Third Party & Independents Archives

Neville, Barack and Iran

It’s getting hard not to start thinking about British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waving that piece of paper as he stepped off the plane celebrating the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany in 1938. In 2015, it will not be any mere piece of paper that Obama will wave however. It will be one massive check - or more likely an account notification - worth up to 50 billion dollars in unfrozen funds that will be waved discreetly at the Iranians who can then grab it and collect what for any nation, never mind a barely mid-level economy like Iran’s, is a monstrous amount of money. Unless they firmly declare that funds will remain frozen and State has refused to do so. That Iran has sponsored terror from Buenos Aires to Beirut and many points in between must be uncomfortable for Obama and his administration, one hopes. That any discomfort is felt by the State Department and the rest of the administration over the possible consequences of handing over a mere 10% of all Research & Development done in the USA in 2014 just like that to Iran, is a little unclear of course at this point. But one can hope that some discomfort is in fact felt.

The analogy to Chamberlain, however, is unfair. Neville Chamberlain was a seasoned politician with an enormous amount of experience accumulated over decades of public service. And he was Prime Minister of a country barely emerging from the depths of a terrible world depression. And he had the support of much of the UK when he went to Munich. And when he realized that appeasement was wrong he prepared for and declared war on Germany and lead the nation in war until he resigned to enable a coalition government of unity to proceed with the war effort. Not only that, he was a key member of Churchill’s war cabinet, putting his experience to work for the next Prime Minister’s government. No, the analogy to Chamberlain is utterly unfair. To Chamberlain himself. Obama might learn a thing or two by studying Chamberlain’s life a little. Let’s hope and pray that aside from unfair, any analogy between Neville Chamberlain and Barack Obama is misplaced. Misplaced in terms of the war that followed. At this moment in time, that is far from clear.

Posted by AllardK at April 21, 2015 7:52 PM
Comments
Comment #391449

” It will be one massive check - or more likely an account notification - worth up to 50 billion dollars in unfrozen funds…”

It is their money, right? I mean, it belongs to them. Should we just go ahead and steal it?

So… Obama is worse than Chamberlain, and apparently the Iranians are worse than the Nazis.

I see. Seems like a perfectly reasonable opinion.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Posted by: phx8 at April 22, 2015 11:17 PM
Comment #391460

Oh, and where does this leave our allies and negotiating partners- the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China? Are they worse than Obama who is worse than Chamberlain?

What is it about conservatives? They seem to have no idea whatsoever, NO CONCEPT, that there are actually other countries in the world besides the US. The idea of American allies seems utterly alien to them. It doesn’t even fit into the attempt to analyze the negotiations with Iran. Somehow, the negotiation turns into some sort of personal one-on-one deal between Obama and the Iranian mullahs, with the enormous resources of the State Department plus all of the resources of our allies totally forgotten or ignored. It is the worse kind of jingoistic ignorance.

Iran spends @ $17 billion on defense. That is probably a high estimate. We spend @ $600 billion, and we are generations ahead of them in every aspect of warfare. That does not even count our allies and partners, every one of whom also spends much, much more than Iran on defense.
And conservatives are afraid of appeasing Iran? What the hell!

Posted by: phx8 at April 23, 2015 12:22 AM
Comment #391573

AK, this site asks that we criticize the message and not the messenger.

With that said your postings are mere pap and have always seemed to be that. Your premiss would seem to be, let’s try to find the worst person/politician/ and then draw correlations from President Obama to the worst person/politician to prove that you don’t approve of him. This message is getting very old and worn. You might be a person of intelligence and understanding but you haven’t displayed that in any posting that I have seen from you. Give it a rest.

phx8, it is all they know. Not only do they express these thoughts about other countries but also their fellow citizens. I cannot think of a conservative domestic or foreign policy that has held any substance in quite some time. If it weren’t for their gerrymandering they wouldn’t have a place in politics at all. They certainly don’t have a place in any discussion of political outcomes and causes. They bring to much baggage to the discussion to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 23, 2015 12:13 PM
Comment #391610

This has been cussed and discussed ad-nauseum.

Here’s an eyeopener from, of all places, The New York Times editorial pages.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?emc=edit_th_20150423&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=55454588&_r=0

It is clear to me that even the NYT has decided that Hillary should not be the Democrat nominee for president.

I believe top dems want Hillary to drop out of the race now, while there is still time to conjure up a suitable candidate to take her place.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 23, 2015 3:26 PM
Comment #391613

RF, you could be correct however I doubt that is the case. Until something comes out that forces Hillary to withdraw it won’t happen. This is not that something from my perspective but I could be wrong.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 23, 2015 3:40 PM
Comment #391622

Let’s see what shakes out from this story. One thing I do notice is in the article it states:

“Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution”

The New York Times is in the business of selling newspapers and it would appear that Mr. Schweizer is out to help them boost circulation. I think a wait and see attitude will do us all well to determine the veracity of this whole hullabaloo.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 23, 2015 4:15 PM
Comment #391627

“Schweizer’s books have taken on both Democratic and GOP figures. His last book, 2013’s “Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes and Line Their Pockets,” took aim at House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. It accused the speaker of taking political stances based on how much cash he could raise before a crucial vote. It also stated that then-Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., had a political action committee that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at resorts in Florida and California and at steakhouses, a 2013 review in the New York Times said.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-peter-schweizer-clinton-cash-author-5-things-know-about-hillary-clinton-book-1889003

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 23, 2015 4:36 PM
Comment #391628

RF, we can watch this to see what develops but Hillary Clinton has not made any comment and neither has the Clinton Foundation. I am not a Hillary backer, my wife is for now but she wants to see how she handles the primaries, with that said I would like to get more information. There is a long way to go to November 2016 so I expect there will be a lot of stories coming out. If Hillary were to withdraw or suffer unrecoverable ethics violations, it would be a wet dream of conservatives. I expect a lot worse than this story to be directed at her and I am anxious to see how she handles this one, but there will be more.

For crissakes Rush Limbaugh is still rehashing the Whitewater stuff today on his radio show. I listen to him occasionally but only to turn him off, expletives from me included.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 23, 2015 4:48 PM
Comment #391633

Frankly Speaks, I don’t really care about all the so-called “Clinton Scandals” from yesteryear. We all know that Bill was, and is, a womanizer. Who cares? I don’t.

However, Hillary has more baggage to handle than a porter at Grand Central Station. So much of her baggage relates to serious decisions and actions which directly affect the US and our citizens. Just a single provable and illegal (or derelict) action taken by her during her time as a public official will doom her candidacy.

Ms. Clinton is not very adept at skirting or spinning direct embarrassing questions by the media that relate to her handling of controversial issues while in public office. A faulty memory will not be tolerated by neutral voters and will provide more grist for some Republican candidates eager and able to exploit her actual or imagined misdeeds.

Her age and physical health works against her as well. Frankly, I don’t believe she can maintain the rigorous schedule she must endure as a candidate. As she tires she will make errors. Since she is prone to displays of temper, and if she is tired, many gaffs will occur.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 23, 2015 5:14 PM
Comment #391640

RF, I guess we can both just stay tuned and see what happens. At any rate ain’t it great that we get to live in a country that allows citizens to observe this process in details that are spoon fed to us? At least it’s a lot better than any other country that I have heard of or lived in. I expect Hillary Clinton to gain or lose popularity but only time will tell. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 23, 2015 5:56 PM
Comment #391643

I will stay tuned.

How are your grandkids doing? Hope all is well at the Speaks household.

Off any subject.

I now own three Kobalt battery powered outdoor tools. A chainsaw, hedge trimmer and most recently, an 80 volt grass trimmer. At my advanced age I find pulling cords on gas powered equipment just too challenging. If I don’t hurt my back pulling cords I am usually too tired to work by the time I get them started.

These are awesome tools that I highly recommend. Find them at Lowes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 23, 2015 6:08 PM
Comment #391671

So whats the scandal repubs? Are you all tight jawed because you believe Hilary did something out in the open that the rest of the presidential candidates do behind closed doors?

It takes a billion dollars to run for president did you expect Hilary to go begging for dollars? Seems to me we are all assuming this money is going into her political campaign but the Clinton Foundation doesn’t seem to donate to political campaigns. In fact 88% of its donations goes to fund its programs. It funds programs on a global scale the same as it seeks donations on a global scale. Yet it seems some are butt hurt because a Russian donated money to a foundation her family is involved with and the timing coincided with a decision by the current administration when she was a part of it.

SO please tell me what makes you guys on the right think you got her on this one. Cause I got so say what do you think has been happening with campaign contributions for years now. I thought you favored billionaires secretly supplying funds to candidates in return for political favors.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 23, 2015 9:29 PM
Comment #391682

Since we have already gotten off of the subject of this thread, I thought I would throw my 2 cents in.

The Washington Post is also running with this “story” and they have reported that Bill Clinton has made a lot of money doing speaking engagements. By a lot I mean 100 million dollars “a lot”. We also have seen with our own eyes Hilary was gainfully employed for most of the last decade.

Now maybe this is me just being logical, but why on earth, with so much money, would either of these two bother to stick their hand in the cookie jar (CGI)? Especially if Hilary entertained the thought of running for office.

It’s not like these two haven’t been the focus of a bit of attention in the past.

If the Times and the Post are looking elsewhere besides Peter Schweizer for this story then good for them.

However, as we have found before (Whitewater for instance), if the Times and Post are merely writing a book report and blowing smoke up the American electorate’s collective skirt, just how long will it be before some moron starts yelling fire.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 23, 2015 10:15 PM
Comment #391784

RF, grandkids are doing well and thanks for asking, all is calm now but gearing up with sports and extra curricula activities.

