(02-06-2020 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 03:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Obama

Bi-partisan report

Quote:The response to the digital assault was also “tempered … over concerns about appearing to act politically on behalf of one candidate, undermining public confidence in the election, and provoking additional Russian actions,” the panel found.

The 54-page, partially redacted report focuses exclusively on the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with Moscow’s interference ahead of Election Day.

It lays out several factors that hamstrung the White House’s ability to coordinate a response, including partisan concerns not only on the campaign trail, but also in Congress.

The report details resistance by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to issuing a bipartisan statement in 2016 about the Russian effort.

Former homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco recalled a conversation with McConnell where he stated, "You security people should be careful that you're not getting used," which she interpreted as the GOP leader doubting the intelligence concluding Russia was attempting to interfere...

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat, said there “were many flaws with the U.S. response to the 2016 attack, but it's worth noting that many of those were due to problems with our own system.”

“I am particularly concerned however, that a legitimate fear raised by the Obama Administration — that warning the public of the Russian attack could backfire politically — is still present in our hyper-partisan environment...”

In an addendum to the report, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior panel member, wrote that not issuing a “bipartisan public acknowledgment of the ongoing attack by Russia” was a mistake.

“An acknowledgment of Russian influence operations, particularly operations intended to help Donald Trump, would have reflected poorly on the candidate and his campaign,” he wrote. “But that should not have been a reason for the administration and members of Congress to withhold from the public warning of an ongoing attack by a foreign adversary...”

The committee also emphasized that in case of future attacks, the public should be notified “as soon as possible with a clear and succinct statement of the threat.”

Lawmakers urged the executive branch to develop “a range of standing response options that can be rapidly executed” in the event of an election attacks.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06...ort-111388

And your point is...?

I think the current year is 2020, so a report on what should have been done or said in 2016 is hindsight, and hindsight is always...20-20. (There is some of that humor you said you were looking for, Big)

I do hope that in the future security concerns are not overwhelmed by political concerns. I hope that in the case of either Republican or Democratic administrations. That is the takeaway I get from this bipartisan report.

I found it weird that you hyperlinked the article as “Obama.” I wanted to point out that this was a failure on both parties, which the report makes clear.

I agree that it would be best if political concerns did not put weight national security concerns.

(02-06-2020 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 03:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Obama

Bi-partisan report

Quote:The response to the digital assault was also “tempered … over concerns about appearing to act politically on behalf of one candidate, undermining public confidence in the election, and provoking additional Russian actions,” the panel found.

The 54-page, partially redacted report focuses exclusively on the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with Moscow’s interference ahead of Election Day.

It lays out several factors that hamstrung the White House’s ability to coordinate a response, including partisan concerns not only on the campaign trail, but also in Congress.

The report details resistance by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to issuing a bipartisan statement in 2016 about the Russian effort.

Former homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco recalled a conversation with McConnell where he stated, "You security people should be careful that you're not getting used," which she interpreted as the GOP leader doubting the intelligence concluding Russia was attempting to interfere...

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat, said there “were many flaws with the U.S. response to the 2016 attack, but it's worth noting that many of those were due to problems with our own system.”

“I am particularly concerned however, that a legitimate fear raised by the Obama Administration — that warning the public of the Russian attack could backfire politically — is still present in our hyper-partisan environment...”

In an addendum to the report, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior panel member, wrote that not issuing a “bipartisan public acknowledgment of the ongoing attack by Russia” was a mistake.

“An acknowledgment of Russian influence operations, particularly operations intended to help Donald Trump, would have reflected poorly on the candidate and his campaign,” he wrote. “But that should not have been a reason for the administration and members of Congress to withhold from the public warning of an ongoing attack by a foreign adversary...”

The committee also emphasized that in case of future attacks, the public should be notified “as soon as possible with a clear and succinct statement of the threat.”

Lawmakers urged the executive branch to develop “a range of standing response options that can be rapidly executed” in the event of an election attacks.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06...ort-111388

And your point is...?

