Selective outrage is what the left does best. To be fair the right plays the game too, but the left has made it an art form.
Chuck Todd Rips Harry Reid: âYou Canât Have Selective Billionaire Outrageâ
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Harry Reid has taken duplicity to a whole new level, he says the Koch brothers are the route of all evil, using their money to influence politics in ways beneficial to themselves, but when Sheldon Adelson a billionaire casino owner tries to get all online gambling banned, he says he is a good man who wants whats best, no ulterior motives whatsoever. The only difference of course is that Reid has to worry about Adelson in his own state, and online gambling is bad for Nevada's/Harry Reid's pocket book.
If Reid was making a saint out of a billionaire who is putting up hospitals it would be slightly hypocritical, but to come out in defense of a guy who owns a casino and makes his money off of other peoples misery, at the same time you trash the Koch brothers as the root of all evil is just downright comical.
Why bring that up at all? When the left brings up the right it's almost always to demonize, deflect or obfuscate. Like rectum did yesterday with his ridiculous ASSertion about sequester doomsday predictions that blew up in his face.
It's an art form for both sides. They take turns being the most hypocritical, there really isn't much difference.
Bullshit. It's much more pronounced on the left. There are extremists on both sides BUT show us in recent times a republican president AND speaker of the house AND senate majority leader who have incessantly spewed diarrhea of the kind that Obama, Pelosi and Reid constantly do.
Lawmaker Ignores His Own Facts To Make Debunked Benghazi Claim
"WASHINGTON -- Politicians are notorious for pushing witnesses to say things in hearings that will reinforce a certain conclusion. Somewhat less common is the lawmaker who completely ignores the testimony he elicits.
"But the creation of the new House select committee to investigate the oft-investigated Benghazi attack offers a fine example in Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.).
"Last week, Mica, a member of Rep. Darrell Issa's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held a hearing during which he questioned retired Brig. General Robert Lovell, who was running the military intelligence operation involved in monitoring the Sept. 11, 2012, assault in the Libyan city on the Mediterranean coast.
"Mica noted that he and Issa had visited the U.S. military facilities in Germany, Italy and Spain before the Benghazi attack, and that they had been told the military would be able to respond in just such an emergency. Mica pressed Lovell repeatedly, demanding to know whether the general thought forces could have and should have been able to reach the beleaguered outpost.
"Lovell answered that they could have done so if the capabilities had been in place, and that there should have been a way for the military to respond. He emphasized that he was testifying because he wanted to make sure that in the future, such capabilities would be on hand. But he agreed adamantly with the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, whose report concluded that the military did all it could do on that tragic night. "That's a fact," Lovell said.
"But this Thursday, shortly before voting to create the new committee, Mica said exactly the opposite, casting what Lovell would have liked as if it were what actually existed.
"We know our military had the ability to save those Americans," Mica said Thursday, in apparent contradiction of Lovell's testimony. "We know that the State Department had the ability to keep those Americans safe, and no one acted."
More>>
that article has it all wrong...
"There are accounts of time, space and capability discussions of the question: Could we have gotten there in time to make a difference,â Lowell said, becoming the first senior military officer to offer a dissenting view on the plausibility of a U.S. military response to the fatal attack. âThe discussion is not in the could or could not in relation to time, space and capability â the point is we should have tried.â"
He added: âAs another saying goes: Always move to the sound of the guns.ââ
lovell later also said we should have tried to rescue them but efforts were stymied by the state department.
"There are accounts of time, space and capability discussions of the question: Could we have gotten there in time to make a difference,â Lowell said, becoming the first senior military officer to offer a dissenting view on the plausibility of a U.S. military response to the fatal attack. âThe discussion is not in the could or could not in relation to time, space and capability â the point is we should have tried.â"
He added: âAs another saying goes: Always move to the sound of the guns.ââ
lovell later also said we should have tried to rescue them but efforts were stymied by the state department.
Trader666 for the win.