Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's asking entirely on the basis of her religion and ethnicity and nothing else...
That's pretty unreasonable to me.
What if someone asked for an investigation done on one of the accusers based on their religion and ethnicity? It would be ignored and mocked, as it should be.

Anybody who uses the term RINO won't be happy until we have an extreme right-wing dictatorship where it is legal to carry whatever weapon you could possibly think of and the only role of the Government is to spend 50% of it's income on defense and the remaining 50% on imprisoning gays, people who like porn, people who do any sort of drugs, people that are not protestant Christians, and anybody who might have ever considered an abortion.

But in all seriousness, people who use the term RINO have zero capacity for political compromise and are 100% part of the problem.

Albatross wrote:I don't have a problem with politicians abandoning principle to suit circumstances, they just need to hide it better than Obama has.

For the most part, he's tried to do exactly what he said he would do in his campaign.

Why is this "abandoning principles" again?

broodstar wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.

McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.

Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.

I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.

Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Still not sure if serious...

Have you ever had a background check done for any sort of security clearance?

purplefood wrote:It's asking entirely on the basis of her religion and ethnicity and nothing else...
That's pretty unreasonable to me.
What if someone asked for an investigation done on one of the accusers based on their religion and ethnicity? It would be ignored and mocked, as it should be.

The letter never mentioned her religion but, then again it can also be dedoused that you have to be Muslim to join the Muslim Brotherhood. The letter does specifically mention her Father, Mother, and Brother's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and her level of influence in policy making within the department. Either way the request was filed and the Inspector still has 60 days to reply, let's hope his investigation turns up nothing fruitful.

What if it did?

broodstar wrote:

purplefood wrote:It's asking entirely on the basis of her religion and ethnicity and nothing else...
That's pretty unreasonable to me.
What if someone asked for an investigation done on one of the accusers based on their religion and ethnicity? It would be ignored and mocked, as it should be.

The letter never mentioned her religion but, then again it can also be dedoused that you have to be Muslim to join the Muslim Brotherhood. The letter does specifically mention her Father, Mother, and Brother's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and her level of influence in policy making within the department. Either way the request was filed and the Inspector still has 60 days to reply, let's hope his investigation turns up nothing fruitful.

Why should he bother?
There's no real evidence that she is in any way suspect apart from people saying that she has a relative who knows some people...

Smear first made by Walid Shoebat last year
This one is being widely reported; from Politico:
They were long afraid to do it, but now conservatives have their knives out for Rep. Michele Bachmann.

http://barthsnotes.com/2012/07/21/smear-against-huma-abedin-endorsed-by-michele-bachmann-repudiated-by-high-profile-republicans/

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:I don't have a problem with politicians abandoning principle to suit circumstances, they just need to hide it better than Obama has.

For the most part, he's tried to do exactly what he said he would do in his campaign.

Why is this "abandoning principles" again?

Because he hasn't actually tried very hard to do the things he promised to do, instead offering watered-down versions that manage to piss everyone off.

Is Guantanamo Bay closed yet?
Are the troops home yet?
Do you have universal healthcare yet?


Do you still feel like 'we can'? His new campaign slogan should be "Yes, We Might. If I Feel Like It. Actually, We Probably Won't.'

Albatross wrote:

Is Guantanamo Bay closed yet?
Are the troops home yet?
Do you have universal healthcare yet?

That's why my missus didn't vote for Obama, she is a dem, but she felt her was far far too prolific with the promises in his "yes we can" speeches. She liked Hilary way more because she always seemed to give a more honest answer. Namely, a far more ambiguous one.

Obama was just "I will have every troop home, I will close Guantanamo, every American will get free healthcare"

She voted independent after Hilary lost the primary.

Albatross wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:I don't have a problem with politicians abandoning principle to suit circumstances, they just need to hide it better than Obama has.

For the most part, he's tried to do exactly what he said he would do in his campaign.

Why is this "abandoning principles" again?

Because he hasn't actually tried very hard to do the things he promised to do, instead offering watered-down versions that manage to piss everyone off.

Is Guantanamo Bay closed yet?
Are the troops home yet?
Do you have universal healthcare yet?


Do you still feel like 'we can'? His new campaign slogan should be "Yes, We Might. If I Feel Like It. Actually, We Probably Won't.'

Like all Presidential campaigns, they say a lot; and then reality sets in and they can only do a some of it and it is usually watered down. I'm still waiting for my privatized SS accounts that GW Bush promised us.

broodstar wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.

McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.

Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.

I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.

Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Oh my gosh, he's serious!

rubiksnoob wrote:

broodstar wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.

McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.

Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.

I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.

Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Oh my gosh, he's serious!

I don't know the scenario but if someone is hired who's relatives have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood then there should be a background check on that. I imagine there should be a background check anyway so I don't see an issue. Is this person subject to sensitive materials etc. then they should be checked. If not, then whats the issue?

The issue is less the background check and more the fact that the only reason they're doing it is because they're politically motivated. If it really was standard procedure and EVERYONE in that position went through it, it wouldn't really be an issue.

Background check for a security clearence is pretty straight forward. If these relatives are like 3-4 cousins way out on the family branch then the security won't show it unless it is mention on her security clearence request forms SF86

The background check will stop the application if she owes over ten grand or going through a divorce. Since she's a aid to Hillary I think its top secret at the least. So the background check goes back 10 yrs. Finance and martial issue is the stopper again on that.

Frazzled wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

broodstar wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.

McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.

Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.

I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.

Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Oh my gosh, he's serious!

I don't know the scenario but if someone is hired who's relatives have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood then there should be a background check on that. I imagine there should be a background check anyway so I don't see an issue. Is this person subject to sensitive materials etc. then they should be checked. If not, then whats the issue?

The secret service showed up at the door of a UFC fighter who made a comment about wanting to fight Obama.

Do we really think that there hasnt been an investigation into someone who might actually havr access to him? Really?

Aid to the Secretary of State? Heck you I want her checked out! and the aid too!

Frazzled wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

broodstar wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

broodstar wrote:

sebster wrote:McCain's answer was to talk about bombing Iran and otherwise repeat conservative talking points.

McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.

Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.

I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.

Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Oh my gosh, he's serious!

I don't know the scenario but if someone is hired who's relatives have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood then there should be a background check on that. I imagine there should be a background check anyway so I don't see an issue. Is this person subject to sensitive materials etc. then they should be checked. If not, then whats the issue?

She's also married and bred with a Jew... That's about as close to 'worst possible sin' for a Muslim, unless, of course, she's done all that as part of an insidious manchurian candidate program to get her into a position to spy for Cobra... I mean, the world muslim coalition of darkness and evil.

Bachman and co pulled this gak to try and prove they were still relevant and because she's a dark person from a sandy place!

Reds under the beds!!!

As to broodstar's (well aren't you a peach, broody... ) allegation that McCain is a RINO, perhaps he should cross the floor, in fact perhaps all the moderates should leave the Republican party, Huntsman and co should start their own party perhaps and we'll just leave all the 'really, really rightwing types' in the Republicans. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than watching the right start witch hunting it's own ranks like some tricorn hat wearing, bible-thumping, evolution denying, badly spelled placard waving uroboros...

They've already been doing witch hunting in their own ranks.

Frazzled wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

broodstar wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.

Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Oh my gosh, he's serious!

I don't know the scenario but if someone is hired who's relatives have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood then there should be a background check on that. I imagine there should be a background check anyway so I don't see an issue. Is this person subject to sensitive materials etc. then they should be checked. If not, then whats the issue?

A) I have closer ties to the KKK than Huma Abedin has to the Muslim Brotherhood.
B) The whole thing is both stupid and bigoted. There's no evidence whatsoever, and without any kind of evidence, why would you suspect a woman who's married to and has a kid with a reliably pro-Israel Jewish former congressman of being a Islamoterrorist sleeper agent? It's just insane. The plot of Angelina Jolie's Salt had more basis in reality.

Hey, new target for Bachmann! There's equally credible evidence that Hollywood is being infiltrated by Russian Terrorist sleeper agents from the Soviet era! Get on it!

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

broodstar wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm.

Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Oh my gosh, he's serious!

I don't know the scenario but if someone is hired who's relatives have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood then there should be a background check on that. I imagine there should be a background check anyway so I don't see an issue. Is this person subject to sensitive materials etc. then they should be checked. If not, then whats the issue?

A) I have closer ties to the KKK than Huma Abedin has to the Muslim Brotherhood.
B) The whole thing is both stupid and bigoted. There's no evidence whatsoever, and without any kind of evidence, why would you suspect a woman who's married to and has a kid with a reliably pro-Israel Jewish former congressman of being a Islamoterrorist sleeper agent? It's just insane. The plot of Angelina Jolie's Salt had more basis in reality.

Hey, new target for Bachmann! There's equally credible evidence that Hollywood is being infiltrated by Russian Terrorist sleeper agents from the Soviet era! Get on it!

Like I said. If the position requires a background check, and she passed said background check then I don't have an issue.

Of course she passed a background check. She has a security clearance.

Bachmann doesn't believe in letting facts get in the way of paranoid bigoted/racist rants, especially when they help drive massive fundraising for her from the most bigoted/hateful members of her party. Which sadly, there are a lot of. In part because way too few people do what John McCain did, which is call out these unamerican crazies, even if they're in the same political party.

She was married to Anthony Weiner... give the woman a god-damn break people.

broodstar wrote:McCain is another one of the establishment, he talks talking points when he is campaigning and when he gets to Washington he "plays along to get along". McCain is a RINO, he's a Democrat with an "R" behind his name.

Look at how he insult Bachmen for writing the Inspector General wanting to know why the State Department let a terrorist into Washington.

Uh huh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I don't disagree, but I would counter that the same could be said about Obama, and that McCain sticks to his principles more readily. Now, as an amoral jerk-off, I don't have a problem with politicians abandoning principle to suit circumstances, they just need to hide it better than Obama has.

He's a good orator, but a fairly crappy politician in that he seems to alienate a hell of a lot of people, and there's only so long you can blame prejudice.

I think Obama has a few more beats to his drum, he's shown policy interest across the whole spectrum. Whereas with McCain the only place he ever really expands on discussion is with foreign policy, everywhere else he basically gives a short an answer as possible.

I do agree that Obama has alienated some people, and crucially lost the support of the blue dogs (though I wouldn't include a single Repbublican in that list, the culture that's become dominant in their party meant they were going to aggressively oppose anything he attempted - even if he attempted to bring in their own healthcare model). I think this is likely the product of Obama becoming president too soon, he was in Washington too little time, and when elected to the presidency assumed this meant the reforms he thought were important were the ones the Washington system was going to accept. A few more terms in the system and he'd likely have had a better idea what reforms would be more palatable, and how he might have better brought those reforms in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:Whatever man, this site is loaded with liberals so to bringing up an opposing viewpoint is pointless. While Boehner is right that accusing someone is risky, I don't think it's entirely a smear attack. The letter says basically that they smell a rat and they'd like an investigation done to clear suspision or provide their evidence. And I see nothing wrong with that.

No, any argument has half baked as the one you've given above will go down like a ton of bricks.

And yes, investigating someone for terrorist plotting on the strength of nothing more than a speculative letter has an incredible amount wrong with it. To be honest I cannot concieve of a functioning human being who could just miss everythign that's wrong with that idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:For the most part, he's tried to do exactly what he said he would do in his campaign.

Why is this "abandoning principles" again?

The major point of difference between Obama and Clinton, apart from Obama running a far better campaign in the early stages of the primary, was Obama taking a strong stance of civil rights, and his stated opposition to Iraq before the war (whereas Clinton had voted for military action). All of that ended up smoke and noise.

So you're talking about the same Iraq we finished withdrawing from completely last year, right? As for civil rights, I don't know if you're really paying much attention on that front. Obama's done more for civil rights than Clinton and caused far fewer steps back for the movement as a whole, given the latter's creation of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In related news the North Arizona Teaparty wants to recall McCain

“Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” Harris concludes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/wes-harris-arizona-tea-party_n_1697793.html?1343139298&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

youbedead wrote:In related news the North Arizona Teaparty wants to recall McCain

“Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” Harris concludes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/wes-harris-arizona-tea-party_n_1697793.html?1343139298&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

According to the Times, Harris believes Muslims are incapable of being loyal to the U.S., because he claims that their faith in Islam and the Quran trumps any other allegiance.

Someone should point out to him that the Bible says pretty much the same thing as the Quran. Their worship of the USA (or rather their twisted view of it) would be akin to the worship of a false idol, which God clearly points out is a no-no (the First Commandment in fact: And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.).

Is this gonna be Mooby all over again?

sebster wrote: I think this is likely the product of Obama becoming president too soon, he was in Washington too little time, and when elected to the presidency assumed this meant the reforms he thought were important were the ones the Washington system was going to accept. A few more terms in the system and he'd likely have had a better idea what reforms would be more palatable, and how he might have better brought those reforms in.

IIRC, Obama and team felt Clinton wasn't a transformative president, and didn't want to follow the same course. After getting slapped down on health care, Clinton settled for a bunch of smaller accomplishments, but no great achievement in his 8 years in office. He was trying right up to the end to broker some kind of deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, but fell short.

On some level, I kinda agree with Obama's team. Why not go for broke and try to actually do something? Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, fer chrissakes. I guess he can hang his hat on that.

youbedead wrote:In related news the North Arizona Teaparty wants to recall McCain

“Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap,” Harris concludes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/wes-harris-arizona-tea-party_n_1697793.html?1343139298&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

If that quote is true? Absolutely disgusting and an one of many examples of why no-one really cares about the Tea Party.

I just read that Huff article..

What a fething slimeball.

JM has done more for his country in the last fortnight than that weasely rat faced mother fether will in his entire existence.