If you mis-characterize so badly as this facebook posting does. So badly that your characterization of it bears absolutely no resemblance to reality - then yes, you don't understand it.
That you so often fail to understand something might give an actual reflective person pause and cause to learn before judging.
In the case that you do actually want to learn about SYG laws rather than the view from the bubble, try reading this:
Speaking of other things M doesn't understand or care about, the other shoe drops on Benghazi. So just what was the CIA up to there, and why was the Administration so determined to push the lame video story?
Uh, juris? That's been exactly my point all along. In fact, if you click on the "Benghazi" tag you can see that for yourself. You can also see what your reaction was to my assertions.
July 8: You don't hear much about Benghazi these days as all of the so-called "scandals" have fizzled (except inside the bubble, of course, where they are alive and well). ... Apparently the book lays quite a bit of the blame over security failures at the feet of the CIA. This is likely why we have not heard much about went wrong at the compound and who was responsible for both the attack and the intelligence. The CIA is very secretive to begin with and are not very keen to mea culpa.
It might be years before we find out what exactly was going on at Benghazi
Actually it would be more like decades if the investigation was up to people like you. Nothing would want to be discovered until all involved have died of old age.
June 21: You present a graphic illustration of the tu quoque fallacy.
June 8: Another tu quoque (so shut up!) graphic.
May 25: You suggest Republicans should just sit down and shut up about Benghazi and IRS wrongdoing if they know what's good for them electorally.
May 24: You declare all three scandals fizzles, and "Benghazi, of course, is still going strong inside the bubble even with people outside of the bubble not really caring about it all. Clearly, this is all the Right has to stop a Hillary Clinton presidency so they are getting an early jump."
Riiight.
May 14: The good news for the president? I'd say this is pretty much the end of the non-scandal of Benghazi.
Nothing else on Benghazi. Big whoop.
May 13: Yet another tu quoque graphic.
May 8: By far the most substantive post. First two points correcting points implied to be widely believed by Republican lawmakers 8 months after the attacks, while providing no evidence for such. Apparent strawmen. Point 3 says it was an unstable part of the world. No shit, Poindexter. That and the fact of no contingency plans or realistic security on an obvious date such as September 11 is exactly what people are pissed about. Then you more-or-less say that critics should sit down and shut up because 9/11 happened. Your 4th point (that Republicans are upset about the Obama adminstration's efforts to blame an anti-Muslim video (that no one's ever seen, except for a truly craptacular trailer) proves rampant bigotry among Republicans makes no sense. Republicans and others are upset about the Administration lying about it.
March 19: And yet another tu quoque graphic, along with another announcement that this is the last we'll hear of it. "Nothing to see here, move along." Jeez, but that song and dance of yours is getting old and tired.
January 23: Don't fuck with Hilz
Whatever. Do you pant, scream, and pass out at Justin Bieber concerts, too? Boils down to, "How dare you investigate a gross failure that happened under my watch! What difference does it make anyway? They'll still be dead!" Childish emotionalism trumps all else in your world.
November 29: ...I guess that's it but, again, I have to wonder...where was the outrage after 9-11? Then we had 3000 civilians killed on our home soil in the worst attack in US History.
Why? Were you in a fucking coma? Do you suffer from amnesia? You completely forgot the massive investigations annd reciminations? What fucking planet are you from, anyway? ... Anyway, Bergen raises an interesting question, which I put to all of you..
Does this case make sense? First, you would have to accept that Obama, Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all knowingly deceived the American public about what had happened at the Benghazi consulate.
Yes. That's been conclusively proven. They knowingly lied. The question is (and has been for over 10 months now), "Why?"
November 28: (paraphrase) Sit down and shut up! Why do you want to know anything at all about an obvious security fuck-up on an all too obvious anniversary in an unstable country with a large Islamist element? Why do you care about not just Administration lies, but transparently stupid lies? Why you're just American Taliban yourselves, so sit down and shut up! They had to lie so we can catch the people who did it.
And that's why they're still lying, I guess. The Prez is working hard on finding the real killers. Word is, they're golfers, so that's where the hunt's being concentrated.