I think the current year is 2020, so a report on what should have been done or said in 2016 is hindsight, and hindsight is always...20-20. (There is some of that humor you said you were looking for, Big)

I do hope that in the future security concerns are not overwhelmed by political concerns. I hope that in the case of either Republican or Democratic administrations. That is the takeaway I get from this bipartisan report.

I found it weird that you hyperlinked the article as “Obama.” I wanted to point out that this was a failure on both parties, which the report makes clear.

I agree that it would be best if political concerns did not put weight national security concerns.

Funny thing as that one of the two was President and in control of the national security apparatus --- the other was not.

Perhaps a failure on both parties -- but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope. Again, the overwhelming capability and ability to perform substantive acts in this realm falls amazingly heavy on an administration notwithstanding your 'note' above.

(02-06-2020 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 03:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Obama

Bi-partisan report

Quote:The response to the digital assault was also “tempered … over concerns about appearing to act politically on behalf of one candidate, undermining public confidence in the election, and provoking additional Russian actions,” the panel found.

The 54-page, partially redacted report focuses exclusively on the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with Moscow’s interference ahead of Election Day.

It lays out several factors that hamstrung the White House’s ability to coordinate a response, including partisan concerns not only on the campaign trail, but also in Congress.

The report details resistance by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to issuing a bipartisan statement in 2016 about the Russian effort.

Former homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco recalled a conversation with McConnell where he stated, "You security people should be careful that you're not getting used," which she interpreted as the GOP leader doubting the intelligence concluding Russia was attempting to interfere...

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat, said there “were many flaws with the U.S. response to the 2016 attack, but it's worth noting that many of those were due to problems with our own system.”

“I am particularly concerned however, that a legitimate fear raised by the Obama Administration — that warning the public of the Russian attack could backfire politically — is still present in our hyper-partisan environment...”

In an addendum to the report, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior panel member, wrote that not issuing a “bipartisan public acknowledgment of the ongoing attack by Russia” was a mistake.

“An acknowledgment of Russian influence operations, particularly operations intended to help Donald Trump, would have reflected poorly on the candidate and his campaign,” he wrote. “But that should not have been a reason for the administration and members of Congress to withhold from the public warning of an ongoing attack by a foreign adversary...”

The committee also emphasized that in case of future attacks, the public should be notified “as soon as possible with a clear and succinct statement of the threat.”

Lawmakers urged the executive branch to develop “a range of standing response options that can be rapidly executed” in the event of an election attacks.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06...ort-111388

And your point is...?

I think the current year is 2020, so a report on what should have been done or said in 2016 is hindsight, and hindsight is always...20-20. (There is some of that humor you said you were looking for, Big)

I do hope that in the future security concerns are not overwhelmed by political concerns. I hope that in the case of either Republican or Democratic administrations. That is the takeaway I get from this bipartisan report.

I found it weird that you hyperlinked the article as “Obama.” I wanted to point out that this was a failure on both parties, which the report makes clear.

I agree that it would be best if political concerns did not put weight national security concerns.

Funny thing as that one of the two was President and in control of the national security apparatus --- the other was not.

Perhaps a failure on both parties -- but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope. Again, the overwhelming capability and ability to perform substantive acts in this realm falls amazingly heavy on an administration notwithstanding your 'note' above.

McConnell wields a ton of power to influence public perception, which in that case was VERY important. No question that the Obama admin had the ability to make a call, but don’t act like Mitch was powerless or not a significant player in that game. Bipartisan support was paramount, per that report.

(02-06-2020 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 03:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Obama

Bi-partisan report

Quote:The response to the digital assault was also “tempered … over concerns about appearing to act politically on behalf of one candidate, undermining public confidence in the election, and provoking additional Russian actions,” the panel found.

The 54-page, partially redacted report focuses exclusively on the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with Moscow’s interference ahead of Election Day.

It lays out several factors that hamstrung the White House’s ability to coordinate a response, including partisan concerns not only on the campaign trail, but also in Congress.

The report details resistance by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to issuing a bipartisan statement in 2016 about the Russian effort.

Former homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco recalled a conversation with McConnell where he stated, "You security people should be careful that you're not getting used," which she interpreted as the GOP leader doubting the intelligence concluding Russia was attempting to interfere...

