FU - FairAndUNbalanced.com - Latest comments

In response to: Benghazi Scandal Proven At Last

Ryan [Visitor] — Sat, 18 May 2013 05:15:29 +0000

Burr posts his take, citing four sources: CNN, The New York Times, TPM, and The Miami Herald.

T. Paine cites The Washington Times and calls it "the truth," dismissing Burr's assertions as "contradictory to the facts in evidence" without actually addressing any of them himself.

I just don't know what to believe!

In response to: Benghazi Scandal Proven At Last

Burr Deming [Member] — Sat, 18 May 2013 00:05:38 +0000

Thank you, T. Paine.

I am unconvinced by your use of the opinion page of the Washington Times as a definitive authority. While their opinion is, for the most part, predictable, this piece seems particularly out of date.

In fairness to the author, it is possible that yesterday's date may be misleading. Sometimes these things are written days in advance. Perhaps he put pen to paper before the memos, including the "smoking gun", were released.

In any case, I am less interested than you might imagine in romping through the remarkable mind of a Washington Times staffer.

I prefer to know the reasoning of a more creditable and thoughtful source, which is to say you, T. Paine. Perhaps you can tell us something other than that the President must be guilty of something horrible because he is .. you know ... Obama.

In response to: Benghazi Scandal Proven At Last

T. Paine [Visitor] — Fri, 17 May 2013 22:46:29 +0000

Burr, with all due respect and admiration of you as a friend, it is not I that is guilty of wishful thinking and ignorant of following the evidence to where it leads. Here is a very good summation of facts to date. (You will note that many of your assertions are contradictory to the facts in evidence, my friend.) This is a relatively long piece, but if anyone truly is interested in the truth, it is worth the read.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/16/benghazi-the-anatomy-of-a-scandal/?page=1

In response to: Benghazi Scandal Proven At Last

Burr Deming [Member] — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:20:34 +0000

Thank you, T. Paine.

Sometimes you just need to go where the evidence leads. In this case it contradicts your wishful thinking.

In response to: Benghazi Scandal Proven At Last

T. Paine [Visitor] — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:13:51 +0000

Oh my God! Only in this day and age of duplicity and dissembling from the most opaque, incompetent, and corrupt White House in my life time can the Benghazi scandal now be blamed on the Republicans. If this is the take one gets out of this, then one simply is not interested in the truth and merely wants to protect a partisan position. Hillary was right, “what difference does it make?” To hell with the truth about the death of four Americans, including two former SEAL’s that were ordered to stand down and not assist the people under attack. Obama will likely survive this and the other issues comprising scandal-palooza because the left will defend this president regardless of ANY and ALL high crimes and misdemeanors he commits, the press will carry their water, and the cowardly Republicans will do nothing to bring the truth to light. Maybe Obama’s spiritual mentor was right and God really has now damned America.

In response to: Benghazi Scandal Proven At Last

Jerry Critter [Visitor] — Fri, 17 May 2013 15:45:27 +0000

Republicans lying is not a scandal. It is normal operations.

In response to: Lou Dobbs Explains That President Obama is Lying

Ryan [Visitor] — Thu, 16 May 2013 14:41:37 +0000

Bachmann recently claimed that the IRS scandal is part of a conspiracy to draw attention away from the Benghazi issue. That's right. A conspiracy within a conspiracy. Obama can't fool her.

In response to: Time We Answered Bigotry:(I NEVER KNEW THIS ABOUT JAPAN)

Ryan [Visitor] — Tue, 14 May 2013 20:50:36 +0000

I meant that you should ignore the claims themselves, since there is no good reason to believe that they are true, given the absence of sources and the typically poor quality of such messages. I would be inclined, as you are, to respond to the person who sent it. Fortunately, the only person in my life who still cares about and believes in the chainmail that he receives does not forward anything to me.

In response to: Time We Answered Bigotry:(I NEVER KNEW THIS ABOUT JAPAN)

Burr Deming [Member] — Tue, 14 May 2013 17:57:25 +0000

I thought about Ryan's point, albeit in another way. One approach to bigotry, by email, chain mail or in any other form, is to starve it of attention. That has some appeal. As I see it, it is worthwhile to occasionally to refute the bigotry and rebuke the bigot.