I can't do any more. It's endless rounds of Markadelphia saying, "It's all over here, folks. Nothing to see. Move along, move along." Oh, and endless attempts to say that because 9/11 happened, Republicans aren't allowed to say anything and need to sit down and shut up. And Republicans are all bigots and stupid poopyheads. And we can't investigate because it might warn the perpetrators, every last one of which are apparently still at large, and quite openly at that.
You completely forgot the massive investigations annd reciminations?
Recriminations against Bush? Really? Anyone who criticized him was labeled a traitor.
I can't imagine M doing anything but slinking away in shame
I can't imagine why Larry slunk away from the November 13th post.
And yet no mention of any of the discussions in comments, specifically,
Do you think it's possible, juris, that the administration did some of the things you mention on purpose? Think about it for a minute. Suppose they knew that it wasn't the video but a coordinated attack. What purpose does it serve to announce it? What purpose does it serve not to announce it?
I agree that there are things they are hiding. Does that mean they are bad things or that they are hiding to cover up incompetence? Or another reason
As I have said all along, perhaps the CIA has a reason to hide all the facts about Benghazi.And yet you guys, who supposedly hate Julian Assange type actions, want to know everything.
You fuckwit. I simply ran out of energy and patience. It was the same shit over and over and over again. And you're still spewing it.
Yeah, the administration did some things on purpose. It told really transparently stupid lies on purpose. It's covering up something. Maybe incompetence. Maybe malfeasance. But it's not for us to know, I guess. Who are we, mere citizens, to dare think we have any right at all to know why it happened, or who's responsible? Iran-Contra should've been kept under wraps, don'cha know?
The administrative branch seems to be most deeply concerned about leaks to the media (and thus to we, the people) and to Congress. If that doesn't raise any red flags for you, then nothing will. I hope you at least bought a pair of kneepads to wear as you're furiously fluffing Obama.
The CIA is most certainly hiding something....on that we agree. You are hoping that it is incompetence but it likely isn't, based on what juris intimated and what I have been saying all along.
Getting back to stand your ground, why could the photo above NOT happen? Since I am so stupid, one of you enlightened individualists could perhaps explain it to me:)
And the CIA is part of the Obama Administration which has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal from the American people not just what was going on there, but why four Americans died.
And your whole response to that is Getting back to stand your ground...?
And what if, in revealing that information, more Americans die?
First, you would never have accepted from some Republican during the Bush Admin: just trust us. Second, even if you had, it would just mean you are too fucking timid to deal with the real world.
The hell you aren't you fucking shit-weasel -- nothing to see here, move along. Funny thing though how the truth does eventually win out - just like it did with Bush; it will with Obama and man I have to imagine that the taste in your mouth that day will be bitter beyond belief.
Should the US government keep some things secret and, if so, what things?
Your only fucking logic for the decision is if my guy is President. That's it, and it is goddam disgusting. Any normal human should be ashamed, even just a little - but not you. Not one bit.
Getting back to stand your ground, why could the photo above NOT happen? Since I am so stupid, one of you enlightened individualists could perhaps explain it to me:)
Uhhh, stand your ground does not change the basic laws of self defense and use of force.
Do you need an enlightening on that subject as well?
And Mark demonstrates that among many other things he is also ignorant of the law.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm no sure whether a "Strawman Alert!" or "Ignoranus Alert!" is in order. Or maybe both?
ReplyDeleteSo, no takeaways from this one?
ReplyDeleteTakeaway? Such as?
ReplyDeleteI was thinking maybe some reflection on how absurd this law is...
ReplyDeleteAhhh. Yes, I posted the appropriate takeaway.
ReplyDeleteYou don't understand the law.
Of course I don't understand...that's what the problem (always) is:)
ReplyDeleteIf you mis-characterize so badly as this facebook posting does. So badly that your characterization of it bears absolutely no resemblance to reality - then yes, you don't understand it.
ReplyDeleteThat you so often fail to understand something might give an actual reflective person pause and cause to learn before judging.
In the case that you do actually want to learn about SYG laws rather than the view from the bubble, try reading this:
speech on campus Universities Expose Students’ Personal and Financial Data To Risk
Stand Your Ground: The “New” Self-Defense Doctrine That’s 136 Years Young
Speaking of other things M doesn't understand or care about, the other shoe drops on Benghazi. So just what was the CIA up to there, and why was the Administration so determined to push the lame video story?
