ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [369] -- Rebutting GOP Debate Nonsense

[ Posted Friday, November 13th, 2015 – 18:05 PST ]

Happy Friday the 13th, everyone!

Since it's such an auspicious day, perhaps it's time to have a discussion about the increasingly-real possibility that Donald Trump or Ben Carson could actually become the Republican nominee for president next year. It's a scary, scary thing for most to contemplate, but the punditocracy's inside-the-Beltway strategy of just clapping our hands real hard and hoping that Tinkerbell quietly lies down somewhere to die just doesn't seem to be working. Pretty much every pundit under the sun -- from the hard left to the hard right -- has so far written a column this year predicting Trump's imminent political demise. To date, none of them have proven even slightly true. Trump is now challenged for the lead, but he's still polling at roughly the same level of support that he has pretty much ever since he got in the race. Ben Carson has risen to Trump's level in the polling much more than Trump has fallen back. The "Trump (and now, Carson) is going to fade -- it's inevitable" line of thinking is getting more and more divorced from the polling realities. So perhaps it's time to start thinking the unthinkable: either of these two men could actually become the Grand Old Party's nominee for the highest office in the land.

Democrats mostly ponder such an outcome with what might be called orgiastic schadenfreude. Wouldn't it be fitting, they think, for Republicans to torpedo their own chances in such a fashion? What this line of thinking ignores is that should either man win the nomination, he's going to be a lot stronger than you might now think. Winning a nomination means winning a whole lot of votes. Democrats might laugh throughout the primary season, but could stop laughing when the polls for the general election get a lot closer than they expect.

Republicans are already freaking out. Here's a quote from a "veteran operative and fundraiser now advising former governor Jeb Bush," to show the depths of these fears: "If we don’t have the right [nominee], we could lose the Senate, and we could face losses in the House. Those are very, very real concerns. If we're not careful and we nominate Trump, we're looking at a race like Barry Goldwater in 1964 or George McGovern in 1972, getting beat up across the board because of our nominee." Pretty apocalyptic stuff, and he's not the only one thinking such dark thoughts on the Republican side.

One way or another, both sides are just beginning to come to grips with the fact that Trump and Carson have -- by an incredibly wide margin -- the best chances of winning the nomination. No other Republican candidate has caught fire with the base in anything close to the love they're now showing Trump and Carson. A sobering thought for all, on this Friday the 13th. Yes, it could happen. No, Trump and Carson's fall is not inevitable. No, Jeb Bush is not going to be president. Deal with it.

In other news from the Republican campaign trail, we have what is possibly the stupidest question ever being debated. Jeb Bush would cheerfully go back in time and kill baby Hitler, while Ben Carson would refuse to abort fetus Hitler. No word on what Marty McFly would do, yet. Stay tuned....

A White House spokesman was rendered utterly speechless when asked about Ben Carson's claim that the Chinese military was a big faction in Syria, which we suppose is a sign of the times. Jaw-dropping idiocy is what passes for "political truth-telling" these days, and being rendered speechless is as good a response as any to such sheer lunacy.

Three Republicans (Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal) campaigned at an event organized by a preacher who wants to just kill all the gay people, and the media didn't even blink. Imagine if a Democratic candidate listened to a preacher who said something controversial... oh, wait a minute... that already happened, didn't it? I don't remember the media ignoring it, back then, do you?

There was a Republican debate this week, which we'll address in more detail in the talking points section, but we do have to point out that Ben Carson is so much better at the whole "word salad" thing than Sarah Palin ever was. Toss a random bunch of key phrases together, and people don't even realize you have not said anything at all!

John Kasich appeared on Stephen Colbert's show (YouTube has the relevant segment), and Colbert forcefully asked a question we've been waiting a long, long time to hear asked of any politician who ever admitted to marijuana use in their past. The question? "How do you think your life would be different -- would you be where you are today -- if you had been caught and arrested for using marijuana back then?" We've been waiting pretty much ever since Bill Clinton tried his whole "didn't inhale" shtick, back in the 1990s, in fact. Kasich absolutely ignored the question, trying to lump marijuana in with heroin, but we certainly applaud Colbert for even asking it.