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat, said there “were many flaws with the U.S. response to the 2016 attack, but it's worth noting that many of those were due to problems with our own system.”

“I am particularly concerned however, that a legitimate fear raised by the Obama Administration — that warning the public of the Russian attack could backfire politically — is still present in our hyper-partisan environment...”

In an addendum to the report, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior panel member, wrote that not issuing a “bipartisan public acknowledgment of the ongoing attack by Russia” was a mistake.

“An acknowledgment of Russian influence operations, particularly operations intended to help Donald Trump, would have reflected poorly on the candidate and his campaign,” he wrote. “But that should not have been a reason for the administration and members of Congress to withhold from the public warning of an ongoing attack by a foreign adversary...”

The committee also emphasized that in case of future attacks, the public should be notified “as soon as possible with a clear and succinct statement of the threat.”

Lawmakers urged the executive branch to develop “a range of standing response options that can be rapidly executed” in the event of an election attacks.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06...ort-111388

And your point is...?

I think the current year is 2020, so a report on what should have been done or said in 2016 is hindsight, and hindsight is always...20-20. (There is some of that humor you said you were looking for, Big)

I do hope that in the future security concerns are not overwhelmed by political concerns. I hope that in the case of either Republican or Democratic administrations. That is the takeaway I get from this bipartisan report.

I found it weird that you hyperlinked the article as “Obama.” I wanted to point out that this was a failure on both parties, which the report makes clear.

I agree that it would be best if political concerns did not put weight national security concerns.

Why is that weird? It is just a condensation of the title on the Reuters article, reproduced below:

"Senate report criticizes Obama administration handling of Russia election meddling"

Y'all are so sensitive to anything Obama, as if you think his saintliness might be besmirched.

(02-06-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06...ort-111388

And your point is...?

I think the current year is 2020, so a report on what should have been done or said in 2016 is hindsight, and hindsight is always...20-20. (There is some of that humor you said you were looking for, Big)

I do hope that in the future security concerns are not overwhelmed by political concerns. I hope that in the case of either Republican or Democratic administrations. That is the takeaway I get from this bipartisan report.

I found it weird that you hyperlinked the article as “Obama.” I wanted to point out that this was a failure on both parties, which the report makes clear.

I agree that it would be best if political concerns did not put weight national security concerns.

Funny thing as that one of the two was President and in control of the national security apparatus --- the other was not.

Perhaps a failure on both parties -- but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope. Again, the overwhelming capability and ability to perform substantive acts in this realm falls amazingly heavy on an administration notwithstanding your 'note' above.

McConnell wields a ton of power to influence public perception, which in that case was VERY important. No question that the Obama admin had the ability to make a call, but don’t act like Mitch was powerless or not a significant player in that game. Bipartisan support was paramount, per that report.

I am not saying 'Mitch was powerless' --- please do tell where I say that....

No doubt there is a 'cheerleader' aspect to a response.

But, the power to effectuate the NatSec response was (and still is) *solely* the province of the Executive. A power that you grossly overlook when you try and assign 'equal' blame here.

I mean, you have had your panties in a wad for 3 years on how terrible the turtle was here; all without bothering to note that somehow Obama managed to absolutely underplay a coordinated NatSec sector response to this, *and* at the same fing time grossly overplayed the response (i.e. the apparent perjury in the General Flynn case, the gross incompetence in promoting a National Enquirer level paid political piece to a cornerstone of an investigative witch hunt, *and* a pattern of lying to the FISA court to continue that course.

Yep, but Mitch is equally at fault in your book..... lolz....

(02-07-2020 03:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And your point is...?

I think the current year is 2020, so a report on what should have been done or said in 2016 is hindsight, and hindsight is always...20-20. (There is some of that humor you said you were looking for, Big)

I do hope that in the future security concerns are not overwhelmed by political concerns. I hope that in the case of either Republican or Democratic administrations. That is the takeaway I get from this bipartisan report.

I found it weird that you hyperlinked the article as “Obama.” I wanted to point out that this was a failure on both parties, which the report makes clear.

I agree that it would be best if political concerns did not put weight national security concerns.

