U.S. Politics

Page 392 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
BS. Susan Rice smeared herself, all by herself. She's either nothing more than a mouthpiece for admin talking points du jour or she's an out and out liar. Kind of James Carneyesque only better looking.





Carville is hardly a right winger and hardly running the R party and Obama thinking someone to be competent is certainly not to be viewed as a ringing endorsement.

Now, appointing Rice is certainly BO's prerogative, just stop whining about lack of cooperation from the other side.

Oh, and I do hope Reid shuts down the filibuster. On the heels of the IRS and DOJ garbage... the optics of that action will just be too good.:)
Complete BS. Rice has been absolved.

Note too that the reason she is "divisive" is because of REPUBLICAN created divisiveness. You guys have a way with sh*tting on the floor and then blaming it on Obama. This presidency has been one of the most divisive in our history, and the great majority of the enmity was created by your side. That you then turn around and blame Obama for it is absurd, but it is the daily call from your party's leaders, so no real surprise.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Complete BS. Rice has been absolved.

Note too that the reason she is "divisive" is because of REPUBLICAN created divisiveness. You guys have a way with sh*tting on the floor and then blaming it on Obama. This presidency has been one of the most divisive in our history, and the great majority of the enmity was created by your side. That you then turn around and blame Obama for it is absurd, but it is the daily call from your party's leaders, so no real surprise.
Did you read this? Treatment of Rice and Nuland.

Ms. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations and the favorite to be President Obama’s next national security adviser, continues to be criticized by Senate Republicans for going on Sunday news programs a few days after the attacks to deliver the talking points, which later proved to be inaccurate. But the e-mails reinforced her lack of involvement in the drafting process.

Ms. Nuland, a former State Department spokeswoman nominated by Mr. Obama to be an assistant secretary of state, was backed by some of the same Republicans, even though the e-mails show she pushed to edit the talking points — a process critics say was calculated to airbrush the White House’s account of the attacks for political reasons.
“Toria was buried in the internal bureaucratic ticktock,” Mr. Miller said, using Ms. Nuland’s nickname. “She is also someone who has very good contacts across the aisle, and around Washington. Susan fits the Republican anti-Obama narrative; Toria does not.”

Ms. Nuland, a well regarded 29-year veteran of the Foreign Service, once served as deputy national security adviser to Vice President **** Cheney and as ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush. She is married to Robert Kagan, a neoconservative historian and commentator who advised Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign.
....

But Mr. Graham drew a distinction between being involved in drafting talking points — “protecting your bureaucratic turf,” as he put it — and delivering an account to the American people.
So actually drafting talking points that favorably represent your agency is ok, but delivering talking points you have no hand in is a no no.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/us/politics/2-diplomats-treated-differently-in-benghazi-uproar.html?hp&pagewanted=all
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
Oh No the PATRIOT act is interpreted overly broad, "secret courts" (non public) oversee its implementation, and it's all justified because "National Security."

Who would have guessed that!

The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in April, directs a Verizon Communications subsidiary, Verizon Business Network Services, to turn over “on an ongoing daily basis” to the National Security Agency all call logs “between the United States and abroad” or “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us-secretly-collecting-logs-of-business-calls.html?hp&_r=0

Just give us all your call logs everyday, thank you very much.

Glad Congress keeps reauthorizing that piece of legislation.

So in the name of national security which US constitional amendments have been thrown under the bus in the last decade?

-torture (Guantanamo; from waterboarding to indefinite detention without a trial)
-free speech (Holder v Humanitarian Law Project)
-unreasonable searches and seizures (see above)
-Habeus Corpus (reestablished by now)
-speedy and public trial (Guantanamo)

That's 1, 4, 6, 8.

I don't know where the assassination of US citizens fits in...
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Complete BS. Rice has been absolved.

Note too that the reason she is "divisive" is because of REPUBLICAN created divisiveness. You guys have a way with sh*tting on the floor and then blaming it on Obama. This presidency has been one of the most divisive in our history, and the great majority of the enmity was created by your side. That you then turn around and blame Obama for it is absurd, but it is the daily call from your party's leaders, so no real surprise.
She's made her own bed.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/111353/susan-rice-isnt-going-quietly
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Your's is from last December, this is from May: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/16/top-links-benghazi-emails-prove-republicans-are-wrong-and-susan-rice-deserves-an-apology/

Republicans made sh*t up. Kind of your whole gestalt.
And this:

If we learned anything in all the back and forth over the Benghazi talking points – the 12 revisions first reported by ABC News, the 100 pages of emails released by the White House, etc. – we learned this: Susan Rice got a bad rap.
All 12 versions of the Benghazi talking points, including the first draft written entirely by the CIA, use the words “spontaneously inspired by the protests.” That mistake belongs to the CIA.

