You’ve heard this, of course. Now hear it again. All of it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR3XTOjZPfg[/youtube]
The legacy line out of this tantrum clearly is
“WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE?”
But you’ve been bamboozled.
Let’s look at the fuller statement:
“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?
(You’ll have to fill in the hysterics)
But then here comes the part no one paid attention to:
It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.
Huh? It is?
That was the point of the hearings.
On the one hand Clinton said that it didn’t matter what caused it but then asserts that it’s necessary to learn what caused it. Then she insists that we need to keep it from ever happening again but we can’t keep it from happening again if we don’t know what caused it. Saying “what difference…does it make?” about the cause is a pure dismissal of Clinton’s involvement (or lack of involvement) in the attack and dismisses the event itself. Then she hits the “reset” button immediately and seizes control of the exchange by asserting that we need to determine the cause of the event that she just dismissed.
This is classic Clintonism- take your query, stop it, seize it, take control of it and turn it around and escape the noose of responsibility.
Obama is a good politician. He is a grand liar but he is a good politician. He has placed women and persons of color in the most critical positions for a reason. Attack one and you are accused of misogyny. Attack the other and you are a racist.
On the other hand, Obama’s top advisors- mostly out of direct view- are mostly white men.
I posted this because I want you to pay close attention to what Hillary says and how she says it so, you know, you’re not bamboozled again. It’s going to be very important. We don’t need another four years of liberal disaster.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Ronald J. Ward
DO YOU KNOW IF THAT HAPPEN WHEN OBAMA WAS IN PAKISTAN?
your timing sound familiar, with his trip,
@retire05: Yes, remember smrstrauss said to me several times: F*** You. I pointed out that me being male and him being male, that he was soliciting homosexual acts and asked him if he wife was happy with him for that. Typical lib, he never answered.
@Redteam:
A “bagger” is someone who engages in a homosexual activity, yet the left, like RJW, thinks calling someone a homosexual who engages in an activity that is primarily exclusive to the homosexual community is an insult. So while the left touts its diversity and tolerance, how does that work when they call others homosexual and use it as a pejorative?
Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is Ronald J Ward.
@Tom:
Not true. I guess you missed this.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Then that’s dishonest as I have not attempted to sell such a thing. You can try to camouflage it all you want but you were wrong.
The only reason things haven’t progressed further is Obama’s simply refusing to cooperate.
@Richard Wheeler:
OK, Rich, who wants to do that? And could you please link us to the proof of it?
Thanks!
@DrJohn:
Yes, I asked RW for that same thing, I guess he doesn’t have any proof.
@DrJohn:
I didn’t miss anything. All the people like you who did zero actual reporting and systematically smeared Kirkpatrick for partisan political reasons is besides the point. I’m going to ask you one more time. Do you or don’t you have proof that Kirkpatrick fabricated the Times story at the behest, or to profit, Hillary Clinton? Hint: a link in a circular daisy chain of idiots like you quoting each other isn’t proof.
@Tom:
Tom
Kirkpatrick’s account flies in the face of the Times’ own reports and had you bothered to read the link you would have learned that. You speak of a “daisy chain of idiots” and then link to Media Matters? Really?
@DrJohn:
And how does that prove he’s personally wrong? If the Times reports what someone else says and his own reporting subsequently proves differently, how does that prove your assertion he’s lying? Again, I’ll ask you: where is your proof that Kirkpatrick fabricated the Times story at the behest, or to profit, Hillary Clinton? You do have proof, right? Don’t tell me you’re lying again! That would be so unlike you.
@DrJohn: It’s MY opinion which I believe is shared by a Majority of the American electorate. This, I BELIEVE, is the reason the DEMS. continue to win at the polls.
BTW When is the last time you or RT proved any of YOUR wild accusations?lol
All of you who wasted the last 3+ hours here missed two OUTSTANDING college football games–had em on split screen. C.F is Truly the most EXCITING SPORT in the world;
The legendary Phil Everly has passed. With Don he brought great joy to his fans for over 50 years. Bye Bye Phil RIP
@DrJohn: I’m man enough to admit to being wrong and my wording of implicating you personally as a birther was inaccurate. My intentions was to make a comparison of how the right wing propaganda machine in general will cling to false, manipulated, and intentionally distorted issues such as Obama’s birth certificate (and I could start a list of others but that would only invite more distractions of my point) and then cover your ears and sing “la la la” when confronted with reasonable arguments. Benghazi is simply another hyped up scandal, morbidly used as a campaign tool from the right within hours of the incident and continues to be spun for political purposes.
Either you are rather thin skinned or your pedophile rhetoric was a childish distraction of the argument.
Would you care to respond to my #94 comment and explain how Benghazi differs from multiple attacks on U.S. Embassy’s I mention?
That’s indeed a throw-a-rock-and-run statement and demonstrates a blindness and denial on several fronts. I could provide link after link showing Obama as a very compromising President. Even in the arguments of GOP “hostage taking”, didn’t Boehner admit to getting “98%” of what he wanted?
I can provide link after link showing that the GOP’s position during the entire Obama era has been to give up nothing and to obstruct at all cost, even when they get everything they want. In reality, the dysfunctional political climate is a product of an extreme faction in the lower chamber and an upper chamber hell bent on denying success on any Obama initiative. The more Obama tries to meet Republicans half way, the more extreme their demands get.
And even if you want to argue the above, your statement is flawed as it demonstrates an ignorance of the legislative process. It reminds me of an acquaintance that said “Obama shut down the government to punish Americans”. Now, I challenge you and readers here to reflect on that statement for a moment. My guess is that the Obama haters and ear coverers and head-in-sand dwellers can find some rationale in that- “Obama shut down the government to punish Americans” (Smorgasboard stepped in it a while back with something like “no, he did it because….”).
Aside from it being illogical to “punish Americans” and certainly wouldn’t be an advantageous strategy for the Dem party, Obama had nothing to do with it as it never passed the Senate. Obama never had a chance to sign or veto it. Likewise, your vague and rather deceptive statement that “The only reason things haven’t progressed further is Obama’s simply refusing to cooperate” is just dumb, distant from the way the legislative process works, and is simply another rubber/glue sophomoric argument to deflect the shortcomings of extreme and defiant GOP legislators.
RW seems to have forgotten which party actually passed the Civil Rights Act, and gives the credit only to the party of the President who signed it, but did not pass it, all the while he has been busy polling a majority of Americans in order to be able to know what that majority’s mindset is.
Perhaps he will share with us how long it took him to poll over 100 million American voters.
Ronald J. Ward
you don”t make any intelligent sense in your comment,
they died in there as HEROS DEFENDING THEMSELVES, FROM ROCKETS OF ALQAEDA,
THAT’S JUST AN EVENT YOU THINK SO, SHAME ON YOU,
THEY WHERE DENIED THE HELP , NOTHING THERE,
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE FOR YOU,
HERE’S YOUR ROCK AND DON’T RUN,
@retire05: The Civil Rights Act passed the lower chamber on 2/10/64 by 290-130. Dems were 152 for and 96 against whereas Reps were 138 for and 34 against. It passed the upper chamber on 6/19/64 by 73-27 with Dems 46 for and 21 against and Reps 27 for and 6 against. It was then signed by Lyndon Johnson.
I might add that the southern states were saturated with Democratic representation during the 88th Congress.
As always, I have no clue what you’re trying to say but more importantly, you don’t seem to either.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Lower chamber Democrats 38.7% against
Lower chamber Republicans 19.76% againt
Upper chamber Democrats 31% against
Upper chamber Republicans 1.8% against
LBJ would not have gotten that bill without Republicans. And the fact that you want to divide the vote into regions shows how lame you are.
Here, let me fix that for you: ” I [you] have no clue” That would have been the correct statement from you.
@retire05:
That seems to make the case that the Republicans passed the civil rights bill. Why do the Dims take all the credit? I guess it’s to try to make up for the fact that they didn’t vote against slavery when they had the chance….
@retire05: RJW’S #115 shows the bi-partison passage of 1964 CRA by both Chambers.
Repub. Prez. nominee Goldwater voted nay.Thus began the 10-12 year migration of MOST Southern racist Congressmen from Dem Party to Repub. Party. By 1976 the once Solid Blue South had become decidedly Red. The Solid South has continued to vote Red in Prez. elections. Favorite sons Carter and Clinton achieved some inroads.
BTW When I say “my belief” or “my opinion” that’s all it is–no more, no less.
I greatly respect the opinions stated here by Southern Conservatives Aqua and Aye.
@Richard Wheeler:
Precisely, and those Southern Democrats were voted out, and replaced with Republicans, by their own constituents, Southerners. But the false meme of the “racist” South persists in spite of the history of Southern voters. It’s the only way that the left can maintain their lie that the Democrat Party is the party of equality.
You should have eliminated the “which I believe is shared by a Majority of the American electorate” since you offered no proof that the majority of the American electorate shares your opinion. Adding it simply for effect doesn’t work.
@Richard Wheeler:
And I should care that a left coast liberal respects someone else why?
27 voted for and 6 against.
6 out 33= 1.8%
?
And Redteam naturally concurs.
And why this distraction to the original argument has come about has yet to be explained.
Foolish trolls!
@retire05: As you know Senators Thurmond of Ala. and Helms of N.C, both proud racists and Dems.,became Repub. Senators in 64 and 70 respectively.Both continued to get elected as Repubs. There are similar examples in the House.The racists’ flight from Dem. to Repub. by both elected officials and many (though certainly not all) Southern voters from 64-70’s is documented and you know it.
@Ronald J. Ward:
18% you dimwit.
But tell us, how does it feel to be perfect and never made a typographical error? I thought Obama was the only modern day man that walks on water.
@Richard Wheeler:
And as you fail to acknowledge, Ralph Yarborough, the Senator from Texas, a Democrat, voted for the bill.
Why don’t you tell us how many switched to the Republican Party (because everyone knows that you always join the party you don’t agree with, right?) and how many were voted out by their constituents? You seem to have plenty of time on your hands.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Why does everything by a Dimocrat have to be a lie. Isn’t the truth the strongest weapon? Show me where I said I concurred with the math. What an idiot.
@retire05: Alabama, Ga Dem. voter ” My racist Sen.( Thurmond , Helms etc,), whom I greatly admire, has decided he can better advance our causes by becoming a Repub. Lets do likewise and continue to elect him as a Repub.Racist.”
@Redteam: You copied and pasted the identical error and responded “That seems to make the case that the Republicans passed the civil rights bill”.
It’s a sad day when you yourself can’t read and comprehend your very own writings and need someone to explain it to you.
But again distractions and evasiveness of the argument is indeed your game. Should I say, well played?
By the way, care to explain why all the attacks on U.S. Embassys were fine and dandy under Bush and previous administrations but were such “scandals” under Obama? What’s different?
@Richard Wheeler:
One Congressman and that’s your proof? How many do you ignore? How many Democrats that voted ‘nay’ on the CRA continued to remain Democrats and get re-elected and how many flipped parties and got re-elected? Jake Pickle (D-Tx) voted “aye” and continued to be re-elected for years. And if the voters disagreed with the votes of the Republicans, why did they replace Democrats with Republicans.
Is there any spin you don’t buy into?
@Richard Wheeler:
Wallace. Dem
Eisenhower. Republican.
How many GOP senators were KKK Kleagles? Zero
How many Dem senators were known KKK kleagles? One.
Who selected the first black Sec def? First black and female NSA and Sec State?
Oh yeah….that would be REPUBLICANS.
So you can babble your nonsense of republican racism all you want. Dems are tbe party of racism, doing all they can to keep minorities impoverished and dependent on government crack.
@Ronald J. Ward:
You’re confessing?
Did you notice that every one of those attacks you listed, you were able to tell us ‘who did them’. Now tell us who did the one at Benghazi?
Actually, I didn’t. You once again lie while running from the argument, making up stupid shit in order to escape from your weak tea claims.
@Pete:
And which party nominated the first racial minority for office of VP, a racial minority who also served as VP?
The history of racism and politics in America is interesting. At what point was it that the GOP and Democratic party reverse roles?
@retire05: “One Congressman.” No- Two prominent Senators–Thurmond and Helms. Dem. racist voters followed these two racists into the Repub. party. KISS Does the truth hurt?
Greg #133 Reversal of roles began in mid 60’s and continued into the mid to late 70’s.
2 out of the 67 Democrat Senators (who were ALL prominent in their time)? Wow! What percentage is that?
And what does KISS mean? (I’m sure it’s not anything polite)
Now, how many of those Democrats who voted against the CRA of 1964 were replaced, by their constituents, by Republicans?
And what party nominated, and the people elected, the first minority Vice President?
@retire05: You ask “How many Dem. Senators who voted against CRA were defeated by Repub. opponent in ensuing election.” Good question? How many?
KISS military for keep it simple stupid–a good rule.
@Richard Wheeler:
That was the question I asked you. Or do you think that answering question with a question makes you look like you know the answer? Major fail.
KISS? So you are calling me stupid?
How about this:
FURW
@retire05: FURW Too easy.Great example of KISS
The answer to your question? My guess is ZERO–What say you?
Happy New Year to you and yours
@Ronald J. Ward: RJW, now you’re trying your stand up routine. In 94 you enumerate all those attacks and say who did them all(identified by the Bush Admin) and then in 131, you say you didn’t see that. You wrote it, in 94. You’ve run a wheel off there, spokey.
@Greg:
They didn’t. The Republican party has always supported civil rights, the Dims started trying to reverse their roles in the 60’s.
@Richard Wheeler:
Not true. No reversal of roles. Repubs have always been for civil rights. You are correct that the Dims started trying to change in the 60’s. Maybe they’ll get there one day.
@Richard Wheeler:
As a former military person, I don’t think you should be implying that military people are only able to understand simple things.
@Richard Wheeler:
It was meant to be easy. It was directed at you and I wanted you to be able to understand it. That’s why I kept it simple, stupid.
Your guess? YOUR GUESS? This from the guy who posts like he is the knower of everything under the sun? Are you admitting there are things, even related to politics, that you don’t know? Will wonders never cease?
As to the New Year, I suggest you put stops on all your stocks.
@retire05:
My recommendation, (as it seems as if ‘everyone’ is saying the market is going to turn) is to temporarily transfer into a guaranteed income fund until the threat is clear, then move it back into the market. Never lets me down. My experience though is that most of the time, these ‘warnings’ are made up to cause some stocks to drop a small amount so that the rumor mongers can make even more money. I don’t really see a big drop coming. Even if it drops a thousand, it’ll bounce right back up.
@Redteam:
Take a look at some comparisons. Look at the market, and its rapid rise, right before Black Friday and the crash of recent years.
The market is rising waaaaaay too fast, and the fear is when it corrects, it will over correct and we will see another bust. And remember this; the very thing that caused the housing bust is still in effect, the Community Reinvestment Act, along with all the mortgage bail outs that have shown to do nothing for the home owner but prolong the inevitable. So those who were living on the financial wire to begin with, just barely keeping the roof over their heads, now have the added burden of facing losing their health insurance and having to pay even more for replacement insurance with higher deductibles.
Just think of our economy as the car and Obama and Valerie Jarrett as Thelma and Louise.
“This is classic Clintonism- take your query, stop it, seize it, take control of it and turn it around and escape the noose of responsibility.”
This sounds like a variation of the Limbaugh Theorem that describes how Obama pretends to be a victim of his own socialist policies
@retire05:I have no problem with that assessment. I believe a 1000 pt drop is likely, but rebound fairly soon afterward. Still printing a huge amount of money and it has to be put somewhere, there’s surely no other very profitable business to put money in.
@Redteam:
The printing of money should worry everyone. Eventually the dollar will be so devalued that it won’t be worth as much as beach pebbles.
Watch gold. And if you buy any, do so in small amounts (1/4 oz) and find out how much you can buy this year without it being reported. If gold goes north and the market south, Obama will pull an FDR.
@retire05:
that’s about all I would do with it the way it has tanked over the last year. Sure, it’ll make a recovery if the market goes down 1000, but right back down with the resurge in market.
Redteam
i see you are a very nice person to share this knowledge with us here,
best to you,