Funny thing as that one of the two was President and in control of the national security apparatus --- the other was not.

Perhaps a failure on both parties -- but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope. Again, the overwhelming capability and ability to perform substantive acts in this realm falls amazingly heavy on an administration notwithstanding your 'note' above.

McConnell wields a ton of power to influence public perception, which in that case was VERY important. No question that the Obama admin had the ability to make a call, but don’t act like Mitch was powerless or not a significant player in that game. Bipartisan support was paramount, per that report.

I am not saying 'Mitch was powerless' --- please do tell where I say that....

No doubt there is a 'cheerleader' aspect to a response.

But, the power to effectuate the NatSec response was (and still is) *solely* the province of the Executive. A power that you grossly overlook when you try and assign 'equal' blame here.

I mean, you have had your panties in a wad for 3 years on how terrible the turtle was here; all without bothering to note that somehow Obama managed to absolutely underplay a coordinated NatSec sector response to this, *and* at the same fing time grossly overplayed the response (i.e. the apparent perjury in the General Flynn case, the gross incompetence in promoting a National Enquirer level paid political piece to a cornerstone of an investigative witch hunt, *and* a pattern of lying to the FISA court to continue that course.

Yep, but Mitch is equally at fault in your book..... lolz....

If you’re gonna start a response with “tell me where I said that,” then you probably shouldn’t proceed to do the exact same thing to the person youre responding to.

You’re centering your entire counter argument on me saying that McConnell was equally at fault...

(02-06-2020 11:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 03:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Obama

Bi-partisan report

Quote:The response to the digital assault was also “tempered … over concerns about appearing to act politically on behalf of one candidate, undermining public confidence in the election, and provoking additional Russian actions,” the panel found.

The 54-page, partially redacted report focuses exclusively on the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with Moscow’s interference ahead of Election Day.

It lays out several factors that hamstrung the White House’s ability to coordinate a response, including partisan concerns not only on the campaign trail, but also in Congress.

The report details resistance by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to issuing a bipartisan statement in 2016 about the Russian effort.

Former homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco recalled a conversation with McConnell where he stated, "You security people should be careful that you're not getting used," which she interpreted as the GOP leader doubting the intelligence concluding Russia was attempting to interfere...

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat, said there “were many flaws with the U.S. response to the 2016 attack, but it's worth noting that many of those were due to problems with our own system.”

“I am particularly concerned however, that a legitimate fear raised by the Obama Administration — that warning the public of the Russian attack could backfire politically — is still present in our hyper-partisan environment...”

In an addendum to the report, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior panel member, wrote that not issuing a “bipartisan public acknowledgment of the ongoing attack by Russia” was a mistake.

“An acknowledgment of Russian influence operations, particularly operations intended to help Donald Trump, would have reflected poorly on the candidate and his campaign,” he wrote. “But that should not have been a reason for the administration and members of Congress to withhold from the public warning of an ongoing attack by a foreign adversary...”

The committee also emphasized that in case of future attacks, the public should be notified “as soon as possible with a clear and succinct statement of the threat.”

Lawmakers urged the executive branch to develop “a range of standing response options that can be rapidly executed” in the event of an election attacks.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06...ort-111388

And your point is...?

I think the current year is 2020, so a report on what should have been done or said in 2016 is hindsight, and hindsight is always...20-20. (There is some of that humor you said you were looking for, Big)

I do hope that in the future security concerns are not overwhelmed by political concerns. I hope that in the case of either Republican or Democratic administrations. That is the takeaway I get from this bipartisan report.

I found it weird that you hyperlinked the article as “Obama.” I wanted to point out that this was a failure on both parties, which the report makes clear.

I agree that it would be best if political concerns did not put weight national security concerns.

Why is that weird? It is just a condensation of the title on the Reuters article, reproduced below:

"Senate report criticizes Obama administration handling of Russia election meddling"

Y'all are so sensitive to anything Obama, as if you think his saintliness might be besmirched.

Yeah, the titles of the articles are pretty bad title once you read the articles written about the document. It unquestionably criticizes the Obama admin, but also clearly criticized McConnell for hamstringing the admin.

