tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post8757409274549467337..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Administration officials: early evidence in Boston bombings points to YouTube videosmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-110119514503768252013-04-18T02:57:31.381-04:002013-04-18T02:57:31.381-04:00Torch, this Hoo character is insane. I've talk...Torch, this Hoo character is insane. I've talked to him before. he doesn't even believe that universities discriminate against Asians. <br /><br />Just look at what he says in the space of one thread: "Violating parole conditions is not a pretext, it's a perfectly good reason that lands you in jail. And if it doesn't then law enforcement is not doing its job."<br /><br />Oh, yes sir! A real law and order fetishist we've got here. Law enforcement had better do its job. Then: <br /><br />"You have a simplistic picture of how contempt of Congress works. It is, in fact, a complicated story. No one has been sent to jail over that since 1934. Read this article if you want to get some idea why."<br /><br />Suddenly not so keen on law enforcement doing its job. Contempt of Congress isn't really such a big deal, is it? I mean, if I told a congressional committee to go shove it, I'd get off scot free too, right? <br /><br />So now we understand Hoo's point of view. A man touching a computer in violation of the terms of his parole is a big deal, and law enforcement had better do its job. Another man in contempt of Congress? No bigee. <br /><br />Do you think it might have to do with the fact that he likes Eric Holder and the administration he works for? 'Blind follower' comes to mind. <br /><br />Here's a clue, Hoo. Eric Holder got off because the Department of Justice refused to prosecute him for a crime that no one disputes that he committed. Eric Holder is the big shit at the Department of Justice. Eric Holder absolved Eric Holder of all wrongdoing. <br /><br />http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/justice-department-wont-prosecute-holder-for-contempt/<br /><br />That's justice in America. <br /><br />JoeyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-6456105515243689482013-04-17T19:03:04.180-04:002013-04-17T19:03:04.180-04:00Torch: "Hearsay is when a person testifies in...Torch: "Hearsay is when a person testifies in court that he heard someone say that he witnessed something. In that case, the person who actually witnessed it should testify. Hearsay is not when a person testifies that the defendant made a confession. This isn't even a court we are speaking of, so I don't understand the relevance. "<br /><br />Open a dictionary, Torch, and read the definition of <i>hearsay</i>, Here is what mine says: <br /><br />"Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor : according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm."<br /><br />I was using the word in that very sense. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-71285892306248212452013-04-17T18:53:01.849-04:002013-04-17T18:53:01.849-04:00[No one has been sent to jail over that since 1934...[No one has been sent to jail over that since 1934. ]<br /><br />We're overdue.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-39912289489374265542013-04-17T18:37:40.707-04:002013-04-17T18:37:40.707-04:00Torch,
You have a simplistic picture of how cont...Torch, <br /><br />You have a simplistic picture of how contempt of Congress works. It is, in fact, a complicated story. No one has been sent to jail over that since 1934. Read <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577478370452447012.html" rel="nofollow">this article</a> if you want to get some idea why. Not sure whether it will do you any good, but it doesn't hurt to try. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27413837281305990042013-04-17T18:25:31.375-04:002013-04-17T18:25:31.375-04:00@Hoo:
[Violating parole conditions is not a prete...@Hoo:<br /><br />[Violating parole conditions is not a pretext, it's a perfectly good reason that lands you in jail. And if it doesn't then law enforcement is not doing its job.]<br /><br />How many other people who have been convicted of computer crimes have been sent to jail for posting a YouTube video? Show me links to their perp walk. <br /><br />If he wanted to avoid jail, he maybe should have set off bombs in the 1970's, drowned a girl in the backseat of his car, or lied under oath. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-84102761377860810942013-04-17T17:47:39.219-04:002013-04-17T17:47:39.219-04:00Not believing the denials of this administration m...Not believing the denials of this administration makes one a wacko conspiracy theorist. If Obama said there's nothing to see here, then there's nothing to see. That is what Hoo means. <br /><br />The TorchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-50993255218379906062013-04-17T17:46:09.784-04:002013-04-17T17:46:09.784-04:00Oh, you're right. Contempt of Congress is much...Oh, you're right. Contempt of Congress is much worse. <br /><br />The penalty for being in conpempt of Congress is: "a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months." --2 USC § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers.<br /><br />http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192<br /><br />So yes, he does deserve to be in jail. He;'s not because he, like everyone in the same administration, is above the law. <br /><br />Hearsay is when a person testifies in court that he heard someone say that he witnessed something. In that case, the person who actually witnessed it should testify. Hearsay is not when a person testifies that the defendant made a confession. This isn't even a court we are speaking of, so I don't understand the relevance. <br /><br />Now, will you answer the damned question: Is Charles Woods lying? <br /><br />The Torch Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18158490065731007732013-04-17T17:05:53.669-04:002013-04-17T17:05:53.669-04:00Torch, here is a simple thought. Being in contempt...Torch, here is a simple thought. Being in contempt of Congress does not equate with a parole violation. Therefore, Eric Holder need not be in jail. Understand?<br /><br />As to your "facts," they are technically hearsay. Understand?<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-84286136372308995032013-04-17T17:01:59.067-04:002013-04-17T17:01:59.067-04:00Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress. Is ...Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress. Is he in jail? No? He isn't?<br /><br />And you still won't answer my question:"Either the government is lying or Charles Woods is. Which is it?"<br /><br />You ignore inconvenient facts. As I mentioned, I too believed that he was being jailed for parole violations when it first happened. I was naive. <br /><br />The TorchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-89973345817971428532013-04-17T16:55:08.776-04:002013-04-17T16:55:08.776-04:00I'm sorry, Torch, but you are not making much ...I'm sorry, Torch, but you are not making much sense. Violating parole conditions is not a pretext, it's a perfectly good reason that lands you in jail. And if it doesn't then law enforcement is not doing its job. <br /><br />And yes, making up wild conspiracy theories makes you a conspiracy weirdo. <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68289340009971129422013-04-17T16:02:51.204-04:002013-04-17T16:02:51.204-04:00The filmmaker is in jail. The animals who killed C...The filmmaker is in jail. The animals who killed Charles Woods' son are still at large. <br /><br />Hillary Clinton is still at large. Barrack Obama is still at large. Total number of people in jail because of the Benghazi fiasco: one. <br /><br />The TorchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-84885336377096165792013-04-17T16:00:51.216-04:002013-04-17T16:00:51.216-04:00"Should he not have been jailed after he brok..."Should he not have been jailed after he broke the law?"<br /><br />Ask an illegal immigrant. The rule of law is a joke in this country. Laws are applied selectively against people that the the powers-that-be don't like. So, no. <br /><br />"And if his jailing is entirely justified on those grounds, why are you seeking another reason behind this?"<br /><br />I'm not "seeking" one. They needed a pretext to jail him. They found one. When it first happened, I thought the way you did. I thought, hmmm, well, he shouldn't have violated the terms of his parole. But then when Charles Woods said that Hillary Clinton had told him that the filmmaker would be punished, I thought otherwise. For one brief second of naivete, I actually thought the press would ask Hillary Clinton to go on record, that way she could either confirm it (and admit that he was a scapegoat) or deny it (and accuse the father of the dead SEAL of lying.) She probably would have ducked both by saying that the father misunderstood what she said, but the press never even asked. They simply didn't care. <br /><br />I can see your philosophy now. Anyone who doesn't accept pronouncements from the administration is a weirdo conspiracy theorist. Or is it just this administration?<br /><br />The TorchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76354215428205146272013-04-17T14:51:33.414-04:002013-04-17T14:51:33.414-04:00Torch,
