If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   WaPo fact checker gives three "Pinocchios" to the doctored Benghazi emails claim. Proving once and for all that we cannot trust a single soul within a 50 mile radius of D.C   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 423
    More: Interesting, District of Columbia, Benghazi, fact checking, Capitol Hill Republicans, Benghazi emails, emails, Washington Post, ABC White House  
•       •       •

10903 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2013 at 10:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



423 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-22 11:56:57 AM

vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.

Yabut you're NOT allowed to assume guilt based on the lack of answer.


Yes, I am.  The Fifth Amendment only applies to the use of forcible punishment by a court of law on the basis of such a presumption.  I'm not in a position to impose punishment on Obama for being a liar.  I get to reach whatever conclusion I want, and I get to presume that hiding simple facts is motivated by a desire to avoid shame, embarrassment, or political detriment.

Which brings me to the point you keep missing -- you keep talking about guilt.  Being incompetent is not a crime.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the State from extracting evidence by force for use to then exact punishment for crimes.  It doesn't prohibit a person's use of logic and reason to form conclusions that you don't want to concede about politicians you want to continue adoring.
 
2013-05-22 11:57:37 AM

qorkfiend: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?

As having a balanced view instead of being "liberal", as is your assertion?


So you're not of the opinion they're right-leaning. That's a start. But they're also pro-equality, pro-Obamacare (and Universal Health Care), pro-carbon tax, pro-gun control, and call out the Benghazi issue as "phony".
 
2013-05-22 11:58:20 AM

vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing?

I'm not the one who held up an exceptional example and then argued that it wasn't exceptional circumstances that led to it.

You're holding up NO examples.

Your ridiculous commentary has all the hallmarks of the typically shallow and meaningless conservative "thought" processes. You want to hold up an exception as evidence of your perfectly mundane claim of political bis. It never occurs to you that if you're going to hold up an exception that maybe there is an exceptional reason it occured. Like maybe one candidate was so exceptionally bad that they took the exceptional step of breaking long-standing tradition of not endorsing a candidate to endorse his opponent.

But, no. That can't be it. It's just not plausible that a conservative candidate could be completely and utterly terrible for president, right? The one who lost by a substantial margin despite absolutely staggering amounts of spending on him. It's not that he was an atrocious candidate, no, it's because of "liberals".

It's just like the fact-checkers during the cycle. It's not that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan lied, oh, god no, that can't be. It must be because of liberals! He didn't lie, the liberal fact-checkers just have a different opinion! It's not that they didn't have any actual plans to show anybody, it's that any outlet that reported that fact or ran an editorial criticizing their lack of concrete plans is liberal!

Liberals! Liberals! The problem is always Emmanuel Goldstein!

You obviously haven't followed my posts on Fark, or you'd feel like a goddamn idiot for saying what you just said.

Why don't you provide an example or twelve of Republican endorsements? I can think of one: Cook for Fairfax Board of Supervisors, and their reasoning was that they wanted some opposition because if he lost, the GOP would have had exactly two seats. All the other BoS endorsements? Democrats. They're not liberal like Mother Jones ...


Regardless of the historical leanings of WaPo, it's hard to argue this article is much more than a fluff job for the Republic Party.  Seriously, claiming the WH is lying because they didn't prove reports on the emails were intentionally false, they were just not as accurate as they could have been?
I still assume the point of BENGHAZI!!! is to torpedo HRC's presumed run for the top, but it seems a bit of a waste.  She aged rather dramatically at state, I just don't believe she'll have the physical stamina for the job in 4 years.  That and she's a lot less liberal than many people seem to think.  She lost her chance when she underestimated Obama in '08.  I'd love to see you guys have a woman prez, but I'm hoping you do better than we did with Queen Kim.

Cheers.

//If it's the Democrat party, it must also be the Republic Party, right?
 
2013-05-22 11:58:42 AM

heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .


ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.
 
2013-05-22 11:59:08 AM

Soup4Bonnie: vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?

good lord.  Listen to yourself.  WaPo isn't even close to a liberal newspaper.  Give it up.


How many issues do you want as proof? Listen to me, indeed. Gay marriage, universal health care, pro gun control... how many liberal issues do they have to champion, or will they always be No True Scotsman?
 
2013-05-22 11:59:22 AM
So, wait, the misinformation (the summaries) did not come from Republicans? ABC made it all up?
 
2013-05-22 12:00:12 PM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.

Yabut you're NOT allowed to assume guilt based on the lack of answer.

Yes, I am.  The Fifth Amendment only applies to the use of forcible punishment by a court of law on the basis of such a presumption.  I'm not in a position to impose punishment on Obama for being a liar.  I get to reach whatever conclusion I want, and I get to presume that hiding simple facts is motivated by a desire to avoid shame, embarrassment, or political detriment.

