The Right Scoop
I was at a leftist site, and there was an article I didn't even bother looking at they had called "Jon Stewart 'exposes' McLame's "hypocrisy"". I'm guessing over either Benghazi or his wanting to get attention on the incompetent Rice's nomination.
Who's the real hypocrite? Liberals defending an unqualified crony because of their race and gender when they voted against another black woman named Rice they should have celebrated? While conservatives were opposed to cronies Bush tried to push like Harriet Miers.
Stewart sees himself as a hypocrisy detector but is blind to much of it including the vast hypocrisy of the left 90% of the time.
If you know what is going on, you don't need any dang talking points.
I agree 100%
So if Rice is a Parrot, I could do the job and never even sober up.
In fact, anyone could if all it required was the ability to vocalize a written statement.
Kinda like reading off a teleprompter.
Get it?
I spent most of my life recognizing the horrors that had been perpetrated on Jews and blacks in America. I felt as if it was somehow partly my fault the at they had been treated so badly and I was willing to give space, be a little more patient, hold my tongue. This went on for 63 years.
Even though I was born and raised in the South in the 50's, I never learned to hate from my parents, grand parents or any of the hundred other native relatives whose roots in Texas went back to before the civil war. I grew up, watching the civil rights issues playing out in the South and felt like part of the new aristocracy.
Today, I wouldn't waste spit on these traitors. One lies, and the other swears to it. Send them all to hell.
I grew up in rural Minnesota - all Germans, Norwegians, and like my family - Irish. Not much of a melting pot there. However, I was raised to respect others no matter skin color or religion and to treat others with dignity. And, I always have behaved just that way. What do I see from the very people who claim to be downtrodden and held down because of the color of their skin or their religion? Rudeness, selfishness, hatred, bigotry and racism towards others, a feeling of being entitled to what has not been earned. The victimhood game got old for me many moons ago. My patience level is nill.
"Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq's procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand. "
John Bolton
This man has no right to criticize anyone, especially since his world view has cost the lives of Americans by driving us to a war with Iraq on faulty talking points hand selected by the administration that he worked for.
You mean the exact same talking points that Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, Frank and the rest of the Democrats were expressing, even after Bush took office?
;-) ;-)
Okay, you got me on that point. You forgot about Madeline Albright. I just don't believe that John Bolton is credible and has a small worldview, but that would describe most that have a political career.
Thanks for answering, like I said just curious. No that is not a lot compared to some of my family and friends.
Did I say 'a lot'? If 2 and guns and a .22 cal rifle is a lot, then I guess I do. ;-) ;-)
One of those hand guns goes to work with me and no, you have no need to know what I do for a living.
Do you own a lot? Cause in my experience, those who believe that the UN is working with Obama to take away American's guns have arsenals. Not judging, I am really just curious.
He is not. It's that simple. Another conspiracy theory that lives on. How many guns did you buy after the election?
The whole purpose of Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations was to create a an organization to oversee the body of nations. Right now, Barack Obama is trying to use UN regulations to enforce gun ownership and internet use, inside America.
There has been no legitimate proof of a "one world government." Ever. It is an idea that lives in the paranoid fringe of a few politicos. And really? With the state of the world today, could that even be possible?
I guess that I would just prefer to have an American Ambassador that has an American view toward Woodrow Wilson's (D) 'League of Nations' than a 'one world' view. Precisely the reason why I wouldn't support 'One World Barry's' (D) 'porch puppy' Ambassador Susan Rice, for Secretary of State.
Right off the top of my head, I can't think of one thing that the (so called) United Nations has done, that hasn't been anything but a money drain on the US. The UN would fold like a house of cards without the American dollar propping it up.
As for politicians in general, I'm reminded of the words of Charles DeGaulle.
"To become the master, the politician poses as the servant".
Capitol Hill is like the Serengeti for weak RINO's, there's always a rabid Leftist (or a thousand) on the prowl. And that's just the media...
Whether its the fiscal cliff or Benghazigate, the republicans seem to be lining up to be the first in line to cave in to the obamessiah and his state controlled media.