I had to stop doing lawn work due to back and hip problems, that I have since recovered from, but have a great relationship with a young man in my vicinity that I was able to secure for that maintenance along with grandchildren helping out. There seems to have been great strides made in the technology for battery charging for small tools and devices. I hope this bodes well for other areas that need battery capability autos, backup power for homes and much more. I hope you are able to continue your outdoor work for a long time, I do miss it but enjoy supervising grandchildren and explaining values earned through hard work.

I am really looking forward to the primary process for both major national parties. It is shaping up to be, if nothing else, an interesting process that deserves our attentiveness although it sometimes resembles Kabuki there is something that draws our attention(the outcome?). The outcome is not always as predetermined as it sometimes appears.

Whatever you think about Bill and Hillary Clinton, there has not been a more influential and sometimes divisive pair of people like them in the past 50 or more years. Like them or hate them, their infamy or honor will be with us in history books. They would appear to have accomplished much to be lauded for and much to be jaded about but rarely have we seen two people absorb so much attention from the populace.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 24, 2015 10:25 AM
Comment #391820

j2t2, “In fact 88% of its (Clinton Foundation) donations goes to fund its programs.”

That is not the percentage I have read and heard. Can you provide a link to your source?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 24, 2015 1:29 PM
Comment #391823

Speak wrote; “I hope you are able to continue your outdoor work for a long time, I do miss it but enjoy supervising grandchildren and explaining values earned through hard work.”

Me too. I still love to work outdoors even at my advanced age of 74. There is almost instant gratification in mowing the yard, trimming hedges, clearing brush, trimming trees and tending flower beds.

Twenty-two years ago I had the time and inclination to build my own two story wood frame home by myself. I did all the framing and finish wood work, electrical, and plumbing. The drywall and carpet was done by hire.

I can’t begin to convey the satisfaction I still get today from having accomplished so big a project.

I believe most people are capable of doing much more than they think they can. All they lack is time and a good dose of confidence.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 24, 2015 1:41 PM
Comment #391830

RF, not to mention no one can do it as well as you can, eh?

I also believe people can accomplish much more than they give themselves credit to be able to do, motivation plays a big part in those accomplishments though. One of the things I like to teach my grandchildren is that a nice lawn or garden requires a lot of water, most of it in the form of perspiration. Keep up the good work, kudos to your home building.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 24, 2015 2:25 PM
Comment #391842

Speak, may I recommend a great book you may wish to read to your grandkids. It’s called “Sand County Almanac” and was written by Aldo Leopold who some call the “Father of Modern Forestry”.

Leopold wrote about the sand counties of central Wisconsin very close to where I grew up. He can be compared to Thoreau in his ability to connect humans with their environment.

It’s an entertaining book with many lessons to be learned by the reader.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 24, 2015 4:13 PM
Comment #391844

RF, I will look for the book, thanks for the recommendation.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 24, 2015 4:33 PM
Comment #391879

Speak, I notice Lowe’s has stopped carrying the 80 volt trimmer. Are you satisfied with the one you have?

Hill and Bill will keep us entertained for years to come. And, FOX, when was the last time you recall the gov’t stepping in to peruse the communications of a cabinet head official? I think it was when Katherine the Great was pres, and so on - —

Posted by: roy ellis at April 24, 2015 8:16 PM
Comment #391880

Turning 74 in May and need more voltage. I need something like a 1000 volts with 50-60 amps to electrocute lawn moles. How about a string of ground probes and when a probe senses a mole it whacks him/her with electrons to the death.

Posted by: roy ellis at April 24, 2015 8:26 PM
Comment #391892

That is not the percentage I have read and heard. Can you provide a link to your source?

Royal. Scroll to the bottom of the page.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/

Posted by: j2t2 at April 24, 2015 9:38 PM
Comment #391899

j2, I think you need to do better then linking to the Clinton’s Foundation page. Could you at least find an ubiased source? You do realize the Clinton’s could put anything they want on that page to make them look good.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 24, 2015 10:22 PM
Comment #392018

KAP,

“j2, I think you need to do better then linking to the Clinton’s Foundation page. Could you at least find an ubiased source? You do realize the Clinton’s could put anything they want on that page to make them look good.”

Then provide a source of your own that actually proves them wrong.
This “I know better than you, because, well, I just do” attitude that pervades these pages has become really tedious.

You’re a big boy, show us your facts.

Politicians have always taken money from rich donors, and that is a fact. Is it only okay to take the money if “your guys” do it? Is it a only a bribe if the other guys do?

The fact is that Bill Clinton makes a lot of money making speeches, and you know as well as I, you can hardly get him to shut up.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 25, 2015 10:32 AM
Comment #392021

KAP The information is from the horses mouth. While I realize the foundation could commit fraud I have no reason to believe they have committed fraud. Just because you dislike the Clinton doesn’t make them guilty of fraudulent reporting of the foundations finances. Just become those with an axe to grind imply improprieties in the accounting of the foundation doesn’t make it so, as they are the same group who try to keep Benghazi and many other erroneous bits of fiction alive as they attempt to smear the Clinton’s for political gain.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 25, 2015 10:38 AM
Comment #392024

Oh and Btw,

This guy, Peter Schweizer’s, track record on actual facts has been a little dicey to say the least, and the right’s disdain for “The Post” and “The Times” is a matter of public record.

Shall we assume they are all now the source of “go to” information?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 25, 2015 10:47 AM
Comment #392046

Rocky and J2, The liberal N.Y. Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal all have questions about the finances of The Clinton Foundation. The question is Why when asked about donations is Hillary quiet? If a person is running for the highest office in the land Wouldn’t you think that he/she would have everything in order? Why do they need to amend 5 years of tax files? Rocky as far as Peter Schweizer is concerned I know nothing about the guy and could care less about him, also I could care less about party affiliation. If you DO NOT have your S**T together you have trouble and that is the problem with Hillary the S**T is hitting the fan. There are to many questions that Hillary herself needs to address and she needs to do it NOW!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2015 12:52 PM
Comment #392068

Roy wrote; “Speak, I notice Lowe’s has stopped carrying the 80 volt trimmer. Are you satisfied with the one you have?”

I believe that question was for me Roy. I just bought the 80 volt grass trimmer at Lowes last week. Some stores don’t have them yet but still have the 40 volt.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2015 3:18 PM
Comment #392076

KAP,

“Rocky and J2, The liberal N.Y. Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal all have questions about the finances of The Clinton Foundation….
Rocky as far as Peter Schweizer is concerned I know nothing about the guy and could care less about him, also I could care less about party affiliation.”

Just as always, you missed the point.

Without Peter Schweizer, The Times, The Post, and the WSJ, could probably give a rat’s ass about this story. His book is the very reason this was all brought up to begin with.

And, BTW, if you know nothing about Schweizer, please, do us all a favor and educate yourself. So far I see nothing that even looks like an actual fact in any one of your posts.

It seems you are only interested in the “Bulls**t and Bluster” school of debate.

Please, give us some actual facts, or give it a rest.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 25, 2015 4:25 PM
Comment #392079
The question is Why when asked about donations is Hillary quiet?

I would suggest several reasons KAP, first of all a response from her about donations would legitimize the question from the same crew that has been attacking her for years on dubious issues. Or perhaps she thinks the answers should come from those that donated not from her.

If a person is running for the highest office in the land Wouldn’t you think that he/she would have everything in order?

Well if that were the requirement then who amongst us could run for the highest office in the land. Did Romney have it together when he ran? Does Cruz or Jeb or Marco? Why is she held to a higher standard by those on the right than you guys hold your own to?

If you DO NOT have your S**T together you have trouble and that is the problem with Hillary the S**T is hitting the fan.

KAP have you stoped to consider that perhaps what is hitting he fan isn’t s**t but instead bulls**t from the conservative attack machine? Have you stopped to consider that if she continues the debate with those “that have questions but no answers” she helps to give it wings, to make it appear legit in the eyes of movement followers?

There are to many questions that Hillary herself needs to address and she needs to do it NOW!!!

Only in the minds of those with an agenda IMHO KAP. I mean do you honestly believe the source of these questions, Peter Schweizer, has no axe to grind, shouldn’t he be tasked with providing more than just questions? Shouldn’t he be required to prove his allegations before we insist Hilary respond to them? Especially with his track record.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/23/abc-news-finds-more-errors-in-schweizers-clinto/203390

Ya see KAP the problem here isn’t Hilary it is those that write books about unproven allegations, vague assertions, and “questions she needs to address right now”. There are serious issues on the table in this country issues that these candidates need to speak to, so that we the people can be informed and vote accordingly. Instead we get Schweizered by hacks whose sole purpose is to cause people, just like you KAP, to question Clinton’s integrity. They provide smoke and mirrors and confuse those they can into voting without knowledge of the important issues of today. Don’t fall for the ruse KAP stand up and don’t be Schweizered by these clowns. Demand they write books that tell us where the candidate stands on issues.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 25, 2015 4:53 PM
Comment #392080

Rocky, I guess Schweizer open up a can of worms. Now it’s time for Hillary to answer the questions. You guys were fast to believe Reid’s LIES about Romney now it’s time for one of your own to fess up. Rocky, Why hasn’t she answered the questions instead of ignoring them? It may be BULLS**T but it’s time for her to answer to the public. I want the truth out of any candidate for office. Maybe you don’t but I do. I didn’t miss the point, I want Hillary to answer the questions about her and her families foundation and how they get their funding. It’s simple Rocky for even you to understand all she has to do is answer the accusations, simple Rocky very simple, get it!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2015 4:54 PM
Comment #392082

J2, Read comment 392080 just add J2 instead of Rocky!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2015 5:00 PM
Comment #392092

The lefties seem to have a problem reading. The article in the NY Times I referenced earlier begins with…

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIRE APRIL 23, 2015

Jo Becker: Jo Becker is an award-winning American journalist and author working as an investigative reporter for The New York Times. Formerly with the Washington Post, she and her colleague there Barton Gellman won the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting

Mike McIntire: Mike McIntire is an investigative reporter at The New York Times. Before joining the Times in 2003, he was the investigative editor at The Hartford Courant, where he was a 2001 Pulitzer finalist for investigative reporting on medical malpractice and was part of a team that won the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for breaking news reporting. He has also been a national writer at the Associated Press in New York, and a reporter and editor at several Connecticut newspapers. His investigation of dangerous conditions at nuclear power plants earned him a 1997 National Press Foundation Award, and he received the 1992 Scripps Howard Foundation National Public Service Award for exposing political corruption in Connecticut.

