- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 63,241
- Reaction score
- 33,156
- Location
- Tennessee
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
"We've heard, from numerous administration
spokespeople, that those of us who are raising concerns are
somehow out of place, because, after all, it was a British
company that was engaged in these activities selling to the
Dubai company. For many of us, there is a significant
difference between a private company and a foreign government
entity." - Sen. Hillary Clinton
... until the Uranium One deal.
Look, I know for some reason you feel you have to position yourself as a dedicated defender of all things Hillary & Obama. I get that. But using apologist websites as your sources are not the way to learn.
And as for your #135, when you compare funding for the arts to funding for the military it says 2 things.
- assuming you believe what you wrote, it, being nonsensical, does help to explain why you don't understand what you read ... oh, and you're terrible with syllogisms,
- you hope to change the subject because your arguments for the current subject are at a dead end.
The cases you've mentioned are all VERY DIFFERENT. Only someone not very smart, or desperately trying to create a scandal where none exists, pretends that if CFIUS/Hillary opposes one deal they must oppose all other deals when the deals in question present DIFFERENT risks to national security.
If you want to discuss how or why the Uranium One deal threatens our national security, go for it. But bringing up the ports and a mine that was near a tactical aviation training ground for the U.S. military are red herrings, diversions, in place of a reasoned argument against the actual deal in question, which is unique, and therefore the only deal under consideration.
BBBUT the PORT!!! BBBUUUTT the gold mine!! - those are not even in the universe of actual coherent arguments.