I know a lot of people get annoyed at At Ease for doing exactly what you did, posting an article without analysis. I thought you were offering commentary by posting how you did.

(02-06-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  McConnell wields a ton of power to influence public perception, which in that case was VERY important. No question that the Obama admin had the ability to make a call, but don’t act like Mitch was powerless or not a significant player in that game. Bipartisan support was paramount, per that report.

McConnell had the power to influence public perception, as did Obama. Obama had the power to take action to address it. Mitch didn't.

(02-07-2020 07:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  McConnell wields a ton of power to influence public perception, which in that case was VERY important. No question that the Obama admin had the ability to make a call, but don’t act like Mitch was powerless or not a significant player in that game. Bipartisan support was paramount, per that report.

McConnell had the power to influence public perception, as did Obama. Obama had the power to take action to address it. Mitch didn't.

Yep. Not sure where I said or suggested otherwise.

(02-07-2020 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 11:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06...ort-111388

And your point is...?

I think the current year is 2020, so a report on what should have been done or said in 2016 is hindsight, and hindsight is always...20-20. (There is some of that humor you said you were looking for, Big)

I do hope that in the future security concerns are not overwhelmed by political concerns. I hope that in the case of either Republican or Democratic administrations. That is the takeaway I get from this bipartisan report.

I found it weird that you hyperlinked the article as “Obama.” I wanted to point out that this was a failure on both parties, which the report makes clear.

I agree that it would be best if political concerns did not put weight national security concerns.

Why is that weird? It is just a condensation of the title on the Reuters article, reproduced below:

"Senate report criticizes Obama administration handling of Russia election meddling"

Y'all are so sensitive to anything Obama, as if you think his saintliness might be besmirched.

Yeah, the titles of the articles are pretty bad title once you read the articles written about the document. It unquestionably criticizes the Obama admin, but also clearly criticized McConnell for hamstringing the admin.

I know a lot of people get annoyed at At Ease for doing exactly what you did, posting an article without analysis. I thought you were offering commentary by posting how you did.

It was more of an FYI. I had no position pro or con to offer. I don't see it as a slam on Obama, but more of a rarity, an unbiased look at history.

At Ease offers his links as commentary. I offered this as FYI. I can see how you could mistake one for the other. I offer so little of my opinions here.

I titled it as I did partially to get to people to read it. Worked, didn't it?

I guess I need to read it again, as I missed the part about Mac hamstringing the admin. I remember he was skeptical of the idea, but that is one of the reasons I made the point that this was in 2016. A lot of people were skeptical about Russian interference then. I am still skeptical of the effect or effectiveness of it.

(02-07-2020 06:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 03:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I found it weird that you hyperlinked the article as “Obama.” I wanted to point out that this was a failure on both parties, which the report makes clear.

I agree that it would be best if political concerns did not put weight national security concerns.

Funny thing as that one of the two was President and in control of the national security apparatus --- the other was not.

Perhaps a failure on both parties -- but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope. Again, the overwhelming capability and ability to perform substantive acts in this realm falls amazingly heavy on an administration notwithstanding your 'note' above.

McConnell wields a ton of power to influence public perception, which in that case was VERY important. No question that the Obama admin had the ability to make a call, but don’t act like Mitch was powerless or not a significant player in that game. Bipartisan support was paramount, per that report.

I am not saying 'Mitch was powerless' --- please do tell where I say that....

No doubt there is a 'cheerleader' aspect to a response.

But, the power to effectuate the NatSec response was (and still is) *solely* the province of the Executive. A power that you grossly overlook when you try and assign 'equal' blame here.

I mean, you have had your panties in a wad for 3 years on how terrible the turtle was here; all without bothering to note that somehow Obama managed to absolutely underplay a coordinated NatSec sector response to this, *and* at the same fing time grossly overplayed the response (i.e. the apparent perjury in the General Flynn case, the gross incompetence in promoting a National Enquirer level paid political piece to a cornerstone of an investigative witch hunt, *and* a pattern of lying to the FISA court to continue that course.

Yep, but Mitch is equally at fault in your book..... lolz....

