Andy Dukes
PREMIER
Comey has made his findings public. I think it is clear where he stands on this issue.
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Bruddah IZ
DA
That is true. What makes you think Comey will still be Director given your scenario?
Andy Dukes
PREMIER
His term is not up until 2023 unless the POTUS wants to remove him which would have to be backed by the Senate.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Or he may leave of his own accord.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Why would a country with the world's largest Jewish population, outside of Israel, admit large numbers of immigrants from countries where hatred of Jews has been taught to their people from earliest childhood?
This question is ultimately not about Muslims and Jews. It is about discussing immigrants in the abstract, rather than in terms of the specific concrete realities of particular immigrants in particular circumstances at a particular time and place -- that time being now and that place being the United States of America.
A hundred years ago, when immigration from other parts of the world was a major issue, there was a government study which provided voluminous statistics on how immigrants from various countries performed in American society -- economically, educationally and in terms of social pathology.
Today, it would not be considered right -- that is, not politically correct -- even to ask such questions about immigrants, especially if immigrants were broken down by country of origin. Despite some among the intelligentsia who like to refer to the past as "earlier and simpler times," it is we today who are so simple-minded as to discuss immigrants as if they were just abstract people in an abstract world, to whom we could apply our abstract principles.
Yet there are immigrants from some countries who swell the welfare rolls, while immigrants from some other countries almost never go on welfare. Immigrants from some countries are highly educated -- more so than most Americans -- while immigrants from other countries have little education and few skills.
However lovely this vision may seem, and however much it flatters those who embrace it, admitting immigrants is an irreversible decision, regardless of how it turns out.
Any problems, or even disasters, that particular immigrants may cause are unlikely to be caused within the gated communities or other upscale enclaves where the elites live.
However much educational standards or behavioral standards may suffer in schools when immigrant children from a poorer background flood in, that is not likely to affect the elite's children in pricey private schools.
European countries have gone much further down this road, and their elites have been even more immune to hard facts about the disasters they have created. Rapes of women on the streets of Germany by male refugees from the Middle East have been ignored or downplayed by authorities.
Recurrent terrorist attacks across Europe from the same source have not caused any reconsideration of "hate speech" laws that can be invoked against anyone who warns of the dangers.
American elites who say that we should learn from other countries almost always mean that we should imitate what they have done. But what we need to learn most of all is not to repeat their mistakes.--T. Sowell
This question is ultimately not about Muslims and Jews. It is about discussing immigrants in the abstract, rather than in terms of the specific concrete realities of particular immigrants in particular circumstances at a particular time and place -- that time being now and that place being the United States of America.
A hundred years ago, when immigration from other parts of the world was a major issue, there was a government study which provided voluminous statistics on how immigrants from various countries performed in American society -- economically, educationally and in terms of social pathology.
Today, it would not be considered right -- that is, not politically correct -- even to ask such questions about immigrants, especially if immigrants were broken down by country of origin. Despite some among the intelligentsia who like to refer to the past as "earlier and simpler times," it is we today who are so simple-minded as to discuss immigrants as if they were just abstract people in an abstract world, to whom we could apply our abstract principles.
Yet there are immigrants from some countries who swell the welfare rolls, while immigrants from some other countries almost never go on welfare. Immigrants from some countries are highly educated -- more so than most Americans -- while immigrants from other countries have little education and few skills.
However lovely this vision may seem, and however much it flatters those who embrace it, admitting immigrants is an irreversible decision, regardless of how it turns out.
Any problems, or even disasters, that particular immigrants may cause are unlikely to be caused within the gated communities or other upscale enclaves where the elites live.
However much educational standards or behavioral standards may suffer in schools when immigrant children from a poorer background flood in, that is not likely to affect the elite's children in pricey private schools.
European countries have gone much further down this road, and their elites have been even more immune to hard facts about the disasters they have created. Rapes of women on the streets of Germany by male refugees from the Middle East have been ignored or downplayed by authorities.
Recurrent terrorist attacks across Europe from the same source have not caused any reconsideration of "hate speech" laws that can be invoked against anyone who warns of the dangers.
American elites who say that we should learn from other countries almost always mean that we should imitate what they have done. But what we need to learn most of all is not to repeat their mistakes.--T. Sowell
Who says Comey stays on at FBI?
I maybe wrong but doesn't the FBI Director serve at the pleasure of the President?
Gives one some prospective from the folks in Benghazi during the attack that killed our Ambassador.
I'm sure Trey Gowdy thinks they are accurate. However, some of the movie scenes are at odds with official records or have been disputed by the participants. There was no "Stand down" order given at the CIA compound - that group fought its way into the Consulate within a hour after the attack started, but were driven out by the attackers before they could find Stevens, who was still alive then, but hidden in the smoke of the burning buildings. The CIA compound was itself attacked throughout the rest of the night. There were no Navy helicopters within fuel range of Benghazi, and a special ops team that was dispatched from Malta was called back since they were not yet there by the time the attack was over.
Andy Dukes
PREMIER
He actually does not. He is appointed by the President if there is an opening but the term is ten years so as not to be confused as a political appointee. It is why Comey had no reason not to move forward against HRC if he felt it was the right thing to do.
