lead in over throwing Gaddafi while the US as a NATO ally supported it.

What would NATO have to do with it? Libya was no threat to anybody. I'm just saying, it was very bad foreign policy, and this is part of her track record.

Umm because NATO is a military alliance and we supported the military actions of our allies? Her track record? Again, France took the lead.

Yeah, I get it, we probably felt like we owed them one since they all supported us in Afghanistan. So, fair point. But I distinctly remember how this administration acted like they were going to show Bush how it was done, and they screwed up royally instead.

We have different memories. But Bush also screwed up Iraq, so it's essentially Obama repeating the mistakes of the previous admin, which there are more than just this case.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 1:57:27 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 5:45:55 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 7:46:05 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2016 6:10:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

You think Conservatism has a monopoly on following the Constitution? lol cute.


Well, that IS what conservatism is all about - it's about the limited government principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Since the founding the Federal government has gotten bigger and bigger (usually for good reason), if that's your definition of conservative then there are no conservatives in the US.

Well, "bigger" by itself is not the same as un-constitutional. When you get down to it, the question is whether government itself must obey the rule of law. It's always a lot more convenient to give a smart person or persons freedom to do what they think best, but then of course these people can become tyrants. So it takes a wise and mature population to choose the self discipline of an effective constitution.

Hell, Lincoln is a liberal by your standards.


Well, if a state can't leave the union, then it's not a voluntary union. No way around that fact. As a nation we have, and continue to, pay a steep price for the evil of slavery.

And the founders cautioned against "foreign entanglements".

Lol yea and Washington warned against forming political parties - but the Whigs and Democratic-Republicans that followed didn't seem to heed the warning.

Well, but separate warnings from the legal mandates of the constitution itself.

Sh!t our founders ignored the Constitution they themselves signed. Adams passed the Alien and Sedition act making it illegal to criticize the President. Jefferson had no Constitutional authority to purchase the Louisiana Territory. And no foreign entanglements was never heeded - we engaged in Empire and international trade, and isolationism was no longer an option in both WW1 and WW2.


So what's you're conclusion? To hades with the constitution? I do notice that the number one defense of the Democratic party since [Bill] Clinton's term has been "Well, they do it too!". Which is the defense of a 5 yr old.


Who would you say best represented conservative ideas?

Ideas are ideas. They don't have to be represented by people. The beauty of true intellectual endeavor is that it doesn't have to be a popularity contest.

Because when men like Bush can call themselves conservative either the GOP is not conservative or there are no conservatives.


Bush was only marginally a conservative. Reagan was a conservative, as was the GOP congress during [Bill] Clinton's sex party stay at the White House. People tend to forget that balancing the budget and welfare reform and all that - that was Newt Gingrich and crew who spearheaded that stuff. But as a Time magazine cover said some years back "We're all socialists now". We're definitely a partially socialist nation since FDR. Nobody could get in national office today by saying "Ok, folks, you're going to have to figure out how to pay your own bills. I can double your salary, but you'll have to pay for everything yourself"


But you cast conservatism as the ideal, the Cold War meant in order for the American (conservative) way of life to survive - such values had to be abandoned.


No, they could have declared war. But no need to go to that extreme, just be above board about it. But like slavery, the good guys (the English) were being colonialist bastards too, so there wasn't any good side to take.


... But Bush also screwed up Iraq, so it's essentially Obama repeating the mistakes of the previous admin ...

This we agree on. Yes, the hypocrisy of it all. I think the treatment of GW Bush was a national sin, the equivalent of spitting on the returning Vietnam soldiers. Your side did massive damage to the American political system by demonizing Bush after giving official congressional approval for his exploits in Iraq. It was very, very, very, very wrong, and now I think we're reaping the fruits of this (in part) by having only two rather dreadful options for president.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 2:02:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 1:57:27 PM, v3nesl wrote:
...

This we agree on. Yes, the hypocrisy of it all. I think the treatment of GW Bush was a national sin, the equivalent of spitting on the returning Vietnam soldiers. Your side did massive damage to the American political system by demonizing Bush after giving official congressional approval for his exploits in Iraq. It was very, very, very, very wrong, and now I think we're reaping the fruits of this (in part) by having only two rather dreadful options for president.

But let me add to that, lest I seem too partisan: The cowardice of the GOP in failing to support Bush, that was also very, very, very, very wrong, and a big part of why the whole bunch of them were rejected for Donald Trump.

It's so ironic: The democracts believe in appeasement in foreign affairs, but take no prisoners in domestic politics. The GOP is just the opposite - give 'em hell on the battlefield, but attempt to appease the liberal establishment at home. And it ain't working.
This space for rent.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 5:44:33 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 1:57:27 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/1/2016 5:45:55 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/30/2016 7:46:05 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2016 6:10:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

You think Conservatism has a monopoly on following the Constitution? lol cute.


