we have your back hillary

[GURPS (Premo)]

Nightline's Terry Moran Mocks Rand Paul After Clinton Hearing


After Republican Senator Ran Paul told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton he would have removed her from that office were he president, ABC's Terry Moran fired off this tweet:

[screen cap at link]

Translation: How dare he question the next president of the United States!

This is classic mainstream media tactical deflection. In order to take the spotlight off Hillary not reading the cables (which is why Paul criticized her) from our Libyan consulate requesting more security, Moran wants to make Paul the issue.

You see, Paul's question and statement of fact doesn’t matter, because Paul's resume is more important.



UPDATE: Fox News contributor, Democrat Kirsten Powers, says it better than I could:

[screen cap at link]

[MadDogMarine]

Originally Posted by GURPS

Nightline's Terry Moran Mocks Rand Paul After Clinton Hearing


After Republican Senator Ran Paul told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton he would have removed her from that office were he president, ABC's Terry Moran fired off this tweet:

[screen cap at link]

Translation: How dare he question the next president of the United States!

This is classic mainstream media tactical deflection. In order to take the spotlight off Hillary not reading the cables (which is why Paul criticized her) from our Libyan consulate requesting more security, Moran wants to make Paul the issue.

You see, Paul's question and statement of fact doesn’t matter, because Paul's resume is more important.



UPDATE: Fox News contributor, Democrat Kirsten Powers, says it better than I could:

[screen cap at link]

" he would have removed her from that office"

They all need to be removed from office, so Rand Paul only had it partially right.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Powers response was fantastic. I love sarcasm when timed perfectly!

[tommyjo]

Originally Posted by GURPS

Nightline's Terry Moran Mocks Rand Paul After Clinton Hearing


This is classic mainstream media tactical deflection. In order to take the spotlight off Hillary not reading the cables (which is why Paul criticized her) from our Libyan consulate requesting more security, Moran wants to make Paul the issue.



[screen cap at link]

Interesting...your link criticizes uses the exact method the author whines about.

Instead of discussing the testimony....the author complains about another person's tweet.

And you think this is news? Or serves some purpose?

I wonder if you watched the testimony...after all of Mr. Paul's bluster about "I would have fired you"...what was Mr.Paul's question? It was about arms shipments to Turkey....not Benghazi. Did he even pose a question about Beghazi?

So while you make comments on this site about wanting facts and tactical deflections...you consistently ignore facts and do nothing but use obvious deflections away from facts thru the use of half truths and ineundo and horribly politicized websites.

Mr. Paul offered nothing of substance...Mr Moran's comments were as irrelevant as your post.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

Interesting...your link criticizes uses the exact method the author whines about.

Instead of discussing the testimony....the author complains about another person's tweet.

And you think this is news? Or serves some purpose?

I wonder if you watched the testimony...after all of Mr. Paul's bluster about "I would have fired you"...what was Mr.Paul's question? It was about arms shipments to Turkey....not Benghazi. Did he even pose a question about Beghazi?

So while you make comments on this site about wanting facts and tactical deflections...you consistently ignore facts and do nothing but use obvious deflections away from facts thru the use of half truths and ineundo and horribly politicized websites.

Mr. Paul offered nothing of substance...Mr Moran's comments were as irrelevant as your post.

He is just Gurping up the boards, that's all...

[daileyck1]

this is why Repubs can't be in charge

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

Pat Davis of ProgressNow New Mexico, a progressive nonprofit opposing the bill, called it "blatantly unconstitutional" on Thursday.

“The bill turns victims of rape and incest into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state,” he said. “According to Republican philosophy, victims who are ‘legitimately raped’ will now have to carry the fetus to term in order to prove their case.“

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by daileyck1

this is why Repubs can't be in charge

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

Pat Davis of ProgressNow New Mexico, a progressive nonprofit opposing the bill, called it "blatantly unconstitutional" on Thursday.

“The bill turns victims of rape and incest into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state,” he said. “According to Republican philosophy, victims who are ‘legitimately raped’ will now have to carry the fetus to term in order to prove their case.“

Are you drunk? What on earth does your post have to do with the topic of this thread??

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

Interesting...your link criticizes uses the exact method the author whines about.

Instead of discussing the testimony....the author complains about another person's tweet.

And you think this is news? Or serves some purpose?

I wonder if you watched the testimony...after all of Mr. Paul's bluster about "I would have fired you"...what was Mr.Paul's question? It was about arms shipments to Turkey....not Benghazi. Did he even pose a question about Beghazi?

So while you make comments on this site about wanting facts and tactical deflections...you consistently ignore facts and do nothing but use obvious deflections away from facts thru the use of half truths and ineundo and horribly politicized websites.

Mr. Paul offered nothing of substance...Mr Moran's comments were as irrelevant as your post.

1. The compound in Benghazi that was attacked was not an embassy, or consulate. It was a Temporary Mission Facility.

2. As a TMF, the compound fell down the list when funding was appropriated, as is standard.

3. Chris Stevens requested additional funding directly through the Department of State several times before the attacks.

4. Chris Stevens' last meetings were with Turkish officials regarding then undisclosed topics. An unnamed source says those meetings were regarding the removal of heavy weapons systems from Libya - specifically SA-7 missiles.

5. Syrian rebels received a large shipment of humanitarian supplies, and apparently, SA-7 missiles. These Were the same anti-air missles used in Libya, and may point to a relationship between the American-supported Libyan rebels and the Syrian rebels. Could the Libya weapons have found their way to Syria? This was at the crux of the "Turkey" question Paul asked Clinton.

6. In May 2012 while the president was campaigning, "White House press secretary Jay Carney warned that (arming the Syrian rebels) would lead to more “chaos and carnage” and was “not the right course.”

So what can we glean from all of this?

Senator Paul was trying to get down to the million-dollar answer today when he asked about any Libyan ships transferring heavy arms via Turkey. He was trying to get the outgoing Secretary of State to admit that she knew about the weapons and the CIA action that was ongoing.

What did he get instead? More lies. Clinton acted aghast at the mere thought of the question and attempted to play it off as grandstanding. Paul followed it up including any country, not just Turkey, but still nothing from Hillary. He opted to let it go, and in doing so showed much more restraint than I would have. I'd have had all of these links printed and posted to the media at the time of my questioning. I'd have called her on the carpet in front of the world.

To say that the secretary of state and even the president had no idea that the CIA was conducting a covert mission to route heavy arms out of Libya and into the hands of Syrian rebels via Turkey is an insult to those of us that are still capable of cognizant thought.

Rand Paul Was Right to Get Tough on Hillary Clinton

We all know what happended in Benghazi, but Rand was trying to get to a more deep seeded issue.