The filmmaker got into the slammer becaus...Torch, <br /><br />The filmmaker got into the slammer because he violated the terms of his probation. Should he <i>not</i> have been jailed after he broke the law? And if his jailing is entirely justified on those grounds, why are you seeking another reason behind this? It's stupid, bro.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11775028409937090952013-04-17T14:45:57.397-04:002013-04-17T14:45:57.397-04:00Hoo, every time you don't want to believe some...Hoo, every time you don't want to believe something, you call it a "conspiracy theory." <br /><br />Why don't you just cover your eyes and repeat, "I believe the administration, I believe the administration, I believe the administration."<br /><br />When the Watergate story first broke, the administration denied that too. They said they had no connection. What a weird conspiracy theory that was. The difference between Watergate and Benghazi-gate is that back in the seventies, we had a press that actually wanted to get to the bottom of things like this, rather than aid and abet the administration in covering it up. <br /><br />Either the government is lying or Charles Woods is. Which is it? Tell me, why would Charles Woods make up a cockamamie story about Hillary Clinton telling him, at his son's funeral, that the filmmaker would be punished, if it wasn't so? <br /><br />I can think of a perfectly plausible theory as to why Hillary would lie. Because she was busy trying to scapegoat some guy for her own failures, hoping that this Benghazi thing didn't blow up in her face and cost Obama the election. <br /><br />She was very forthcoming in her testimony, if you remember. <br /><br />The TorchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-9642464740315312352013-04-17T11:15:30.237-04:002013-04-17T11:15:30.237-04:00Hoo,
"I don't think you have grounds to ...Hoo, <br /><b>"I don't think you have grounds to conclude from my writing that I am blaming someone and seeking justice. You simply don't know what I think and I have not made any statements on that subject. So don't put words in my mouth. You don't know me well enough. "</b><br />You sure shot the shit out of the messenger. That comes off as someone looking to (mis)place blame. <br />Your offence at the timing/use of political satire also speaks to a sense of justice for the dead. <br />I do not make assumptions about you, Hoo. <br />I do not pretend to know you. <br />But I can read in to what you write. <br />I deduce, not presume.<br />I am correct, aren't I? You DO want to see those responsible for this bombing caught. You DO want to see justice done to the memory of the dead and injured? <br /><br /><b>"I didn't say..[mike]...joked about the dead. "</b><br />No. Nor did I state that you wrote such. <br />I stated that is why it did not offend me. The satire is directed at the POTUS and the polyarchs - not the victims of the blast. <br /><br />Allow me to clarify: In order for the comment to have 'crossed the line' it would have had to use the dead as a vehicle for humour. I saw no shits nor giggles. <br />Only stark criticism of an inept leadership during a time of crisis. <br /><br /><b>"He will use any events, no matter how tragic, to make a tired old point "liberals bad, conservatives good.""</b><br />I did not see a 'conservatives' <i>anything</i> line in there. <br />Seems more like conservatives ABSENT or incompetent to me. But, perhaps that is not intentional. <br />That partisan red vs blue thing is not my game at all. It is a false dichotomy I refuse to be subjected to. <br /><br />""Using the dead to that end is just sickening. ""<br />I feel exactly that way about the Sandy Hook stuff.<br />Flying the parents about in Airforce One etc. A gross abuse of power and influence. Literally using the relatives of dead children to attempt a legal rush on the constitution. Looks like it will fail after all that, too. <br />But this (Egnorance) is a guy's private blog, Hoo. <br />Dr Egnor is not a government official. He is entitled to draw the connections he wants to. <br />If he wants to express his contempt for the ruling class under certain circumstances - he can. <br />He is not slandering or mocking the deaths of the people in Boston, or in Benghazi. He is being extremely critical of the people in control of security during these crises. <br /><br /><b>"That's why you wouldn't do that, but the sad fuck does. "</b><br />I will restate: I would not connect an event like this to a satirical model in my own mind. My reaction is literally trained to be very different. Responsive. Confrontational. <br />I can see the logic and effectiveness of the satire in this case, but it would not have occurred to me to use it, especially so near to the event. <br />But it is not some outrage for the president's office, or some misplaced offence for the dead that prevents me from expressing myself so. Nor is it a matter of taste. <br />I just don't react to these things in that way. <br />My analysis is of a different nature/order. <br />As I stated before: Once bitten, and twice shy. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-5765379067091856332013-04-17T07:59:57.374-04:002013-04-17T07:59:57.374-04:00Torch,
You present a conspiracy theory and think ...Torch,<br /><br />You present a conspiracy theory and think you have debunked my point? Gotta try harder next time, bro.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-2082597662707431702013-04-17T07:25:54.721-04:002013-04-17T07:25:54.721-04:00You look this one up, idiot.