The earlier versions of the talking points did include references to evidence that an al Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Sharia, took part in the attack. They also included references to earlier CIA warnings about the terrorist threat in Benghazi.

All of that was edited out. The emails released by the White House show that the deletions were made after State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland asked for those terrorist references to be removed.

But the first time Rice’s name appears anywhere ion 100 page of emails is at 1:23 p.m. Sept. 15, nearly two hours after the final edits to the talking points were made. Indeed, that was the first email about the talking points that went to Rice’s office. The last edits were made at 11:26 a.m.

In other words, you can blame the CIA for faulty intelligence on spontaneous protests. You can blame the State Department for insisting that references to terrorism be deleted. You can blame the White House for allowing those references to be deleted.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/white-house-benghazi-emails-show-susan-rice-got-a-bad-rap/
 
this seems pretty much in line with the current line of argument, more than simply of academic elitism, it bears directly on the whole press issue


http://www.unc.edu/clct/LatourCritique.pdf

"Things have changed a lot, at least in my village. I am now the one who naı̈vely believes in some facts because I am educated, while the other guys are too un
sophisticated to be gullible: “Where have you been? Don’t you know that the Mossad and the CIA did it?” What has become of critique when someone as eminent as Stanley Fish, the “enemy of promises” as Lindsay Waters calls him, believes he defends science studies, my field, by comparing the laws of physics to the rules of baseball? What has become of critique when there is a whole in-dustry denying that the Apollo program landed on the moon?"
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Bala Verde said:
So in the name of national security which US constitional amendments have been thrown under the bus in the last decade?

-torture (Guantanamo; from waterboarding to indefinite detention without a trial)
-free speech (Holder v Humanitarian Law Project)
-unreasonable searches and seizures (see above)
-Habeus Corpus (reestablished by now)
-speedy and public trial (Guantanamo)

That's 1, 4, 6, 8.

I don't know where the assassination of US citizens fits in...
14th. Holder believes that as long as there is some sort of "process" to decide which Americans get assassinated then it is "due process."

Don't forget Obama trying to dismantle the second amendment.

Torture followed by trial in military tribunals pretty much makes the fifth amendment useless.

So 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 14. We'll run out of amendments soon.

Bush could not have done any worse if he could have stayed on for a third term.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
You guys are all tied up in "knots landing" trying to talk about some stupid ....white house appointed paid liar. Try not getting all worked up about someone paid to be the mouth piece of an administration.

How about them phone records?

How about that patriot act?

 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
A CBS/New York Times poll just released.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57588086/benghazi-majority-thinks-administration-is-hiding-something/

I still find it staggering how people could politicize this situation and take a stance based on what party you support. Reading through this thread it is pretty obvious how Scott and Velo are taking their positions on this basis. You would think there would be a bit of unity as Americans to get to the bottom of it but not in the circus we currently see in American politics where it's dog eat dog.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Dear Verizon Customers,

Yesterday it came to light that the National Security Agency has been collecting millions of phone records from you each and every day. Since that news was released, many of you have called the White House with questions and concerns about this new program. To save my time and yours, here are answers to three of the F.A.Q.s (Frequently Asked Questions) we’ve been hearing from you:

1. Will I be charged extra for this service?

I’m happy to say that the answer is no. While the harvesting and surveillance of your domestic phone calls were not a part of your original Verizon service contract, the National Security Agency is providing this service entirely free of charge.

2. If I add a phone to my account, will those calls also be monitored?

Once again, the answer is good news. If you want to add a child or any other family member to your Verizon account, their phone calls—whom they called, when, and the duration of the call—will all be monitored by the United States government, at no additional cost.

3. Can the National Security Agency help me understand my Verizon bill?

Unfortunately, no. The National Security Agency has tried, but failed, to understand Verizon’s bills. Please call Verizon customer service and follow the series of electronic prompts.

I hope I’ve helped clear up some of the confusion about this exciting new program. But if you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to call the White House. Joe Biden is standing by.

God bless America,

President Obama

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/06/a-letter-to-verizon-customers.html
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Okay, that's funny...and sooo not funny at the same time...George W. Obama indeed.