The times they are a-changing on the entire political issue of marijuana. It used to be treated as a joke -- any politician could use some form of: "Why are you asking me that, what have you been smoking? Hyuck-yuck-yuck!" to skate away from even discussing the issue in any sort of serious way. Now, every Republican candidate for president supports medical marijuana in one form or another. Democrats are about to debate whether rescheduling marijuana down to Schedule II is enough, or whether it should be descheduled altogether -- the most substantive debate on the issue since at least the 1970s. Which is one of the reasons we're looking forward to tomorrow night's debate.

If you're sick of hearing about the presidential race, there is a very different (and fascinating) election happening in Hawai'i which could determine how the native Hawai'ians organize themselves politically.

And finally, some (mostly bad) news from the Secret Service. The non-bad part: they've given Trump the code name "Mogul," which is kind of amusing (he got to pick it from a list of "M-words," apparently, so it's anyone's guess what else was on that list). What is not amusing, however, is the news that a Secret Service agent has been arrested for "[sending] obscene images and texts to someone he thought was a young Delaware girl, sometimes doing it while on duty at the White House.... [Lee Robert] Moore sent naked photos of himself to the undercover officer and asked to meet in person to have sex, according to the complaint." This is a guy who worked gate security for the White House, deciding who to allow into the grounds. What is wrong with this agency? It's seen several changes in leadership, and still seems to be nothing more than a fraternity of sex-obsessed morons. Story after story emerges, and still the culture doesn't seem to change.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Hillary Clinton moved toward the position Bernie Sanders had already staked out on marijuana legal reform this week, but it was a half-measure at best. Clinton is now in favor of moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II of the controlled substances list, which is indeed long overdue. Bernie, of course, wants it off the schedules altogether, and under the control of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which is where it logically should be. Still, because Hillary's move virtually guarantees the most substantive discussion on changing federal marijuana laws ever to be included in a presidential debate (tomorrow night), she at least deserves an Honorable Mention. Her half-measure will be contrasted with Bernie's full support for descheduling, which is a discussion we've been waiting to hear for a long time.

President Obama came out in support of amending the Civil Rights Act to include gays and lesbians, which is truly the end of the road for the gay rights movement. Marriage was an important step, but knowing you can't be fired or evicted for who you are is much more fundamental. This effort is going to take years, but Obama's support is an important step, so he gets an Honorable Mention as well.

This week, we're going non-partisan, because although (obviously) it will be Democrats who will fight for their goal, the organization itself is not technically a partisan entity. So instead of our usual MIDOTW award, this week we're changing it to the Most Impressive Progressive Of The Week. Our first-ever MIPOTW goes to the Fight For $15 group, which has been instrumental in the fight to raise the minimum wage. Fast food workers across the country demonstrated this week, as they've been doing for years. However, they've been racking up some impressive victories, not least the fact that Democratic presidential candidates are now fully on board with a $15-an-hour minimum wage for all.

Progress happens slowly. Persistence is needed, as well as a whole lot of stamina. The concept of a $15 minimum wage was once seen as a pipe dream, but more and more localities (cities, counties, etc.) are going ahead and passing their own minimum wage increases, because they're tired of waiting for Congress to act.

The more this movement grows, the more potent a political issue it becomes. Which (again, obviously) helps Democrats. More than that, it helps Democrats build a critical mass to actually make it happen. So this week, we salute the Fight For $15 movement with the Most Impressive Progressive Of The Week award, and wish them further political success in the future.

[Congratulate Fight For $15 on their contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We're not entirely sure he's a Democrat, but since he was appointed by Barack Obama we're going to consider him fair game.

The acting head of the Drug Enforcement Agency, Chuck Rosenberg, needs to go. It took years of public pressure for Obama to get rid of his last D.E.A. chief, so hopefully he'll act faster on this one.

Now, we do realize that, for a very long time now, the head of the D.E.A. was expected to -- on a regular basis -- make up bizarre assertions which were backed up by absolutely nothing. I mean, it was part of the job description, almost: "Must be able to pull nonsense out of your butt during a press conference, and then act as if whatever you've just made up is the actual truth." The same went for the "drug czar," the head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (who was really nothing more than Chief Propagandist on the subject).