These two NY Times writers don’t appear to be shills for Republicans or Conservatives.

It will be interesting to read the libs tear these two authors apart.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2015 6:04 PM
Comment #392095

Strange how folks ignore the big picture, Corpocracy on steroids, Or, maybe it is that they rightly assume that nothing much can be done about Corpocracy.

Posted by: roy ellis at April 25, 2015 6:14 PM
Comment #392097

ellis, I would amend your statement to add; “Politicians on steroids”. And yes, it would appear that nothing can be done about them either.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2015 6:21 PM
Comment #392105
J2, I guess Schweizer open up a can of worms.

Schweizered once again KAP. He opened up an unproven allegation. He has said he can’t prove anything yet you give him credit for “opening a can of worms”! I would say he attacked the candidate with verbal garbage unworthy of a response.

Now it’s time for Hillary to answer the questions.

Why shouldn’t the answers come from those that donated? Would you believe anything Hilary said on the issue now that you have the unproven allegations to hang your hat on KAP?

You guys were fast to believe Reid’s LIES about Romney now it’s time for one of your own to fess up.

So this is nothing more than a tit for tat thing KAP? You allow Schweizer a free pass because you believe Reid lied about Romney! That just isn’t logical its some two wrongs make a right logic IMHO.

J2, Why hasn’t she answered the questions instead of ignoring them?

Perhaps she is just smarter than Romney KAP. Perhaps she is wanting to run a campaign on issues not some conservative attack dogs wishes and hopes.


It may be BULLS**T but it’s time for her to answer to the public.

May be BS! It is BS. SO the candidate has to answer each and every BS charge dreamed up by attack dogs…. because …why….exactly?


I want the truth out of any candidate for office.

Truth on a BS charge trumped up against her by conservative attack dogs. If and when she responds KAP are you going to believe her?

Maybe you don’t but I do.

I want all the candidates to do the same KAP. I want each of the repub candidates to tell us where their funding comes from. Who gives the money to the PACs that support their candidacy. I want them to go first.


I didn’t miss the point, I want Hillary to answer the questions about her and her families foundation and how they get their funding.

Have you been to the foundations website and asked the question? My guess is they request and/or solicit funds from all over the globe from wealthy donors to support the work of the foundation. Do you know what the foundation does KAP?


It’s simple j2 for even you to understand all she has to do is answer the accusations, simple j2 very simple, get it!!!!!

KAP Schweitzer offered unfounded allegations. What do you think her answer could be, do you really think she has to stoop to answering unfounded allegations every time one of the attack dogs say something? Why would you want that? It just won’t leave any time for issues,which is what we the people should be focused on, not this dog and pony show designed to distract the voting public from the real issues.

BTW can you respond to this for me. The other day someone said they saw you attempting to push a sheep through a fence or something like that. They were to far away to see real good so can you tell us what it was they think they seen you doing? Now if you don’t want to respond I can understand but then again I can understand why Hilary gives this guy Schweizer the cold shoulder. He just doesn’t deserve a response.

Royal from the link you suggested-
“in a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.”

Royal I think the times article was an interesting read. Why beat up on the journalist? No unfounded allegations intended to ruin a reputation IMHO. Seems to me if KAP reads it the answer he wanted is his for the reading.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 25, 2015 7:01 PM
Comment #392109

j2t2, I am pleased to read that respected journalists writing in a liberal newspaper are reporting on possible wrong doing. I hardly care in who’s closet they find damning skeletons.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2015 7:16 PM
Comment #392111

j2, How do you know for a fact that what has been brought out about Hillary is BULLS**T? Do you have inside info from Hillary herself? Why did she use a private server while SECSTATE? Why did she wipe her server clean of all E Mails? I don’t think all this is going to go away anytime soon. She needs to answer to the accusation NOW!!!! I read something that I couldn’t believe came out of Democrat especially out of James Carville, so I had to google it, the Topeka Capital Journal quoted him as saying that 80% of all Democrats are politically clueless and it went on to say more. That statement got me to thinking about most of the Democrat contributors of watch blog. Now I’m no political genius but I’m not going to defend or accuse a candidate of wrong doing until the facts come out but when someone makes an accusation I expect that candidate to answer that accusation. Hilary better get to answering to the accusations soon and real soon.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2015 7:25 PM
Comment #392113

j2, 65 witnesses and a City that BANS farm animals within it’s city limits will attest to my innocence of trying to push a sheep through a fence J2. Can you say that of Hillary????

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2015 7:32 PM
Comment #392125
j2, How do you know for a fact that what has been brought out about Hillary is BULLS**T?

One, the source Schweizer is an attack dog that relies upon unfounded allegations for his book.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209

Two, it went to the foundation so she would have gotten no more than 7% as the rest of the money goes towards initiatives they have funded.

Three, she is pretty well off already, has a vast wealth of contacts and could make money hand over fist instead of becoming SoS and putting up with the attack dogs.

Do you have inside info from Hillary herself?

Of course not KAP. I read what her campaign says and find no reason to doubt them.

Why did she use a private server while SECSTATE?

I would suppose it was because she wanted her conversations private.

Why did she wipe her server clean of all E Mails?

So the conservative attack dogs wouldn’t be able to take emails out of context and make unfounded allegations as Schweizer has done.

I don’t think all this is going to go away anytime soon.

Of course not the conservative attack dogs will not stop with the unfounded allegations. To bad they cannot actually force her to express her views on policy issues and allow the voting public to choose based upon the issues instead of all these unfounded allegations, doesn’t that make you wonder why conservative PACs don’t want to run on issues?

She needs to answer to the accusation NOW!!!!

She has but I think what you want is for her to continue to give the unfounded allegations some credibility, she is smarter than that.

… the Topeka Capital Journal quoted him as saying that 80% of all Democrats are politically clueless and it went on to say more.

Which just goes to show what conservatives will believe when they want it to be true KAP…
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/carville.asp

Now I’m no political genius but I’m not going to defend or accuse a candidate of wrong doing until the facts come out

Now KAP my memory is short but not that short. You have defended Cruz just recently. I would also suggest by buying into the attack dogs chanting and riling up the movement faithful by demanding answers to unfounded allegations you are in fact accusing a candidate of wrong doing.


but when someone makes an accusation I expect that candidate to answer that accusation.

I would tell the candidate to tell people like Schweizer to pound sand up his a**, but then I’m not a candidate, Seems the Clinton campaign did respond to actual journalist who seems to have done a solid job of researching the issue.


Hilary better get to answering to the accusations soon and real soon.

So it seems the answer from the Clinton campaign wasn’t enough for you. So perhaps what you are really seeking is the answer you want to hear, the answer all the attack dogs hope will derail the campaign, but it just doesn’t add up. What with the Canadian government involved, the issue not making it to her desk, no demands from Hilary to those under her. Seems it is just another distraction, but when are the other candidates gonna come clean with their funding?

j2, 65 witnesses and a City that BANS farm animals within it’s city limits will attest to my innocence of trying to push a sheep through a fence J2

Well I don’t KAP my source said it was you and with all your prior experience pushing sheep thru fences and all… I usually wouldn’t doubt the other 65 witnesses but this one guy did say so and he is a conservative attack dog, so his word is gold, right?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 25, 2015 9:07 PM
Comment #392138

I notice whenever I mention a certain topic that discredits conservatives the site withholds the comment. Nice. I’ll see it I can slip it past next post.

Posted by: phx8 at April 25, 2015 9:58 PM
Comment #392140

The topic involves the ‘peach’ of Bill C in the late 90’s. Nice how the site censors it. We certainly would not want to bring that up, now would we. All those articles of ‘peach’ re fake scandals that were rejected by the House’s prosec… Wonder what words the site uses to block it? The shame of the GOP should not be forgotten.

Posted by: phx8 at April 25, 2015 10:01 PM
Comment #392144

j2, Now I know your full of it, I never defended Cruz, in fact I did just the opposite, I said in FACT that we don’t need another inexperienced person in the W.H. Cruz needs to stay where he is along with his 2 buddies Rubio and Paul. You know j2 I’m not defending or accusing Hillary of anything YET. I want to hear it from her not her lap dogs. J2 you can bring up all the left wing crap you want but until she herself proves beyond a shadow of doubt her innocence then that doubt will exist. She needs to get her butt up and prove her innocence NOT her lap dogs, HER. The things she has done so far are NOT helping.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2015 10:20 PM
Comment #392148

By the way j2 it was you and your buddy Rocky who brought up Schweizer, I didn’t.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2015 10:45 PM
Comment #392158

KAP,

“By the way j2 it was you and your buddy Rocky who brought up Schweizer, I didn’t.”