I actually get this feeling that if Rice is nominated the Republicans in the Senate will put up a huge fight. There are four dead Americans in this scandal, something that the rest of the country can see and understand. At the very least, Rice will be under oath and Republicans will be able to not only ask her a wide range of questions, making her look foolish, but the Republicans (if they're smart) will also use the hearings as an opportunity to put Obama's entire foreign policy on trial. Remember, Rice was part of this whole "Leading from Behind" idea in Libya, so now she's going to have to defend that policy if she gets the nomination. Is this a fight Obama really wants right now? If I were a Republican senator, I would actually welcome the fight. Not only will it make Rice and Obama look terrible, but it would be sweet payback for the elections. So, I say, bring it on!
I agree with your position but have to point out that you are assuming that there is a republican senator who has the courage of his/her convictions (also called cojones) to stand up and take control of the situation. The republicans should filibuster this and every other nomination from our current regime. They don't know how to fight to win and are getting "schooled" each and every day.
There is A Republican Senator with cojones. DeMint, Lee, Sessions, and Paul are in the minority there though. They could question Rice excellently.
But even some RINOs and leftists like McCain and Feinstein are making sounds about this.
Why do you think that the Democrats are so busy trying to change the filibuster provisions.
OK, I confess I am not as clued-up about all the procedures - so is it only the Senate where these hearings take place, or is the House involved as well?
Because I'd pay money to watch Trey Gowry dissect Ms Rice in front of the rolling cameras ...
Unfortunately, it is the senate that would confirm this nomination. That's why Obama is pushing it and Harry Reid is threatening to change senate rules. They want to roll right over the republicans and shove this woman through. Personally, I don't see the republicans doing anything in the end to stop it - they never really do. They will talk all tough like they are now, but in the end, they will simply put this waste of space in the position of Secretary of State. It all ends up being forgotten and shoved aside - like Fast and Furious. Funny how we never hear about that anymore.
I really don't see this happening, sorry.
Don't forget that the old white men of the dems voted against Condi Rice - a black woman whose elevation to SecState they ought to have celebrated.
Hypocrites, the lot of them.
If the Democrats had any integrity whatsoever, they'd oppose her too.
Most Republicans opposed Harriet Miers since she was an unqualified crony even though she was appointed by a Republican President, but here you have the Democrats carrying water and race-baiting for an unqualified yes-woman in Susan Rice because she was appointed by a Democrat President.
Not only has even McCain gotten vocal about it, maybe we can even get DiFi on our side of this?
I can see four Republican senators with the stones to stand up against this: Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, Mike Lee, & Rand Paul. There are probably others, but these names come to mind quickly. I think all these guys really get what they are dealing with.
With a dem majority in the Senate?
Not gonna happen!
And all the Republicans will be smeared as old white sexist and racist pigs.
Not worth it.
I say they had better oppose Rice's nomination. If even McCain's doing it, maybe there will be sufficient enough opposition to this unqualified, lightweight hack?
Thanks for the info!
That just reinforces what so many of have been saying here: let the dems have what they want, don't engage in a fight with them, a fight which they're planning for and which is rigged so that the Republicans can't win, but will stand with egg on their faces.
Vote present, and let them own everything, the whole d*mn mess.
Don't play their games any longer.
That's the advice any competent counselor would give anybody who is in an abusive relationship, or in a relationship with a substance abuser: don't play their games, disengage.
But I bet the GOP Senators are too squishy even for that.
I heard the morning talking heads yesterday say this meeting between Rice and the Republicans (requested by Rice) was a brilliant ploy to box the Repubs in a corner. I was pleased to hear the Repubs say, after the meeting, that they had even more concerns than before. Probably won't do any good, but at least they voiced it.
Bolton is right about the talking points. Most the media and all the liberal politicians spew the talking points every day. No one thinks for themselves anymore. Shows where their mentality is anymore.
You would think that the democraps would be too happy and too busy wielding power in order to try to save the country. However their overriding goal seems to be to destroy Republicans. I say we vote "present" on anything they present and with that we firmly place the noose arounds their necks. And for anyone who reads anything racist into that - KMA.
From day one, Obama's goal was always political and still is. There has to come a time when a politician stops being political and starts to legislate for the people. When they don't, we oust their sorry a$$es. I'm with you.
If the Democrats had any integrity, they would oppose Susan Rice's nomination too.