Wez
DA
According to espola (you can check his source), it sounds like the movie repeats a few of the now proven wrong talking points that right wing sources like FoxNews continue to promote. What perspective are you looking for from the movie, the right wing perspective?
Thanks.
Not entirely. Due to the obvious abuses perpetrated in the long term of J. E. Hoover, a law was passed that the FBI director is appointed to a 10-year term by the President, upon consent of the Senate. His term can be extended by permission of those 2 bodies, but only shortened voluntarily or under unusual circumstances (none of which have occurred since the law was passed). The Director before Comey, Robert Mueller, was appointed by w and served 12 years (because Obama and the Senate wanted to keep him), 4 and half of those years under Obama. Comey came into office in September 2013, so he has a long time to go.
Any attempt to remove him if he does not want to go would be a political shitstorm.
The film's historical accuracy has been disputed. In the film's most controversial scene, the CIA chief in Benghazi (identified only as "Bob") tells the military contractors there, who seek permission to go defend the embassy, to "stand down", thus denying them permission. The real-life CIA chief stated that there was no stand-down order.[49] His statement was echoed by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's finding that there was "no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party".[50] However, National Review commentator David French argues that the Senate committee cited above found plenty of evidence of the "stand down" order in the form of personal testimonies. It just chose to rule that the contrary testimony outweighed it.[51]
Kris "Tonto" Paronto, a CIA contractor who was involved in action during the event said, "We were told to 'stand down'. Those words were used verbatim—100 percent. If the truth of it affects someone's political career? Well, I'm sorry. It happens."[52] Paronto has been accused of fabricating his account in order to make money, because he "had a book to sell and a movie to help promote".[53] The CIA base chief portrayed in the film has directly contradicted Paronto's claims, saying "There never was a stand-down order... At no time did I ever second-guess that the team would depart."[54]
Also disputed is the film's portrayal that air support was denied. A House Armed Services report found that air support was unavailable, or it would have arrived too late to make a difference.[44] French defended the film's references to air support, writing that even if resources could not have been flown in during the time available, this would itself be "scandalous", given Libya's known instability.[51] In July 2016, the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi released its report that included numerous witnesses indicating that U.S. military help was available, but not called upon. The report indicated the Department of the Defense would not provide the requested list of military assets that were available that night.[55]
American conservative columnist Deroy Murdock wrote that the film confirmed his personal view that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were lying when they initially blamed the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims for the attacks in the weeks after they occurred. The video led to various protests among Muslims around the world, and Obama and others initially stated publicly that the Benghazi attacks emerged from such a protest. Murdock noted that 13 Hours instead portrays the attacks as having been initiated by "well-armed jihadists who know exactly what they are doing".[56]
Zack Beauchamp of Vox criticized the film overall, writing that its depiction of the alleged stand-down order and the availability of air support indirectly promoted "pernicious conspiracy theories" that President Obama and/or Secretary Clinton did not want the embassy to be defended.[50]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Hours:_The_Secret_Soldiers_of_Benghazi
Kris "Tonto" Paronto, a CIA contractor who was involved in action during the event said, "We were told to 'stand down'. Those words were used verbatim—100 percent. If the truth of it affects someone's political career? Well, I'm sorry. It happens."[52] Paronto has been accused of fabricating his account in order to make money, because he "had a book to sell and a movie to help promote".[53] The CIA base chief portrayed in the film has directly contradicted Paronto's claims, saying "There never was a stand-down order... At no time did I ever second-guess that the team would depart."[54]
Also disputed is the film's portrayal that air support was denied. A House Armed Services report found that air support was unavailable, or it would have arrived too late to make a difference.[44] French defended the film's references to air support, writing that even if resources could not have been flown in during the time available, this would itself be "scandalous", given Libya's known instability.[51] In July 2016, the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi released its report that included numerous witnesses indicating that U.S. military help was available, but not called upon. The report indicated the Department of the Defense would not provide the requested list of military assets that were available that night.[55]
American conservative columnist Deroy Murdock wrote that the film confirmed his personal view that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were lying when they initially blamed the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims for the attacks in the weeks after they occurred. The video led to various protests among Muslims around the world, and Obama and others initially stated publicly that the Benghazi attacks emerged from such a protest. Murdock noted that 13 Hours instead portrays the attacks as having been initiated by "well-armed jihadists who know exactly what they are doing".[56]
Zack Beauchamp of Vox criticized the film overall, writing that its depiction of the alleged stand-down order and the availability of air support indirectly promoted "pernicious conspiracy theories" that President Obama and/or Secretary Clinton did not want the embassy to be defended.[50]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Hours:_The_Secret_Soldiers_of_Benghazi
Wez
DA
Can you argue what espola has presented, or is it just easier to blanket dismiss facts because the source is a person who you deeply disagree with ideologically?
You are sounding like Bernie Sanders / aff-leet and his denial of Trump's racism.
Still bitter about Johnson's pond? Did you find those Wyoming state documents yet?
You bolded the part that supports your prejudices, but ignored the rest?
When a new administration takes over and IF the new AG decided to prosecute Sir Hillary in spite of what the FBI director had concluded earlier, he may just pack his bags.
All speculation & I don't think any of this will ever happen....
It's unfortunate.