Yeah, I brought up Schweizer. You didn’t know who he was and you don’t care.

“Rocky as far as Peter Schweizer is concerned I know nothing about the guy and could care less about him, also I could care less about party affiliation.”

Your exact words KAP. Apparently you don’t care enough about whether it’s the truth to even bother to find out where, or even who the allegations came from.

Truly, it wouldn’t really matter if Hilary Clinton addressed the questions.

It’s Hilary Clinton and for you that’s enough to make her guilty.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 25, 2015 11:53 PM
Comment #392167

Rocky, I’m not defending or accusing Hillary of anything. Unlike you and your comrades do to Reps. when they get accused of wrong doing. You and J2 sure are jumping to her defense even before you 2 know all the facts. All I’m saying is she needs to get off her butt and defend herself and you 2 are making a big deal out of it. Address the accusations, ignoring them ain’t helping her. Your right Rocky that is exactly what I said about Schweizer after you and your buddy j2 brought him up. So you and j2 can quit with your Hillary pity party the truth will come out soon enough. If she is innocent of any wrong, fine, If she is guilty shame on her.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 26, 2015 12:31 AM
Comment #392236
By the way j2 it was you and your buddy Rocky who brought up Schweizer, I didn’t.

KAP, Schweizer is the source of the claim that Hilary as SoS used her position for monetary gain.

I want to hear it from her not her lap dogs.

So KAP what is it you want to hear exactly and what will it take for you to believe what she tells you?


J2 you can bring up all the left wing crap you want but until she herself proves beyond a shadow of doubt her innocence then that doubt will exist.

I agree KAP. That however is the problem and that is what the plan was when Schweizer brought up the unfounded allegations. This is but the tip of the iceberg, watch and see as time marches on. It is us, the American public that lose as a result of this type of conservative attack because we are so taken with the distraction we don’t stop to question the important stuff. I mean really KAP what can she say that will cause you and your fellow conservatives to pronounce her innocent of the unfounded allegations against her?

She needs to get her butt up and prove her innocence NOT her lap dogs, HER. The things she has done so far are NOT helping.

So she is supposed to prove that these Canadians and Russian didn’t bribe her thru the foundation?

“Mr. Giustra said that while his friendship with the former president “may have elevated my profile in the news media, it has not directly affected any of my business transactions.” “

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html


But enough of this KAP lets get back to historical events of even less importance. I noticed you failed to tell me the truth on the sheep thru the fence allegations against you. You were there you admit and you bring up laws that would prevent sheep from being in the area yet I see you haven’t denied the possibility you have broken the law.

I mean my guy put it in writing, his observation of you and the sheep over by the fence. Your lap dogs, these 65 people you mention, certainly didn’t put their claims in writing so how could I ever believe what you are saying. All of us here at WB have a right to the truth on this issue. Your silence on this unimportant distraction says volumes.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 26, 2015 8:22 AM
Comment #392242

KAP,

“Rocky, I’m not defending or accusing Hillary of anything. Unlike you and your comrades do to Reps. when they get accused of wrong doing. You and J2 sure are jumping to her defense even before you 2 know all the facts. All I’m saying is she needs to get off her butt and defend herself and you 2 are making a big deal out of it.”

Seriously, KAP, I’m not the one using all the caps and exclamation points.

Clinton may or may not win the nomination. She wouldn’t be my choice anyway. What bothers me is all of the feigned outrage by those who can’t see the forest for the tree.

BTW, please look up the word “analogy” before you look even more foolish.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 26, 2015 8:54 AM
Comment #392247

j2, I’m not running for president of the U.S. so if my running around with a sheep and pushing it through a fence is of no consequence but to me and the sheep, but if I was running for president I would have to explain myself to what I was doing with a sheep in a banned area and I better have a good explanation or I can kiss my candidacy good bye.
Rocky, My using Caps and exclamation points is to get the attention of some thick headed people who don’t understand what was written in previous comments. The only one who is looking foolish is the ones who can’t read and understand what was said in the first place, Rocky.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 26, 2015 9:17 AM
Comment #392250

KAP,

“The only one who is looking foolish is the ones who can’t read and understand what was said in the first place, Rocky.”

And apparently that would be you, KAP.

You have gone from demanding that Clinton defend herself…

You have made it quite clear that actual facts and details are for “lesser” minds.

The arrogance of your comments betrays you.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 26, 2015 9:28 AM
Comment #392258
I’m not running for president of the U.S.

But KAP you are commenting here on WB and if we are to take you seriously as a commentator we need to get to the bottom of this attempt you made to push that sheep thru a fence.

so if my running around with a sheep and pushing it through a fence is of no consequence but to me and the sheep,

Sheep cannot form consent KAP so it isn’t as simply as that. However it seems despite your earlier denials you have been running with the sheep. But lets get specific here my source has written the unfounded allegation that you were seen doing things with that sheep at the fence.

but if I was running for president I would have to explain myself to what I was doing with a sheep in a banned area

Just because you haven’t declared yet doesn’t mean you aren’t responsible for the vague assertions that others here on WB deem important KAP. I mean you have admitted you run with the sheep and have brought sheep to banned areas with fences right?

and I better have a good explanation or I can kiss my candidacy good bye.

KAP unfounded allegations go far beyond political campaigns they co-partner with vague assertions and “questions” that could lead to a loss of one’s credibility even if they are not running for office. Especially when it is of the magnitude of pushing sheep through a fence.

I would suggest you come clean about it before others here on WB doubt your credibility.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 26, 2015 9:56 AM
Comment #392261

Rocky, What facts and what details? Your the one who is claiming that Schweizer is a hack. Maybe his book is fiction, I don’t know, neither do you. Hillary’s action are what is suspect, erasing e mails, using a private server while in government service then clearing it. I want answers Rocky, just like millions of other people. Yes I want Hillary to defend herself just like I would or you would have to do if someone accused you of wrong doing. So quit with the snide remarks, they make you the fool.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 26, 2015 10:04 AM
Comment #392266

KAP,

“Your the one who is claiming that Schweizer is a hack.”

I did nothing of the sort. I didn’t make any judgement of the writer. I merely pointed out where the story came from, the authors history, and suggested you educate yourself and maybe come to your own conclusions.

Remember, you were the one who said he didn’t care.

Colin Powell used a private server for his emails while SoS.
Where was the outrage then?
We don’t have a clue just how many emails he deleted because, apparently, it was no big deal.

The big deal now is this is Hilary freaking Clinton, and the right just can’t get over that fact.

The right is scared sh**less she actually might become President and is willing to throw anything and everything against the wall, just on the off chance something might stick.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 26, 2015 10:41 AM
Comment #392272

Rocky, I don’t believe voters on the right are scared of Ms. Clinton. In fact, I hope she is the Dem nominee. Many informed sources, both from the left and right, believe the country is tired of the musical chairs being playing for the top executive office.

If Republican voters are smart enough in the primaries to nominate someone besides the Party choice we can beat Hillary like a rented mule.

The Party hated Reagan and the voting public loved him.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 26, 2015 11:12 AM
Comment #392274

On a lighter note…

President obama at the White House Correspondent’s dinner yesterday.

“Usually the only people impersonating journalists on CNN are journalists at CNN.”

My favorite comment was…The presidents hair is so white he can now talk back to police.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 26, 2015 11:18 AM
Comment #392277

In a letter signed by Dem Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, regarding the secrecy of the obama administration on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (creating a free tradezone in the Asia-Pacific region” they wrote;

“As a result of your administration’s decision, it is currently illegal for the press, experts, advocates, or the general public to review the text of this agreement.”

Wasn’t this the same guy who proclaimed as candidate obama that he would have the most open administration in history?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 26, 2015 11:26 AM
Comment #392278

Royal,

“If Republican voters are smart enough in the primaries to nominate someone besides the Party choice we can beat Hillary like a rented mule.”

Seriously?

Despite the election is over a year and a half away, not one of the right’s “announced” is enough to stir confidence in any one but the most rabid right.

Perhaps Hilary will make it out of the primaries, but then, perhaps not. I’m already weary of the process, and it hasn’t even truly started yet.

The only sure thing is that minds will be numb before it’s all over.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 26, 2015 11:26 AM
Comment #392281

Seriously?…Yes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 26, 2015 11:34 AM
Comment #392298

j2, the difference between me and Hillary are, if she does something it’s front page news, if I do something stupid it becomes nothing more then maybe a one line spot on the back pages. So your analogy of the sheep is nothing more then a juvenile attempt to avoid the big issue “Hillary”.
Rocky, Powell may have used a private server back then but was it used for official State Dept. business? Or was it just used for casual communications? Did he turn everything in to the Dept. before leaving office? I don’t know, maybe we should ask Powell. Exactly Rocky, the big thing now is Hillary and not Powell or any other former SoS. I have questions that need to be answered and not only from Hillary but all the rest of the candidates.

Posted by: Rich Kapitan at April 26, 2015 1:08 PM
Comment #392300

Obama was pretty darn funny at the Correspondents Dinner. Didn’t care for Luther the Anger Translator, but Obama is arguably the funniest president I can remember. Don’t know if being a good comedian matters one way or another… JFK supposedly had a pretty good sense of humor too.

