No matter how cynical I become toward politicians, it's never enough.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
We could post dueling opinion pieces all day, and yours is from an obviously right wing leaning outlet. But I'll take an early passage - 4th paragraph:This says otherwise. Where does it go wrong?The Democrats' 'reckless and irresponsible' terror report
First of all, that no republican signed off in this era is hardly surprising. 20 years ago it would be - not today when votes that break exactly along party lines are the norm. Second, anyone with the slightest interest in the report knows that the committee has been fighting and negotiating with the WH and CIA for a year or so about what can and what cannot be released, at least. So the committee did not 'sit on' the report for two years. That's just misleading to the point of a lie.The report is so one-sided that not a single Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee would sign off on the thing. No wonder that, after sitting on the results for more than two years, Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) decided to release it now.
Second, the author says several times the report is 'untrue' and 'highly biased' but doesn't provide details. What is biased about the findings? What part of the report, specifically, is untrue. I accept that there WILL BE honest and legitimate differences of opinion about whether it should have been released and what part of it blacked out, but that's just because we're thinking humans. That does not mean those who disagree are biased or that the report is.
The side of the U.S.Do you know whose side you are on? Do you know who you support? Or are you confused by all the claims coming from the different political and ideological combatants? Sometimes you have to make a decision based on logic and available evidence.
You avoided the point - questioning the government is the norm from conservatives on every issue except apparently the CIA on this subject.Everyone is being paid so that point doesn't make much sense unless your idea is simply to taint one side. The fact is that no one in the actual decision making process was interviewed during the five years of questioning. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
Again, not the point. If right wingers can't accept the line from the various people about Benghazi after many hearings, you can't then question my 'morality' when I do the same with the CIA on this issue, especially since on this issue the CIA has a documented history of lies and brazen attempts to hide information - hacking into the committee's computer to remove the Panetta report, which is the most comprehensive internal examination of the program, its successes and failures. If they have been honest, and the program's successes obvious, they should proudly hand over their internal review which supports all their assertions - why hide that from the investigators, then illegally attempt to remove that document? Something to hide, obviously....The GOP wants everyone to be interviewed regarding Benghazi but the Dems seemingly wanted no one interviewed with direct involvement in keeping America safe. That's the difference.
I don't speak Ebonics but I understand and can comprehend Ebonics.
Had no choice in the matter, back during the 70's if you were white and didn't understand Ebonics, you were labeled a racist. Something to do with cultural Marxism aka political correctness.
And that poll lumps in vast differences of opinion on this subject. A response of "often" is world's apart from a response of 'rarely.'
Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.
Here's a thought experiment. Why did the propagandists in WWII try to convince their own troops that the enemy would abuse and torture prisoners; and why did those same propagandists try to convince enemy troops that they would be well treated as prisoners?