I read some conservative blogs about it and frankly I don’t know what you conservatives are thinking sometimes.
Actually, you’re not thinking.
Some not all; but that some is way too many.
What we’re thinking is:
“It’s Year 7. It’s going to take a lot more than showing us for the 500th time he’s got the ‘Convincingly Read a Teleprompter’ skill in his toolbox to garner praise.”
Geez, Farris, not everything is politics.
In any case, you kind of made my point about thinking.
This is the sort of response I heard from liberals about Reagan’s D-Day Speech. All they saw was politics; and not the larger issues.
1. Toss out a politically-charged statement.
2. If anyone dares fight back, accuse them of politicizing the issue.
It was a great speech but some people are over blown……I read people saying it was a speech for the ages and school children will be memorizing it in school. It wasn’t that good.
When did everything have to be political? It sucks and yes I know both sides do it……doesn’t make it suck less.
You can’t make this sh*t up!
Sally Kohn of CNN says: “Let’s not be surprised that within span of days in Wisconsin, unarmed young black man shot AND union rights eroded. Injustice is connected.”
8:27pm – 9 Mar 15
This letter to Iran business was really stupid. It sets a bad precedent and (IMO) was a big mistake. I don’t think we should be dealing with Iran, but you can’t go around the President like that… it makes us look chaotic and only serves to help Team Obama, not hurt it.
Republicans never tire of shooting themselves in the foot.
you can’t go around the President like that…
Are you allowed to go around the Senate like that? Well, no. You’re not supposed to. Which was why the letter exists at all.
Was “An Open Letter to those Bloodthirsty Loons of Iran” the best method to convey that message? Hell if I know, but the message needed to be put on the table.
That’s fair… although, I stand by the “two wrongs,” principle.
Argue the point in public, put up the letter online and send it to the President. But sending it to a foreign dictator… yeesh… not a smart move.
^^Not traitorous; just not very bright; particularly those who might want to run for POTUS in the future. They let their dislike for the POTUS override their common sense.
This letter is the kind of thing that can come back to bite them in the *ss down the line, just like those on the Democratic side, like Hillary Clinton, came to regret signing on to the second Iraq war.
^^Key word in this article is “allegedly”. No actual proof any of this tale actually occurred except an alleged KBG memo; but that’s plenty for those that believe everything they read on right wing blogs.😉
Hillary’s main reason for using off-site email address: she didn’t want to carry 2 phones.
Malarky: I’ve got 2 accounts set up on my phone right now.
FLASHBACK: Dem Members Of Congress Opposed To Reagan Wrote “Dear Comandante” Letter To Nicaragua’s Communist Leader…
“FLASHBACK: Dem Members Of Congress Opposed To Reagan Wrote “Dear Comandante” Letter To Nicaragua’s Communist Leader… ”
^^I imagine this, letter writing, happens on occasion in Congress, on both sides, and It’s hard to justify or condemn because the POV depends on what side of the letter writing your on. In the case you site It’s the Democrats writing the letter and Republicans like Gingrich calling the letters ‘illegal’ and ‘unwise’.
How this letter writing incident plays out depends on what the deal is and how it plays out once (or if) it is signed. If it was proven this letter was a cause of the deal going away (very unlikely) the Republicans will get to own the resulting war – for good or bad.
“Hillary’s main reason for using off-site email address: she didn’t want to carry 2 phones.
Malarky: I’ve got 2 accounts set up on my phone right now.”
^^I imagine, for technical reasons, that to access (send emails) to the State Dept. account you have to use a State Dept. issued phone. No one asked that question so the answer will most likely come when she appears before the House Benghazi Committee.
I imagine, for technical reasons, that to access (send emails) to the State Dept. account you have to use a State Dept. issued phone.
“Yes, does the FoggyBottom5.2 come in grey?”
State wouldn’t issue the phone. I’m sure they’d record the serial #/IP address/etc for the particular device a ultra-high-level official is using for authentication purposes, but State doesn’t issue phones. Blackberry does. (or did. whatever.)