Well, that IS what conservatism is all about - it's about the limited government principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Since the founding the Federal government has gotten bigger and bigger (usually for good reason), if that's your definition of conservative then there are no conservatives in the US.

Well, "bigger" by itself is not the same as un-constitutional. When you get down to it, the question is whether government itself must obey the rule of law. It's always a lot more convenient to give a smart person or persons freedom to do what they think best, but then of course these people can become tyrants. So it takes a wise and mature population to choose the self discipline of an effective constitution.

Given the popularity of Trump and Clinton it's clear the US population is not politically mature.

Hell, Lincoln is a liberal by your standards.


Well, if a state can't leave the union, then it's not a voluntary union. No way around that fact. As a nation we have, and continue to, pay a steep price for the evil of slavery.

Indeed, once you join you can't leave, that doesn't bother me. Oh if only America acknowledged it's debts when it came to slavery and racism things would be much better.

And the founders cautioned against "foreign entanglements".

Lol yea and Washington warned against forming political parties - but the Whigs and Democratic-Republicans that followed didn't seem to heed the warning.

Well, but separate warnings from the legal mandates of the constitution itself.

Avoiding foreign entanglements was not a legal mandate nor in the constitution, it was a warning.

Sh!t our founders ignored the Constitution they themselves signed. Adams passed the Alien and Sedition act making it illegal to criticize the President. Jefferson had no Constitutional authority to purchase the Louisiana Territory. And no foreign entanglements was never heeded - we engaged in Empire and international trade, and isolationism was no longer an option in both WW1 and WW2.


So what's you're conclusion? To hades with the constitution? I do notice that the number one defense of the Democratic party since [Bill] Clinton's term has been "Well, they do it too!". Which is the defense of a 5 yr old.

The conclusion would be that people shouldn't romanticize the past - which conservatives often do. The Founders were not perfect, nor can we assume they could see into the future and solve its problems in a single document. But no, we don't simply abandoned it, it's necessary to check the powers of the state and address grievances.

And what age range do the people who do bad things then criticize others for doing the same thing belong to? There's a reason no one cares for the criticism of hypocrites.

Who would you say best represented conservative ideas?

Ideas are ideas. They don't have to be represented by people. The beauty of true intellectual endeavor is that it doesn't have to be a popularity contest.

Ideas are meaningless if they aren't put into action. Ideas may look good on paper but if they are never tested then it's mental masturbation, not policy that people should heed or enact. That's the point of political ideology, to be enacted. I don't spout progressive values for the simple fun of it, I do it on the slim chance people may be swayed and potentially motivated to put said ideas into action.

Because when men like Bush can call themselves conservative either the GOP is not conservative or there are no conservatives.


Bush was only marginally a conservative. Reagan was a conservative, as was the GOP congress during [Bill] Clinton's sex party stay at the White House. People tend to forget that balancing the budget and welfare reform and all that - that was Newt Gingrich and crew who spearheaded that stuff. But as a Time magazine cover said some years back "We're all socialists now". We're definitely a partially socialist nation since FDR. Nobody could get in national office today by saying "Ok, folks, you're going to have to figure out how to pay your own bills. I can double your salary, but you'll have to pay for everything yourself"

"I can double your salary" ha. Double it if you're already in the 1% maybe. You think Regan was a conservative? A man who raised taxes as Governor of California, increased the the Federal budget deficit, and increased the size of the federal government, granted amnesty to illegals, and was allegedly involved in the Iran Contra scandal? What's the definition of Conservative again?

But you cast conservatism as the ideal, the Cold War meant in order for the American (conservative) way of life to survive - such values had to be abandoned.


No, they could have declared war. But no need to go to that extreme, just be above board about it. But like slavery, the good guys (the English) were being colonialist bastards too, so there wasn't any good side to take.

... But Bush also screwed up Iraq, so it's essentially Obama repeating the mistakes of the previous admin ...

This we agree on. Yes, the hypocrisy of it all. I think the treatment of GW Bush was a national sin, the equivalent of spitting on the returning Vietnam soldiers. Your side did massive damage to the American political system by demonizing Bush after giving official congressional approval for his exploits in Iraq. It was very, very, very, very wrong, and now I think we're reaping the fruits of this (in part) by having only two rather dreadful options for president.

My side? No, like most right wingers you don't know the difference between progressives like Bernie and neo-liberals like Clinton. Sanders was against the war in 2003. Bush deserves every criticism he has received. It was his admin that told us about WMD's, not congress.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 6:47:28 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 2:02:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/3/2016 1:57:27 PM, v3nesl wrote:
...