But those days should be in the past. However, the memo apparently hasn't gotten to Chuck. This week, Rosenberg baldly stated that medical marijuana was "a joke."

Medical marijuana is not a joke. In fact, almost half the states allow it to happen legally, and if you add in all the states that have approved some form of marijuana as medicine, it comes out to eighty percent of them.

You know what's a joke? Federal law that states unequivocally that marijuana "has no accepted medical use" in America. That is the joke, and it's not exactly a funny one.

There's a Change.org petition to convince Obama to fire Chuck Rosenberg. As of this writing, it had over 56,000 signatures. Feel free to add your name to the list, as we do our part by awarding Rosenberg the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Chuck Rosenberg via the D.E.A.'s contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 369 (11/13/15)

We have a cohesive group of talking points this week, to offer up to all and sundry, whether you're discussing politics around the water cooler or a guest on a political talk show airing on Sunday morning (Sundry morning?).

This week's talking points are all, essentially, rebuttals to the biggest nonsense espoused on the stage of the fourth Republican debate. It was hard to pick only seven, as there was a bumper crop of nonsense in this particular debate, so forgive us if your favorite didn't make the cut. You can always offer up your own talking point for anything we've missed, in the comments. If you're a real glutton for punishment, you can read the entire transcript of the Republican debate to mine more nuggets of lunacy.

 

1
   Wages are too high

This is one of the Democrats' strongest issues, and Donald Trump just gave them a gift.

"When asked whether America should raise the minimum wage in the Republican debate, pretty much every candidate who responded said they would leave the minimum wage where it is. Except for one. Donald Trump thinks, and I quote, 'wages are too high.' Got that? The federal minimum wage is too high, not too low. I would like to see, in the next debate, all the Republican candidates asked whether they agree with Trump or not -- and whether they'd lower the minimum wage. Perhaps they'll get in a bidding war to see how low a minimum wage they each would support."

 

2
   Yeah, that's the answer!

It being a debate hosted by Fox Business Network and the Wall Street Journal, the candidates' tax plans didn't come under a whole lot of scrutiny.

"When asked about the fact that the jobs market does much, much better under Democratic presidents, the Republicans on the stage, as usual, just ignored the facts. Instead, they all advocated tax plans which would blow gigantic, multi-trillion-dollar holes in the federal budget. Even when they use their patented Republican pixie-dust budgeting math, the results still show massive, trillion-dollar additions to the national debt. This, from a party who supposedly cares about such things! But the biggest insanity isn't their deficit problems -- or problems with basic math -- but actually the philosophy behind pretty much every single tax plan discussed. They'd all give enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest of the wealthy, and about the only thing they disagreed upon was whether they would simultaneously raise taxes on the poor or not. Because giving gargantuan tax breaks to the wealthy and then turning around and taxing the poor is obviously the way to fix America's income inequality problem, right?"

 

3
   Dig a hole straight through the Earth, maybe?

Two unrelated subjects, with one common thread: ignorance.

"I heard Ben Carson inexplicably say, during the Republican debate, that we should be worried because China is intervening militarily in Syria. There are precisely zero facts to back this up, and it even caused absolute speechlessness when a White House press spokesman was asked about it this week. It isn't remotely true, but that didn't stop Carson from making the claim -- and nobody on the stage challenged him on it. Rand Paul did actually point out, later in the debate, that Donald Trump's focus on China when asked about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal was insane because the TPP does not cover China at all and China would actually love to see the TPP go down in flames. This led me to wonder -- about pretty much all the candidates on stage -- whether any of them could actually find China on a map, or not."

 

4
   Um... what?

As Hunter S. Thompson famously pointed out, when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

"Here's Donald Trump's answer as to what we should do about ISIS: 'I said, keep the oil.... We should have kept the oil. And, you know what? We should have given the oil... to the people that lost their arms, their legs, and their families, and their sons, and daughters, because right now, you know who has a lot of that oil? Iran, and ISIS.' So, America's foreign policy should be to finance our soldiers' retirement by invading the Middle East and stealing all their oil? Excuse me? Does Trump think he's running for Roman Emperor or something? Take their oil by force, and give it to the veterans? Wow. And he's leading the Republican pack, followed by a man who would, presumably, fight the Chinese in Syria? Boy, the Republican Party sure ain't what it used to be on foreign policy, folks."

