@blatham,
Quote:I'm not sure who'd be a good go-to source on this. Setanta, quite possibly.
For sure, also, probably 'Informed Comment.'
Syria’s Kurds to declare Federal Province
@Lash,
If Bill Clinton wasn't Bill Clinton he should have avoided her even though apparently they are all friends and know each others families. He should have avoided her just because it looks bad and gives a bad appearance. I highly doubt it prearranged and I also doubt they discussed the case because know the consequences of doing so. As she said, the case is being handled by career level agents. If the FBI does decide to recommend indictment, perhaps since they are friends, she should excuse herself if they decide to forward with it. Personally I believe from everything I have read from unbiased experts, there is not a criminal case and chances are the FBI will not recommend one. But, we'll see.
@revelette2,
And of course if Clinton really wanted to put on the fix, he would do it in public in front of reporters.
@engineer,
I don't believe the event in question was conducted in front of any reporters: instead it was done in a closed aircraft hangar, I understand immediately after AG Lynch's government aircraft arrived and was taxied into it. Certainly no photos of the event have been published - at least to my knowledge. Whether or not the participants expected the meeting to become known or not appears to be still unclear.
@georgeob1,
Quote:I don't believe the event in question was conducted in front of any reporters
Which is why reporters reported it.
@revelette2,
Do you understand the difference between "observe" and "report" ?
The Pentagon is now moving to accept transgender individuals to serve in the military. That is after the Pentagon has now been, for some years, building defense strategies on the premise that global warming and sea level rise will present significant threats to stability and security.
For many (most?) movement conservatives, these two policy decision by the Pentagon will not suggest that those conservative's certainties are without foundation. More likely the conclusions will be that the Pentagon is so infested with liberals and gays and greens that it has become an agency bent on bringing American liberty to an end.
This tells us not just about the effectiveness of right wing media propaganda but about how shaky American culture has been made by the movement assault on epistemological norms.
Re the Bill Clinton thing discussed above...
For the love of bloody god. "Scandal" is the game. Why does anyone expect this to change? Why does anyone, after all these years, grant credence to such things? This is, to use the colorful expression of Segretti and pals, rat-*******.
The Benghazi committee finds nothing they hoped to find, nothing that would bring Hillary down. So now (alongside calls from people like Michael Savage to impeach Gowdy because Republicans themselves are now in on the con) they add a new interviewee (because that released report is really a sort of first draft) who wrote a post on facebook using the hashtag "#ifyouvoteforhillaryyouarebeyondstupid." and who believes that - contrary to the GOP led investigation itself - that yes, indeed, the military forces
could have reached Benghazi in time to make a difference.
This is nothing to do with finding facts. It has nothing, or very little, to do with making US bases/personnel more secure. It is all about rat-*******. It is about doing whatever seems a possible means of degrading citizens' emotions and ideas about Hillary (in this case, through casting suspicion on Bill).
Why anyone entertains this crap or even engages in debate with someone like Lash on it more than befuddles me. It really pisses me off.
@georgeob1,
Bill Clinton is more than likely always followed by reporters, the same as any other famous person. So the reporters "observed" Bill going into the plane where Lynch and her family were and had a chat with her. He wasn't trying to hide or anything, just walked on the plane and talked with her. After "observing" it, they reported it. Your point is meaningless.
@blatham,
Sorry, blatham. I just don't want em' to think we are afraid to talk about it.
@blatham,
Don't epistemology me, I have to look the damned word up every time (well, I do now tend to remember it has to do with studying the philosophy of knowledge, but it pistes me off.)
I sometimes throw out recondite words since I like words for their sounds and pace, and also flub up on ordinary typing, but your commonly used epistemology wording sends me on a roll to the kitchen looking for bacon.
@revelette2,
Quote:Sorry, blatham. I just don't want em' to think we are afraid to talk about it.
Well, this is a tiny community and we get to talk among just a small number of people these days so the temptation to engage whatever comes up (perhaps particularly the high-moronic) is raised. But I put Lash on ignore almost immediately because there is simply - and very obviously - no value in engaging her.
I think we have far, far better ways to fill up our time. Reading, links to educated and thoughtful information sources etc. Learning seems to me such a better thing to be doing than pissing contests.
@ossobuco,
Sorry darlin'. Yes, it is the study of how we might best proceed to gain knowledge about the world and how to avoid the pitfalls that lead us in a wrong direction. I apologize that the term doesn't stick immediately or easily but the concept is terribly important.
But anyways, any cause for a trip to grab some bacon seems to me to be a yummy plus in life.
@blatham,
She's right, you know. Something over a decade ago you had everybody running around trying to find a way to fit 'egregious' into their posts. Now, you're up to your old tricks with 'epistemology'.
@blatham,
I get you say that but I missed the class, and I lived in the same times. Of course I'm sexy but fairly rumpled by now, not to mention crabby and argumentative. Plus I like Lola.
The coffee is not all that good here..
Urggh, of course I'd like to see you. I was just twirling talk.
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Re the Bill Clinton thing discussed above...
For the love of bloody god. "Scandal" is the game. Why does anyone expect this to change? Why does anyone, after all these years, grant credence to such things? This is, to use the colorful expression of Segretti and pals, rat-*******.
The Benghazi committee finds nothing they hoped to find, nothing that would bring Hillary down. So now (alongside calls from people like Michael Savage to impeach Gowdy because Republicans themselves are now in on the con) they add a new interviewee (because that released report is really a sort of first draft) who wrote a post on facebook using the hashtag "#ifyouvoteforhillaryyouarebeyondstupid." and who believes that - contrary to the GOP led investigation itself - that yes, indeed, the military forces
could have reached Benghazi in time to make a difference.
This is nothing to do with finding facts. It has nothing, or very little, to do with making US bases/personnel more secure. It is all about rat-*******. It is about doing whatever seems a possible means of degrading citizens' emotions and ideas about Hillary (in this case, through casting suspicion on Bill).
Why anyone entertains this crap or even engages in debate with someone like Lash on it more than befuddles me. It really pisses me off.
Gaddamn but you turn a phrase, man.
@snood,
blatham always turns a phrase, and I enjoy reading it too!
@engineer,
He never was excessively intelligent. Only a hell of a lot smarter than the majority of conservatives.
@blatham,
I just scan the obvious conservative posts. It dosent take long to determine its just the same old shyt.
