• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Official Paracast Political Thread! — Part Two

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gene Steinberg said:
Benghazi is a fake scandal. There were worse attacks against diplomatic installations in the previous administration and there were no faux hearings. Nobody explains that.
Click to expand...

I worked in such installations just about identical to Benghazi -- in Khartoum, Kabul and multiple sites in Iraq. I'll look into this and get back to you on it. You may be right, but I have a feeling there may be circumstances you're leaving out in this equivocation.
 
blowfish said:
It looks like Trump going all the way to the White House :cool:and the Benghazi Affair will haunt the Clinton's for ever:(.
Click to expand...

Honestly, in just a very few days, the Benghazi affair will be the very least of the Clinton's problems. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever witnessed in my life. The Democrats should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for taking out their political back stabbing frustrations on FBI Director Comey. What buffoons! There is absolutely not one critical smidgen of evidence to support politically motivated coercion between the FBI and anyone else for any reason. Apart from typical liberal paranoia. Hillary and the Clinton Foundation is right now this very second under extremely scrutinous observation and investigations for the very real possibility of criminal behavior, and yet CNN is out and outright LYING stating that she is not, calling Trump a liar for stating she is. lol! Does CNN believe that the FBI reopened the case on the Clintons due to it being suggested to them by an embittered tooth fairy? Of course there is in fact probable cause for further investigations of the Clintons. The FBI doesn't investigate people at a political whim! What a MOCKERY Hillary has made of the very system that she hopes to be residing president over. It's disgraceful!

Does anyone have any clue just how far a person has to go with respect to legitimately meriting the FBI's attention? And please do not give me that liberal hog washed politician's spin that "the keyword here is legitimate". No one with even a near brain dead level of awareness would think Hillary is worthy of the office of POTUS. Can anyone here, with any amount of decency or integrity within themselves, honestly state that they would like and want such a person to be their President? If you do, it's clear and certain evidence of your own intellectual numbness, and moral apathy. Is that what the White House has basically turned into? A big white hideout where top level criminals can hang tough and pass self serving laws that seemingly never have their citizen's true best interest in mind? The Clintons should really do the honorable thing and just step down, but as is typical of these conniving and desperate professional politicians, on BOTH sides of the big white club Above The Law elitist's fence, they will chose to waste the taxpayer's time and money in an effort to facade and feign their innocence and then hopefully sail away into the sunset (on the Lolita Express no doubt) like the crooks both Bill and Hillary actually are. The Clintons should just change their last fricken name to Gambino.

Don't be sad blowfish, rejoice that both the truth and justice are being brought to light my friend. I don't know about you, but I for one would sincerely like America to be great again!
 
Gene Steinberg said:
And about those prior attacks on diplomatic installations in the George W. Bush administration:

Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?

I think the facts, as analyzed by Politifact, are self evident. The number of attacks is higher, and there were 87 deaths.

Why are the Republicans afraid to bring this up?
Click to expand...

OK, Gene, I read this article and it makes my point: You simply do not know what you're talking about. I spent six years in global venues providing threat and vulnerability assessments for US personnel abroad. A major part of my job was better preparing these people for their safety at the workplace and the residence, especially if separate from the installation. But also, as the article cites, in the most vulnerable aspect of their day: the route to and from work. NO ONE can be 100% safe in these areas. The article you cite ALSO STATES THAT BENGHAZI WAS DIFFERENT for a variety of reasons and from insiders whom I know personally who are STILL ON THE JOB, Benghazi was indeed a cluster F___ on the part of those calling the shots at the top as regards response.

OF COURSE there were attacks during prior presidencies! There are ALWAYS attacks on embassies etc in these times. The POINT of Benghazi being different is how it was mishandled -- and you know it. Even if you don't, people who know more than you about such situations and this one do know it.

So go ahead, you guys. This is where you tear me down and call me names and invoke whatever you're gonna invoke to tell me and others that I don't know what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
They had multiple investigations of Benghazi. The original probe suggested a number of changes to shore up security, which were by and large enacted.

The main difference in this case was that an ambassador died, which had not occurred since the 1980s, under the Reagan administration. Otherwise, deaths are deaths.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
They had multiple investigations of Benghazi. The original probe suggested a number of changes to shore up security, which were by and large enacted.

The main difference in this case was that an ambassador died, which had not occurred since the 1980s, under the Reagan administration. Otherwise, deaths are deaths.
Click to expand...