The TPP issue is hard for me to grasp precisely because the administration is not being straight with Americans about the nature of the deal. I used to be a Free Trader, but after seeing how NAFTA turned out, and how wages stayed flat and manufacturing was outsourced en masse, especially tech, I’m not on board anymore. Obama is at odds with progressives over this one.

RF,
“… I don’t believe voters on the right are scared of Ms. Clinton.”

I don’t know about voters on the right, but I am sure the party is scared witless. Polls show HRC with huge leads over every candidate. She may go through the primaries without serious opposition, and that means a huge war chest will be almost entirely directed at her opponent in the general election.

Jeb Bush has raised a LOT of money already, and the Koch Brothers say they will dedicate $900 million to the election next year. That is an ENORMOUS sum of money. The problem for the GOP will not be money. It will be their candidates and their issues. Unless the GOP can make a miraculous about turn on immigration asap, they will lose 60 - 40 regardless of the candidate. Jeb might be able to make the about turn, but running a Bush against a Clinton demands a comparison of the 90’s and the noughts, and we all know how that will come out.

Posted by: phx8 at April 26, 2015 1:14 PM
Comment #392320

“Polls show HRC with huge leads over every candidate.”

Totally meaningless. It is virtually impossible for eight or ten persons to poll as high as one person. This is the same old bullshit regarding polling numbers for congress versus a single president.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 26, 2015 3:20 PM
Comment #392324

RF,
HRC does not just come out ahead of a generic GOP candidate; in head-to-head, one-on-one match-ups, she beats each candidate as an individual in nearly every state.

Some of that is just name recognition. Then again, when the GOP finally settles on one candidate, that person will not achieve total unity in the party. Bush in particular could see a lot of conservative tea party defections, but a lot of establishment Republicans would walk away from some of tea party candidates too.

Posted by: phx8 at April 26, 2015 3:56 PM
Comment #392342

j2t2,

Frankly I think that’s enough.

Move on.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 26, 2015 6:26 PM
Comment #392380

j2t2,

Let’s not also forget that Clinton’s email server was “likely” hacked by the Russians according to FOX News pundits. No evidence of course, but so what.

By the way, why is she not in prison. Didn’t she murder Vince Foster?

Posted by: Rich at April 26, 2015 11:48 PM
Comment #392401

Rocky, the issue isn’t KAP it is unfounded allegations, it is conservatives in general who think they have a keen mind because they “question” everything. Some how they must be shocked into reality. They buy into the most nonsensical of conspiracy theories without a seconds hesitation. I was demonstrating how silly nonsense becomes facts in the conservative blogsophere.

Hell we had the pleasure of being quoted a supposed comment by James Carville that said it was dems that were clueless yet we see conservatives jumping for joy over unfounded allegations. But that was just a side issue to the real unfounded allegations of Schweizer. Yet it was a lie, misinformation.

Its just one messed up story after another with conservatives.

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/apr/26/big-lie-las-vegan-watches-his-reid-tale-takes/

I just wanted to jump on the bandwagon Rocky, only instead of using one of the repub hopefuls I chose to personalize the unfounded allegations with one of our own here on WB, (well truthfully I was worried the sheep through the fence thing make have been a bit close to home for several of the repubs candidates) yet we all know KAP wouldn’t participate in such a thing.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 27, 2015 1:43 AM
Comment #392475

j2t2,

Believe me I got it. I found it mildly humorous up to a point. But then it felt a little creepy.

It’s unfortunate that some of our brethren have to see the worst in humans, egged on by those that would profit from the belief.

Humility is not a common trait in politicians. Personally I find arrogance to be a flaw.
Money is the problem. I find it curious that someone would spend up to a billion dollars to run for a political office that pays a mere 400 grand a year.
Of course their will be donors that have their hand out, but the door swings both ways.

We are all too willing to believe the news that someone has taken a bribe, true or untrue. It’s always “front page” news. Unfortunately when the allegations are proven false, the story is relegated to page 6, in a small corner, under an add.
The GOP must believe Clinton a formidable foe to throw out this much crap this early in the campaign.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 27, 2015 9:52 AM
Comment #392486

KAP, this is what we mean by right wing smear tactics being taken as truth without any proof

“A Las Vegas man claims he started a false rumor that the injuries suffered by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid several months ago were the result of an attack by Reid’s brother, not an exercise accident.”

“It was just so outrageous,” he said. “The fact that someone can say something completely false that can destroy somebody’s life, it’s just wrong. Where’s the moral compass?”

Where’s the moral compass? There ain’t one when it comes to right wing need for fodder for their fantasies.

I expect we will see more of this, must be the season of the witch.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 27, 2015 11:09 AM
Comment #392495

Speaks, Something like Reid and his lies about Mitts taxes? I know the claims in the book may be false or blown out of proportion but is it to much for a candidate for POTUS to answer to those claims? Liberals wanted 10 years of Mitt’s tax returns. Is it to much for a conservative to ask for an explanation to those claims just like liberals did for Mitt’s taxes? Where is the Moral compass does it only apply to a conservative or does it apply to liberals as well? Today reading the internet news sources, The Clinton Foundation admitted that they made mistakes and are correcting them.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 27, 2015 11:48 AM
Comment #392499

KAP,

“Liberals wanted 10 years of Mitt’s tax returns.”

And then Mrs. Mitt said bite me, and that was that.

I mean, jeez, the arrogance of some people, right KAP?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 27, 2015 12:07 PM
Comment #392502

KAP, I don’t know, did Mitt release his tax returns? Should he have? That was Mitt’s call and I don’t remember him addressing the allegations in the expedient manner that you are demanding that Hillary should address these allegations. Were you this adamant in trying to get to the bottom of Mitt’s tax problems? You are the one admonishing Hillary for not making a statement immediately about this story.

I could not have cared less about Mitt’s returns, I knew he wasn’t the person I wanted to vote for. Why not just say the same about Hillary? It’s all the drama and theater that most of us would like to get rid of in the election process that is being discussed.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 27, 2015 12:17 PM
Comment #392507

Exactly Rocky all that arrogance and other stupid comments cost him didn’t it.
Exactly Speaks I could have cared less about his returns also, but he IMO should have addressed them and put a lid on the accusations. Same thing with Hillary, she is part of that foundation and any wrong doing reflects on her, is that to hard to understand. Put a lid on it now, not later. You want to stop the drama and theater, stop it in it’s tracks and make the other guy/gal eat crow.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 27, 2015 12:39 PM
Comment #392508

KAP, I suppose that’s why I would never be interested in a political career among many other reasons. I would tell them “go pound sand” and could respect any politician that just came out and said that when these allegations are thrown about.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 27, 2015 12:54 PM
Comment #392512

SO we are comparing lefties asking for tax returns to righties telling people a crime has been committed without the proof of said crime being committed?

We are asking for a candidate to answer these allegations as if they have merit, which BTW she did through her campaign, yet you have failed to acknowledge such. KAP,you still have suspicion that where there is smoke there is fire,right? Despite the reality check many have already given Schweizer and the NYT, you are still adamant that you need answers. Why can’t you see through this ploy?

KAP listen bud, this is a ploy by these conservative attack dogs to put Clintons service as SoS in a bad light, taking a positive and making a negative out of it because their candidates don’t have the experience to put up against Clinton. Just like the swiftboaters did to Kerry.

It is the leaking of bits of disinformation, or as I say myths misinformation half truths and outright lies, in order to keep candidate looking as if they have actually done something in the eyes of the voting public, It keeps the real issues at bay, out of the line of fire, so the candidates don’t have to run on their record. Supporting it doesn’t give the American people the best shot at choosing a candidate that has their views.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 27, 2015 1:16 PM
Comment #392513

Speaks, I can agree with that, but being in the public eye I wouldn’t advise it. Instead I would prove the other wrong and kick that sand in his/her face.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 27, 2015 1:19 PM
Comment #392515

J2, I could care less if Hillary is guilty or innocent, she does NOT have my vote. Having said that, I would say the same if any other candidate be it Republican or Independent had Myths or misinformation said about them. Instead of telling them to go pound sand, kick it in their face.

Posted by: Rch KAPitan at April 27, 2015 1:30 PM
Comment #392525

Some of us seem to relish in the theater of politics. How much did Mitt make and how much did he pay in taxes? What exactly was Hillary doing for people who gave money to the CGI? Did John Mcain father an illegitimate child out of wedlock? Is Obama a secret Muslim? Did Ted Cruz’s father fight for Fidel Castro?

Some of us see this for what it is, a distraction. Give me the real issues. What are you going to do about real problems? How will you implement what you plan on doing? What results to you expect from said implementation?

KAP, I’ll put you in the former group, I would consider myself part of the latter group.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 27, 2015 2:48 PM
Comment #392526

And how are you going to do the latter Speaks, since neither side is going to quit with the mud slinging? Liberals, progressives, conservatives, libertarians and God knows what other groups will stoop to S**T slinging as long as there are politicians. I would like to see a clean debate about the real issues to but you know as well as I do it aint goin to happen.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 27, 2015 2:59 PM
Comment #392528

heck Speaks can’t even stop with the S**T slinging here on W.B.

Posted by: Rich Kapitan at April 27, 2015 3:02 PM
Comment #392529

Reading the comments by the left about supposedly fake wrongdoing by the Clinton’s makes me wonder how they would have reacted back in the day regarding Watergate.

The administration denied any wrongdoing and nearly all of the media ignored the emerging story. Only after a long period of investigation by some determined news reporters did the facts begin to emerge.

