Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ramirez answers that timeless question: "What difference does it make?" More

Ramirez answers that timeless question: "What difference does it make?"

Comments Filter:

  • Nah (Score:2)

    by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

    I don't like that cartoon. How they lied about and covered up what happened does not make a difference in whether those people died. The lies came after.

    The difference is not in that they are dead. The difference is in that if we do not punish her and Rice and Carney others for lying to the American public about it, then we essentially just encourage more public officials to tell more lies in the future.

    • Finding your distinction slightly artificial here. The events leading to the tragedy and the cover-up are part of a continuous pattern.
      Whether that pattern extends throughout our government, or is confined to the senior executive branch knobs is worth knowing.
      You're not going to effect any punishment on Hillary, except perhaps communicating to the world her unfitness for further public service.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

        Finding your distinction slightly artificial here.

        Then you are missing the point or the facts, or both.

        The events leading to the tragedy and the cover-up are part of a continuous pattern.

        Yes.

        Whether that pattern extends throughout our government, or is confined to the senior executive branch knobs is worth knowing.

        Yes.

        You're not going to effect any punishment on Hillary, except perhaps communicating to the world her unfitness for further public service.

        Which is a severe punishment, especially for her.

        But you didn't mention my point, which is that the cartoon makes it look like she was saying the events themselves, and what led to them, don't matter. She wasn't. She was saying that whether she and others in the White House lied about it doesn't matter.

        • "the cartoon makes it look like she was saying the events themselves, and what led to them, don't matter"

          It's reasonable to reach a different interpretation. The cartoon's caption reads: "The difference between life and death."
          Now, the four have met 'death'. Short of overt Divine intervention, that's an invariant.
          Thus, one could argue that 'life' really only means something in the future, for some other poor blokes, who might not be on board with Holy Progress when it's their turn to go under the reaper'

    • I don't like that cartoon

      Wrong.

      How they lied about and covered up what happened does not make a difference in whether those people died.

      Wrong.

      The lies came after.

      No.

      The difference is not in that they are dead.

      Stop lying, or I won't read your messages any more.

      ...

      ...

      Hey, this is a pretty fun game after all! I hope I got the rules right!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

        Hey, this is a pretty fun game after all! I hope I got the rules right!

        Not even remotely. First and foremost, you have to be honest, and you're not being honest at all.

        • Not even remotely. First and foremost, you have to be honest, and you're not being honest at all.

          That's because you have a peculiar sense of "honest" that not only is clearly distinct from the part of this country that uses a dictionary, and you refuse to share what that may be. We might as well substitute the word "dingleberry" for any derivation of "honest" in your comments, as those words have just as much in common as your definition of honest and that used by anyone who agrees that dictionaries are meaningful in facilitating conversation.

  • The Huffington Post says she did great. If your far-right media is cancelled out by this far-left media then we should be able to agree that the Secretary of State was present for the hearing.
    • Voting present. We may also agree that our Ruling Class Overlords excel at that, too.
      Because this really isn't a Left/Right issue. It's a question of whether our RCOs retain any accountability whatsoever. And the answer seems pretty much: "No". But it's worth making explicit.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

        Because this really isn't a Left/Right issue. It's a question of whether our RCOs retain any accountability whatsoever.

        Correct.

        And the answer seems pretty much: "No".

        Well, the left wants there to be no accountability when it's the left that screws up, and covers it up. That much is painfully clear. But that doesn't mean they will not be held accountable.

      • Because this really isn't a Left/Right issue.

        No, it is a left/right issue. The right sees it as an opportunity to make another attempt to impeach the president and the left sees it as an unfortunate accident that cost the lives of several Americans who were overseas at a vulnerable time.

        It's a question of whether our RCOs retain any accountability whatsoever

        Why are these 4 people more important than the thousands of soldiers who have died in Iraq & Afghanistan? Nobody holds anyone accountable for them.

        And the answer seems pretty much: "No". But it's worth making explicit.

        You only want accountability when your guy isn't on Pennsylvania Ave. If you pursued accountability evenly you w

        • The right sees it as an opportunity to make another attempt to impeach the president

          Oh, come on. You know quite well that there is nothing conceivable that #OccupyResoluteDesk could do that would trigger Senator Harry Reid to do his Constitutional duty and conduct an impeachment trial. Absolutely nothing. Cuba could take Florida, and that miserable piece of work wouldn't say a godforsaken thing.

          left sees it as an unfortunate accident

          In much the same vein as Steubenville and smearing of George Zimmerman.

          Wh

          • The right sees it as an opportunity to make another attempt to impeach the president

            Oh, come on. You know quite well that there is nothing conceivable that #OccupyResoluteDesk could do that would trigger Senator Harry Reid to do his Constitutional duty and conduct an impeachment trial.

            Impeachment is supposed to be a serious process. When you devote all your free time to trying to find any justification you can dream up to invoke impeachment - even in the complete absence of factual information - you are stomping all over the seriousness of the measure for nothing beyond personal gain.

            Look at it this way - how many times have right-wingers tried to drum up a call to impeach Obama? This is at least the third event I have seen you try to call up impeachment, and there were plenty of

            • Impeachment is supposed to be a serious process. When you devote all your free time to trying to find any justification you can dream up to invoke impeachment. . .

