Ultimate College Softball
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 50      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #31 
pabar - Let me pass along what I was told.  If a candidate says he wants to end services for the undocumented, ignore it because he can't get anywhere due to existing laws or a disagreeing Congress.  So it appears you can just ignore whatever Trump says because he can't do any of it anyway.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,415
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
The other day, I presented a GOP House investigation that said there was no misleading the public on Benghazi.  Presenting evidence doesn't change anyone's position inside here so, in my case, I'll simply share my thoughts and opinions and not waste my time chasing down evidence that wouldn't be accepted anyway.  I'll give you a hint though...all these Trump voters have tired of our politics as usual.


The investigation here was determine why Susan Rice said what she said about a video being responsible for Benghazi terror attack.

The investigation didn't even interview Susan Rice because the Obama administration wouldn't allow it.

Obama has obstructed every investigation into Benghazi.

When the Select Committee submits their final report, will you accept their findings? Or do you want to wait and see if it confirms your bias before deciding?

(You skipped this question the other day, thought I'd give you another shot)

__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #33 
I have accepted the multiple investigations and their conclusions already.  I see little chance of changing my mind barring something incredibly unusual and crystal clear.  To do so would only invite yet another investigation.  If they fail to come up with the results the Right is looking for, should we start another investigation?

Edit:  Btw, speaking of bias, those on your side are all using the phrase "Hillary is a liar".  If one is on the Right, the verdict is already in and zero or forty investigations will make no difference.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,717
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
The other day, I presented a GOP House investigation that said there was no misleading the public on Benghazi.  Presenting evidence doesn't change anyone's position inside here so, in my case, I'll simply share my thoughts and opinions and not waste my time chasing down evidence that wouldn't be accepted anyway.  I'll give you a hint though...all these Trump voters have tired of our politics as usual.


 Who are you now, Perry Mason?

__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,057
Reply with quote  #35 
Today, the State Dept handed over 1,600 pages to the Select Committee they denied having until recently.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/26/state-dept-turns-over-1600-pages-of-new-documents-related-to-clinton-libya-benghazi/
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,415
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
I have accepted the multiple investigations and their conclusions already.  I see little chance of changing my mind barring something incredibly unusual and crystal clear.  To do so would only invite yet another investigation.  If they fail to come up with the results the Right is looking for, should we start another investigation?

Edit:  Btw, speaking of bias, those on your side are all using the phrase "Hillary is a liar".  If one is on the Right, the verdict is already in and zero or forty investigations will make no difference.


This is too rich.

Dewey accepts the findings of a panel seeking clarification of what Susan Rice said, even though they never talked to Susan Rice, but did talk other people.

That's the equivalent of me wanting clarification of something Dewey posted and asking kiir, pabar, woody, mikec, and pretty much everyone else. But not Dewey. And accept whatever they said as being the truth.

I think I'll run with that for a while, see how it goes.

ADD: now that there is an investigation that did talk to Susan Rice, Dewey will not commit to accepting it's findings. Apparently he doesn't trust Susan Rice any more than the right trusts Susan Rice, and since his bias is confirmed by other investigations that Obama was more successful at obstructing, he'll rely on those rather than the most thorough investigation.

Mind you, Dewey is eschewing the only investigation that discovered Hillary Clinton was using a private email for her official business. Eight investigations completely missed that little nugget - but those are the ones Dewey agrees with. 

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." 





__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #37 
There's been no finding that Hillary is a liar yet almost everyone here on the Right has found her guilty of lying.  She is a liar and no findings are necessary.  Why are we even talking about this?  Your side has already concluded liar without findings and I'm agreeing with investigations whose findings say no misleading.  As the UCS Conservatives say to me, why are you asking me about something that will never happen?
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,415
Reply with quote  #38 
Hey woody,
Why doesn't Dewey trust Susan Rice? It's as if her version of the Benghazi talking point issue is completely irrelevant, the same as David Rhodes, who called the WH meeting to finalize those same talking points. His testimony... who cares, right?

How quickly will Dewey line up behind the Select Committee report if it confirms his bias?

kiir?
mikec?
coach?
BillSmith?
DC?
pabar?
what do you all think? I'm conducting a thorough investigation here. [wave]

__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,717
Reply with quote  #39 
When will you present your findings?
__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,415
Reply with quote  #40 
As soon as I get enough answers from people who weren't there and don't know that answer!

Hopefully I hear from Tyler on this too!

That way Dewey will consider it reliable, and invest his full trust in my findings.


__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,717
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue


This is too rich.

Dewey accepts the findings of a panel seeking clarification of what Susan Rice said, even though they never talked to Susan Rice, but did talk other people.

That's the equivalent of me wanting clarification of something Dewey posted and asking kiir, pabar, woody, mikec, and pretty much everyone else. But not Dewey. And accept whatever they said as being the truth.

I think I'll run with that for a while, see how it goes.