A sitting president was forced to resign. Will a popular democrat nominee eventually do the same?

I want facts, and the only way to get them is to investigate allegations of serious wrong doing. Frankly, I don’t give a damn whose parade gets rained on in the process.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2015 3:04 PM
Comment #392531

KAP, it might help if you didn’t pay so much attention to it but hey it’s a free country so go stuff your all capital letters and asterisks where no sunlight can ever get to it. For an old man you still act like a two year old.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 27, 2015 3:12 PM
Comment #392533

RF, all in good time. I just don’t understand the enjoyment factor that is expressed by some, it doesn’t matter whose parade is being rained on either. This discussion has taken a turn towards what I would call “Reality TV” for political pundits. Investigating good, invigorating not really.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 27, 2015 3:19 PM
Comment #392535

See Speaks you can’t even stop with the s**t slinging and you expect the politicians to? LOLOL

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 27, 2015 3:31 PM
Comment #392536

KAP, the only one slinging things here would be you. I have no idea what you are referencing. Go take a nap.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 27, 2015 3:36 PM
Comment #392541

Speaks, comment 392531 I’m a 2 year old? I may be an old man but I agree with R.F. in his statement about facts and getting them you have to investigate, Slinging what Speaks? Wanting to know what the facts are? Wanting answers? If that’s slinging Speaks I’ll do it all over this Blog until the facts come out.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 27, 2015 3:54 PM
Comment #392548

KAP, as I told RF, investigating good, invigorating not really. You seem to be invigorated by this story and all of the political theater it generates. Act your age and not your shoe size. As I said previously, it’s a free country you can do what you want. Good luck on finding out what you want to know. Try not to confuse what you want to know with want you really just want.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 27, 2015 4:47 PM
Comment #392550

what you really just want.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 27, 2015 4:48 PM
Comment #392570

j2t2, your comments toward KAP cross the line here. I’ll be removing this comment shortly. We always appreciate a good debate, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

Posted by: Liz at April 27, 2015 7:06 PM
Comment #392571
J2, I could care less if Hillary is guilty or innocent, she does NOT have my vote.

Yet when unfounded allegations surface you feel the need to demand answers from the candidate you will not vote for?

Having said that, I would say the same if any other candidate be it Republican or Independent had Myths or misinformation said about them.

But you’ve already made up your mind on Hillary so either an independent or a repub has your vote. Are you sure you would respond with I could care less should this happen to another candidate?

Reading the comments by the left about supposedly fake wrongdoing by the Clinton’s makes me wonder how they would have reacted back in the day regarding Watergate.

Apples and Oranges Royal, IMHO. Woodward and Bernstein were actual real reporters this guy is an activist with a record of unfounded allegations.

I want facts,

Well we have them Royal, the NYT got most of them and the Clinton campaign filled in the rest.

and the only way to get them is to investigate allegations of serious wrong doing.

Then why wait until 2015 to investigate activities from 2009? If this is Rupert Murdock and his attack dogs idea of investigating serious wrong doing then they truly are a bunch of clowns don’t you think?

Frankly, I don’t give a damn whose parade gets rained on in the process.

Which of course is the intent of the “investigation” moving forward now instead of during her tenure as SoS.

Seems the conservatives attack dogs are starting to worry the conservatives.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/27/conservative-newsmax-points-out-murdoch-corps-r/203436

Posted by: j2t2 at April 27, 2015 7:08 PM
Comment #392576

“Woodward and Bernstein were actual real reporters this guy is an activist with a record of unfounded allegations.”

I gave the credentials of the two reporters on the NY Times article. What else do you need?

“Which of course is the intent of the “investigation” moving forward now instead of during her tenure as SoS.”

What a shame it is that an adult person doesn’t understand the nature of investigative reporting and the lengthy time it takes. How long did it take for Watergate to be fully investigated and reported?

The two reporters are not shooting from the hip. They are writing about what they have uncovered so far.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2015 7:31 PM
Comment #392579

j2, No matter if I vote for Hillary or not does not mean that she or anyone else for that matter should not answer if allegations of possible wrong doing surface. The Clinton Foundation people admitted that there were mistakes made in reporting of funds from Canada, that’s just one of many. The thing I find odd in all this is that as long as it is a Republican in the hot seat they are fair game for anything but when it is a Democrat it’s a witch hunt. I wonder what kind of garbage will surface when the Republican nominee announced?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 27, 2015 7:43 PM
Comment #392580

Most of the adults on WB understand that investigative reporting never ends with the reporter accusing anyone of a crime. They gather information, report what they have discovered, and leave it to the proper authorities to determine criminality.

This is the process taking place right now. The possibility of serious malfeasance while in office demands a full accounting.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2015 7:46 PM
Comment #392582

It occurs to me that some folks on WB may not remember what investigative reporting even looks like. In the past decades the media has become politicized to the extent that only scandal mongering was published. Real reporting may appear strange to some youngsters.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2015 7:58 PM
Comment #392593
I gave the credentials of the two reporters on the NY Times article. What else do you need?

So it seems we agree the 2 NYT reporters may be attempting some investigative journalism. Although when their “deep throat” is Schweizer perhaps journalism is a stretch. Investigative sure is.
But I guess, by reason of not including Schweizer, this means we are on the same page when it comes to the ruse Schweizer is attempting. It isn’t anything about investigative journalism it is scandal mongering for the elections.

What a shame it is that an adult person doesn’t understand the nature of investigative reporting and the lengthy time it takes.

I was thinking the same thing Royal, Unlike Woodward and Bernstein this Schweizer guy writes a book first, yet some would include him in “investigative journalism”.

How long did it take for Watergate to be fully investigated and reported?

2 years Royal, right around 2 years from the break in to Nixon leaving office. Which brings up the question why did Schweizer not involve authorities way back in the day? what just happened that would cause him to publish a book filled with vague assertions and unfounded allegations were he actually an investigative journalist?

The two reporters are not shooting from the hip. They are writing about what they have uncovered so far.

Seems to me they relied upon Schweizer, a known discredited source, is that your idea of investigative journalism Royal?

… They gather information, report what they have discovered, and leave it to the proper authorities to determine criminality.

Is that before or after the book gets published Royal?

This is the process taking place right now. The possibility of serious malfeasance while in office demands a full accounting.

Then why wait until they are out of office and running for another office? Seems to me with all the time you claim these investigations take they could have started say 3 or 4 years ago. After all the donations these two investigative journalist bring up started in 2005, years before Hillary was sworn is as SoS.

One has to wonder why the fact that we have Chinese and Russian companies extracting uranium here in America (yet import 80% of it to meet our needs) and it doesn’t raise an eyebrow when we see Repubs passing laws to rid the government of land. I wonder what kind of ties the repubs have to these same countries and companies? Maybe that will be in Schweizer’s next book.

It occurs to me that some folks on WB may not remember what investigative reporting even looks like. In the past decades the media has become politicized to the extent that only scandal mongering was published.

Well that explains it, the NY Post, the WSJ and the publishing company involved with Schweizer’s “investigative journalism” are all owned by Rupert Murdoch the scandal mongering owner of Faux cable news. They are the “journalist” running with this political hack job.

Real reporting may appear strange to some youngsters.

Hell it has to appear strange to all those old guys getting their information from the conservative echo chamber and staring at the short skirts that makes Fox watchable Royal. Especially those that believe Schweizer remotely resembles a journalist.
Seems to me you are give “adult” a bad name Royal.


http://watergate.info/chronology/brief-timeline-of-events

Posted by: j2t2 at April 27, 2015 9:02 PM
Comment #392735

KAP,

“j2, No matter if I vote for Hillary or not does not mean that she or anyone else for that matter should not answer if allegations of possible wrong doing surface.”

This goes back to the issue of not educating yourself.

Hilary Clinton volunteered to testify before the Benghazi investigation about both the indecent in Libya, and the emails. She was turned down by Gowdy as he felt a private interview was necessary to “protect her privacy”.

Let me repeat that. Clinton said she would testify on the emails and the attack in public, and she was turned down.

What a load of crap.

I believe this has become more about the railroading of Clinton for her perceived crimes, which, BTW she may or may not have committed, than it is about seeking answers to questions.

Why do the goalposts keep moving?

The erstwhile GOP candidates are, to a man, campaigning against Clinton as if each of them were already the presumptive nominee, and she was the incumbent.

Rep. Gowdy said it’s possible the investigation, the eighth investigation of the attack, BTW, could drag into 2016.

Lovely.

Frankly, at this point, if I was Clinton, I would tell them all to suck eggs, and campaign on the fact that the GOP doesn’t truly want the answers, because they aren’t what they want to hear.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 28, 2015 11:27 AM
Comment #392742

Rocky, I get it, It’s OK for the left to question anything the right does but wrong when the right questions the left. What a bunch of hypocritical BS. Rocky get a hold of yourself read and re read my quote you have in your comment maybe after re reading it a few times it will penetrate that thick skull of yours of what is actually written in that quote. Focus on ANYONE ELSE.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 28, 2015 12:10 PM
Comment #392749

“Seems to me they relied upon Schweizer, a known discredited source, is that your idea of investigative journalism Royal”

I guess this refusal to accept the credentials of the investigative reporters that I furnished above may be evidence of extreme bias or just simple senility.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 28, 2015 12:41 PM
Comment #392752

KAP,

“Focus on ANYONE ELSE.”

Again with the caps KAP? When are you going to wake up and smell the pavement?

This isn’t about you, this is about a fishing expedition that dates back to the ’90s.

