Liberal Forum

RichClem » 06 Feb 2014 9:03 am » wrote:
What utter bulls**, as usual. I use the words as a matter of rhetorical accuracy.

Something you rarely are.

Anyone who thinks they're weasel words needs vocabulary lessons.

Florida County Eliminates Minority-Heavy Polling Places

On a party-line vote, a Florida county’s Republican majority Board of County Commissioners voted Tuesday to eliminate almost one-third of Manatee County’s voting sites. The board accepted a proposal by Supervisor of Elections Mike Bennett (R) by a 6-1 vote to trim the number of precincts, despite unanimous public testimony against the move — and complaints by the lone Democratic Commissioner that it would eliminate half of the polling places in his heavily minority District 2.

Bennett, in his first term as elections supervisor, proposed reducing the number of Manatee County precincts from 99 to 69. Citing decreased Election Day turnout, as more voters switch to in-person early voting and vote-by-mail options, he told the commissioners that the move would save money and allow the county to offer more early voting sites in the future.

In the public comment section of the meeting, all ten speeches strongly opposed the move. Representatives of the local NAACP and Southern Christian Leadership Council warned that the cuts would decrease voter turnout because voters would have to travel further to a polling place, especially among the elderly and people without cars, and noted that the cuts disproportionately affected minority-heavy precincts. Bennett dismissed these concerns, noting that because District 2 had received “preferential treatment in the past,” even with the changes, his district will have the smallest number of voters per precinct. “It was overbalanced before, it’s overbalanced now.” Bennett also repeatedly noted that he had discussed the move with civil rights groups and both the Republican and “Democrat” Parties.

Bennett assured the commission that if lines are longer in 2014 as a result of these changes, he would ask them to revisit the decision in 2015, before the 2016 elections. But it is unclear whether voter accessibility is a sincere priority for him. In 2011, while serving in the Florida Senate, he endorsed making it hard to vote: “I wouldn’t have any problem making it harder. I would want them to vote as badly as I want to vote. I want the people of the state of Florida to want to vote as bad as that person in Africa who’s willing to walk 200 miles…This should not be easy.” He made that comment as he supported a voter suppression bill that reduced the number of days for early voting in Florida and helped create long lines across the state.

Misty » 12 Feb 2014 1:25 pm » wrote:
That's right. We want to make it harder to vote, not easier.
Especially in those places where people tend to vote for Democrats.

GOP Report Acknowledges That The U.S. Military Couldn’t Have Changed Benghazi Outcome

In a new report released on Tuesday, the House Armed Services Committee concludes that there was no way for the U.S. military to have responded in time to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya to save the four Americans killed that night. In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene.

For months after the attack that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, conservative media was awash in reports that on the night of the assault the Obama administration at some point ordered the military not to take action that would have saved lives. This supposed “stand down order” led to a bevy of right-wing conspiracies about why the President and his administration had let the Americans die.

“Who told the SEALs to stand down?” Rep. Steve King asked in Nov. 2012, in just one of many interviews with Republicans referring to the response to Benghazi as “worse than Watergate.”

As Media Matters reports, Fox News cited reports of a stand-down order no fewer than 85 times during prime-time segments as of June 2013. As the new report — which the Republican majority of the committee authored –makes very clear in its findings, however, no such order ever existed. “There was no ‘stand down’ order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi,” the report says, noting that the military was not positioned to respond to the attack.

“Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack,” the report concludes.

This tracks with the repeated insistence from the White House and Pentagon over the months that everything possible had been done once the military assets in the region had mobilized. Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in the first Senate hearing on the military response, told panel members that it’s impossible to prepare for every possible contingency when planning, accusing the panel of believing the military was akin to a “911 service.”

While Senate Republicans chided Panetta at the time, it seems Republicans on the HASC now agree with the secretary’s assessment. “Majority members believe the regional and global force posture assumed by the military on September 11, 2012 limited the response,” the report continues. “Majority members recognize, of course, that it is impossible for the Department of Defense to have adequate forces prepared to respond immediately to every conceivable global contingency. Ensuring that preparations exist for some likely possibilities is not to be confused with the ability to anticipate all prospective circumstances, especially in highly volatile regions.”

The night of the attack, the United States had few military assets within the region, the report reads, requiring the transport of soldiers from U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) stationed in Germany to Libya, a trip that took several hours. Once there, the majority of the reinforcements were given the order to remain in Tripoli to prevent a possible attack on the U.S. Embassy itself, a distinct possibility in the eyes of the Pentagon. The Pentagon also confirmed to the HASC that there were no AC-130 gunships or armed drones within the region that night, another topic of speculation from right-wing media outlets.

The Democrats on the panel asked their Republican colleagues if they could finally move on from Bengahzi. “This report, produced by House Armed Services Committee Republicans, should finally bring an end to the politicization of the heinous attacks on brave Americans in Benghazi,” HASC Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith (D-CA) and Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA), the HASC Oversight and Investigations subcommittee’s ranking member, said in a statement. “It is time to move forward, take the real conclusions we have arrived at and establish how to best protect our citizens around the globe.

It is our hope that today’s report, which was authored by Republicans, finally brings this attempt to manufactured scandal to an end.”

Misty » 17 Feb 2014 1:48 pm » wrote:“a party that attacks women.....

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 1:53 pm » wrote: You mean like Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?
Blindly defended not only by the entire Democrat Party, but by most of the liberal grass roots?
That kind of attack?

Misty » 17 Feb 2014 2:03 pm » wrote: Still can't get that whole thing out of your head can you Puss?
Is that image in your spank bank?

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 2:09 pm » wrote:No, I honestly cannot get my head around the fact that not only was Clinton a rapist, but that the Democrat Machine, liberal grass roots and psychopaths like yourself didn't give a rat's *** about his victim.
All you cared about was protecting the money spigot and the liberal agenda.
That's literally beyond my comprehension.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 2:09 pm » wrote:
No, I honestly cannot get my head around the fact that not only was Clinton a rapist, but that the Democrat Machine, liberal grass roots and psychopaths like yourself didn't give a rat's *** about his victim.

All you cared about was protecting the money spigot and the liberal agenda.

That's literally beyond my comprehension.

Misty » 17 Feb 2014 2:17 pm » wrote: This coming from the partisan hack who supports every Republican pervert and criminal.
Seen any good horsey videos lately?

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 2:22 pm » wrote:
Oh yeah, someone's joke about a porno video is just like literally raping a woman!

And yes, we all know what a shameless lying hack you are.

And of course you're lying about defending every......bulls***.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 2:22 pm » wrote:Oh yeah, someone's joke about a porno video is just like literally raping a woman!

Misty » 17 Feb 2014 8:42 pm » wrote: It wasn't a joke Jackhole. The guy who was running for governor of New York, sent bestiality videos to the people on his e-mail list.
And you said he was qualified to be governor.

And of course there is the great John Fund, who bedded the daughter of his former lover.
You call him a man of high integrity.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 7:45 am » wrote:
Yet you for years have dishonestly defended a real life, actual rapist.

Brattle Street » 18 Feb 2014 9:39 am » wrote: arguing facts not in evidence, but the BIG letters make it more believable, right?

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 7:45 am » wrote: As a journalist his reputation is impeccable. You're too dishonest to admit that, so you try to deceitfully destroy him or puff up his flaws far, far, far beyond what's appropriate.

Misty » 18 Feb 2014 12:14 pm » wrote: He thinks that maybe if he screams it loud enough, it will come true.