http://www.breitbar...You look this one up, idiot. <br /><br />http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/25/Fallen-Seals-Father-Hillary-Told-M-Dont-Worry-Were-Going-To-Arrest-The-Man-That-Did-This?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BreitbartFeed+%28Breitbart+Feed%29<br /><br />Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, the slain Navy SEAL, said that Secretary of State Clinton attended his funeral and assured him that the filmmaker would be arrested and punished. <br /><br />The filmmaker. Not the person who killed his son. <br /><br />Either Charles Woods is making the whole thing up, and I can't see why, or else the filmmaker was arrested on a pretext. They searched high and low for something to charge him with, and parole violations are what they found. <br /><br />I am so sick of debunking this one. Yes, we know the charges against him were not "making a movie insensitive to Muslims." That doesn't mean that he isn't a scapegoat. <br /><br />The TorchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-59944190372614576372013-04-17T01:05:40.424-04:002013-04-17T01:05:40.424-04:00Yep. What percentage of Titanic's passengers ...Yep. What percentage of Titanic's passengers were confident that Captain Smith was 'in touch with their concerns'? Almost all of them? Did the passengers even know enough to be concerned about steaming full speed through icebergs on a dark night? Low information passengers.<br /><br />Hoo, your hero is channeling Captain Smith. "Forward"!<br /><br />And, btw, a 'satire' was an Irish poet's way of bringing a curse down on the head of his subject. Not meant to be funny. Obama's association with the bomber Ayers is not funny. And we have been talking about it for years now. Extract the wax from your ears and listen up.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652227699197953483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66188338106181526682013-04-16T22:19:24.500-04:002013-04-16T22:19:24.500-04:00LOL, egnor. That 47-percent mentality has worked o...LOL, egnor. That 47-percent mentality has worked out real well for Romney. Keep digging.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-80768558004071552242013-04-16T17:41:07.220-04:002013-04-16T17:41:07.220-04:00A few numbers to brighten your day, guys.
Only 2...<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/16/how-out-of-touch-is-todays-gop/?hpid=z3" rel="nofollow">A few numbers</a> to brighten your day, guys. <br /><br />Only 23 percent of Americans believe the Republican Party is “in touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today,” while 70 percent believe that it is “out of touch.” Among independents, those numbers are 23-70. Among moderates they’re 20-75. <br /><br />By contrast, Americans say by 51-46 that Obama is in touch. Among moderates that’s 56-42 (he fares worse among independents, 44-53, though far better than Republicans).<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-3562035398599659712013-04-16T17:33:38.307-04:002013-04-16T17:33:38.307-04:00egnor: "Obama referred to the video extensive...egnor: "Obama referred to the video extensively at the UN, and obviously with reference to the Benghazi attack. But he did not explicitly link it in that video, although it's obviously what he was refering to." <br /><br />So it looks like I didn't miss anything. Obama did <i>not</i> blame the video for the Benghazi riots. You are imagining things that are not there. <br /><br />"Heck, they arrested the guy who made the video. He's still in jail." <br /><br />Not for making the video. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula" rel="nofollow">Look it up</a>, idiot: <br /><br />"On September 27, 2012, US federal authorities stated Nakoula was arrested in Los Angeles for allegedly <b>violating terms of his probation.</b> Prosecutors stated that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of the alias "Sam Bacile".[12] On November 7, 2012, Nakoula pled guilty to four of the charges against him and was sentenced to one year in prison and four years of supervised release."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54629705368613588242013-04-16T17:24:30.549-04:002013-04-16T17:24:30.549-04:00@Hoo:
Obama referred to the video extensively at ...@Hoo:<br /><br />Obama referred to the video extensively at the UN, and obviously with reference to the Benghazi attack. But he did not explicitly link it in that video, although it's obviously what he was refering to.<br /><br />UN Ambassador, speaking for the administration, Susan Rice, directly linked the video to Benghazi. <br /><br />From FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/)<br /><br />The Obama Administration backed Rice and admitted that the video-Benghazi link was the Obama Administration's official position: <br /> <br />"Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’<br /><br />Sept. 17: Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, is asked about Rice’s comments on “Face the Nation” and four other Sunday talk shows. Nuland says, “The comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government’s initial assessment.” Nuland uses the phrase “initial assessment” three times when discussing Rice’s comments."<br /><br /><br />Obama himself asserted the link on David Letterman:<br /><br />"Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’<br /><br />Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said, “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”<br /><br />Heck, they arrested the guy who made the video. He's still in jail. <br /><br />Stop lying for Obama, and deal with the truth, Hoo. <br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-2320554229782996752013-04-16T16:59:21.730-04:002013-04-16T16:59:21.730-04:00So point it out for me. At what time in the UN spe...So point it out for me. At what time in the UN speech is Obama blaming the video for the Benghazi riot? Go ahead, genius. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73498286661949601902013-04-16T16:54:47.053-04:002013-04-16T16:54:47.053-04:00You miss a lot, Hoo. You miss a lot, Hoo. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72015730357298170982013-04-16T16:49:48.158-04:002013-04-16T16:49:48.158-04:00I missed the part where Obama blamed the video for...I missed the part where Obama blamed the video for the terrorist act. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com