As I said before this is about Hilary Clinton because she is Hilary Clinton. The animosity is unquestionable.

And this will continue even if she answers the questions because the answers won’t be what the right wants to hear.

She’s guilty, it doesn’t matter what the facts are. These issues will appear again from time to time, simply as a campaign tool of the right.

That she was willing to answer the questions about the emails and Benghazi before a Congressional sub committee is a fact. That she was refused the opportunity to answer those questions is a fact.

What more do you guys want?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 28, 2015 12:51 PM
Comment #392755

Royal,

“I guess this refusal to accept the credentials of the investigative reporters that I furnished above may be evidence of extreme bias or just simple senility.”

That the starting point for both the Times and the Post was an unreleased book was announced by both the Times and the Post.

No one has questioned the credentials, we are merely questioning the source of the information, and the timing.

Why wasn’t this brought up before, you know, when it happened?
It’s not like the sale was kept under wraps.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 28, 2015 1:00 PM
Comment #392760

Rocky, the use of caps is to get the attention of some that can’t or refuse to focus on the actual comment and what was written. If it applies to you and IMO it does so be it. If you Rocky, are accused of wrong doing then you have to prove your innocence with emails, witnesses, or any other form of evidence, don’t you? Same thing for a politician regardless of political party. Get it?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 28, 2015 1:08 PM
Comment #392765

KAP,

If I am accused of wrongdoing it is not played out in the press, years after the alleged offense took place, and certainly not after a tabloid style book is written that spurs the press to start their own investigation.

Get it?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 28, 2015 1:29 PM
Comment #392772

Rocky, It depends on what you did and if you are in the public eye and politicians are constantly in the public eye. Remember Bush has been out of office for 6 years now and he still gets blamed for things. The book hasn’t been released yet so how do you know if it is a tabloid book? Is it because that’s what you heard? Or is it in fact a fact? And if what you say is true prove it! All I’m looking for is an explanation of the accusations. I don’t care if the accused is Hillary, Rubio, Paul, Cruz or any other candidate for POTUS, me and millions of other people would like an explanation. Get it!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 28, 2015 1:49 PM
Comment #392776

KAP,

Do you understand Occam’s Razor?

From Wikipedia;
“The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.”

Do you understand what “CFIUS” is?

Also from Wikipedia;
In 1975, President Ford created the Committee by Executive Order 11858. It was composed of the Secretary of the Treasury as the chairman, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Commerce, the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, and the Executive Director of the Council on International Economic Policy. The Executive Order also stipulated that the Committee would have “primary continuing responsibility within the Executive Branch for monitoring the impact of foreign investment in the United States, both direct and portfolio, and for coordinating the implementation of United States policy on such investment.”

There are 9 different government agencies that approved the sale of that uranium.

Nine.

Shall we assume Hilary Clinton is such a formidable force in the American Government that she alone held sway over all these agencies, and by her will alone pushed this sale through so her foundation could receive the donations?

Yet that is what she is being accused of, and asked to answer for.

Get it?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 28, 2015 2:12 PM
Comment #392778

Rocky, You can get all the definitions from wiki you want but they aint Hillary. Can’t you get that people want to hear from the horses mouth not wiki or Rocky or j2 or some aide. That is all we want is an explanation from Hillary nobody else. She is the candidate for potus. Not you, j2, or any other Her and Her only!

Posted by: RchKAPitan at April 28, 2015 2:31 PM
Comment #392780

KAP,

Your argument makes no logical sense.

What you want Clinton to answer for;

Department of the Treasury (chair)
Department of Justice
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of State
Department of Energy
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Office of Science & Technology Policy

That’s just ridiculous. You’re making vast assumptions based on half/vast information.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 28, 2015 2:44 PM
Comment #392782

Rocky, were all those Departments accused of wrong doing or was Hillary? So quit with the ridiculous BS. Let her prove her innocence.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 28, 2015 2:57 PM
Comment #392789

KAP,

Dude you’re hopeless.

Hilary has only been singled out merely because she is the most visible. The right has a chubby for Hilary Clinton and you’ve bought in to it.

Were done.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 28, 2015 3:20 PM
Comment #392792

Rocky, One final comment and I am through with this, I have never said Hillary was guilty or innocent of any wrong doing. Some one has accused her and people want her explanation. That is all.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 28, 2015 3:31 PM
Comment #392799
I guess this refusal to accept the credentials of the investigative reporters that I furnished above may be evidence of extreme bias or just simple senility.

Royal, you gotta dig a bit my friend, this is not a case similar to Watergate. Schweizer is a conservative activist with a history. He has written a book, soon to be released, that has these allegations in them. Based upon his book, which the NYT and Murdochs chain of “media outlets” has had an advanced look at, these two investigative reporters from the NYT (as you like to call them) did a bit of their own leg work as well as used Schweizer’s book to write the article you linked to. Now so far none have came out and said they have found the smoking gun they have just made allegations based upon no proof.

When you consider the timing of this “investigation” or at least the timing of the book and the newspaper article, adults on this site have to conclude this is politically motivate BS. After all the donations and such are years old and have been written about,(at the least part of them) long ago. SO if their intentions were good why did they wait so long? To allow this type of political BS to fall under the guise of investigative journalism “may be evidence of extreme bias or just simple senility” IMHO.

This is bad for both sides IMHO as it makes the repubs like Rand Paul and others, who was salivating at the thought of someone having the smoking gun on Hillary, all weak kneed and unable to talk coherently. It also causes the movement followers to become fearful as they are easily fooled and believe the conspiracy theories guys like Schweizer put forth. Should she win they will have at least 4 years of worry and fear, all based upon unfounded allegations.

As far as the dems they have a candidate that spends her time reacting to these unfounded allegations instead of addressing issues the American people feel are important.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 28, 2015 4:21 PM
Comment #392936

BTW,

The source of all this absurdity, Peter Schweizer, appeared on “This Week” on ABC last Sunday. George Stephanopoulos asked Schweizer the direct question;

“Do you have direct evidence linking Hilary Clinton with any of this”

Schweizer’s reply was “no, but…”

The game’s afoot.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 29, 2015 10:01 AM
Comment #392993

Rocky,

It’s the same old sickening Republican game. Fantastic allegations and conspiracies without any actual evidence (slander). Then demand fishing expeditions (investigations) hoping to find something: Whitewater, Swift boat, Obama’s birth certificate, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, etc.

Democrats aren’t completely without fault. Harry Reid’s allegations that Romney didn’t pay taxes for 10 years is an example.

The difference, though, is that elected Democrats don’t generally follow through with the charade. The White House told Reid immediately to back off his allegations.

The Republican leadership on the other hand seems content to give credence to what they know are false allegations. It doesn’t seem to matter that the Republican led House Intelligence Committee found no evidence supporting the principal Benghazi allegations against the administration. In fact, it supported the administration version of what happened. Yet, the “investigation” goes on ad nauseum.

Posted by: Rich at April 29, 2015 7:16 PM
Comment #393008

Rich, the repubs are morally bankrupt. They have nothing good to bring to the table when it comes to policies. They cannot run on their record, their candidates are an embarrassment to the country. They have to chip away at the other candidates. That is why they drip this stuff out over the life of the campaign, to cause the voting public to stop and wonder. Had they a shred of integrity, of dignity,they would have been all over this issue years ago. Because they have no integrity they waited until Hilary declared for office. IT is political BS with no basis in fact.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 29, 2015 9:44 PM
Comment #393009

Limbaugh discredited once again with more lies about the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/

Posted by: j2t2 at April 29, 2015 9:49 PM
Comment #393010

Guys,

This has nothing to do with this topic but apparently the “Religious” right is planning on pushing back.

Pledge in Solidarity to defend Marriage

This is a line drawn in the sand over marriage equality. So far they have over 25,000 signatures.

Please take note of the key signers.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 29, 2015 9:55 PM
Comment #393011

Try here;

http://defendmarriage.org/pledge-in-solidarity-to-defend-marriage

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 29, 2015 9:56 PM
Comment #393016

Rocky, This is off topic to but what do you expect the Christian or as you call it religious right, supposed to do? Remain silent? IMO marriage laws should be left to the states, not the feds.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 29, 2015 10:29 PM
Comment #393536

KAP,

“IMO marriage laws should be left to the states, not the feds.”

Perhaps then, maybe sometime in the future, gays will actually be able to enjoy all of the rights the rest of us have. Perhaps then they will be able as “tax paying citizens” to be equal, and be allowed to enjoy their portion of the whole “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” thing.

Until then this separate, but “equal” treatment sucks.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 2, 2015 11:34 AM
Comment #393562

Rocky, I believe everyone has the right to live their lives as they see fit. I also believe that people in each state have the right to define what they believe a marriage to be and not have some activist Judge define it for them. Someday gays may have the right to marry and be recognized in all the states, but that should be left up to the people of each state not some federal judge.

Posted by: rICH KAPitan at May 2, 2015 2:14 PM
Comment #393576

KAP,

So what you’re saying is that any of the Judges on the Supreme Court, which BTW is the final arbiter of all things “Constitutional” in this country, that are OK with gay marriage are “Activists”?

So they say it’s Constitutional and you’re not OK with that?

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 2, 2015 3:53 PM
Comment #393582


Dude, I hate to bring this up, but as those on the right so gleefully like to remind us, America isn’t a Democracy, it’s a Constitutional Republic.
The majority does not rule.