 

5
   Except for tens of millions, that is....

Trump and Carson weren't the only ones up there telling whoppers, though.

"You can tell Carly Fiorina is lying because her mouth is open and words are coming out. She tried to attack Donald Trump by claiming that meeting Vladimir Putin in a green room wasn't the same as her wonderful meeting with the man -- which she herself has described as taking place in a green room. But her biggest whopper was that Obamacare 'hasn't helped anyone.' That's funny, because the Senate Republicans are now having problems agreeing over a bill they're working on passing (under reconciliation rules) which would totally repeal Obamacare. Seems some Republicans, from states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare, are now worried that taking health insurance away from millions of voters back home -- and replacing it with nothing -- might not be such a great idea, politically. Carly should go talk to some of these Republican senators, who might be able to point to a few million people Obamacare is definitely helping."

 

6
   Live, from an alternate universe

Seriously, didn't they have wonderful reception from their inter-universal satellite feed?

"I almost expected, when the moderators came back from commercial breaks, to hear them state: 'We bring you back, live, from an alternate reality.' I mean, how else to explain such insane statements being taken at face value? The biggest idiocy of them all was probably asserting that the bank failure and Great Recession was caused by too much government regulation. Are you kidding me? Wall Street tanked because they were over-regulated? That is so jaw-droppingly wrong it boggles the mind. Ben Carson, in trying to answer what he'd do about big banks getting even bigger stated that he wouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first place. Well, excuse me, but a newly-sworn in president simply does not get to go back in time and change things. It's just not an option. You can't go kill baby Hitler, and you can't just wave a magic wand and have reality be different when you take office. I mean, what universe are these people from? The one where Wall Street would have behaved with decorum and fiscal responsibility with less oversight? Sheesh."

 

7
   What color will the shirts be?

Your papers, please....

"Donald Trump is now saying he'll have a 'deportation force' to round up 11 million people, which he promises to do in two years' time. This raises a few important questions, of course. Will this deportation force be allowed to smash windows, while performing their duties? And what color will their shirts be -- brown or black? Finally, 'deportation force' is kind of a clunky term... maybe it'd sound better in the original German?"

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

122 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [369] -- Rebutting GOP Debate Nonsense”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note:

    Obviously, this was written before I was aware of the Paris attacks. Just so nobody thinks I was ignoring them, or anything...

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Initially there was a certain comic appeal to the Republican field but the more we hear from these candidates the less funny it is. It is, in fact, horrifying. The level of both sheer mendacity AND ignorance consistently displayed by every one of them is chilling.

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Nous sommes Eagles of Death Metal.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not exactly, John. :)

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula, I am heartened that the comic appeal is finally starting to wear thin. Hopefully, the enabling media will soon follow suit with your thinking.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Damn, I thought Michale would be here blaming the Paris attacks on something Obama did, or didn't do ...

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... that's wearing pretty thin, too.

  8. [8] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Supposedly, Hillary's newer new position on the minimum wage is to support $15 for big cities, but still only $12 for everybody else... so, only some "Democratic presidential candidates are now fully on board with a $15-an-hour minimum wage for all".

    Of course, I personally don't think she will even fight for $12 if elected.

    I'm thrilled at how successful Fight for $15 has been, so good choice for the award this week.

    I half expected Trump to "clarify" his "wages are too high" comment the next day by saying he thought the question was about the wages of the people on stage with him... alas, he's just a typical Repub class warrior.

    We're supposed to be expressing shock and sadness about the attacks in Paris, but I can't help but point out that Hollande and Obama are both on board with the regime change effort in Syria where we are supplying free weapons to the Army of Conquest... a "rebel" group that includes al Qaida.

    Both our governments are seriously betraying all who have been victimized by whacko Sunni extremists... and the only candidate in either party who seems willing to point it out is Rand Paul.
    It sickens me.

    A

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Damn, I thought Michale would be here blaming the Paris attacks on something Obama did, or didn't do ...

    Come on, Liz!! I gotta sleep SOMETIME!! :D

    But, since you asked.. :D

    I haven't had time to read up on the Paris terrorist attacks yet..