Which brings me to the point you keep missing -- you keep talking about guilt.  Being incompetent is not a crime.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the State from extracting evidence by force for use to then exact punishment for crimes.  It doesn't prohibit a person's use of logic and reason to form conclusions that you don't want to concede about politicians you want to continue adoring.


Your GED in law is failing you. Try again. Non-answers can not be considered guilt. If they could be, the fifth amendment would be meaningless.
 
2013-05-22 12:00:36 PM

Phinn: TheBigJerk: How the fark do you  "poorly transcribe" an email?

By only being given a chance to read and hand-copy it, rather than being handed a hard copy.


So he resorted to a bizarre form of short hand that involved adding in non-existent words?  Seems likely.
 
2013-05-22 12:01:08 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: Regardless of the historical leanings of WaPo, it's hard to argue this article is much more than a fluff job for the Republic Party.  Seriously, claiming the WH is lying because they didn't prove reports on the emails were intentionally false, they were just not as accurate as they could have been?


Well, I'm not going to disagree with this. This guy is a tool.
 
2013-05-22 12:01:24 PM

Phinn: skozlaw: jayphat: This is a legitimate question

Then he should ask that question, not engage in his retarded fishing expedition so he can later pick a fight with people who respond over narrow technicalities.

You don't actually get to tell me which questions I'm allowed to ask.

I understand that you don't know the answer. I'm getting the impression that no one outside of Obama and a few insiders knows. I was genuinely curious if that information had been released in the last week or so.

I question liars for a living. I don't especially like my job, but it's my specialty -- to investigate frauds, faulty and dishonest accounting practices, and various forms of malpractice.

It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag. Sometimes it's nothing, but when you compound that initial vacillation with a rage-burst of hostility ("What difference at this point DOES IT MAKE?"), or a strenuous effort to change the subject ("The real issue here is reforming the system"), then even more red flags go up.

It's especially odd here because a President's movements are always tracked. The question itself is answerable, by someone who wants to answer it.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57544719/benghazi-timeline-how-t he -attack-unfolded/

There you go, you lazy dick.
 
2013-05-22 12:01:25 PM

vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?

As having a balanced view instead of being "liberal", as is your assertion?

So you're not of the opinion they're right-leaning. That's a start. But they're also pro-equality, pro-Obamacare (and Universal Health Care), pro-carbon tax, pro-gun control, and call out the Benghazi issue as "phony".


It IS phony!  Are you farking serious?  How much time and money has been wasted on this instead of Congress doing it's farking job.  How about an Infrastructure bill?  Long-term pragmatic debt-reduction bill?  Eliminating bullshiat corporate loopholes from the tax code?

When you are standing way off to the right, the center is to the left of you.  This is apparently a concept you are unable or unwilling to grasp.
 
2013-05-22 12:01:35 PM

vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?

As having a balanced view instead of being "liberal", as is your assertion?

So you're not of the opinion they're right-leaning. That's a start. But they're also pro-equality, pro-Obamacare (and Universal Health Care), pro-carbon tax, pro-gun control, and call out the Benghazi issue as "phony".


...and? That qualifies them as "having multiple viewpoints". Your assertion is "They are liberal. Not even close", which is patently false.
 
2013-05-22 12:02:33 PM

Phinn: SixPaperJoint: Benghazi-obsessed Republicans have 'cartoonish' view of military capability

Thanks for the article, but I was more interested in what fact witnesses have said, not hypotheticals and speculation from retired experts.


Speaking of hypotheticals, do you know if the White House has been asked the question you keep harping about?
 
2013-05-22 12:02:35 PM

vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?


I suppose, but do you know anyone on the post as bad as Jennifer Rubin?

Actually, do you know any Democrats at all that are as far off in fantasyland as Jennifer Rubin?
 
2013-05-22 12:03:09 PM

Phinn: TheOtherMisterP: Article is lacking. If you're going to quote a dumb system, at least explain the dumb system

What is the maximum number of Pinocchios he gives out? Three? Five? Ten?

It goes to eleven.


21 light sabers.
 
2013-05-22 12:03:51 PM

Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.


Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
 
2013-05-22 12:04:28 PM
Good lord the derp is strong in this thread.
 
2013-05-22 12:04:48 PM

Carn: It IS phony!  Are you farking serious?  How much time and money has been wasted on this instead of Congress doing it's farking job.  How about an Infrastructure bill?  Long-term pragmatic debt-reduction bill?  Eliminating bullshiat corporate loopholes from the tax code?