              So is budgeting. But let's not kid ourselves here: our government is not serious, and I do not devote all my time to figuring up ways to make our government behave seriously.

              I think the more challenging question really might be how many weeks since January 2009 have you not been calling for impeachment?

              All of them. I've never spent an entire week

              • But let's not kid ourselves here: our government is not serious, and I do not devote all my time to figuring up ways to make our government behave seriously.

                Well sure, you need to eat and defecate at some point of the day, and you occasionally write Burma Shave lines as well. However I very highly doubt there has been a single week since January 2009 where you were not trying to push an impeachment effort somewhere (even if not here). I will also state that there was likely not a single time between January 2001 and December 2008 where you were attempting that.

                I think the more challenging question really might be how many weeks since January 2009 have you not been calling for impeachment?

                All of them. I've never spent an entire week advocating impeachment of the President.

                That depends on how you define "an entire week". The definition of an entire week is not relevant

                • You are trying to claim that this latest impeachment dream of yours is somehow not just another partisan act on your behalf. I ask you to show that you are not partisan by showing us an example of a time where you were critical of a sitting president from your own party; it appears you cannot meet that challenge because you have never done any such thing. This only further supports what we already know - that you are on a partisan attack to remove the guy whose party you don't like.

                  Are you, in essence, acc

                  • Go ahead and accuse me of everything under the sun

                    Accuse? No, I demonstrate that you are a hard core partisan. You deeply hate the president because he is not from your party. You have proposed a variety of flimsy reasons for impeachment, which you seem to be for some reason surprised to find that actual thinking men do not agree with. In another month or so Benghazi will be forgotten and you will have picked up some other reason for trying to impeach him that is even less meaningful than this one. I'm guessing you'll soon say that he illegally fast-

                    • You don't demonstrate much beyond a willingness to pile accusation upon accusation, Torquemada [wikipedia.org].

                      Of course, if preventing work from being done in Washington is your goal

                      Indeed, you have mastered the art of turning a reasonable, Constitutional desire for a limited government, in proper arrangement with the people, as the cart with the horse, into it's inverse. Your falsehoods mirror the pattern of the despicable liars who would attempt to frame murder as 'reproductive' rights [theothermccain.com].
                      May God grant you a soul and then

                    • You don't demonstrate much beyond a willingness to pile accusation upon accusation, Torquemada.

                      No, I demonstrate repeatedly one thing - that you are a deeply rooted partisan hack. I have given you chances to prove me wrong but you have never so much as made an attempt to do so, which only supports my argument.

                      I don't need to pile on accusations, when I have proof to support my statement.

                      You might want to consider trying it something - facts can be your friend, too!

                      Of course, if preventing work from being done in Washington is your goal

                      Indeed, you have mastered the art of turning a reasonable, Constitutional desire for a limited government, in proper arrangement with the people, as the cart with the horse, into it's inverse.

                      I have not seen you present that argument in any of your attempts to impeach President Obama. If you want to reduce government, th

                    • I have given you chances to prove me wrong but you have never so much as made an attempt to do so, which only supports my argument.

                      And I have offered plenty of GOP criticism, and will continue to do so, and you will ignore it, because nothing supports your argument except your rhetorical circle-jerk of an argument.

                      in any of your attempts to impeach President Obama

                      How in the world could I possibly have attempted to impeach BHO [wikipedia.org]? I'm not in Congress, or I'd not likely have time to exchange anecdotes with your

                    • I have given you chances to prove me wrong but you have never so much as made an attempt to do so, which only supports my argument.

                      And I have offered plenty of GOP criticism

                      But you have not criticized a sitting GOP president, which is my point. You are far too partisan to be willing to criticize a president of your own party while he is in power. You are attacking Obama not because he is politically distant from you - as he obviously is not - but rather because he has a different letter after his name.

                      in any of your attempts to impeach President Obama

                      How in the world could I possibly have attempted to impeach BHO? I'm not in Congress

                      That is a ridiculous argument and you know that. Obviously you cannot impeach him yourself but every week you are calling for congress to do so.

                      So you are now so irritated to be demonstrated to be a partisan hack that you are bringing abortion into this discussion?

                      You still haven't shown anything partisan except your capacity to re-use the word 'partisan'.

                      You have shown yourself to b

                    • But you have not criticized a sitting GOP president, which is my point. You are far too partisan to be willing to criticize a president of your own party while he is in power.

                      You ascribe to yourself vast powers of prophecy, which are also incorrect. In general, what you know is the little cast of strawmen between your ears.

                    • But you have not criticized a sitting GOP president, which is my point. You are far too partisan to be willing to criticize a president of your own party while he is in power.

                      You ascribe to yourself vast powers of prophecy

                      Why would we expect you to suddenly do something in the future which you have never done before, especially when it is so obviously counter to your standard M.O.?

                      Hell, Obama and Biden have had more disagreements than you and the sum total of all presidents to have had an (R) after their names. The next GOP president could start a Catholic-only draft to burn the Vatican to the ground and you would call it a great idea.

  • None. Whether it's spontaneous or pre-planned, it doesn't matter. Every baby is a gift from god.

    • You're so right. Once we can trick people into living in the moment, to treating each card in the deck of life a discrete moment, instead of considering the deck & game as a whole, we can burn this culture down. We'll get a lot of political power from it. Let's do it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Close