    However, I DID come across this little tidbit..

    “I don’t think ISIS is gaining strength. What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them.”
    -President Obama

    This was Obama's statement immediately prior to the Paris terrorist attack...

    Could our POTUS be MORE moronic and out of touch??

    I honestly doubt it... :^/

    We're supposed to be expressing shock and sadness about the attacks in Paris, but I can't help but point out that Hollande and Obama are both on board with the regime change effort in Syria where we are supplying free weapons to the Army of Conquest... a "rebel" group that includes al Qaida.

    On the other hand, it seems like BigAl is the one who is "blaming the Paris attacks on something Obama did"...

    :D Ironic, eh?? :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pretty much every pundit under the sun -- from the hard left to the hard right -- has so far written a column this year predicting Trump's imminent political demise.

    Present company included.. :D

    Democrats mostly ponder such an outcome with what might be called orgiastic schadenfreude. Wouldn't it be fitting, they think, for Republicans to torpedo their own chances in such a fashion?

    Except for the fact that Trump has MANY ideas that appeal to the Left and that a poll of Democrats show that Trump would be hard to beat..

    In other news from the Republican campaign trail, we have what is possibly the stupidest question ever being debated. Jeb Bush would cheerfully go back in time and kill baby Hitler, while Ben Carson would refuse to abort fetus Hitler. No word on what Marty McFly would do, yet. Stay tuned....

    It's not stupid.. It's a very interesting moral question..

    Would anyone here care to take a shot at it??

    What is wrong with this agency?

    That's simple..

    Look who they work for... :^/

    You never had this level of crap under GOP administrations...

    Something about moral authority comes to mind...

    Get to the TPs in a bit..

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow...

    The carnage is incredible...

    I am just really glad that ISIS is "contained"... :^/

    I would be really worried otherwise...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    With all the Syrian "refugees" that Obama is importing into the US, it's only a matter of time before a Paris-style terrorist attack happens here...

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [10] -

    Seth (on late night TV) pointed out the fallacy. You go back in time, kill baby Hitler, then come back. You want to brag, so you tell someone "I just went back in time and killed baby Hitler... oh, but you don't know who that is, because history has changed..." To which the response would be, "Wait a minute, you just said you killed a baby?!? I have to call the police, now..."

    Heh.

    Non-seq: best time-travel loop story of all time: "All You Zombies" by Robert A. Heinlein. Joe Bob says "Check it out!"

    The answer to the Hitler problem can only be definitively arrived at if you knew what would happen to the world without Hilter.

    Unintended consequences can be a bitch.

    Captain's log, no stardate. For us, time does not exist. McCoy, back somewhere in the past, has effected a change in the course of time. All Earth history has been changed. There is no Starship Enterprise. We have only one chance - we have asked the Guardian to show us Earth's history again, Spock and I will go back into time ourselves and attempt to set right whatever it was that McCoy changed.
    -Cpt. J.T. Kirk

    Bring back any memories? Joan Collins? The City On The Edge Of Forever?

    :-)

    Millions will die who did not die before.

    You're welcome.

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [11] -

    Seems more like Al Qaeda's trademarks, though. Multiple simultaneous attacks? I'd guess the Yemen branch of AQ, maybe...

    -CW

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    The answer to the Hitler problem can only be definitively arrived at if you knew what would happen to the world without Hilter.

    If you haven't already, I advise you to read Stephen King's November 22, 1963

    A world where John F. Kennedy wasn't assassinated..

    Not a pretty picture...

    Time travel stuff is fascinating...

    Bring back any memories? Joan Collins? The City On The Edge Of Forever?

    :-)

    Millions will die who did not die before.

    That just gave me chills.. One of THE best Time Travel episodes of ANY show.... I was actually able to coax my 10th grade English teacher into showing COTEOF in English class. I was in heaven.. :D

    You're welcome.

    Thank you... :D

    Seems more like Al Qaeda's trademarks, though. Multiple simultaneous attacks? I'd guess the Yemen branch of AQ, maybe...

    Oh, it was definitely an ISIS op....

    THAT is what makes it so scary...

    Out of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees that Obama wants to bring to the US, you just HAVE to know that a good percentage of them will be ISIS....