When you are standing way off to the right, the center is to the left of you.  This is apparently a concept you are unable or unwilling to grasp.


I put "phony" in quotes because that's exactly the word they used, not because I disagree. It is bullshiat. I'm the one who made this image:

www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-22 12:06:18 PM

qorkfiend: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?

As having a balanced view instead of being "liberal", as is your assertion?

So you're not of the opinion they're right-leaning. That's a start. But they're also pro-equality, pro-Obamacare (and Universal Health Care), pro-carbon tax, pro-gun control, and call out the Benghazi issue as "phony".

...and? That qualifies them as "having multiple viewpoints". Your assertion is "They are liberal. Not even close", which is patently false.


What's the ratio? Does being liberal demand a purity in editorial board positions? If not, how many liberal positions do I need to post to demonstrate liberal-leaning (much less left-wing). I already said they're not as liberal as Mother Jones or Common Dreams.
 
2013-05-22 12:06:24 PM

vygramul: Carn: It IS phony!  Are you farking serious?  How much time and money has been wasted on this instead of Congress doing it's farking job.  How about an Infrastructure bill?  Long-term pragmatic debt-reduction bill?  Eliminating bullshiat corporate loopholes from the tax code?

When you are standing way off to the right, the center is to the left of you.  This is apparently a concept you are unable or unwilling to grasp.

I put "phony" in quotes because that's exactly the word they used, not because I disagree. It is bullshiat. I'm the one who made this image:

[www.bitlogic.com image 300x300]


Then how can you possibly use that as proof that they're liberal?  It's proof that they may be sane.
 
2013-05-22 12:06:33 PM

vygramul: Your GED in law is failing you. Try again. Non-answers can not be considered guilt. If they could be, the fifth amendment would be meaningless.


This isn't a court of law, genius.  There's no issue of "guilt" for any crime (not as to Obama's whereabouts and activities during the relevant time period, anyway).

The Fifth Amendment isn't applicable to you and me.  It only applies to courts and police.

I am also not subject to the Probable Cause requirement, because I do not issue warrants, nor am I required to conduct a trial by jury to conclude something derogatory about your man-crush Obama.
 
2013-05-22 12:06:46 PM
Just in case I'm not clear (which is normal for me)

vygramul, I did not mean to imply you called them the Democrat Party.

Cheers.
 
2013-05-22 12:09:08 PM

vygramul: And who do they employ as their economics expert? Paul Krugman.


paul krugman works for the NY times.
 
2013-05-22 12:09:12 PM

vygramul: How many issues do you want as proof? Listen to me, indeed. Gay marriage, universal health care, pro gun control... how many liberal issues do they have to champion, or will they always be No True Scotsman?


You're going to use the word "whilst" any farking minute now, I just know it.  Fine.  They're liberal.  Jennifer Rubin writes for a liberal rag.

http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=Tgz5-8chSlk
 
2013-05-22 12:09:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?

I suppose, but do you know anyone on the post as bad as Jennifer Rubin?

Actually, do you know any Democrats at all that are as far off in fantasyland as Jennifer Rubin?


Off-hand, I admit that I can't think of someone as fact-impaired as Rubin who is employed by the Post. But I haven't read them regularly since January of 2010, except for Nate Silver and Paul Krugman, of course. (Not exactly conservative stars themselves. Not that Nate's conservative or liberal, of course. But Krugman sure as heck is.)
 
2013-05-22 12:09:45 PM
You mean Republicans would make up things about Benghazi? You mean like they made up things to protect a child molester? http://www.the-richmonder.com/2006/09/republican-legislators-protecte d .html

Sadly...this wasn't an isolated incident...
 
2013-05-22 12:10:20 PM

Carn: Then how can you possibly use that as proof that they're liberal?  It's proof that they may be sane.


I use that as proof they're not conservative.
 
2013-05-22 12:10:34 PM

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?

I suppose, but do you know anyone on the post as bad as Jennifer Rubin?

Actually, do you know any Democrats at all that are as far off in fantasyland as Jennifer Rubin?

Off-hand, I admit that I can't think of someone as fact-impaired as Rubin who is employed by the Post. But I haven't read them regularly since January of 2010, except for Nate Silver and Paul Krugman, of course. (Not exactly conservative stars themselves. Not that Nate's conservative or liberal, of course. But Krugman sure as heck is.)


You haven't read them for three years and yet you still deign to tell me what they are in 2013?
 
2013-05-22 12:11:25 PM

vygramul: It's proof that they may be sane.

I use that as proof they're not conservative.


Funny how easily these two align.
 