"What difference does it make" right?

You are now just being stubborn. This situation was different for more reasons than who died.
 
You are not demonstrating a lot of savvy when you quote that obvious out-of-context statement from Clinton.

The right-wing media, headed by Fox "faux" News, has continued to omit the rest of her statement in playbacks, and has thus falsified what she meant.

Here is the full statement with the full context:

In Context: Hillary Clinton's 'What difference does it make'

Again it demonstrates yet another example of lying about Clinton to make a point.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
You are not demonstrating a lot of savvy when you quote that obvious out-of-context statement from Clinton.

The right-wing media, headed by Fox "faux" News, has continued to omit the rest of her statement in playbacks, and has thus falsified what she meant.

Here is the full statement with the full context:

In Context: Hillary Clinton's 'What difference does it make'

Again it demonstrates yet another example of lying about Clinton to make a point.
Click to expand...


Gene,

Do not presume to school me on the Benghazi situation. You are out of your element. I have heard and seen her full commentary multiple times. I have studied this situation more than you and from more perspectives. But your position is the popular view here so enjoy this topic between yourselves. :)
 
You ask us to depend on unnamed sources for your version of what happened.

Fact is there are always problems with diplomatic installations, particularly in unstable countries. I do not disagree things can be done better, but you have to evaluate all of the previous attacks to see where the problems lie and if they were just repeated. It wouldn't hurt if they had more money for security.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
You ask us to depend on unnamed sources for your version of what happened.

Fact is there are always problems with diplomatic installations, particularly in unstable countries. I do not disagree things can be done better, but you have to evaluate all of the previous attacks to see where the problems lie and if they were just repeated. It wouldn't hurt if they had more money for security.
Click to expand...

Gene,
Do you personally believe that the FBI's investigation is a product of conservative bias, and if so, what substance do you base that belief on?
 
Gene Steinberg said:
You are not demonstrating a lot of savvy when you quote that obvious out-of-context statement from Clinton.

The right-wing media, headed by Fox "faux" News, has continued to omit the rest of her statement in playbacks, and has thus falsified what she meant.

Here is the full statement with the full context:

In Context: Hillary Clinton's 'What difference does it make'

Again it demonstrates yet another example of lying about Clinton to make a point.
Click to expand...

Gee, imagine that. That's precisely what every single televised Hillary commercial I have witnessed so far has done in spades with MR. Trump's words. Karma's a bitch, and then one tries to get elected. lol! See Gene, no matter how this election pans out with respect to either of our political preferences, that's what I cannot stand about typical professional bipartisan politics. It's all one big dog an pony show, however in my personal estimate of the present political situation, the FBI investigation of Hillary plays no part in that "show" whatsoever.
 
Jeff Davis said:
Gee, imagine that. That's precisely what every single televised Hillary commercial I have witnessed so far has done in spades with MR. Trump's words. Karma's a bitch, and then one tries to get elected. lol! See Gene, no matter how this election pans out with respect to either of our political preferences, that's what I cannot stand about typical professional bipartisan politics. It's all one big dog an pony show, however in my personal estimate of the present political situation, the FBI investigation of Hillary plays no part in that "show" whatsoever.
Click to expand...
You miss the point. If she is so bad, why must the right-wing media lie constantly about her? Surely her real crimes would be enough to sink her.

In contrast, you cannot even begin to cover the shady things Trump has done. No embellishment needed.
 
Agree with Walter (CT) expert and Jeff on the Bengahzi Affair which was the tipping point and did Clinton family lose a love one trying to save US and international Civilians ? or wounded in any terror attacks ? The private emails just another scandal who ever wins the US will be changed for ever.
 
The private emails are nonsense. Her predecessors used private accounts rather than State Department accounts. Colin Powell used AOL, which in the early 2000s was no paragon of security. It isn't now. He turned over none of those emails to the State Department. She made the effort, even if controversial. She is the only person judged on her email practices. No other cabinet secretary has ever been reviewed for theirs. Fair? No, it's all part of a partisan play to take her down. Email. How silly can you get?
 
vesvehighfolk said:
gentlemen... let me remind everyone that name calling and personal insults add nothing to the debate! please refrain from slang that may considered hate speech by some! if my wife saw some of this she freak please tone it down and keep it civil thank you!
Click to expand...

Leave them alone in my opinion. I am so sick of the PC crap. Muadib will be totally annihilated by Jeff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top