ReplyDeleteUh, juris? That's been exactly my point all along. In fact, if you click on the "Benghazi" tag you can see that for yourself. You can also see what your reaction was to my assertions.
ReplyDeleteYou can also see what your reaction was to my assertions.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, you're reaction was "nothing to see, move along" - as opposed to WTF is my govt doing in the name of the American people.
July 8: You don't hear much about Benghazi these days as all of the so-called "scandals" have fizzled (except inside the bubble, of course, where they are alive and well).
ReplyDelete...
Apparently the book lays quite a bit of the blame over security failures at the feet of the CIA. This is likely why we have not heard much about went wrong at the compound and who was responsible for both the attack and the intelligence. The CIA is very secretive to begin with and are not very keen to mea culpa.
It might be years before we find out what exactly was going on at Benghazi
Actually it would be more like decades if the investigation was up to people like you. Nothing would want to be discovered until all involved have died of old age.
June 21: You present a graphic illustration of the tu quoque fallacy.
June 8: Another tu quoque (so shut up!) graphic.
May 25: You suggest Republicans should just sit down and shut up about Benghazi and IRS wrongdoing if they know what's good for them electorally.
May 24: You declare all three scandals fizzles, and "Benghazi, of course, is still going strong inside the bubble even with people outside of the bubble not really caring about it all. Clearly, this is all the Right has to stop a Hillary Clinton presidency so they are getting an early jump."
Riiight.
May 14: The good news for the president? I'd say this is pretty much the end of the non-scandal of Benghazi.
Nothing else on Benghazi. Big whoop.
May 13: Yet another tu quoque graphic.
May 8: By far the most substantive post. First two points correcting points implied to be widely believed by Republican lawmakers 8 months after the attacks, while providing no evidence for such. Apparent strawmen. Point 3 says it was an unstable part of the world. No shit, Poindexter. That and the fact of no contingency plans or realistic security on an obvious date such as September 11 is exactly what people are pissed about. Then you more-or-less say that critics should sit down and shut up because 9/11 happened. Your 4th point (that Republicans are upset about the Obama adminstration's efforts to blame an anti-Muslim video (that no one's ever seen, except for a truly craptacular trailer) proves rampant bigotry among Republicans makes no sense. Republicans and others are upset about the Administration lying about it.
ReplyDeleteMarch 19: And yet another tu quoque graphic, along with another announcement that this is the last we'll hear of it. "Nothing to see here, move along." Jeez, but that song and dance of yours is getting old and tired.
January 23: Don't fuck with Hilz
Whatever. Do you pant, scream, and pass out at Justin Bieber concerts, too? Boils down to, "How dare you investigate a gross failure that happened under my watch! What difference does it make anyway? They'll still be dead!" Childish emotionalism trumps all else in your world.
November 29: ...I guess that's it but, again, I have to wonder...where was the outrage after 9-11? Then we had 3000 civilians killed on our home soil in the worst attack in US History.
Why? Were you in a fucking coma? Do you suffer from amnesia? You completely forgot the massive investigations annd reciminations? What fucking planet are you from, anyway?
...
Anyway, Bergen raises an interesting question, which I put to all of you..
Does this case make sense? First, you would have to accept that Obama, Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all knowingly deceived the American public about what had happened at the Benghazi consulate.
Yes. That's been conclusively proven. They knowingly lied. The question is (and has been for over 10 months now), "Why?"
November 28: (paraphrase) Sit down and shut up! Why do you want to know anything at all about an obvious security fuck-up on an all too obvious anniversary in an unstable country with a large Islamist element? Why do you care about not just Administration lies, but transparently stupid lies? Why you're just American Taliban yourselves, so sit down and shut up! They had to lie so we can catch the people who did it.
And that's why they're still lying, I guess. The Prez is working hard on finding the real killers. Word is, they're golfers, so that's where the hunt's being concentrated.
I can't do any more. It's endless rounds of Markadelphia saying, "It's all over here, folks. Nothing to see. Move along, move along." Oh, and endless attempts to say that because 9/11 happened, Republicans aren't allowed to say anything and need to sit down and shut up. And Republicans are all bigots and stupid poopyheads. And we can't investigate because it might warn the perpetrators, every last one of which are apparently still at large, and quite openly at that.