This we agree on. Yes, the hypocrisy of it all. I think the treatment of GW Bush was a national sin, the equivalent of spitting on the returning Vietnam soldiers. Your side did massive damage to the American political system by demonizing Bush after giving official congressional approval for his exploits in Iraq. It was very, very, very, very wrong, and now I think we're reaping the fruits of this (in part) by having only two rather dreadful options for president.

But let me add to that, lest I seem too partisan: The cowardice of the GOP in failing to support Bush, that was also very, very, very, very wrong, and a big part of why the whole bunch of them were rejected for Donald Trump.

It's so ironic: The democracts believe in appeasement in foreign affairs, but take no prisoners in domestic politics. The GOP is just the opposite - give 'em hell on the battlefield, but attempt to appease the liberal establishment at home. And it ain't working.

No, it's pretty obvious you're partisan.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 1:47:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 5:44:33 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Indeed, once you join you can't leave, that doesn't bother me. Oh if only America acknowledged it's debts when it came to slavery and racism things would be much better.


Nah, nonsense. Destructive nonsense. "America" is not the sort of thing that can "acknowledge it's debts". The people who owned slaves are long dead. Time for everyone, black and white, to get over it. The race merchants are keeping it alive for profit.


The conclusion would be that people shouldn't romanticize the past - which conservatives often do. The Founders were not perfect, nor can we assume they could see into the future and solve its problems in a single document.

Yeah, people who say this want to avoid obeying the law. It's the same logic as "60mph speed limits are from a time when cars weren't as good as today. i can go 80 mph". But of course law doesn't work that way, and the constitution is law. Like any other law, it can be changed using certain procedures. But guys like Obama (and others, of course) don't want to bother with the tedious business of changing the law. He just wants to go 80mph because he's smarter than everybody else (even though he can't quite seem to demonstrate that anywhere)

But no, we don't simply abandoned it, it's necessary to check the powers of the state and address grievances.


ok, as long as by "the state" you mean the federal government. The Constitution was written to limit the powers of the federal govt. It was written to "form a more perfect union" but it most certainly did not do that by limiting the powers of the states, except in a few enumerated (i.e. individually listed) exceptions. They even included the 10th amendment that spelled out that all powers not individually listed as belonging the federal govt are reserved for the states or the people, respectively.

For moderns, think of the European Union. The states that make up the EU remain sovereign powers. They only agreed to give certain authorities to the central EU govt. And the member states can pull out, as the UK has shown us. So this is fairly close to what the United States is supposed to be.


Ideas are meaningless if they aren't put into action. Ideas may look good on paper but if they are never tested then it's mental masturbation,

Well, true, but ideas come before action. Genius may be 99% perspiration, but without the 1% inspiration there is no genius. So this is a debate forum and not a voting booth. This is a place for ideas.


"I can double your salary" ha. Double it if you're already in the 1% maybe. You think Regan was a conservative? A man who raised taxes as Governor of California,

So, are you under the impression that conservatives think there should be no taxes?

increased the the Federal budget deficit, and increased the size of the federal government, granted amnesty to illegals, and was allegedly involved in the Iran Contra scandal? What's the definition of Conservative again?


Yeah, I came of political age under Carter and then experienced the Reagan recovery. So, sorry, but I remember how successful he was. Was he perfect? Far from it, but he definitely was a conservative. It takes a long time to turn the Titanic around. He turned the ship of state to a better course, but he could only do so much, and he was followed by other presidents.

And btw, Congress, not the president, produces deficits. Reagan had a Democratic Congress. And as I said, Clinton had a GOP congress, and he balanced the budget.


My side? No, like most right wingers you don't know the difference between progressives

The only thing I know about "progressives" is that they are early 20th century retreads. Nothing "progressive" about the thinking - it's rehashing ideas that were shown to be profoundly wrong by the history of the 20th century.

Sanders was against the war in 2003.

Yeah, it's easy to be against stuff. I same the same thing for Trump. The twin towers came down in 2001. The world changed in an instant. Bush attempted to implement a long term solution. He grossly underestimated the effort in Iraq, that much can't be debated, but did he do the wrong thing? We'll never know, because Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of a hard won victory.

Bush deserves every criticism he has received. It was his admin that told us about WMD's, not congress.

Bush was a decent and honorable man. He received faulty intelligence. Period. His mistake was in trusting government too much. He wasn't conservative, in that sense, he was in fact a believer in the power of big government, which led him to think he could plant a stable society in the middle east. And he almost did, after extreme effort and sacrifice, much as we did with Japan after WW II. And that turned out pretty well, wouldn't you say? A vicious enemy turned into an ally.
This space for rent.