Oh, and the lie didn’t even make an hour before someone dug up a debunking…
^^I wasn’t aware Hillary was a talk show in the last two weeks as claimed here? Which one was it; as there are no timestamps or even an idea of who the host was? I can’t even think of her last appearance on a daytime talk show but it has to be many years. I don’t have any idea when that was taped but I don’t think it was two years ago let alone two weeks ago.🙂
And you’ll excuse me if I don’t accept your ‘expertize’ on cellphone technology as fact.😉
Hilary wasn’t in a talk show when she admitted having an iPhone AND a blackberry.
She was at a conference 2 WEEKS AGO when she admitted that.
If you are able read ALL the way to the bottom of the article and watch the video. So…..if Hilary says it, us it true or is she bullshit*ing us?
if anyone really cares she said it at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women on 2.24.15 …..pretty easy to find that out if you care about the facts……….or ignore if you are in defend at all cost mode.
That said I intend as of today to vote for her………but this will cost her some votes……..enough to cost her the race….no….but some clearly……it was a dumb thing to do and if she doesn’t come complete clean…….I could see myself voting green party in protest.
I’m NOT saying she is…….but if you vote someone you know is a crook…..you are saying its OK to be a crook….. a lot of people believe that….if she comes off dirty it will cost her.
First, as Gatxer says above, Hillary Clinton did make that comment two weeks ago at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women so my apologies to farris for doubting the veracity his link.
I was also able to find the interview on line and get the context for the snippet he linked to. It was a discussion of the benefits of Blackberry and the fact Hillary has a number of phones and tablets in her possession. Apparently she’s a bit of a hoarder .The thing is she doesn’t say she’ or imply that she uses two phones at any one time.
I can understand this because at this moment I have three cell phones around my house somewhere. I use one of them as my phone and the others are in a drawer. There’s nothing wrong with the other phones it’s just that I use the latest model and just never got rid of the other two. That’s the impression that I got from what Hillary said about her other phones as well; but I know you have conspiracies to promote so have fun.
And you’ll excuse me if I don’t accept your ‘expertize’ on cellphone technology as fact.
You’re right. If I’m going to throw out a blanket statement such as “you can easily use 2 email accounts on a single phone”, I should be able to back it up.
I wasn’t doubting you could have two email accounts on one phone, I was giving a possible explanation why the State Dept. might have issued her a State Dept. phone. The jibe about your “expertize” was aimed at the follow-up remark below. It stands. But you know that.
“State wouldn’t issue the phone. I’m sure they’d record the serial #/IP address/etc for the particular device a ultra-high-level official is using for authentication purposes, but State doesn’t issue phones. Blackberry does. (or did. whatever.)”
Classic un-biased JournoLism at work: The WaPo goes in to Fact Check Ted Cruz then halfway through realizes “Oops, he’s technically correct”, so they change course and debate whether or not his point is relevant and refuse to give credit to Cruz for his undeniably true statement.
“Pretty devastating takedown of Maddow by Noah Rothman.”
^^Not sure this Hot Air (love that name) article is a “devastating takedown”; but it’s a nice article for the fan base.😉
“So, 160K+ signatures for petition to put the 47 Republican senators in re-education prison or something.”
^^I seriously doubt there’s any crimes involved here (unless political stupidity is a crime) so I say let the whole thing play out.
My guess the Obama Administration; despite paying lip service to being outraged; are pretty happy with this Republican lets send a letter to the Ayatollah strategy. After all when your allies in Iran are extreme version of the US paramilitary militias and your enemy are the Iranian pro Democratic moderates your plan has a few flaws.🙂
So you think Obama is only negotiating with the “pro democracy” people? How does that work?
Blue: it doesn’t work but Huffington Post, Kos or Slate said it so it must be true.
“So you think Obama is only negotiating with the “pro democracy” people? How does that work?”
|^^Well blue, just like the 47 Republican Senators who signed that letter you are misinformed as to how negotiations with Iran on this deal works. The US is part of the 5+1 (US, UK, France, China, Russia + Germany) who are negotiating with the Iranian government a deal to stop Iran from getting nuclear arms.
I said nothing, in my post, about “Obama is only negotiating with the “pro democracy” people”. I said that “Iranian pro Democratic moderates” were supportive of a deal being done and thus opposed to the points being made by the Republican letter signers.
It now looks like some of the Republican Senators that signed that letter now are regretting their decision and getting some really bad press in their home papers. As well the Daily Beast says that Senate Republican aides thought the letter was really just a joke. Really!
I’d usually would say ‘but you know that’ here but I just don’t think you do.
Iranian pro Democratic moderates
Does. Not. Exist.
It now looks like some of the Republican Senators that signed that letter now are regretting their decision
“Iranian pro Democratic moderates
Does. Not. Exist.”
^^The Iranian reform Movement; the Reform Front: and The 2nd. of Khordad Front. are some current ones. And lets not forget the Iranian Green Movement from the last election. They’re the ones the Republican neocons insisted we should back by invading/bombing Iran.
McCain has said “we should have had more discussion about it” but your right I should have worded my comment as:
“It now looks like some of the Republican Senators that signed that letter now will be regretting their decision.
The Daily Beast article says 1(one) aide had an issue. And as far as Senators changing their minds the article in the Daily Beast does not mention 1 (one) Senator who has changed their mind. This is why you need to READ THE ARTICLE AND NOT JUST THE HEADLINE!
“The Daily Beast article says 1(one) aide had an issue.”
^^The DB article refers to Republican aides and quotes three that thought the letter funny.
“Senators changing their minds the article in the Daily Beast does not mention 1 (one) Senator who has changed their mind”
^^I never said the DB article was my source for that part of the comment and I’ve already replied to farris on the subject.
So you’re worried the letter alienated the various groups in Iran that have no actual power, but are pro-Democratic?
What is the evidence for that? And why do you believe those groups support the deal currently being worked on by the regime they dislike?
Blue; your getting into one of your patented ‘I’ll post unending red herring questions to see if I can trip him/her up’ tactics so I’ll just move on because I’m not worried about anything and I’m just not interested in playing that game.
If you really want to get answers to your question (very unlikely) you can do what I do; research it online.
Look… I don’t like the letter, and think it was bad form for them to go behind the back of the President like that. I take the Greta approach, and say “Put it in the papers, but don’t mail Iran directly.” It’s a bad look, and it backfiring was so easy to predict.
But that said, the problem isn’t alienating Iran, whom I believe is just BS-ing their way through negotiations and wasting time (as they do). To make this about upsetting Iran is nonsense.
Jake Tapper is interviewing pastors from Ferguson. Tapper had the nerve to say that every time he was in Ferguson there hasn’t been violence. I hope I heard it incorrectly but if I did not how the hel* can he say that? He was there when businesses were burned, people were hurt, cops were hurt. That is violence in any sense of the word.
It seems like these pastors seem to know an awful lot about the shooting last night. They said there were two guns because the bullets came from two different weapons. That one weapon was a shotgun with a silencer. That protesters were on the hill across the street and that protesters did not normally go there except for locals. One pastor also says they were “playing cat and mouse” with the cops last night.
Who goes on TV and brags about that kind if behavior. Especially someone who is a “man of the cloth” as they say. No wonder things are as screwed up in Ferguson as they are. When you have pastors espouse that kind of behavior it just does not register with me.
I saw that interview too, pam. It was insane. They insinuated that police or police supporters shot the cops in order to get them to shoot back and kill protestors. I N S A N E
We may now have our second causality of the new Andrew Lack era at NBC; as Nancy Snyderman, chief medical editor at NBC News, has announced she will be leaving the network to return to private practice.
Not a big surprise but it’s interesting that all losers in the new Lack regime, so far, are women. Hello Mika!
^^Well, with F&F, it’s always a good time to crack a joke about a cop shooting.
Cracking a joke about a cop shooting. Does that mean F&F is anti-police?
If we can skip back to the top of the post …
Should we still be giving Obama plaudits for his Selma speech now that he’s inspired all this non-violence in Ferguson?
“Should we still be giving Obama plaudits for his Selma speech now that he’s inspired all this non-violence in Ferguson?”
Don’t think you can link the two.
I do think Ferguson got out of control early because of some behaviors of the administration and “their” people. i.e. Sharpton and Holder.
Now, it is hard to get it back under control and these shootings just brought it all back again. Though I did hear one guy interviewed that he thought this was a cop conspiracy. If that is the kind of thinking going on you can’t make much headway. Rather than make me angry it makes me sad.
Interesting segment tonight on ‘All in with Chris Hayes’ about Georgia Republican’s new Religious Freedom Act which would allow people to discriminate under the guise of religious freedom.
While Hayes concentrated on who the law would allow people to discriminate against (g*ys blacks etc.); what caught my eye was a throwaway line about the Wiccan religion thanking the legislature for trying to pass a law that would allow them to practice their religion. I immediately thought this would allow Muslim extremists to legally practice Sharia Law in Georgia. Talk about unintended consequences.🙂
Don’t know if anyone saw Morning Joe yesterday but LOD made it clear that he thinks the DOJ report vindicating Officer Wilson is a big lie. He still thinks “hands up don’t shoot” happened. He’s typical MSNBC. Facts don’t matter.
“Don’t know if anyone saw Morning Joe yesterday but LOD made it clear that he thinks the DOJ report vindicating Officer Wilson is a big lie.”
^^I heard it, and if memory serves, LOD was upset that Joe and a pro-police advocate named Jeff Roorda (he does for the police what Lanny Davis and James Carville do for the Clintons) were claiming the DOJ report ‘exonerated’ Darren Wilson; which isn’t what the report said. The DOJ report did say the evidence was inconclusive and therefore they couldn’t prosecute Wilson – a totally different conclusion from he was “exonerated”.
I didn’t hear him say it was a “lie” or that ‘hands up don’t shoot” happened; as I wasn’t paying all that much attention; but he probably thinks Wilson was in the wrong so who knows; that could be his opinion. It has as much validity as that of JS’s and Roorda’s opinions; (or yours or mine for that matter) as the report doesn’t say what actually happened. It’s a matter of dispute.
Ross Perot was wrong: the giant sucking sound is coming from over there:
I gave up on maddow long ago. Does she ever have guests with opposing views on?
CNN covering the Israeli elections only had a reporter at the Herzog headquarters. No one at Netanyahu headquarters. Think anyone can guess who CNN wants to win?
I’ve never been a big Tucker Carlson fan so I was somewhat bemused to read today he forced blogger Mickey Kaus to quit his website the Daily Caller; after Kaus posted a piece criticizing Carlson’s employer, FNC, for not following the Republican’s far right anti-immigration policy.
Carlson has every right to fire whomever he wants on his blog but doing it because it would displease his employer and not because he disagreed with what Kaus wrote seemed pretty shameless. But then Carlson has always been more about having a paying gig on TV (he’s already been dumped by CNN and MSNBC) than having real political beliefs; either right or left.
It will be interesting to see how Republican POTUS candidates deal with Netanyahu’s decision to abandon the two state solution. It should cause some debate between establishment types, like Bush and Graham, who will probably still support the two state solution and the fringier candidates like Jindal and Cruz who will go with Bebe’s POV. And it will prove a tough decision for some like Walker, Christie and especially Paul who will want to play both sides of the argument.
You’ve got quite a few details wrong in the Daily Caller story.
First, Tucker didn’t “force” him to quit. He allegedly took the article down, but quitting or firing wasn’t his call.
Second, the complaint was that FNC wasn’t paying enough attention to immigration, and over focusing on terrorism. That had nothing to do with the “far right.”
“First, Tucker didn’t “force” him to quit. He allegedly took the article down, but quitting or firing wasn’t his call.”
^^Well you can play semantic games if you want; I don’t care; but Kaus quit because Carlson pulled down his post criticizing FNC.
“Second, the complaint was that FNC wasn’t paying enough attention to immigration, and over focusing on terrorism. That had nothing to do with the “far right.”
^^This has nothing to do with what I said. The point I was making was that Kaus quit because Carlson wouldn’t allow any criticism of his current TV employer, FNC. Whether FNC does more stories advocating a far right immigration policy or a far right terrorism policy is not relevant to my main focus in the comment, which was: “Carlson has always been more about having a paying gig on TV (he’s already been dumped by CNN and MSNBC) than having real political beliefs; either right or left.”
I really don’t think it’s semantic games to point out that Carlson didn’t “force him to quit” or “fire” him. Even Kaus isn’t saying that. Carlson pulled his article, and Kaus decided that was unfair and quit. It was his decision, and worth getting correct when writing about.
A similar response goes for the second point. Your argument was marred by factually incorrect statements, and now saying that “it doesn’t matter, because that wasn’t the focus of my statement” simply doesn’t hold up. Get the facts right, and then we won’t wind up discussing what you’ve gotten wrong.