@球王书王孩子王 现在两党极端化的一个原因是很多人像你这样曲解原话。这是左倾的CNN的描述：“McCarthy said Tuesday night that the GOP-led Congress had succeeded by bringing down Clinton's poll numbers because of the Benghazi probe”
@球王书王孩子王 原文在此："Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."
@Henry Yang you forgot to quote the previous sentence from this same guy, which read, to put a strategy to fight and win. A strategy is not side effect. Period.
"The public was initially given a whitewashed story about a video and a terrible twist of fate that made both the White House and the State Department look like innocent victims of circumstance which nobody could have possibly foreseen. Had there not been an extensive series of hearings on the subject the public would never have learned the details."
"Yes, it’s no doubt both accurate and obvious to note that nobody in the Republican Party is exactly sad over the fact that such revelations have resulted in the erosion of Hillary Clinton’s popularity and trustworthiness in the eyes of the voting public, but that was collateral damage from the main thrust of the investigation. Unfortunately for McCarthy, in an ill considered moment he chose to mention the side effect before the root cause and the Democrats have pounced on it along with their media allies."
@球王书王孩子王 Here is the full quote for you. McCarthy said:"we have to have a strategy to win. What you are going to see is a conservative Speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why because she's untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen."
@Henry Yang "side effect" means "a peripheral or secondary effect, especially an undesirable secondary effect of a drug or therapeutic regimen." "Collateral damage" means unintentional death, injury, or damage." Strategy means a plan of action or policy DESIGNED to achieve a major or overall aim. So, are you saying the republicans intentionally designed to achieve something that was unintentional and undesirable? Where is your LOGIC? Where are the republicans' logic? Man, come on, can you ever think for yourself just once?
@北溟起鲲 The logic is very simple: even your liberal media New York Times did NOT mention the word "strategy" in the report. It may be your $375/hr logic to link "side effect" to some word I had not seen, but not mine http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/30/hillary-clinton-calls-kevin-mccarthys-remarks-on-benghazi-inquiry-deeply-distressing/
@北溟起鲲 As to your question "can you ever think for yourself just once?" I used "side effect" last night, hot air publish the article this morning. As someone with a law degree, you cannot even tell the sequence of events, which makes me to question your competency
@Henry Yang "Can you ever think for yourself just once" means that "can you ever process the information and get a conclusion on your own." You do not even understand English. Now, I feel sorry for you.
@北溟起鲲 after showing off your law degree, hourly salary, "logic", now start to showing off your language? I really feel sorry for your clients, no wonder you can only smear behind a faked name
@球王书王孩子王 leave him alone. He just can not read English and think for himself. It is not worth it. He will never get it. The ironic thing is that he is zealous in educating people.
@北溟起鲲 I already showed you I used the word "side effect" before hot air, and your dear liberal media did not even mention the word "strategy". But you are not admitting lack of logic and facts. Please continue
@Henry Yang Watch again. He said it was the strategy. He is in big trouble, and not many people defend him (like you). Above exchanges took place last night, when you asked me to read the simple English. I adviced you watch the Video and explicitly asked your confirmation about your interpretation of strategy as side effect. You have no excuse.
@Henry Yang "Yes, it’s no doubt both accurate and obvious to note that nobody in the Republican Party is exactly sad over the fact that such revelations have resulted in the erosion of Hillary Clinton’s popularity and trustworthiness in the eyes of the voting public, but that was collateral damage from the main thrust of the investigation. Unfortunately for McCarthy, in an ill considered moment he chose to mention the side effect before the root cause and the Democrats have pounced on it along with their media allies."