If you’re gonna start a response with “tell me where I said that,” then you probably shouldn’t proceed to do the exact same thing to the person youre responding to.

You’re centering your entire counter argument on me saying that McConnell was equally at fault...

Im not the one standing up and yelling 'what about' as you just did.

Nor am I the one feeling the absolute urgency to hightlight "MITCH DID IT TOO", again, as you just did.

And, more telling, when I noted previously that perhaps "not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope", again you had the urgency to reiterate to us again how important the Turtle was in his bad actions.

I guess you missed, at the very least, your apparent vigorous defense against the "but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope" argument. One might take that an indication of what I just said, that is, at least to many people who have the ability to read.

So now, after your 'where did I say it' I take it you now fully agree and are absolutely comfortable with "but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope" statement I made earlier, and all your comments since then are rhetorical flourishes apparently made for really no reason at all?

Glad we apparently agree on that scope. If so I dont, know why you continued after it like a dog with a chew rope.

(02-07-2020 09:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 06:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 03:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny thing as that one of the two was President and in control of the national security apparatus --- the other was not.

Perhaps a failure on both parties -- but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope. Again, the overwhelming capability and ability to perform substantive acts in this realm falls amazingly heavy on an administration notwithstanding your 'note' above.

McConnell wields a ton of power to influence public perception, which in that case was VERY important. No question that the Obama admin had the ability to make a call, but don’t act like Mitch was powerless or not a significant player in that game. Bipartisan support was paramount, per that report.

I am not saying 'Mitch was powerless' --- please do tell where I say that....

No doubt there is a 'cheerleader' aspect to a response.

But, the power to effectuate the NatSec response was (and still is) *solely* the province of the Executive. A power that you grossly overlook when you try and assign 'equal' blame here.

I mean, you have had your panties in a wad for 3 years on how terrible the turtle was here; all without bothering to note that somehow Obama managed to absolutely underplay a coordinated NatSec sector response to this, *and* at the same fing time grossly overplayed the response (i.e. the apparent perjury in the General Flynn case, the gross incompetence in promoting a National Enquirer level paid political piece to a cornerstone of an investigative witch hunt, *and* a pattern of lying to the FISA court to continue that course.

Yep, but Mitch is equally at fault in your book..... lolz....

If you’re gonna start a response with “tell me where I said that,” then you probably shouldn’t proceed to do the exact same thing to the person youre responding to.

You’re centering your entire counter argument on me saying that McConnell was equally at fault...

Im not the one standing up and yelling 'what about' as you just did.

Nor am I the one feeling the absolute urgency to hightlight "MITCH DID IT TOO", again, as you just did.

And, more telling, when I noted previously that perhaps "not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope", again you had the urgency to reiterate to us again how important the Turtle was in his bad actions.

I guess you missed, at the very least, your apparent vigorous defense against the "but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope" argument. One might take that an indication of what I just said, that is, at least to many people who have the ability to read.

So now, after your 'where did I say it' I take it you now fully agree and are absolutely comfortable with "but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope" statement I made earlier, and all your comments since then are rhetorical flourishes apparently made for really no reason at all?

Glad we apparently agree on that scope. If so I dont, know why you continued after it like a dog with a chew rope.

Yes, I am the one who is going after it like a dog with a chew rope.

You just wrote how many words in this response, which basically amounts to you trying to avoid admitting how hilariously hypocritical you were.

This was interesting

Witness beaten to death before trial.

(02-07-2020 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 09:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 06:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 03:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  McConnell wields a ton of power to influence public perception, which in that case was VERY important. No question that the Obama admin had the ability to make a call, but don’t act like Mitch was powerless or not a significant player in that game. Bipartisan support was paramount, per that report.

I am not saying 'Mitch was powerless' --- please do tell where I say that....

No doubt there is a 'cheerleader' aspect to a response.

But, the power to effectuate the NatSec response was (and still is) *solely* the province of the Executive. A power that you grossly overlook when you try and assign 'equal' blame here.