Most Republicans opposed Harriet Miers' nomination. It wasn't because of a liberal record, it was because she was an unqualified crony with no independence from the White House. I'm very proud of that. If we can say somebody's not right for the job just because a Republican appointed them, why do liberals defend each and every one of Obama's cronies as wonderful? Susan Rice only repeats talking points, she has no independence from the Obama White House and doesn't have a grasp of foreign affairs as Benghazi proved.
Diane Feinstein gets it, why can't her colleagues?
Why is it only when there's a scandal that the WH claims they weren't involved? Otherwise they're taking credit for everything!
Here's what has me fuming...Jay Carney said we are only interested in talking points and not capturing who is responsible ...Yes we are they created the talking points..provided no security and didn't send help ...THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE...!!
It's almost like an "I know what you are, but what am I?" situation that makes the average person say, "Huh?" Jay Carney seems to be the king of this bewildering tactic. Get a question, flip the question, confuse the audience, let's move along. This administration does not directly address any matters of substance.
Exactly , they take what they are and project it on to others...like blaming the talking points on those of U.S. who want to get to the bottom of where they came from , because they take away from the real issues like protecting our amb. and seals.
I believe the best descriptions of Jay Carney come from talk radio:
"The spokes-kid"
"The spokes-idiot"
"Mr. No Eyebrows"
So, even in the midst of being angry over this fool's statements - remember what he is. A complete loser, standing out there parroting idiocy from an administration to chicken to do it themselves.
Yes every morning I wake up and remember losers are in charge...People who will bring America to it's knees...and as soon as Russia or Iran send Hamas the missiles they need...none of this will matter ...until then I am angry half this country has no idea what they have done..
I know that's why I come here...we all know how serious it is and actually I like the no eyebrows..I guess I used all my laughter up with Greg and his unicorn...lol...
I hear you. The worst part about all of this is that those of us who truly care about this country will be dragged down by the rest of the morons. By the time the uninformed finally get it, it may well be too late. Sorry if I couldn't give you a chuckle with my Jay Carney nicknames - I wasn't making light of anything. Just trying to give you something to smile at. :)
Alright, here's my conspiracy theory:
It's obvious that this meeting was a disaster. That Rice was unprepared and didn't answer questions in a complete, logical, or satisfactory manner. The whole fog of Benghazi is no clearer today than it was months ago - in fact it's worse. Holder looked like an incompetent boob (which he is) during the whole Fast and Furious debacle. Once again, we're left with more questions than answers. Same with Solyndra. Same with Bernanke, Geitner, Dodd and Frank. Same with many other questionable and puzzling developments or obvious blunders or crimes by the this White House (Libya for instance). And the bottom line is, we're STILL not getting answers... and there are still too many questions.
I firmly believe, in fact I'm convinced that this is their strategy. Break the law or go around it and Congress and the U.S. Constitution and play dumb or incompetent. Put up a smoke screen and play dumb and delay, delay, delay. Why not? The damn MSM is in their pocket and won't investigate or prosecute. Why not? Moocher Americans, unions, blacks, liberals, etc. don't care and have short memories anyway. As long as they get fed or their own ends are met, why care? I could go on and on. The GOP has pussed out over everything (debt ceiling, Obamacare, taxes, etc.) and seem unwilling or impotent to fight... why not play dumb and just slide on to the next travesty?
This is the earmark of the worst pResident of all time. This is his true legacy... why not? Obama has never lost has he?
I think many of us have the same brand tin foil hat Sober_Bother. I know I do. It's not incompintance... it's purposely done.
Everyone is expecting too much from a president who uses a teleprompter. Why would Obama choose anyone but a robot who reads talking points?
The administration is complicit in all sectors about Benghazi. Glad someone is still on discovering the truth.
Going in one talk show and reading the talking points provided for her is one thing. Making the rounds of all the talk shows and spreading known misinformation is media manipulation, simple as that. She was sent out by the Obama machine to tamp this issue down because it didn't fit in with the 'GM is alive and Bin Laden is dead' catch phrase Biden was spewing, during the election.
Exactly!
It's propaganda: getting your 'talking points' in early and often, and thus preempt any questions,e specially when coming from the 'enemy', that is some intrepid Republicans.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.