2013-05-22 12:11:36 PM

Phinn: vygramul: Your GED in law is failing you. Try again. Non-answers can not be considered guilt. If they could be, the fifth amendment would be meaningless.

This isn't a court of law, genius.  There's no issue of "guilt" for any crime (not as to Obama's whereabouts and activities during the relevant time period, anyway).

The Fifth Amendment isn't applicable to you and me.  It only applies to courts and police.

I am also not subject to the Probable Cause requirement, because I do not issue warrants, nor am I required to conduct a trial by jury to conclude something derogatory about your man-crush Obama.


Ah, so now you're backing off your interpretation of the fifth. That's good that you can admit you're of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd.
 
2013-05-22 12:11:40 PM
I didn't know fact checking became an opinion piece.

Is it not still a fact that the outrageous claims of the E-mails proving the administration wanted to protect the state department and form lies as talking points was, in point of fact, not true.

People can have opinions like - "The Republicans did this to smear the President" - that is an opinion, not a lie.  Feel free to disagree with them, but disagreement is not "fact checking" its opinion writing.

The Republicans leaked an email but changed the words to mean something different than what was said - that is still a FACT.

Fact Checkers start to lose their credibility when they wander into the realm of opinion monitoring.
 
2013-05-22 12:11:55 PM

vygramul: But I haven't read them regularly since January of 2010, except for Nate Silver and Paul Krugman, of course. (Not exactly conservative stars themselves. Not that Nate's conservative or liberal, of course. But Krugman sure as heck is.)


nate silver also works for the times, not the post.

but thanks for playing!
 
2013-05-22 12:12:23 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: Just in case I'm not clear (which is normal for me)

vygramul, I did not mean to imply you called them the Democrat Party.

Cheers.


I didn't take you to imply such. You're good.
 
2013-05-22 12:12:59 PM

vygramul: Carn: Then how can you possibly use that as proof that they're liberal?  It's proof that they may be sane.

I use that as proof they're not conservative.


Likewise, we use the existence of people like Jennifer Rubin and Marc Theissen on staff as proof they're not liberal.
 
2013-05-22 12:13:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.

Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.


Huh? Fell for the diversion of the ABC inaccuracies? Not really. I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.

What was that all about, demonizing some youtube video for days and weeks, even after it became obvious the stupid thing had nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi?
 
2013-05-22 12:13:27 PM

FlashHarry: vygramul: And who do they employ as their economics expert? Paul Krugman.

paul krugman works for the NY times.


Good point.
 
2013-05-22 12:13:31 PM

vygramul: Carn: Then how can you possibly use that as proof that they're liberal?  It's proof that they may be sane.

I use that as proof they're not conservative.


It's not proof that they're not conservative.  It's proof that they may not be as conservative as the reactionary wing of the GOP (which is currently a majority of the party).  This is what I outlined above.

L------D--C--W----------RR------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------GOP

L - liberals
D - democrats
C - Center
W - WaPo
RR - Reagan Republicans

For the record, many people would put (O)bama somewhere between W and RR.  Like I said, when you're way off to the right, the center looks like the left.  A matter of perspective if you will.
 
2013-05-22 12:13:34 PM

vygramul: Ah, so now you're backing off your interpretation of the fifth. That's good that you can admit you're of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd.


Have you had a head injury recently?
 
2013-05-22 12:13:45 PM

vygramul: FlashHarry: vygramul: And who do they employ as their economics expert? Paul Krugman.

paul krugman works for the NY times.

Good point.


and nate silver?
 
2013-05-22 12:14:52 PM
btw - i will agree that the NYT leans left. not far left, mind you, but left. but despite all your protestations, the post leans right. it has for years.
 
2013-05-22 12:15:07 PM

vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Your GED in law is failing you. Try again. Non-answers can not be considered guilt. If they could be, the fifth amendment would be meaningless.

This isn't a court of law, genius.  There's no issue of "guilt" for any crime (not as to Obama's whereabouts and activities during the relevant time period, anyway).

The Fifth Amendment isn't applicable to you and me.  It only applies to courts and police.

I am also not subject to the Probable Cause requirement, because I do not issue warrants, nor am I required to conduct a trial by jury to conclude something derogatory about your man-crush Obama.

Ah, so now you're backing off your interpretation of the fifth. That's good that you can admit you're of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd.


I'm not sure why anyone engages Phinn. He just comes into threads spouting off right-wing propaganda, half of which is utter nonsense and the other half has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
 
2013-05-22 12:15:43 PM

easypray: I didn't know fact checking became an opinion piece.

Is it not still a fact that the outrageous claims of the E-mails proving the administration wanted to protect the state department and form lies as talking points was, in point of fact, not true.