I mean, you have had your panties in a wad for 3 years on how terrible the turtle was here; all without bothering to note that somehow Obama managed to absolutely underplay a coordinated NatSec sector response to this, *and* at the same fing time grossly overplayed the response (i.e. the apparent perjury in the General Flynn case, the gross incompetence in promoting a National Enquirer level paid political piece to a cornerstone of an investigative witch hunt, *and* a pattern of lying to the FISA court to continue that course.

Yep, but Mitch is equally at fault in your book..... lolz....

If you’re gonna start a response with “tell me where I said that,” then you probably shouldn’t proceed to do the exact same thing to the person youre responding to.

You’re centering your entire counter argument on me saying that McConnell was equally at fault...

Im not the one standing up and yelling 'what about' as you just did.

Nor am I the one feeling the absolute urgency to hightlight "MITCH DID IT TOO", again, as you just did.

And, more telling, when I noted previously that perhaps "not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope", again you had the urgency to reiterate to us again how important the Turtle was in his bad actions.

I guess you missed, at the very least, your apparent vigorous defense against the "but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope" argument. One might take that an indication of what I just said, that is, at least to many people who have the ability to read.

So now, after your 'where did I say it' I take it you now fully agree and are absolutely comfortable with "but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope" statement I made earlier, and all your comments since then are rhetorical flourishes apparently made for really no reason at all?

Glad we apparently agree on that scope. If so I dont, know why you continued after it like a dog with a chew rope.

Yes, I am the one who is going after it like a dog with a chew rope.

You just wrote how many words in this response, which basically amounts to you trying to avoid admitting how hilariously hypocritical you were.

Getting back to the original point:

Great, as noted above --- glad to know that your spirited defense contra to "but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope" was a bunch of arm flapping and that you really do agree with my original statement. Despite your comments to the opposite position of it.

I guess only stupid people look at an opposition to a words of a particular statement to indicate an opposition to that particular statement. Thank goodness for the 'nuance' that you bring to this.

your boy has the ethics of a reality tv producer
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...97/video/1

(02-07-2020 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This was interesting

Witness beaten to death before trial.

interesting that conservative NY finally caught up with librul Texas in respect of due process
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/nyreg...-over.html
https://citylimits.org/2019/02/18/opinio...more-fair/

Musing about Mitch Romney, I came to the following question:

Apparently Democrats favor following one’s conscience. Yet when people like Hobby Lobby, Chik -Fil-A, and the Little Sisters of the Poor, follow their conscience that is bad. Why?

(02-08-2020 07:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Musing about Mitch Romney, I came to the following question:

Apparently Democrats favor following one’s conscience. Yet when people like Hobby Lobby, Chik -Fil-A, and the Little Sisters of the Poor, follow their conscience that is bad. Why?

Do you actually want to have a conversation about this? Or are you just looking to ask a rhetorical question?

(02-08-2020 08:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 07:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Musing about Mitch Romney, I came to the following question:

Apparently Democrats favor following one’s conscience. Yet when people like Hobby Lobby, Chik -Fil-A, and the Little Sisters of the Poor, follow their conscience that is bad. Why?

Do you actually want to have a conversation about this? Or are you just looking to ask a rhetorical question?

Either way. You choose.

(02-08-2020 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 08:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 07:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Musing about Mitch Romney, I came to the following question:

Apparently Democrats favor following one’s conscience. Yet when people like Hobby Lobby, Chik -Fil-A, and the Little Sisters of the Poor, follow their conscience that is bad. Why?

Do you actually want to have a conversation about this? Or are you just looking to ask a rhetorical question?

Either way. You choose.

In my eyes, the difference is how the following of one’s conscience manifests itself and who it affects.

In the case of Hobby Lobby, the following of one’s conscience directly affected the employees of the store, and those choices were based on religious grounds. Hobby Lobby used religion to affect basic healthcare (birth control) of their employees, who were not necessarily working there because of their religious beliefs.

For Chick-fil-a, they were donating to some groups with rather questionable stances/activities that were based on religious beliefs.

No idea what the Little Sisters of the Poor references.

For Romney, his decision didn’t manifest itself in a way where it took away access to anything. It really didn’t affect anyone directly.