Our current federal gov't has stampeded across the lines which were drawn to contain it and it is now brandied about as the remedy for all things

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.

So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

It is a simple argument. The base document for the Federal gov't is the constitution.

So you would be fine if States were free to ban guns?

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.

So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.

Considering that my statement originally was in reference to a statement about the primaries I don't think that this is a fair assessment.

Right-wingers as you refer to them have their own problems. The chants of 'let them die' come to mind

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Our current federal gov't has stampeded across the lines which were drawn to contain it and it is now brandied about as the remedy for all things

True, to an extent, but you're overlooking the extraordinary events that led to this power creep:

1) The American Civil War and AL's war measures.

2) The Great Depression and FDR's policy initiatives

obviously, there are more examples you could use as an argument.

Also, let's not let Congress off the hook - they're supposed to do their bit for checks and balances.

Hillary Clinton withheld Benghazi-related emails from the State Department that detailed her knowledge of the scramble for oil contracts in Libya and the shortcomings of the NATO-led military intervention for which she advocated.

Clinton removed specific portions of other emails she sent to State, suggesting the messages were screened closely enough to determine which paragraphs were unfit to be seen by the public.

For example, one email Clinton kept from the State Department indicates Libyan leaders were "well aware" of which "major oil companies and international banks" supported them during the rebellion, information they would "factor into decisions" about about who would be given access to the country's rich oil reserves.

The email, which Clinton subsequently scrubbed from her server, indicated Clinton was aware that involvement in the controversial conflict could have a significant financial benefit to firms that were friendly to the Libyan rebels.

She thanked Sidney Blumenthal, her former aide and author of dozens of informal intelligence memos, for the tip, which she called "useful," and informed him she was preparing to hold a meeting with Libyan leaders in Paris in an exchange that suggests the flow of information went both ways.

State Department officials admitted Clinton had withheld all of nine emails and parts of six others after Blumenthal provided 60 emails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi that the agency had failed to submit earlier this year.

Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., immediately demanded to know whether State or Clinton herself withheld the records. The agency's admission Thursday that it couldn't find 15 of the new emails in its records indicated both had played a role in keeping the emails away from Congress.

An undisclosed memo sent in February 2012 contains details about how new Libyan leaders were forging business relationships with private firms. Blumenthal told Clinton his sources were concerned about the focus of international interest on Libya's oil sector, playing up the importance of other "private firms" that could provide "medical assistance."

By his own admission, Blumenthal had a personal financial interest in Libya involving medical assistance.

The fact that Clinton held the email back raises questions about whether she was aware of the conflict of interest at play in Blumenthal's advocacy.

Clinton also declined to hand over a memo in which Blumenthal relayed the complaints of Libyan rebels who felt NATO wasn't going far enough in its assistance in their struggle against Gaddafi.

"[R]ebel military commanders are extremely frustrated by the performance of NATO air forces over the weekend of April 22 [2011]," Blumenthal said.

"At the same time, these commanders believe that the small number of tactical advisers sent by Great Britain and France, under their NATO mandate, is not equipped to deal with the scope of the challenge facing the rebels," he added.

Blumenthal said his sources believed the U.S. could better support the rebels by sending traditional aircraft, such as A-10 "Warthogs," to combat the regime instead of the Predator drones it deployed after NATO took the lead in the mission.

The reason why Clinton withheld that particular memo is unclear, but it demonstrates that she knew the coalition's efforts were falling flat — and that they could have been boosted if she pushed for the use of a less politically popular aircraft.

Clinton withheld an email sent March 22, 2011 that described the French government's alleged involvement in forming the transitional government as the uprising against Gaddafi raged.

In the email, Blumenthal claimed the French had "provided money and guidance to assist" with the emerging Libyan council.

"In return for this assistance, [French government] officers indicated that they expected the government of Libya to favor French firms and national interests, particularly regarding the oil industry in Libya," Blumenthal wrote.

An email in which Blumenthal encouraged Clinton to consider the same "shock-and-awe" tactics former President George W. Bush employed in Iraq was also not included among the emails Clinton provided to State.

Blumenthal openly pressed for an increase in U.S. funding in another email that Clinton refused to turn over.

"My own view is that they desperately need professional military trainers, preferably Americans," Blumenthal said.

"Some of the funds released should go to that end," Blumenthal added, referring to the creation of a "more professional military" in the aftermath of the Gaddafi regime.

In the same memo, Blumenthal assured Clinton that representatives of the country's transitional government were "very, very happy," about a meeting with the secretary of state in May of 2011.

The subject of the same email refers to a "memo on OBL photos," likely referring to photographs of slain terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was killed days before Blumenthal sent the memo. A controversy over whether the government should release graphic pictures of bin Laden continues to this day.

In the subject, Blumenthal said there was "more to come soon on Libya," but he did not send another email until the following month. The gap raises additional questions about whether Blumenthal provided Congress with all the emails he and Clinton exchanged.

Clinton selectively edited other portions of emails she declined to provide to the State Department.

For example, in July 2012, Clinton removed paragraphs from a Blumenthal memo that warned "simply completing the election...and fulfilling a list of proper democratic milestones may not create a true democracy." Blumenthal also wrote — in sections that Clinton deleted before providing the document to State — that the government would likely be "founded on Sharia," or Islamic laws.

The group advocating to implement Sharia, Ansar al-Sharia, is a designated terrorist group that played a role in the Benghazi attacks.

But Clinton hid how much she knew about that development.

Clinton withheld another email that showed she informed Blumenthal of a "very good call" she had with the new Libyan president, Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf. She deleted another, in which she called a memo about Magariaf's intention and history "a keeper."

Clinton did not include in the batch published by the State Department last month an exchange in which she prompted Blumenthal to provide her with "more intel" about French and British involvement with Libyan leaders.

She told Blumenthal the memo "strains credulity" in a message she withheld from State. Clinton posed the same question to a top aide, Jake Sullivan, when she forwarded him the memo, according to the records released by the agency.

 skyth wrote:
And I am saying it wadn't a fair assessment since he entirely ignored the context of the statement then used the 'no true Scottsman' fallacy. Basically a dishonest arguement all around.

Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.

they are running on a platform of gays are bad and poir people are bad people...

 skyth wrote:
*Yawns* Really should get that record looked at...It appears to be broken.

How about something that would matter like laws that she would vote for.

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And I am saying it wadn't a fair assessment since he entirely ignored the context of the statement then used the 'no true Scottsman' fallacy. Basically a dishonest arguement all around.

No... what's dishonest is your hyperbolic statement that:

Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.

and...

they are running on a platform of gays are bad and poir people are bad people...

Seriously?

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
*Yawns* Really should get that record looked at...It appears to be broken.

How about something that would matter like laws that she would vote for.

POTUS votes for laws?

 skyth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And I am saying it wadn't a fair assessment since he entirely ignored the context of the statement then used the 'no true Scottsman' fallacy. Basically a dishonest arguement all around.

No... what's dishonest is your hyperbolic statement that:

Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.

and...

they are running on a platform of gays are bad and poir people are bad people...

Seriously?

Yes...Seriously, they are. Every one has come out about how this is a bad ruling. Heck, some of them are doing their best not to go along with the ruling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
*Yawns* Really should get that record looked at...It appears to be broken.

How about something that would matter like laws that she would vote for.

POTUS votes for laws?

Really?!?!?1 You really went there?!?!?!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I thought there was an act of Congress that forbade Whembley from ever mentioning Benghazi again on this forum

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.

 Easy E wrote:


Just like some of the people who vote for Bernie are Socialists, when push comes to shove we all know who they are going to vote for too.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Sounds about right. The only way I'm voting for Hillary is if the R's pick a particularly bad one.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.

So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.

I've never really gotten the big government argument that always seems to get trotted out every election.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Sounds about right. The only way I'm voting for Hillary is if the R's pick a particularly bad one.

So.... you're voting for Hillary

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

That's the sad part, isn't it? This election seems to be more and more about literally choosing, not someone who is good, but someone who is just not as bad as the other.

 Easy E wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.

This old claptrap. When push come sto shove, we all know who the Conservatives will vote for.

Just like some of the people who vote for Bernie are Socialists, when push comes to shove we all know who they are going to vote for too.

 CptJake wrote:

Yep.

I think Heller was bad law.

 CptJake wrote:

Any other 'gotcha' questions you wanna ask?

 CptJake wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.

This old claptrap. When push come sto shove, we all know who the Conservatives will vote for.

Just like some of the people who vote for Bernie are Socialists, when push comes to shove we all know who they are going to vote for too.

What a crock of gak. Not all the conservatives came out for Romney. McCain didn't pull conservatives in either. Got a bunch of Rs and single issue voters. If Jeb gets on the main spot on the ticket, conservatives will stay home big time.

 whembly wrote:
No, the difference is: Socialist trying to convince you how much they care.

The Right-wingers just want to be left the feth alone.

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.

That's just a cop out. You can't claim the identity but then distance yourself from the party based around that identity. That's the nonsense communists have tried for decades, pretending that each instance of communist leading to political oppression and death camps was just a happy accident that had no origin in the theory itself.

This doesn't mean that any individual conservative or right wing is directly responsible for the actions of the Republican party, or for the actions of other conservatives. But they do have to be honest about how their ideology works and functions in the real world.

 CptJake wrote:
That is why instead of Jeb waltzing in to the nomination, we are seeing a slew of other candidates from a much broader part of the R spectrum.

 CptJake wrote:

There is a Big Gov't/Progressive wing that wants to run candidates like McCain and Jeb Bush, and there is a more libertarian/conservative wing. Many of the latter have been voting for 3rd party candidates or not voting when some R candidate does not hold their values.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
That is why instead of Jeb waltzing in to the nomination, we are seeing a slew of other candidates from a much broader part of the R spectrum.

It isn't that much broader. All of the likely R candidates have similar political positions.

 CptJake wrote:

There is a Big Gov't/Progressive wing that wants to run candidates like McCain and Jeb Bush, and there is a more libertarian/conservative wing. Many of the latter have been voting for 3rd party candidates or not voting when some R candidate does not hold their values.

Perhaps they should reconsider what they value.

 CptJake wrote:

If you want to assert the likely candidates are all establishment types, go for it.

 CptJake wrote:

I didn't limit my statement to 'likely', so taking it out of context/adding in the context you feel you need to make a contrarian point is on you.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

If you want to assert the likely candidates are all establishment types, go for it.

I never made such an assertion.

 CptJake wrote:

I didn't limit my statement to 'likely', so taking it out of context/adding in the context you feel you need to make a contrarian point is on you.

Yes you did. That's what "3rd Party Candidate" means.

What I said, Not what Dogma wanted me to say wrote:If you pay a bit of attention you'll see a pretty decent schism in the Republican party. There is a Big Gov't/Progressive wing that wants to run candidates like McCain and Jeb Bush, and there is a more libertarian/conservative wing. Many of the latter have been voting for 3rd party candidates or not voting when some R candidate does not hold their values. That is why instead of Jeb waltzing in to the nomination, we are seeing a slew of other candidates from a much broader part of the R spectrum. Establishment incumbents for congress and state/local elections are being primaried left and right by more conservative candidates.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
No, the difference is: Socialist trying to convince you how much they care.

The Right-wingers just want to be left the feth alone.

Sort of. Socialists talk about how much they care. Right wingers talk about just wanting to be left alone. Both groups are lying to themselves.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.

That's just a cop out. You can't claim the identity but then distance yourself from the party based around that identity. That's the nonsense communists have tried for decades, pretending that each instance of communist leading to political oppression and death camps was just a happy accident that had no origin in the theory itself.

This doesn't mean that any individual conservative or right wing is directly responsible for the actions of the Republican party, or for the actions of other conservatives. But they do have to be honest about how their ideology works and functions in the real world.