People can have opinions like - "The Republicans did this to smear the President" - that is an opinion, not a lie.  Feel free to disagree with them, but disagreement is not "fact checking" its opinion writing.

The Republicans leaked an email but changed the words to mean something different than what was said - that is still a FACT.

Fact Checkers start to lose their credibility when they wander into the realm of opinion monitoring.


Has that been proven to be fact? I know that is the assumption but is there proof that has been brought out. I don't doubt they would, so don't get me wrong. Just curious if it's fact, as you say.
 
2013-05-22 12:16:13 PM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.

Yabut you're NOT allowed to assume guilt based on the lack of answer.

Yes, I am.  . . . .[words].


You know?  You're right.  YOU are entitled to assume guilt or innocence as you see fit.  And, it is only up to you to determine which facts, if any, should matter.

The thing is, since you're neither the judge nor a member of the jury, your opinion of guilt or innocence is wholly irrelevant.  But, you are certainly free to condemn as you please as you bang your little rocks together to make whatever noises you believe will attract attention.
 
2013-05-22 12:16:57 PM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?

I suppose, but do you know anyone on the post as bad as Jennifer Rubin?

Actually, do you know any Democrats at all that are as far off in fantasyland as Jennifer Rubin?

Off-hand, I admit that I can't think of someone as fact-impaired as Rubin who is employed by the Post. But I haven't read them regularly since January of 2010, except for Nate Silver and Paul Krugman, of course. (Not exactly conservative stars themselves. Not that Nate's conservative or liberal, of course. But Krugman sure as heck is.)

You haven't read them for three years and yet you still deign to tell me what they are in 2013?


This "Post is right-leaning" claim is new? Just look at the few examples people posted, they're all from before 2010. My examples are all recent, and I've not missed that no one has explained how a pro-gay-marriage and pro-Universal Health Care newspaper is right-wing.
 
2013-05-22 12:17:43 PM

PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?


Cite a source, please?
 
2013-05-22 12:18:54 PM

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?

I suppose, but do you know anyone on the post as bad as Jennifer Rubin?

Actually, do you know any Democrats at all that are as far off in fantasyland as Jennifer Rubin?

Off-hand, I admit that I can't think of someone as fact-impaired as Rubin who is employed by the Post. But I haven't read them regularly since January of 2010, except for Nate Silver and Paul Krugman, of course. (Not exactly conservative stars themselves. Not that Nate's conservative or liberal, of course. But Krugman sure as heck is.)

You haven't read them for three years and yet you still deign to tell me what they are in 2013?

This "Post is right-leaning" claim is new? Just look at the few examples people posted, they're all from before 2010. My examples are all recent, and I've not missed that no one has explained how a pro-gay-marriage and pro-Universal Health Care newspaper is right-wing.


You haven't explained how a paper that hires Jennifer Rubin or Charles Krauthammer is "liberal", either.
 
2013-05-22 12:19:11 PM

Cletus C.: Has that been proven to be fact? I know that is the assumption but is there proof that has been brought out. I don't doubt they would, so don't get me wrong. Just curious if it's fact, as you say.


the emails are different. the one leaked by republicans includes a reference to the state department that wasn't in the original, making it seem as if the edits to the talking points were political.
 
2013-05-22 12:19:15 PM

Carn: vygramul: Carn: Then how can you possibly use that as proof that they're liberal?  It's proof that they may be sane.

I use that as proof they're not conservative.

It's not proof that they're not conservative.  It's proof that they may not be as conservative as the reactionary wing of the GOP (which is currently a majority of the party).  This is what I outlined above.

L------D--C--W----------RR------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------GOP

L - liberals
D - democrats
C - Center
W - WaPo
RR - Reagan Republicans

For the record, many people would put (O)bama somewhere between W and RR.  Like I said, when you're way off to the right, the center looks like the left.  A matter of perspective if you will.


L------DW--C----------RR------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------GOP

That's more like it. Frankly, on some issues, the Post is further left than much of the Democratic Party. They're ahead of most Democratic Congressmen and Senators when it comes to Gay Marriage and gun control, for example.
 
2013-05-22 12:19:51 PM

Cletus C.: I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.


This has been explained to you more times than I can count.  If you still are having a difficult time understanding it, maybe this is a reflection of you and nothing else.
 
2013-05-22 12:20:05 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.

Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Huh? Fell for the diversion of the ABC inaccuracies? Not really. I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.

What was that all about, demonizing some youtube video for days and weeks, even after it became obvious the stupid thing had nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi?


Demonizing? You are aware that there were some 60 protests that day all across the middle east? Why should they have ruled it out as a factor?
 
Displayed 50 of 423 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report