ADD: now that there is an investigation that did talk to Susan Rice, Dewey will not commit to accepting it's findings. Apparently he doesn't trust Susan Rice any more than the right trusts Susan Rice, and since his bias is confirmed by other investigations that Obama was more successful at obstructing, he'll rely on those rather than the most thorough investigation.

Mind you, Dewey is eschewing the only investigation that discovered Hillary Clinton was using a private email for her official business. Eight investigations completely missed that little nugget - but those are the ones Dewey agrees with. 

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." 






I think he needs his reading and comprehension skills employed here

__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #42 
FIB - I've given you many opportunities to supply the readers with something new that would raise eyebrows.  Tell them what Susan Rice might have said that's a game changer.  Give us a possibility that should make me change my position.  If it's 80/20 between premeditated or spontaneous attack, thanks to a video, and they decide go with spontaneous until they have ample time to make 100% certain, it's still no big deal to me. Politicians are known to put best front forward until they're certain of the facts.  I think Reagan held out a long time on Iran/Contra, in fact, probably long after he knew the precise facts.  In any event, what could the finding be that would make readers upset?

Edit:  Btw, November election, imo, was not even on their mind regardless what anyone thinks might have occurred.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,415
Reply with quote  #43 
Hey everyone, look! Mighty big of Dewey to grant me so many opportunities to raise eyebrows, right? 

Can any of you explain why does Dewey keep asking for game changers, when the information has yet to be released by the only committee that actually interviewed Susan Rice. Weird, huh?

Even weirder, he keeps insisting that someone provide make-believe findings that will "make the readers upset." Does anyone know why he'd want anyone to "make the readers upset?" 

 

__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Hey woody,
Why doesn't Dewey trust Susan Rice? It's as if her version of the Benghazi talking point issue is completely irrelevant, the same as David Rhodes, who called the WH meeting to finalize those same talking points. His testimony... who cares, right?

How quickly will Dewey line up behind the Select Committee report if it confirms his bias?

kiir?
mikec?
coach?
BillSmith?
DC?
pabar?
what do you all think? I'm conducting a thorough investigation here. [wave]


He will post in non-stop the minute it is posted, about as fast as a ULL fan will post the edited polls.

If it doesn't back up his position, he will claim he can't find the link, or that it was biased.  And he duck any question pertaining to it.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,313
Reply with quote  #45 
Let's take this hypothetical:

What about if the POTUS, Clinton, and Rice were saying it was a video. Clinton, for good measure, tells the victims' families they'll get said evil video maker and the guy is arrested.

Fast forward a few months, and Clinton is shown to have told her family and heads of state in the ME, within an hour or so of it happening, that there was no video, and it was a coordinated terror attack.

Would that make anyone a liar?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #46 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Admittedly, I missed most of Megan's show tonight but these are what I would consider tough questions.


1)  Do you believe Americans have a right to "preventive" health care?

2)  Do you believe K-12 education is Socialism and, secondly, should it remain tuition free?  If not, should it be a "for profit" system.

3)  Would you focus your efforts, via Conservative Supreme Court nominations or other avenues, to overturn Plyler v Doe, the 5-4 1982 SC decision giving undocumented the right to education?

4)  Do you believe a business should have a right to refuse service to anyone?  If not, do you believe a party rental business should have a right to refuse renting tables and chairs to a gay couple for use in a wedding ceremony?

5)  Do you believe in a mandate as it relates to purchasing health insurance?  If no, would you require medical services be provided to an individual who refused purchasing coverage and cannot afford necessary medical services?

6)  Do you believe the right to bear arms means "the right to bear any and all arms"?

7)  Do you believe water-boarding is an acceptable form of interrogation?

8)  Do you support the filibuster rule in the US Senate?

9)  Do you believe we should raise taxes during a time at war in order to pay for the cost of such war?

10)  Do you believe a background check has ever prevented a mass murder?

11)  Do you believe a child under 18, brought here years ago by his parents when he was very young, has broken the law?

12)  Do you believe an individual born outside of US territory should be eligible to be POTUS?

13)  Do you believe in limited UE benefits for a person who has lost their job?

14)  Would you phase out Social Security if there was a way to do so?

15)  If an individual buys an asset, (art, property, stocks, etc.),  for $100,000 and sells it for $1 million, do you believe he/she should have a tax obligation?  If yes, if this same person dies and his/her heirs sell this asset for $1 million, should they have a tax obligation?




TylerDurden is running around our forum telling everyone yours truly dodges questions.  This after he completely ignored all of these questions.  Go figure.

The other day, I asked him why the Speaker allowed a vote on a bill that didn't have majority support.  He said "I don't know".  He didn't even try to provide a thought.  I asked him what's the difference about three candidates spinning and misleading the Country in order to win an election and that of a SOS who spins to help win an election, (not that I believe that happened).  Again, no response.  I repeated Kasich's question about businesses serving the gay community.  The question was, what's next, refusing service to the divorced.  Again, Tyler dodges the question.

Now I have no problem if he chooses to skip these questions.  However, I do find anyone who chooses to call out others for refusing to address questions, while they too refuse to do the same, a bit disingenuous.