Damn Larry, just damn. I can't imagine M doing anything but slinking away in shame.
ReplyDeleteLOL, oh what am I saying, M has no shame.
You completely forgot the massive investigations annd reciminations?
ReplyDeleteRecriminations against Bush? Really? Anyone who criticized him was labeled a traitor.
I can't imagine M doing anything but slinking away in shame
I can't imagine why Larry slunk away from the November 13th post.
And yet no mention of any of the discussions in comments, specifically,
Do you think it's possible, juris, that the administration did some of the things you mention on purpose? Think about it for a minute. Suppose they knew that it wasn't the video but a coordinated attack. What purpose does it serve to announce it? What purpose does it serve not to announce it?
I agree that there are things they are hiding. Does that mean they are bad things or that they are hiding to cover up incompetence? Or another reason
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10123622&postID=8455223372201949948
As I have said all along, perhaps the CIA has a reason to hide all the facts about Benghazi.And yet you guys, who supposedly hate Julian Assange type actions, want to know everything.
Hmm...looks like he also skipped Nov 17th as well...
ReplyDeleteYou fuckwit. I simply ran out of energy and patience. It was the same shit over and over and over again. And you're still spewing it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the administration did some things on purpose. It told really transparently stupid lies on purpose. It's covering up something. Maybe incompetence. Maybe malfeasance. But it's not for us to know, I guess. Who are we, mere citizens, to dare think we have any right at all to know why it happened, or who's responsible? Iran-Contra should've been kept under wraps, don'cha know?
The administrative branch seems to be most deeply concerned about leaks to the media (and thus to we, the people) and to Congress. If that doesn't raise any red flags for you, then nothing will. I hope you at least bought a pair of kneepads to wear as you're furiously fluffing Obama.
The CIA is most certainly hiding something....on that we agree. You are hoping that it is incompetence but it likely isn't, based on what juris intimated and what I have been saying all along.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to stand your ground, why could the photo above NOT happen? Since I am so stupid, one of you enlightened individualists could perhaps explain it to me:)
The CIA is most certainly hiding something....
ReplyDeleteAnd the CIA is part of the Obama Administration which has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal from the American people not just what was going on there, but why four Americans died.
And your whole response to that is Getting back to stand your ground...?
Pathetic.
Childish.
Dishonest.
but why four Americans died.
ReplyDeleteAnd what if, in revealing that information, more Americans die?
And what if, in revealing that information, more Americans die?
ReplyDeleteFirst, you would never have accepted from some Republican during the Bush Admin: just trust us. Second, even if you had, it would just mean you are too fucking timid to deal with the real world.
Dishonest and/or childish.
I'm not saying that so perhaps you need to reflect a little and try again. Should the US government keep some things secret and, if so, what things?
ReplyDeleteDo you think Congress should have investigated Iran-Contra? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that
ReplyDeleteThe hell you aren't you fucking shit-weasel -- nothing to see here, move along. Funny thing though how the truth does eventually win out - just like it did with Bush; it will with Obama and man I have to imagine that the taste in your mouth that day will be bitter beyond belief.
Should the US government keep some things secret and, if so, what things?
Your only fucking logic for the decision is if my guy is President. That's it, and it is goddam disgusting. Any normal human should be ashamed, even just a little - but not you. Not one bit.
Yes, Larry, I do because that was a completely different situation. But nice try on the false equivalency (again)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
Why is a false equivalency, Markadelphia? Grand pronunciations carry little weight.
ReplyDeleteDid you read the description? It's self-evident.
ReplyDeleteYes, Larry, I do because that was a completely different situation. But nice try on the false equivalency (again)
ReplyDeleteAnd just how do you know that? You don't know what the CIA was doing there - so you have no way of knowing that is was 'different'.
Getting back to stand your ground, why could the photo above NOT happen? Since I am so stupid, one of you enlightened individualists could perhaps explain it to me:)
ReplyDeleteUhhh, stand your ground does not change the basic laws of self defense and use of force.
Do you need an enlightening on that subject as well?