And, oh BTW 31,000 signatures doesn’t seem like much of a majority, that’s up a mere 4,000 since I posted the link.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 2, 2015 4:49 PM
Comment #393593

Rocky, Justice Kennedy, during the hearings on Gay marriage said and I quote “The definition of marriage has been with us for millennia and it is very difficult for the court to say, oh well, we know better.” Oh and by the way Rocky I don’t remember where in the constitution are the specific amendments concerning marriage? The laws of marriage have been with us for millennia that because a judge says I know better and I am going to change the will of the people because they don’t know what they are doing but I do, is ok with you? Like I said marriage is a state issue, leave it up to the people of whatever state to decide if they want to change the definition of marriage. It’s not so hard to understand Dude.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 2, 2015 6:28 PM
Comment #393599

KAP,

The rights of gays are a national issue, not a state one. The Issue of gay marriage made it up the food chain to the Supreme Court as it should.

The laws of marriage?

For instance, from Wikipedia;

“The Council of Trent (convened 1545–1563) ruled that in the future a marriage was only valid in Roman Catholic countries if it was witnessed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church or, if obtaining a priest were impractical, by other witnesses. This ruling was not accepted in the newly Protestant nations of Europe, nor by Protestants who lived in Roman Catholic countries or their colonies, nor by Eastern Orthodox Christians.”

Yeah, that went over well. Gay marriage is legal in 19 countries around the world.

Times are changing, try to keep up.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 2, 2015 6:56 PM
Comment #393602

KAP,

So you disagree with the Court’s action in Loving v. Virginia?

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 2, 2015 7:18 PM
Comment #393603

Rocky, The council of trent had nothing to do with Gay marriage. Besides the Catholic Church back then I would consider was a Tyrant. 19 countries out of how many in the world? Some countries will kill you if they find you are gay. So what’s your point? Are you saying those 9 judges know what is best for everyone? Like I asked where are the amendments concerning marriage in the constitution?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 2, 2015 7:21 PM
Comment #393607

KAP,

“Rocky, The council of trent had nothing to do with Gay marriage.”

But it had to do with the “laws of marriage”, but you didn’t understand that.

“Are you saying those 9 judges know what is best for everyone?

What “those 9 Judges” decide becomes the rule of law in this country.

“Like I asked where are the amendments concerning marriage in the constitution?”

There are none.

I will paraphrase Warren’s question;

Was there an amendment concerning marriage in the 1958 case of “Loving v. Virginia”?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 2, 2015 7:43 PM
Comment #393612

Warren, Loving vs. Virginia was more of a race issue. The issue was Black man,White women mixed race heterosexual couple, please don’t tell me your going to say that it’s the same for gays. I don’t think it will fly if you do.
Rocky, Trent was saying only the Catholic Church was the only body authorized to officiate weddings. Nobody listened anyway so what’s your point. Those 9 justices do not make laws they only interpret those laws and deem them constitutional or not. I again refer to what Justice Kennedy said.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 2, 2015 8:17 PM
Comment #393620

KAP,

“I again refer to what Justice Kennedy said.”

Shall we assume you are a Constitutional lawyer?
Kennedy is one of nine Justices. You just happen to agree with him on his opinion.

“The issue was Black man,White women mixed race heterosexual couple, please don’t tell me your going to say that it’s the same for gays.”

I am not comparing the two, the point is that there was no Constitutional precedent for that case just as there is no precedent for this one.

If you are incapable of seeing that simple point then we have nothing more to discuss.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 2, 2015 9:16 PM
Comment #393623

Rocky, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I do know how to read and Kennedy in his brief on DOMA stated it was a State issue, if he rules against states rights in this case now he is contradicting himself. Your right there was no constitutional precedent for Loving vs Virginia or this one., but I didn’t know why you are answering for Warren.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 2, 2015 9:36 PM
Comment #393645

Before Loving v. Virginia, it was up to the states to define marriage. Some states (such as Hawaii) chose to permit interracial marriage and others did not. Ultimately, everything rested within local control. Loving v. Virginia changed all that. By Federal diktat, jurisdictions all across the nation were compelled to recognize and perform interracial marriages.

The laws of marriage have been with us for millennia that because a judge says I know better and I am going to change the will of the people because they don’t know what they are doing but I do, is ok with you?

For millenia, the laws of marriage prohibited interracial relationships. Look at Deuteronomy 7:3 and other biblical prohibitions against marriage between Jews and Gentiles. Then all of a sudden one day a half century ago a judge said “I know better and I am going to change will of the people because they don’t know what they are doing but I do”.

If you are OK with judges making these determinations then fine, but if you don’t then please own your opinion and denounce Loving v. Virginia as Judicial activism. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 3, 2015 12:14 AM
Comment #393748

Warren,

Thank you for your succinct post.

Ultimately it is the decision of the majority of the Justices that matters, not just the one.

He is entitled to his opinion, as are we all.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 3, 2015 10:10 AM
Comment #393778

3 post are being held up. They are comments in answer to Warren’s last post

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 3, 2015 1:06 PM
Comment #393786

I have no problem being patient while AllardK approves your comments.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 3, 2015 2:03 PM
Comment #393820

For starters Warren, Moses married a gentile, Boaz married a gentile, David married and had Solomon his successor by a gentile. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and I would venture to say there were quite a few gentile women in the mix. Read the whole chapter of Deut. 7 not just pick a verse that you think will aide your comment about Loving v Virginia. here in the constitution does it have an amendment concerning marriage?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 3, 2015 5:27 PM
Comment #393857

Ask any orthodox or conservative rabbi if a Jew may marry a gentile. The answer will always be the same: NO.

And the same has been true for millenia.

Moses married before the Law was given at Mt. Sinai. Ruth was a proselyte. Solomon’s foreign wives are cited by the Bible’s authors as an example of his sinfulness.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 3, 2015 9:12 PM
Comment #393861

Warren, The fact remains they married women who were gentiles and there were others besides those I mentioned. The Roman Catholic Church is the same, but I don’t think anyone listens anyway. They will find someone who will marry them. So your use of the Bible does not fly.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 3, 2015 9:41 PM
Comment #393876

KAP,

“So your use of the Bible does not fly.”

And yours does?

Yeah I get it, some Christians take the Bible as literal fact.

However, me personally, I am not accepting characters in a semi-mythical book of stories as fact.

Sorry, no matter how many people accept the Bible as historical fact, there is nothing in the Constitution about it either.

No offense meant. You are welcome to believe as you wish, but… I believe religion is a private matter between you and your God.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 3, 2015 11:26 PM
Comment #393883

Rocky, Warren used it and I showed him where his Ideas were false, intercultural marriages where in fact common in the bible. You can believe it is mythical if you want, that is your business. Your right it is not constitutional like marriage isn’t found anywhere in the constitution either. So why argue about it. 9 justices will give us an answer in June.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 4, 2015 12:16 AM
Comment #393944

KAP,

“So why argue about it. 9 justices will give us an answer in June.”

That was my point about 20 comments ago.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 4, 2015 7:31 AM
Comment #394030

KAP,

This is not the place for a theological debate. My point is simply that inter-ethnic marriages have been a taboo in many cultures for millenia. Citing the Biblical taboo against marriage between Gentiles and Jews was simply an example. You can spin it however you want, but the fact remains is that the Bible’s authors never condone these sorts of relationships. The foreign wives of Solomon (as well as various Kings of the divided kingdom period) are all condemned for instance.

The fact remains that the Court overturned centuries of precedent and redefined marriage with a single stroke of the pen in Loving v. Virginia. What is going on today is no different.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 4, 2015 4:49 PM
Comment #394033

Warren, I know this is not the place for theological debate, then YOU shouldn’t have brought up the Bible and what is or isn’t in it. comment 393645 ring a bell?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 4, 2015 5:10 PM
Comment #394034

Warren, The court did not redefine marriage per say. It was in the past and was the same for Loving v Virginia between a man and woman. I would say it was more of a racial issue and if a person had the right to marry outside of his/her race. 9 Justices will have the opportunity to redefine marriage and as Justice Kennedy said. The definition of marriage has been with us for millennia and very difficult for the court to say oh well, I know better.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 4, 2015 5:24 PM
Comment #394038

In the past, marriage was between a white man and a white woman, or a nonwhite man and a nonwhite woman. Loving v Virginia changed that.

The definition of marriage has been with us for millennia and very difficult for the court to say oh well, I know better.

The Court already said “oh well, I know better” in Loving v Virginia. Taboos against intermarriage are thousands of years old, dating back to the time when the Torah was written. A handful of examples of exceptional Biblical characters (who were exemplary precisely because they violated the traditional taboos) does not invalidate the fact that the Torah generally forbids marriage between Jews and Gentiles. As I said before, ask any non-reform rabbi today if it is permissible for Jews and Gentiles. There is only one answer he will give you: NO!

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 4, 2015 5:38 PM
Comment #394042

Warren, Here you go with Religion again, and as I stated before in a comment, If 2 people want to get married, be it interracial, intercultural or whatever they will find someone to officiate at their wedding. I don’t give a rats a** if a Rabbi, priest, or minister says no someone will do the deed.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 4, 2015 5:56 PM
Comment #394046

Fantastic! You agree with the notion that modern government has no obligation to enforce any traditional taboos in its recognition of civil marriages.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 4, 2015 6:13 PM
Comment #394051

Warren, I always believed government should stay out of the bedroom. What people do their is none of their business married or not.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 4, 2015 6:37 PM
Comment #394062

I’m glad to hear you support marriage equality, even if the majority of a state’s electorate opposes it.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 4, 2015 7:35 PM
Post a comment