2016 Election
Quote: steeldcoShe is, without a doubt, a despicable human being. If you don't get it, then that's OK.
These next 9 years are gonna be rough for you... It's okay.
Quote: steeldcoShe is, without a doubt, a despicable human being. If you don't get it, then that's OK.
despicable? I don't get it
Kim Jong-un, yes , despicable human being
Clinton????????
Where are you coming from?
Are we going to get a Speaker?
Can the right govern?
Quote: terapinedAre we going to get a Speaker?
Can the right govern?
Paul Ryan, the guy who absolutely doesn't want the job.
And no.
Quote: ams288Today was a huge win for Hillary.
Most of us have been saying the Benghazi narrative the Republicans wanted was never there anyway.
I suppose with these long hearings, she could still make a stumble -- probably what they are hoping for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK3rTUgoQD4
http://www.soundboard.com/sb/michaelberryshow
Everything from how she arrived in shackles to "Muss I Die"...what a caricature!!
Oh, the hearings...I have found a hard time getting into them, but my mind is made up about the Secretary and this administration, so it hardly matters if they find something else wrong as far as my opinion goes...
--The attack happened. Bad crap happens. Not necessarily something they could have prevented, but there is a possibility their response sucked.
--They lied in their narrative about why the attack happened. The movie was never the point and they knew it at the time and lied anyway. They lied to you and I, but they told the truth to their family.
Could there be more? Sure. I just would rather have people concentrate on the lies they presented as the truth than on endless hearings.
Quote: rxwineI suppose with these long hearings, she could still make a stumble -- probably what they are hoping for.
It was EXACTLY what they were hoping for. And she did not stumble one bit.
She stayed cool calm and collected the entire time while the Republicans became increasingly more deranged near the end.
They gave her the gift of allowing her to look Presidential on live TV for 11 hours.
21 on this.
Coming from watching the original and replays of her greeting the four coffins with what she knew was an outright lie.Quote: terapineddespicable? I don't get it
Kim Jong-un, yes , despicable human being
Clinton????????
Where are you coming from?
Quote: ams288These next 9 years are gonna be rough for you... It's okay.
Naw. Not at all. I would only worry about that if I felt that the majority of US voters are morons, and I don't believe that.
Current odds:
Hillary 8/11 (wager 11 to win 8)
Rubio, Trump, Bush are all between 6/1 and 7/1
Bernie sanders not all that far behind them at 9/1
Carly @ 20-1 and the rest of the field much longer.
When you look at which party win win:
Dems 4/6 (-150)
Repub 6/5 (+120)
Probably the biggest surprise to me is the recent change in Republican nomination odds:
Rubio is now at 2-1
Jeb Bush at 11-4, which is just under 3-1
Trump at 13-4, which is just over 3-1
Then a long ways back to Cruz and Carson (Carson at 20-1).
My thoughts:
Hillary has definitely enjoyed a strong last 10 days, between debate, Biden decision not to run and the hearing. Her odds to win democratic nomination went from just under even money to now 1-9.
It is interesting that of the two 'outsider' type front runners, nobody is putting their money where their mouth is and wagering on Carson.
Quote: rxwineSo, there were 22 congressional hearings on 9/11.
21 on this.
The public and specifically the GOP & the Tea Party’s outrage or displeasure about the Benghazi incident is perfectly understandable. But where is their outrage or displeasure about the GOP’s abusive of power in the investigation of Benghazi incident? The $5 million spend on the 21 congressional hearings of Benghazi for pure political gain motive (this is a fact as ADMITTED by a GOP leader and several of their members) is a big waste of tax payer money.
Again, where is the public and specifically the GOP & the Tea Party’s outrage or displeasure about the GOP’s abusive of power and the waste of tax payer money in the investigation of Benghazi incident?
Quote: ams288
Hillary is KILLING it.
The only thing she's "killing" is US citizens.
Quote: SanchoPanzaComing from watching the original and replays of her greeting the four coffins with what she knew was an outright lie.
Are you furious that the Bush administration lied to Pat Tillman's parents.
Of course not because all your outrage is due to politics.
Quote: terapinedAre you furious that the Bush administration lied to Pat Tillman's parents.
Of course not because all your outrage is due to politics.
Yes, I am. I am outraged when government officials lie to protect themselves from criticism or worse. More so when the lies are about Americans who died in service of the country.
That is why the video lie bothers me. I hear everyone on the left telling us how horrid these hearings are and how much they cost. I haven't heard many chastise Hillary or the administration for lying.
Quote: steeldcoThe only thing she's "killing" is US citizens.
What?
I hope you are not in the Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell group blaming Americans for 9/11
Why is it that those on the far right don't blame the terrorists and instead blame Americans
The terrorists killed US citizens.
Don't you get it? You don't blame Americans. You don't blame Bush(you listening Trump) , You don't blame the next President of the United States.
Go after the terrorists, not Americans.
Belong to the Westboro Baptist Church? Those kooks never blame the terrorists, they blame Americans
Cmon, get on the American side
Stop blaming Americans instead of Terrorists.
Quote: terapinedWhat?
I hope you are not in the Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell group blaming Americans for 9/11
Why is it that those on the far right don't blame the terrorists and instead blame Americans
The terrorists killed US citizens.
Don't you get it? You don't blame Americans. You don't blame Bush(you listening Trump) , You don't blame the next President of the United States.
Go after the terrorists, not Americans.
Belong to the Westboro Baptist Church? Those kooks never blame the terrorists, they blame Americans
Cmon, get on the American side
Stop blaming Americans instead of Terrorists.
It's really pretty simple. We're not going to be electing any terrorist in the near future. Nor will we be electing a despicable person such as Hillary. There is plenty of blame to go around, including on Hillary.
Quote: RonCYes, I am. I am outraged when government officials lie to protect themselves from criticism or worse. More so when the lies are about Americans who died in service of the country.
That is why the video lie bothers me. I hear everyone on the left telling us how horrid these hearings are and how much they cost. I haven't heard many chastise Hillary or the administration for lying.
I believe there was some confusion over went down at Benghazi
There is no question The Bush Administration lied to Pat Tillman parents.
They knew he was killed by friendly fire , covered it up and lied to the parents.
Where is the rights outrage over Pat Tillman?
The attacks on Clinton are all due to politics.
Quote: RonCThat is why the video lie bothers me. I hear everyone on the left telling us how horrid these hearings are and how much they cost. I haven't heard many chastise Hillary or the administration for lying.
Heck, based on people getting killed just for insulting Mohammed, it's not a particularly unusual claim.
And did the Republicans manage not to use the 4 deaths for brazen political reasons? Hell no!
pot/kettle/glass houses/stones
That is quite piss poor mind reading. The loss of life for anyone in service to their country is a terrible tragedy, especially for those most directly affected by it.Quote: terapinedAre you furious that the Bush administration lied to Pat Tillman's parents. Of course not because all your outrage is due to politics.
And the U.S. Army is not exactly "the Bush administration," unless you also regard that overstretched concept to be bipartisan. In which case, let the games of seeing one problem justify another begin.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat is quite piss poor mind reading. The loss of life for anyone in service to their country is a terrible tragedy, especially for those most directly affected by it.
And the U.S. Army is not exactly "the Bush administration," unless you also regard that overstretched concept to be bipartisan. In which case, let the games of seeing one problem justify another begin.
Do you have a problem with Mary Tillman?
Mary Tillman absolutely blames the "Bush Administration" and the Army
"The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting"
Quote: terapinedI believe there was some confusion over went down at Benghazi
There is no question The Bush Administration lied to Pat Tillman parents.
They knew he was killed by friendly fire , covered it up and lied to the parents.
Where is the rights outrage over Pat Tillman?
The attacks on Clinton are all due to politics.
I told you that I was outraged that anyone lied to Pat Tillman's family.
Your confusion argument is just as ridiculous as the righty supporting any cover up of the Tillman issue.
There was no confusion except the confusion that the administration tried to use to distract the American people by lying about the cause of the attacks. They clearly knew and they clearly lied, just as there were lies about the Tillman case.
I am amazed at how my liberal friends can't paint everyone that leans right with a broad brush but can't simply acknowledge that Hillary Clinton and the President put out lies over Libya. They didn't say "we don't know what it was, could have been this or it could have been that"...they said that it was the video.
It wasn't the video.
Toss out some insults against the right, obfuscate by accusing the right of telling the same kind of lies, and do whatever...the left is doing the same thing as the right and claiming that it is fine because the other side did it. You can't say you are better and not be better. Goes for both sides.
Quote: rxwineHeck, based on people getting killed just for insulting Mohammed, it's not a particularly unusual claim.
Not that it couldn't happen the way they told us it did, but it didn't happen that way and they knew it.
Quote: rxwineAnd did the Republicans manage not to use the 4 deaths for brazen political reasons? Hell no!
I've said that I am not impressed by the hearings and that they should not have dragged on so long. Though blame can be put on the Republicans and some always want political gain from everything (just like the California wants non-citizens to vote which may help...Democrats), I think a thorough and prompt investigation--with the implication that the investigation require the full cooperation of all parties--was called for in this case.
Delaying tactics and the email flow does have just a tiny bit to do with this dragging out, so the Democrats..or at least the people being investigated...have also caused some of the delays.
Quote: rxwinepot/kettle/glass houses/stones
Not from me. How about you?
http://theantimedia.org/3-questions-they-should-actually-be-asking-hillary-about-benghazi-but-wont/
Hillary and McCain both need to own up to the destruction done to Syria with weapons tranferred from Libya.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/26/syria-heritage-in-ruins-before-and-after-pictures
Libya before and after: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=libya+before+and+after+gaddafi&qpvt=libya+before+and+after+gaddafi&FORM=VDRE
Winning, Que Bono
Quote: RonCDelaying tactics and the email flow does have just a tiny bit to do with this dragging out, so the Democrats..or at least the people being investigated...have also caused some of the delays.
Delaying tactics absolutely should be used on the defense side even if you're innocent of something at least until your own legal counsel has looked over everything. Even then, we know everything released is up for grabs. You burped inappropriately at dinner and someone will try to accuse you of serious misbehavior. I don't begrudge anyone because of what I see going on in the political sphere, for delays.
Not anymore.
Quote: rxwineDelaying tactics absolutely should be used on the defense side even if you're innocent of something at least until your own legal counsel has looked over everything. Even then, we know everything released is up for grabs. You burped inappropriately at dinner and someone will try to accuse you of serious misbehavior. I don't begrudge anyone because of what I see going on in the political sphere, for delays.
Not anymore.
...if "everything" had been presented to both sides in the first place AND adequate prep time given to both sides, then there would be no possible excuse for how long it has taken. If you trickle out the information, you get what you get.
Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans lost their lives and that's a tragedy. Mistakes were probably made. The Republican base and media thinks this is a game-changer because Hillary was involved. But the truth.....American people just aren't interested. Right or wrong, Benghazi isn't an issue that is going to hurt Hillary.
Now out of Benghazi came the email 'scandal'. And that drew some traction. Using a private server was a bad idea. The repubs should have left it at that and worked on that one narrow narrative.....she made a bad decision, which questions her decision making. They should have left it at that. By pushing for more than is really there, they put their own foot in their mouth (Kevin McCarthy) and have again lost the interest of the American people.
That's what politics really is.....feeling the pulse of what resonates with the voters and what doesn't. The republicans are continuing a decade long series of 'bad reads' in that regard. The most obvious, the gay marriage fight. It became obvious ten years ago that the majority of American people just didn't care. The repubs have got to learn to pick battles that will resonate with the majority of voters, not just a small hardcore slice of their own party.
I am poised to vote republican for the first time in my life. I switched party registration and am planning on voting for Trump in the Nevada caucuses. I haven't made any decisions further than that. While it may seem like I am a convert, I really am not. I have always had conservative views, especially fiscally (and as my wealth grows a little bit, even more so). I am more liberal socially and for all of my adult life that has won out, particularly weighted by the gay marriage issue.
If the republicans had come to their senses, and by that I mean realized it just was not an issue they could win anything on, they could have had my vote much earlier. But, now that I am on the verge of voting republican for the first time in my life, I look at the party as a whole and think "these fools have no idea what they are doing". They have no idea what battles to pick....the ones they can actually win.
Quote: kewljReading this thread is like a microcosm of what is wrong with the republican party.
Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans lost their lives and that's a tragedy. Mistakes were probably made. The Republican base and media thinks this is a game-changer because Hillary was involved. But the truth.....American people just aren't interested. Right or wrong, Benghazi isn't an issue that is going to hurt Hillary.
Now out of Benghazi came the email 'scandal'. And that drew some traction. Using a private server was a bad idea. The repubs should have left it at that and worked on that one narrow narrative.....she made a bad decision, which questions her decision making. They should have left it at that. By pushing for more than is really there, they put their own foot in their mouth (Kevin McCarthy) and have again lost the interest of the American people.
That's what politics really is.....feeling the pulse of what resonates with the voters and what doesn't. The republicans are continuing a decade long series of 'bad reads' in that regard. The most obvious, the gay marriage fight. It became obvious ten years ago that the majority of American people just didn't care. The repubs have got to learn to pick battles that will resonate with the majority of voters, not just a small hardcore slice of their own party.
I am poised to vote republican for the first time in my life. I switched party registration and am planning on voting for Trump in the Nevada caucuses. I haven't made any decisions further than that. While it may seem like I am a convert, I really am not. I have always had conservative views, especially fiscally (and as my wealth grows a little bit, even more so). I am more liberal socially and for all of my adult life that has won out, particularly weighted by the gay marriage issue.
If the republicans had come to their senses, and by that I mean realized it just was not an issue they could win anything on, they could have had my vote much earlier. But, now that I am on the verge of voting republican for the first time in my life, I look at the party as a whole and think "these fools have no idea what they are doing". They have no idea what battles to pick....the ones they can actually win.
I don't disagree with you. The Republican party is not very good at "messaging" in a way that tells the good things they want to do in a way people can easily understand and that draws them to the party instead of pushing them away. The Democrats, on the other hand, are very good at telling people how the Republicans are wrong.
They tried to "win" on Benghazi instead of just pressing for Hillary and company to answer the one question that is most important--if you lie about what happened in Benghazi to mislead us, what else will you lie about?
Hearings that last years are way too easy to attack. Even if the other side is doing everything it can to avoid the truth.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/24/trailing-in-iowa-trump-now-battling-like-true-outsider/
This in response to a poll showing Trump being behind in Iowa:
"However, a Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll released Friday shows Trump now trailing Carson by 9 percentage points. And a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows him trailing Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon and social conservative, by 8 percentage points among Iowa Republican voters."
While Trump still leads in the national polls, those aren't as important as the individual state polls because, just like the Presidential election, this is not a national vote...these votes are in individual states. Many states have jockeyed for position in the primaries, but it still isn't something that all happens at once and each one has an impact on the next.
Being behind in any way does not fit Trump well. He essentially ascended very quickly to the front and we'll have to see how he tries to get individual states back on his side. Of course, the other side is that one state does not make up the whole process and other candidates will fade, leaving people to decide where to go next.
Quote: steeldcoNaw. Not at all. I would only worry about that if I felt that the majority of US voters are morons, and I don't believe that.
You sound like one of those FOX viewers who couldn't understand how Obama won a second term, despite all the polls, betting markets, and common sense pointing to an easy win....
Hopefully history will repeat itself.
Quote: ams288You sound like one of those FOX viewers who couldn't understand how Obama won a second term, despite all the polls, betting markets, and common sense pointing to an easy win....
Hopefully history will repeat itself.
I voted for Obama in the last 2 elections. I will not be voting for Hillary. She is one of the worst candidates that I have seen in my generation.
You apparently need to get a new crystal ball. Get It?
Quote: steeldcoI voted for Obama in the last 2 elections. I will not be voting for Hillary. She is one of the worst candidates that I have seen in my generation.
You apparently need to get a new crystal ball. Get It?
Ok, but what's the alternative?
Trump - I just cant imagine this person as President of the United States. It would be entertaining though. After the clear favorite Clinton, he has the next best shot but what a loose cannon.
Carson - Cant imagine this either. Bit of a loon. Putin would carve him up.
Bush - I can imagine him as President but his campaign is tanking. He's having a difficult time handling Trump attacks. which makes him look weak. You cant look weak, he looks weak.
Rubio - I can imagine him as President but still too young. Has not really had the microscope on him. If it gets to him, people will discover how immature he is overall. The fact that he is not doing his job, missing tons of votes in DC, will eventually hurt him.
Fiorina - she got a small bump from the debates but back to dismal numbers- not a contender.
Huckabee - guy is a joke and totally out of step with the majority of the people regarding gay marraige
Cruz - too extreme for the American people and also out of step with the majority of the people regarding gay marriage
Kasich - I can see him as president but he has absolutely no republican support.
Paul - Just don't see it happening due to little support in the polls.
Quote: terapinedOk, but what's the alternative?
Trump - I just cant imagine this person as President of the United States. It would be entertaining though. After the clear favorite Clinton, he has the next best shot but what a loose cannon.
Carson - Cant imagine this either. Bit of a loon. Putin would carve him up.
Bush - I can imagine him as President but his campaign is tanking. He's having a difficult time handling Trump attacks. which makes him look weak. You cant look weak, he looks weak.
Rubio - I can imagine him as President but still too young. Has not really had the microscope on him. If it gets to him, people will discover how immature he is overall. The fact that he is not doing his job, missing tons of votes in DC, will eventually hurt him.
Fiorina - she got a small bump from the debates but back to dismal numbers- not a contender.
Huckabee - guy is a joke and totally out of step with the majority of the people regarding gay marraige
Cruz - too extreme for the American people and also out of step with the majority of the people regarding gay marriage
Kasich - I can see him as president but he has absolutely no republican support.
Paul - Just don't see it happening due to little support in the polls.
Many of the ones you have mentioned are ALL better than Hillary. I have not made a decision other than throwing out Hillary and Trump, and probably Carson.
Quote: RonC
"However, a Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll released Friday shows Trump now trailing Carson by 9 percentage points. And a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows him trailing Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon and social conservative, by 8 percentage points among Iowa Republican voters."
While Trump still leads in the national polls, those aren't as important as the individual state polls because, just like the Presidential election, this is not a national vote...these votes are in individual states.
Iowa was never a good fit for Trump. The electorate that makes up the republican caucus goers is extremely conservative and very religious, as a look at the past two winners, Santorum and Huckabee reveals. Going back a little further we have Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson with strong second place finishes in Iowa when they did nothing elsewhere. The fact that Trump has been in the lead there for so long among people that are not his type of electorate is almost amazing.
But it will be interesting to see how Trump handles it (likely not too well). The Trump Iowa decline seems to have been from a barrage of negative ads run against him by superpacs. Will be interesting to see if this tactic has a similar effect in other places and how much Trump is willing to spend in advertising to offset this type of thing. So far he has been able to generate all the free publicity he wanted, so he had no need to spend much money on campaign ads.
Quote: kewljIowa was never a good fit for Trump. The electorate that makes up the republican caucus goers is extremely conservative and very religious, as a look at the past two winners, Santorum and Huckabee reveals. Going back a little further we have Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson with strong second place finishes in Iowa when they did nothing elsewhere. The fact that Trump has been in the lead there for so long among people that are not his type of electorate is almost amazing.
But it will be interesting to see how Trump handles it (likely not too well). The Trump Iowa decline seems to have been from a barrage of negative ads run against him by superpacs. Will be interesting to see if this tactic has a similar effect in other places and how much Trump is willing to spend in advertising to offset this type of thing. So far he has been able to generate all the free publicity he wanted, so he had no need to spend much money on campaign ads.
I know Trump wasn't a good fit for Iowa; if he actually listened to any political advisors, he would likely know that and not be overly concerned with it. Trump is smarter than everyone, though, and he will make a mountain out of the molehill. His behavior will push people away from him and, if not controlled, could snowball. He dislikes losing and tries not to remember, or to reinvent, any of his failures. I am also interested in seeing how he handles it.
Quote: RonCI know Trump wasn't a good fit for Iowa;
[...]
I am also interested in seeing how he handles it.
Perhaps call the whole state of Iowa a loser?
Quote: rxwineQuote: RonCI know Trump wasn't a good fit for Iowa;
[...]
I am also interested in seeing how he handles it.
Perhaps call the whole state of Iowa a loser?
Entirely possible...
Quote: RonCQuote: rxwineQuote: RonCI know Trump wasn't a good fit for Iowa;
[...]
I am also interested in seeing how he handles it.
Perhaps call the whole state of Iowa a loser?
Entirely possible...
But would he be wrong? ;-)
Extreme wackos win Iowa
Carson is so in step with the IA hard core Christians saying abortion should be illegal, no exceptions.
Carson is so out of step with the American people regarding abortion being illegal with no exceptions.
New Hampshire is important, future Presidents win NH
Quote: terapinedIowa is meaningless
Extreme wackos win Iowa
Carson is so in step with the IA hard core Christians saying abortion should be illegal, no exceptions.
Carson is so out of step with the American people regarding abortion being illegal with no exceptions.
New Hampshire is important, future Presidents win NH
As a Deomcrat, I can only hope that Ben Carson is the Republican nominee. He would never win a general election. The dude is a wacko.
He's obviously very intelligent. But he lacks common sense. I know many people like that. Extremely book smart, but dumb as a rock when it comes to living in the real world.
Quote: ams288As a Deomcrat, I can only hope that Ben Carson is the Republican nominee. He would never win a general election. The dude is a wacko.
He's obviously very intelligent. But he lacks common sense. I know many people like that. Extremely book smart, but dumb as a rock when it comes to living in the real world.
You give way too much thought to the idea that common sense is important. The guy who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania right now doesn't have much, and he seems to have done just fine. Why do I say that? He has proven it by consistently inserting himself on a certain side of local criminal issues before they were fully investigated. It only serves to divide people, not to fix anything...
Quote: RonCYou give way too much thought to the idea that common sense is important. The guy who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania right now doesn't have much, and he seems to have done just fine. Why do I say that? He has proven it by consistently inserting himself on a certain side of local criminal issues before they were fully investigated. It only serves to divide people, not to fix anything...
The King of False Equivalences strikes again.
Ben Carson has no common sense because he says stupid things about Hitler and slavery while running for President. And apparently in your mind, Obama "inserting himself on a certain side of local criminal issues before they were fully investigated" is equally as dumb. Riiiiiiiiiight.
Quote: ams288The King of False Equivalences strikes again.
Ben Carson has no common sense because he says stupid things about Hitler and slavery while running for President. And apparently in your mind, Obama "inserting himself on a certain side of local criminal issues before they were fully investigated" is equally as dumb. Riiiiiiiiiight.
Thank you for the insult. Instead of disagreeing, you are being disagreeable. Not shocking to me at all.
The President doing something stupid is more, not less, important than a candidate doing something stupid. Why? The President is doing it when he is President. The candidate? We can just not elect him. Pretty simple.
""I beg to differ," Carson said. "If you go back and look at the history of the world, tyranny and despotism and how it starts, it has a lot to do with control of thought and control of speech.""
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/ben-carson-nazi-germany-hitler/
So pointing out why we should resist limits to free speech, and a possible outcome of such limits, is somehow wrong?
Quote: RonCThank you for the insult. Instead of disagreeing, you are being disagreeable. Not shocking to me at all.
The President doing something stupid is more, not less, important than a candidate doing something stupid. Why? The President is doing it when he is President. The candidate? We can just not elect him. Pretty simple.
I never even agreed with your premise that Obama "inserts himself on a certain side of local criminal issues before they were fully investigated." What is this even in reference to, and why is it "stupid?"
I was just pointing out that it is a lame false equivalence. You are incapable of seeing a right winger take criticism without attempting to find some way to try and deflect it back on to Obama or Hillary. In this case, the comparison just seems silly to me.
Quote: RonC
So pointing out why we should resist limits to free speech, and a possible outcome of such limits, is somehow wrong?
Yup, gotta point out Carson against Free Speech
Absolutely agree with you.
Free Speech is very important
That's why Carson is wrong.
He wants to limit free speech
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-police-speech-colleges_5627b787e4b02f6a900eebbb
Quote: ams288I never even agreed with your premise that Obama "inserts himself on a certain side of local criminal issues before they were fully investigated." What is this even in reference to, and why is it "stupid?"
I was just pointing out that it is a lame false equivalence. You are incapable of seeing a right winger take criticism without attempting to find some way to try and deflect it back on to Obama or Hillary. In this case, the comparison just seems silly to me.
No need to rehash Obama's record. I'm sure you remember him speaking up on incidents before letting the investigation finish.
I have criticized right wingers.
Quote: terapinedYup, gotta point out Carson against Free Speech
Absolutely agree with you.
Free Speech is very important
That's why Carson is wrong.
He wants to limit free speech
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-police-speech-colleges_5627b787e4b02f6a900eebbb
""I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do," Carson responded. "It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-police-speech-colleges_5627b787e4b02f6a900eebbb
Not getting free money is not the same as not having free speech. They can say whatever they want; the government has no duty to support them. We all have the right to free speech; we all have to be careful where we exercise our right...it is the right that is protected, not the right to get money no matter how biased you are or to keep your job. Institutions of higher learning are for LEARNING not INDOCTRINATION.
Read the article you linked to. It's all about Carson FAVORING free speech. What he opposes is the government subsidy of one-sided activism. Big difference there, and the inability to discern the distinction is willful distortion.Quote: terapinedYup, gotta point out Carson against Free Speech
Absolutely agree with you.
Free Speech is very important
That's why Carson is wrong.
He wants to limit free speech
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-police-speech-colleges_5627b787e4b02f6a900eebbb
Henry Louis Gates, Trayvon Martin and Ferguson, for just a few of the most notable instances.Quote: ams288I never even agreed with your premise that Obama "inserts himself on a certain side of local criminal issues before they were fully investigated." What is this even in reference to, and why is it "stupid?"