Finally, he's going to come here and spin the question I've answered several times, one where I say Hillary Clinton did not lie.  I don't know how many times I can answer "no" to his question.  A House investigation has said the same thing.  He's going to say Hillary told her family there was a coordinated attack but she never used the word "coordinated".  He made that word up and he didn't post the email.  She never told her family whether it was planned or spontaneous.  As she did with the Egyptian minister, she did say Al Quaeda like group but the next day learned such group retracted involvement.  The fog of war continues.  The article I linked answered his question but he refused to read it and chose to follow me around instead.  Now here is his opportunity to prove he can answer questions.  Tyler, you are up if you want to share your thoughts on any of the questions in this post.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #47 
So you are saying the families of the dead American soldiers lied? One of them is not telling the truth...which one?

Once I get you locked in on an answer I will address your questions.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 13,747
Reply with quote  #48 
With regard to Benghazi, there are only two options as it pertains to one particular part of that story.  The families of the victims claim she told them the video was responsible for their deaths.  She denies it.  Someone is lying.  Who has the most to gain from lying?  The victims' families gain nothing from making that up.  It's irrelevant to them what caused it.  She has everything to gain from lying.  It completely lifts any responsibility from her to attribute their deaths to the video.

I choose to believe the families.  Therefore, I believe, strongly, that she is lying.  I have no data to support this, but I assume the vast majority of Americans believe she is lying as well.  That is why she is so mis-trusted in every poll that comes out on the subject.

The House investigation has absolutely nothing to do with this part of the story.  Nor do any other investigations.

__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #49 
Tyler - No, I'm not saying the families lied.  They missed how her comments were two different unconnected statements.  There, I've answered "no" again.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #50 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Tyler - No, I'm not saying the families lied.  They missed how her comments were two different unconnected statements.  There, I've answered "no" again.


So they "misheard" her? They seem pretty adamant about what she said and meant.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 13,747
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Tyler - No, I'm not saying the families lied.  They missed how her comments were two different unconnected statements.  There, I've answered "no" again.


So you're saying that they're wrong?  They're wrong about the conversation that they had with her to which you weren't privy?

__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #52 
Here's what Clinton said at the transfer of remains ceremony...

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

The Washington Post notes how the two incidents are in separate sentences.  I think the families mistakenly thought she was linking the two.  I think they are incorrect.  If they heard something different in private, please link the source saying what they heard so I can respond.

Edit:  Tyler, you too.  Link for the readers what the families heard from Hillary Clinton.

Edit II:  I'm saying if what you guys say they heard is true, and I'm not convinced you really know what was heard, then they misconstrued her ceremony comments.  If they say she said something different in private, we can't tell who is being accurate or if something was misunderstood.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #53 
Tyler - Don't answer my questions yet.  First think of any other question I dodged and ask it of me first.  I don't want you running around suggesting you get dodged anymore.  Please ask yours before you answer mine.  Thanks.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 13,747
Reply with quote  #54 
Here you go.  Since you probably won't focus on the critical part, I'll post and bold the most important excerpt:

Charles Woods, whose son Ty Woods was a Benghazi casualty, told The Weekly Standard in October that he had written down Clinton's words, verbatim, in his notebook, as she spoke.  Reading from it, he recalled what Clinton had told him: 'We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son.'

He wrote down what she said.  How can anyone, given those facts, say that they were confused by what she told them.  She told them a filmmake was responsible for their deaths.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3380562/Hillary-Clinton-insists-never-told-victims-families-terror-attack-began-protest-anti-Islam-video.html#ixzz41OOwqVs5

__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,717
Reply with quote  #55 
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/02/in-new-hampshire-hillary-clinton-throws-benghazi-families-under-the-bus/
__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,717
Reply with quote  #56 
Pabar, dewy wasn't there but he will insist that mr. Woods misheard
__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,717
Reply with quote  #57 
Y'all really stuck dewdy with a "tough question". Right on topic
__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #58 

http://www.conwaydailysun.com/newsx/local-news/123956-clinton-talks-iraq-and-benghazi-with-the-sun-ed-board

Continuing to press, McLaughlin said three family members victims said that Clinton told him that the attack was the result of the video and or that the filmmaker should be arrested.

Clinton replied that other family members believe differently and stressed she had sympathy for all involved. "I can't recite for you everything that was in a conversation where people were sobbing, where people were distraught, the president and the vice president, we were all making the rounds talking to people, listening to people," said Clinton. "I was in a very difficult position because we have not yet said two of the four dead were CIA ... This was a part of the fog of war."

TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #59 
Dewey, are their links good enough, or would you like me to post one as well?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #60 
Here is politifact's take on this subject.  Simply not enough information out there to call Clinton a liar.  You can tell me where politifact is wrong.

Let me add, do you think she would lie to the families in private in hopes to earn their vote for Obama in November?  Really?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/09/what-did-hillary-clinton-tell-families-people-who-/

Edit:  Tyler, no, you don't need to find a link.  Please work on those questions you think I dodged instead.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.