The site Jerry has discovered is well done. My only hesitation to such a factual challenge is the danger of an implicit acknowledgement that basic rights are dependent on such facts. That is easily overcome, isn't it? We just need to be diligent in pointing out that basic rights are, in fact, inalienable.

I did notice that one reader found the source of the anti-Islam screed. It is an extremist site that is both anti-Islam and anti-Christian:

http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/13946.html

In response to: Time We Answered Bigotry:(I NEVER KNEW THIS ABOUT JAPAN)

Jerry Critter [Visitor] — Tue, 14 May 2013 15:16:12 +0000

Here is a response to each point.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2012/09/21/bni-response-to-the-viral-email-re-islam-and-japan/

In response to: Time We Answered Bigotry:(I NEVER KNEW THIS ABOUT JAPAN)

T. Paine [Visitor] — Tue, 14 May 2013 14:35:14 +0000

Burr, I find myself in complete agreement with you, my friend.

Our constitution protects ALL Americans to worship or not as they see fit. Too bad our current president seemingly wishes to infringe upon that constitutional and natural right for many Christians.

In response to: Time We Answered Bigotry:(I NEVER KNEW THIS ABOUT JAPAN)

Ryan [Visitor] — Tue, 14 May 2013 14:07:29 +0000

As with most (conservative) chainmail, it is best to ignore it entirely. The expectation that you believe it without any sources is reason enough.

Some of these claims are false. Some apply to non-Muslims as well, making them irrelevant. Some don't make sense. Some even seem to contradict each other.

Claims h and n stood out to me in particular as representative of this sort of chainmail. It is one thing to claim that Japan has some easily researchable law concerning Muslims, but it is another to make a sweeping claim about how the people feel about and react to them.

In response to: Delaware Goes To Marriage Equality

JMyste [Visitor] — Sat, 11 May 2013 16:50:42 +0000

"Yeah, what T. Paine said!"

Sincerely,

A Backward Bumpkin From the Hills

In response to: Delaware Goes To Marriage Equality

Trey [Visitor] — Fri, 10 May 2013 21:42:19 +0000

Very fortunate for the people of Delaware. Finally equality in the eyes of the law.

In response to: Benghazi

Burr Deming [Member] — Fri, 10 May 2013 20:10:40 +0000

Thank you, T. Paine.

You may have missed this:

Military personnel were frustrated at being ordered not to fly to Libya, staying in Egypt to protect facilities from what seemed like a growing threat. Shouldn't commanders have made different decisions?

Such issues are of vital interest to partisans. Most Americans, at least most who pay any attention, see only a bewildering set of retrospective second guessing of granular decisions made in the dead of night during a chaotic time of unreliable information. It scarcely qualifies as Monday morning quarterbacking. Criticisms have fallen into a pattern of you-turned-left-when-you-should-have-turned-right.

It is sad that most Americans are compelled to regard this as a lost-in-tall-weeds type of question. A command decision to keep personnel where they were to protect against mobs there may have been wrong. Or not. They wouldn't have gotten there in time, but nobody know that for sure at the time.

Apparently the State Department did have some concern with the language used. I'm not sure what foreign impact it would have.

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya does not contradict much that was being stated publicly. and We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks is pretty close to what was actively being said by Susan Rice.

The YouTube video was far from unknown by the time the riots began.

Witness intimidation seems insubstantial so far.

Point is, the sort of oversight that is appropriate has been pretty much ruled out by the hyperventilating that has characterized Republican hysteria. The hearings have been effectively turned out by those Americans who are not willing to accept as self-evident that the President or Secretary were conspiring to have diplomats killed, were indifferent to the danger, or wanted to cover up the danger of terrorism.

Republicans advanced such assumptions as a given before hearings even started.

I suspect that, if committee Republicans became models of responsibility from now on, it would be too late for those members of the public not already committed to hating the administration generally and the President personally to accept Republicans as credible investigators.

That is a sad thing, as I see it.