It gets worse. 2007 BO;

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
Oops.

And even worse, the NY Times;

The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.
Some of us would argue he never had any but it's nice to see the Times on board. Probably going to be an unproductive and very, very long 3 1/2 years for BO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Guess who is defending the administration's spying on all American phone calls? Diane Feinstein. She thinks it is needed to "protect" America. Is it any wonder how a defender of totalitarian surveillance also has contempt for the Second Amendment?

Clinton-Orwell 2016
Vote for Ingsoc today so you won't be bothered by having to vote again!
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
BroDeal said:
Guess who is defending the administration's spying on all American phone calls? Diane Feinstein. She thinks it is needed to "protect" America. Is it any wonder how a defender of totalitarian surveillance also has contempt for the Second Amendment?

Clinton-Orwell 2016
Vote for Ingsoc today so you won't be bothered by having to vote again!
Yep. And I thought Boxer was the idiot Senator from Cali.
 
gooner said:
A CBS/New York Times poll just released.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57588086/benghazi-majority-thinks-administration-is-hiding-something/

I still find it staggering how people could politicize this situation and take a stance based on what party you support. Reading through this thread it is pretty obvious how Scott and Velo are taking their positions on this basis. You would think there would be a bit of unity as Americans to get to the bottom of it but not in the circus we currently see in American politics where it's dog eat dog.
12% of democrats think the gop in congress is not doing it for political reasons.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
The Hitch said:
i see what you mean but to be pedantic, orwell was an opponent of big brother and 1984 was not his idea of a utopia;)
Orwell's name has come to mean what he wrote not what he believed, hence the word Orwellian.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
I am losing track of the number of scandals. When do all of you sheep wake up and finally admit to yourself that Obama and his call for change was a giant fraud?

Velo has been mighty quiet today. Trawling the news for support on his next assault on the Constitution, no doubt.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
0
0
BroDeal said:
Orwell's name has come to mean what he wrote not what he believed, hence the word Orwellian.
Bro - hope you don't mind, but I would rephrase that for clarity.

"Orwell's name has come to mean what he envisioned in his novel, 1984, not what he believed was right and wrong, hence the word Orwellian. "

Most ppl are gonna get it the way you said it - but there could be misunderstanding/ misinterpretation, imo. So, for some unknown reason, it just seemed right to me to offer this.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BroDeal said:
I am losing track of the number of scandals. When do all of you sheep wake up and finally admit to yourself that Obama and his call for change was a giant fraud?

Velo has been mighty quiet today. Trawling the news for support on his next assault on the Constitution, no doubt.
I still don't question my vote. If you believe McCain or Romney would have us down a better path, you're delusional. Not to mention the fact that neither Palin nor Ryan should have been 100 people away from the presidency, never mind one person.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I still don't question my vote. If you believe McCain or Romney would have us down a better path, you're delusional. Not to mention the fact that neither Palin nor Ryan should have been 100 people away from the presidency, never mind one person.
That is the real shame about this, but I think Obama is worse because he campaigned as though he would end Bush's abuses. Instead he expanded them. Obama ran as the anti-Bush. No one voted for McCain thinking he would turn things around. As for Romney, I am not sure what he stoof for; it seemed to change every week.


"The National Security Agency's capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide. If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.“ -- Sen. Frank Church, 1975
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BroDeal said:
That is the real shame about this, but I think Obama is worse because he campaigned as though he would end Bush's abuses. Instead he expanded them. Obama ran as the anti-Bush. No one voted for McCain thinking he would turn things around. As for Romney, I am not sure what he stoof for; it seemed to change every week.


"The National Security Agency's capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide. If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.“ -- Sen. Frank Church, 1975
I'm certainly not going to even cross into defending this violation of the constitution. Unfortunately, because of conservative justices, what the courts consider a "search" has become so contorted as to render its meaning incomprehensible. Add to that the "Patriot" Act, and you have a weapon that is truly dangerous in the age of electronic correspondence.

What we need is a case that will shut the door on this, and a Supreme Court that is willing to draw the correct constitutional line. The reality there is that conservative justices will not be the ones to do it. I said all along that most of my vote for Obama this last time was due to the fact that we might get a couple of SCOTUS appointments these next 4 years. It was vital for our country that a conservative president not be the one to appoint them.

The biggest rub here is that all of the conservative outrage over this is hypocritical considering their history on such issues, especially the conservative judges their presidents have put on the bench.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS