Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

I may be mistaken, but the bodyguard appears to be someone who showed up to defend Mr,. Bundy after the fact, not someone who has spent much time with Bundy. Did Bundy need a bodyguard before his conflict with the federal government? Bundy and the "bodyguard" share a cause - fear of the federal government. I doubt the bodyguard even knew Bundy before the past week or two, and is he in a real position to judge Bundy's character beyond this incident. When the "bodyguard" moves in next to Bundy with his family and friends, the public will be in a better position to judge Bundy's racism or lack thereof. Until then we will have to judge Bundy by his own words, words which were racist enough to scare off Fox News.

You may be mistaken. If one comment from Bundy makes him a full blown racist then so is the demented Harry Reid.

 

[GoIrish41]

You may be mistaken. If one comment from Bundy makes him a full blown racist then so is the demented Harry Reid.

Bundy made multiple comments each more hateful than the last. He didn't back away or claim to be misunderstood. He sought out cameras to spread his stupid ideas further. Comparing what he said and what Reid said or how each handled it is like comparing a little league to the Yankees. Why you feel the need to compare his situation to anyone elses' is a head sctatcher. Isn't what he said and done bad enough to stand on its own? It is almost like you feel compelled to defend him and turn it into a "well he said it first" thing even though the two situations aren't very similar. I don't get it.

 

[EddytoNow]

Bundy made multiple comments each more hateful than the last. He didn't back away or claim to be misunderstood. He sought out cameras to spread his stupid ideas further. Comparing what he said and what Reid said or how each handled it is like comparing a little league to the Yankees. Why you feel the need to compare his situation to anyone elses' is a head sctatcher. Isn't what he said and done bad enough to stand on its own? It is almost like you feel compelled to defend him and turn it into a "well he sait it first" thing even though the two situations aren't very similar. I don't get it.

Bundy's multiple statements are either stupid or hateful. If he mis-spoke, he has had ample opportunity to retract his statements or to explain what he meant. His failure to do so and his inability to see his negative portrayal of Black Americans in multiple statements is evidence that he meant exactly what he said. It's pretty obvious to even a neutral observer that according to Bundy the poor, the sick, and the elderly would be better served by a return to slavery where the master would take care of them to protect his monetary investment. Harry Reid's statement falls into the stupid category.

 

[GoIrish41]

Bundy's multiple statements are either stupid or hateful. If he mis-spoke, he has had ample opportunity to retract his statements or to explain what he meant. His failure to do so and his inability to see his negative portrayal of Black Americans in multiple statements is evidence that he meant exactly what he said. It's pretty obvious to even a neutral observer that according to Bundy the poor, the sick, and the elderly would be better served by a return to slavery where the master would take care of them to protect his monetary investment. Harry Reid's statement falls into the stupid category.

And his reasoning seems to be that they a drain on society through accepting "government subsides" -- all the while he is stealing the raw materials to support his cattle business from the government.

 

[Bluto]

And his reasoning seems to be that they a drain on society through accepting "government subsides" -- all the while he is stealing the raw materials to support his cattle business from the government.

Actually he's freeloading off all of us.

 

[GoIrish41]

Actually he's freeloading off all of us.

Agreed.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Bundy made multiple comments each more hateful than the last. He didn't back away or claim to be misunderstood. He sought out cameras to spread his stupid ideas further. Comparing what he said and what Reid said or how each handled it is like comparing a little league to the Yankees. Why you feel the need to compare his situation to anyone elses' is a head sctatcher. Isn't what he said and done bad enough to stand on its own? It is almost like you feel compelled to defend him and turn it into a "well he said it first" thing even though the two situations aren't very similar. I don't get it.

I'm not defending him in the least. I'm critizing the admin's priorities in enforcing the "rule of law." If Bundy said he was impressed with Obama because he was a light skinned African American with no negro dialect, he would be labeled a racist. Harry Reid was "misunderstood" or "taken out of context." Haha oooooookkkk

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm not defending him in the least. I'm critizing the admin's priorities in enforcing the "rule of law." If Bundy said he was impressed with Obama because he was a light skinned African American with no negro dialect, he would be labeled a racist. Harry Reid was "misunderstood" or "taken out of context." Haha oooooookkkk

Who is defending Reid? Nobody. You are trying to link the two statements into the same thing. If Reid would have said what Bumdy said his career would have ended immediately. He didn't say blacks would be better off as slaves. He didn't suggest that all black fathers abandon their families or that all black women abort their children. He didn't say that all blacks don't care about family. That is what Bundy said. Reid apologized. Bundy didn't. His statements were insensitive but they weren't even the same orbit as the hateful shit Bundy says. You are acting like a a if these two situations are the same. The administration is attempting to bring this idiot in compliance with the law after two decades of brazen contempt of the law. He recruited a redneck army to try to defend his right to continue stealing. You are defending him. When guys like me suggest the GOP is off the rails it is defenses like yours that make us think this. I think Bundy should be prosecuted for attempting to start a armed conflict against the country. All the government was trying to seize his cattle that he, for 20 years, used to break the law. If this was any other administration you would be praising their actions. Instead you try to make an argument about the Senate majority leader who has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Who is defending Reid? Nobody. You are trying to link the two statements into the same thing. If Reid would have said what Bumdy said his career would have ended immediately. He didn't say blacks would be better off as slaves. He didn't suggest that all black fathers abandon their families or that all black women abort their children. He didn't say that all blacks don't care about family. That is what Bundy said. Reid apologized. Bundy didn't. His statements were insensitive but they weren't even the same orbit as the hateful shit Bundy says. You are acting like a a if these two situations are the same. The administration is attempting to bring this idiot in compliance with the law after two decades of brazen contempt of the law. He recruited a redneck army to try to defend his right to continue stealing. You are defending him. When guys like me suggest the GOP is off the rails it is defenses like yours that make us think this. I think Bundy should be prosecuted for attempting to start a armed conflict against the country. All the government was trying to seize his cattle that he, for 20 years, used to break the law. If this was any other administration you would be praising their actions. Instead you try to make an argument about the Senate majority leader who has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Still not defending Bundy and not linking the two. My argument was it's despicable that armed agents surrounded his ranch while thousands of illegal immigrants cross our birder every day. "Rule of law..."

Bundy owes $1 million? Fine him. Take him to court. Treat him like any other business. Guy is still a whacko.

If you're really concermed about the $1 million, chew on this. Average yearly cost to educate a child in K-12 public school is $8k. Over 10 years that's $80K. If you have JUST 13 kids here illegally (not their fault) but being educated in our schools, that's just over $1 million. This goes back to my original argument of "rule of law" in this admin.

 

[GoIrish41]

Still not defending Bundy and not linking the two. My argument was it's despicable that armed agents surrounded his ranch while thousands of illegal immigrants cross our birder every day. "Rule of law..."

Bundy owes $1 million? Fine him. Take him to court. Treat him like any other business. Guy is still a whacko.

If you're really concermed about the $1 million, chew on this. Average yearly cost to educate a child in K-12 public school is $8k. Over 10 years that's $80K. If you have JUST 13 kids here illegally (not their fault) but being educated in our schools, that's just over $1 million. This goes back to my original argument of "rule of law" in this admin.

Again you are trying to mix other issues that have nothing to do with each other. They did fine him. They did take him to court. When they tried to seize his property he had a gang of thugs itching for a gun fight with the government waiting. They gave him 20 years of chances to comply and it did no good. Tell me the next logical step. I think federal officers was it but you are suggesting more of th e same stuff that didn't work. What is next?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Again you are trying to mix other issues that have nothing to do with each other. They did fine him. They did take him to court. When they tried to seize his property he had a gang of thugs itching for a gun fight with the government waiting. They gave him 20 years of chances to comply and it did no good. Tell me the next logical step. I think federal officers was it but you are suggesting more of th e same stuff that didn't work. What is next?

You can cry other issues all you want. The principle I'm arguing is the application of "rule of law", which progressives have been obsessed with in the past few years. Let's pretend it was an IT company not paying certain fees/ taxes/ fines. Would you support federal agents storming the place of business, destroying all the computers and cutting off the Internet access?

The man is a cattle rancher. Killing his cattle is unacceptable, and I'm no animal rights activist. How does he make money? He sells meat and goods. You can shut down the operation and hit him in the wallet by not allowing him to do commerce in the state. My original argument is that the situation, IMO, did not require what happened and what this all has come to.

 

[woolybug25]

You can cry other issues all you want. The principle I'm arguing is the application of "rule of law", which progressives have been obsessed with in the past few years. Let's pretend it was an IT company not paying certain fees/ taxes/ fines. Would you support federal agents storming the place of business, destroying all the computers and cutting off the Internet access?

The man is a cattle rancher. Killing his cattle is unacceptable, and I'm no animal rights activist. How does he make money? He sells meat and goods. You can shut down the operation and hit him in the wallet by not allowing him to do commerce in the state. My original argument is that the situation, IMO, did not require what happened and what this all has come to.

If an IT company built a building in a National Park and started doing business, then refused to leave, pay penalties, pay taxes and threatened arm themselves…. then yes… I would hope the government would lock them up and sell off all of their assets.

No way a company would get the time and consideration this old, rascist bastard got.

 

[Bluto]

If an IT company built a building in a National Park and started doing business, then refused to leave, pay penalties, pay taxes and threatened arm themselves…. then yes… I would hope the government would lock them up and sell off all of their assets.

No way a company would get the time and consideration this old, rascist bastard got.

Could be the plot for Revenge of the Nerds 5 or something.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Wonder if the liberal media will run with the latest developments in the Bengazi attacks? I am betting they don't even though it took a FOIA ruling to get THE document that clearly shows Ben Rhodes - an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications emailing higher level officials and Susan Rice preparing her for her talk show circuit. Who above Rhodes approved the talking points? He doesn't have enough stripes on his collar to make that call.

Your move Mr. President.

 

[EddytoNow]

Wonder if the liberal media will run with the latest developments in the Bengazi attacks? I am betting they don't even though it took a FOIA ruling to get THE document that clearly shows Ben Rhodes - an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications emailing higher level officials and Susan Rice preparing her for her talk show circuit. Who above Rhodes approved the talking points? He doesn't have enough stripes on his collar to make that call.

Your move Mr. President.

Unfortunately, talking points are the norm with politicians. You can't get a straight answer from a politician of either party. That's why a free press is essential. Unfortunately, the media has been bought and sold just like our politicians. Now our Supreme Court has legalized the purchase of free speech. The "truth" is for sale to the highest bidder.

 

[Cackalacky]

The Benghazi attack is a big old yawn for me......Don't care.

 

[connor_in]

The Benghazi attack is a big old yawn for me......Don't care.

 

[GoIrish41]

Wonder if the liberal media will run with the latest developments in the Bengazi attacks? I am betting they don't even though it took a FOIA ruling to get THE document that clearly shows Ben Rhodes - an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications emailing higher level officials and Susan Rice preparing her for her talk show circuit. Who above Rhodes approved the talking points? He doesn't have enough stripes on his collar to make that call.

Your move Mr. President.

Freedom of Information Act requests are a typical way of getting information from government agencies/administrations. Your post makes it sound like some extraordinary measures were taken to peel away. That does not appear to be the case. People much higher in the food chain have already been linked to the Benghazi talking points, including Ms. Rice who delivered them during interviews. This isn't really a bombshell.

 

[Cackalacky]

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on

Call me when it is not a Democrat in office......

 

[connor_in]

Call me when it is not a Democrat in office......

Nice...but please show me where I excused anything done by anyone else? Also, please show me where I made reference to any of those items being

"a big old yawn for me......Don't care."

 

[connor_in]

Call me when it is not a Democrat in office......

One other thig about your list...how many of those were blamed on internet videoes by the administration in power at the time?

How many of those took the same amopunt of time that this situation took? Could people have been called in once they started and try to help out like they could have in this situation?

If this situation is such a big yawn for you, then why do you even care about the others?

 

[Cackalacky]

Nice...but please show me where I excused anything done by anyone else? Also, please show me where I made reference to any of those items being

"a big old yawn for me......Don't care."

Our embassies have been attacked for decades. This one is not different. Just hater's hating on Obama. Old hat... move along nothing to see here...

As for your other post, see my response above. If someone wants to attach an embassy they are going to and probably with some amount of success regardless. And I care no more about Benghazi than I do the others...... its just the Socialist, Kenyan, Nazi, Communist hate machine is in full roar with this.... yawn....

 

[connor_in]

SMDH

 

[EddytoNow]

We've got to get away from this **** of blaming the party in power every time someone attacks Americans. We should be standing united like we did following 911. An attack like Benghazi is an attack on America. Hillary Clinton didn't attack the Benghazi Embassy. Obama didn't order an attack on our own embassy. Susan Rice didn't provide weapons. We were attacked by terrorists.

Does anyone else think the America haters have figured out how to use their attacks to influence American elections? If you don't like the policy of the United States party in power, then attack some soft American target so Americans can begin the blame game and throw out the bums whose policy you oppose.

I think the runners of the world showed more courage than our politicians. Runner after runner competing in this year's Boston Marathon mentioned the fact that they would not be intimidated by what happened last year. No word games. No blaming other Americans. No political grandstanding. Just courage and determination not to be intimidated. Our politicians should take notice and do the same when America is attacked.

 

[Cackalacky]

We've got to get away from this **** of blaming the party in power every time someone attacks Americans. We should be standing united like we did following 911. An attack like Benghazi is an attack on America. Hillary Clinton didn't attack the Benghazi Embassy. Obama didn't order an attack on our own embassy. Susan Rice didn't provide weapons. We were attacked by terrorists.

Does anyone else think the America haters have figured out how to use their attacks to influence American elections? If you don't like the policy of the United States party in power, then attack some soft American target so Americans can begin the blame game and throw out the bums whose policy you oppose.

I think the runners of the world showed more courage than our politicians. Runner after runner competing in this year's Boston Marathon mentioned the fact that they would not be intimidated by what happened last year. No word games. No blaming other Americans. No political grandstanding. Just courage and determination not to be intimidated. Our politicians should take notice and do the same when America is attacked.

Reps.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Obamacare as Spending Stimulus:

 

[irishog77]

Freedom of Information Act requests are a typical way of getting information from government agencies/administrations. Your post makes it sound like some extraordinary measures were taken to peel away. That does not appear to be the case. People much higher in the food chain have already been linked to the Benghazi talking points, including Ms. Rice who delivered them during interviews. This isn't really a bombshell.

I think it is the case though. This info was denied from prior freedom of information requests. This new information stemmed from a court order due to a lawsuit filed.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think it is the case though. This info was denied from prior freedom of information requests. This new information stemmed from a court order due to a lawsuit filed.

Haven't seen the request or a report about the hoop jumping that had to be done in order to get the document, although I will say that what you described above is not out of the norm either. Without the details, I won't comment further before I read more about this -- if the liberal media ever gives it the light of day.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Some of you (particularly Cacky) might find this interesting-- How Culture Wars Hijack Science Discussions:

[T]he National Science Foundation recently proposed removing the true/false evolution question from its survey of scientific knowledge altogether, because they found “giving the correct answer to that question doesn’t cohere with giving the right answer to the other questions in NSF’s science-literacy inventory.” As Kahan continues, “What that tells you, if you understand test-question validity, is that the evolution item isn’t measuring the same thing as the other science-literacy items.” While the other scientific knowledge questions did cohere, the NSF researchers found that their evolution question was instead measuring cultural identifiers, especially “the significance of religiosity in their lives.” Given the fraught cultural history behind the evolution debate, it makes a great deal of sense that a question that has been explicitly framed, by both sides, as an irreconcilable conflict between science and religion would come to be determined by attitudes towards religion.

What was a more surprising result, to me at least, was that “as their level of science comprehension increases, individuals with a highly secular identity become more likely to say ‘they believe’ in evolution; but as those with a highly religious identity become more science literate, in contrast, they become even more likely to say they don’t.” This result is repeated on climate change, “as their score on one or another measure of science comprehension goes up, Democrats become more likely, and Republicans less, to say they ‘believe’ in human-caused global warming.”

As Kahan takes pains to emphasize, then, arguments over evolution and climate change are absolutely not matters of scientific education, or knowledge vs. ignorance. They’re culture wars. One can obtain an “impeccable” Ph.D. studying paleontology, or practice neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, and still answer an evolution true/false question in the negative. Likewise, one can enthusiastically and indignantly affirm evolution’s truth while not having the first idea of how to explain genetic mutations.

Kahan emphasizes that “we must disentangle competing positions on climate change from opposing cultural identities, so that culturally pluralistic citizens aren’t put in the position of having to choose between knowing what’s known to science and being who they are.” And, “you must take pains not to confuse understanding evolutionary science with the ‘pledge of cultural allegiance’ that ‘I believe in evolution’ has become.” Rod Dreher recently made a similar point regarding conservatives and environmentalism.

As I pointed out last week, antibiotic resistance is one area of real public concern and true danger where the public seems to have a decent grasp on how it happens. Well, recent red-state icon Chick-fil-A, whose corporate purpose is “to glorify God,” has announced that it will source all of its sandwiches from antibiotic-free chickens. Mixing antibiotics into the feed of livestock to get them to grow faster is a significant source of the antibiotic resistance scientists and public heath experts are so worried about. Fast food chains directing their substantial purchasing power against this practice would be a significant, concrete step in the right direction. And insofar as such efforts are burdened with blue-state culture war baggage, science will only be set back.

Kahan closes with an example of a Florida project where broad public support was marshaled across Democratic and Republican counties to address sea-level changes and climate effects. And in his experience, “the culturally pluralistic, and effective form of science communication happening in southeast Florida doesn’t look anything like the culturally assaultive ‘us-vs-them’ YouTube videos and prefabricated internet comments with which Climate Reality and Organizing for American are flooding national discourse.” Red staters can be just as polarizing in their culture war salvos. Both sides should conduct their cultural arguments in the open, and stop hiding behind science.

 

[Cackalacky]