    You watch.. We're going to see a Paris-style attack here in the US before the holidays are over....

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Obama administration is moving to increase and accelerate the number of Syrian refugees who might be admitted into the United States by opening new screening outposts in Iraq and Lebanon, administration officials told Reuters on Friday.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-refugees-u-s-centres-1.3308576

    Yea... Let's bring more potential terrorists into the United States..

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong..

    As long as they vote Democrat, who cares... :^/

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unintended consequences can be a bitch.

    Star Trek

    Voyager

    YEAR OF HELL

    :D

    But, regardless of the reality and the fallacies..

    WOULD you do it?

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not stupid.. It's a very interesting moral question..

    Would anyone here care to take a shot at it??

    "Let me ask you a question. Say there's a runaway train. It's hurtling out of control towards ten people standing in the middle of the tracks. The only way to save those people is to flip a switch - send the train down another set of tracks. The only problem is there is a baby in the middle of those tracks."

    "Why would anyone leave a baby in harm's way like that?"

    "I don't know. That's not the point. Look, it's an ethical dilemma. Look, Katie Brown brought it up over dinner the other night. The question is: is it appropriate to divert the train and kill the one baby to save the ten people?"

    "Wouldn't the people just see the train coming and move?"

    "No. No, they wouldn't see it."

    "Why not?"

    "Well... Look, I dunno. Say they're blind."

    "*All* of them?"

    "Yes, all of them."

    "Then why don't you just call out and tell them to move out of the way?"

    "Well, because they can't hear you."

    "What, they're deaf too?"

    "How fast is the train going?"

    "Look, the speed doesn't matter!"

    "Well, sure it does. If it's goin' slow enough, you could outrun it and shove everyone to the side."

    "Or better yet, go get the baby."

    "For God's sake! I was just trying to..."
    -STARGATE ATLANTIS

    I sometimes feel like Dr McKay around here.. :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It's Bush's fault.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exactly... :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Good. We're agreed.

  22. [22] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "the less funny it is"
    "the comic appeal is finally starting to wear thin"

    Trump tried to step up his game on Thursday, but the ISIS stepped on his headlines. The sexist pig with the weirdest hair in the known universe even stooped low enough to critique Hillary's hairdo. The other contestant's are no slouches either. How can you say it isn't funny when a guy says the media is smearing him by doubting his claim that he tried to hit his mother with a hammer? JEB's awkwardness is actually approaching Rmoneyish levels and Rmoney is a replicant! I'm really looking forward to when Trump launches his birther campaign against Terd "kill the gays" Cruz. Trump assures us that Cruz is going to get nasty and he is ready.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Non-seq: best time-travel loop story of all time: "All You Zombies" by Robert A. Heinlein. Joe Bob says "Check it out!"

    Ever read Heinlein's DOOR INTO SUMMER...

    Has Time Travel AND Cryogenics!! :D

    But the romance subplot is highly unbelievable... Have to wonder how Heinlein could come up with something so.... weird...

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump tried to step up his game on Thursday, but the ISIS stepped on his headlines. The sexist pig with the weirdest hair in the known universe even stooped low enough to critique Hillary's hairdo. The other contestant's are no slouches either. How can you say it isn't funny when a guy says the media is smearing him by doubting his claim that he tried to hit his mother with a hammer? JEB's awkwardness is actually approaching Rmoneyish levels and Rmoney is a replicant! I'm really looking forward to when Trump launches his birther campaign against Terd "kill the gays" Cruz. Trump assures us that Cruz is going to get nasty and he is ready.

    "Dogs Barking Can't Fly Home Without Umbrella"
    -Jumpin' Jack Flash

    :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's being reported that several of the Paris attackers were registered Syrian refugees...

    When we see an attack here in the US from ISIS, you can bet that Obama's plan to mint millions of fresh new Democrat voters will hit a HUGE brick wall..

    I would hate to be a Democrat when the attacks come.. Because you can bet that the American people en masse blame the Democrat Party...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the Paris ISIS attacks are going to give Trump a huge boost in the polls....

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/14/mizzou-campus-activists-and-black-lives-matter-complain-about-paris-stealing-the-spotlight/

    WOW....

    The spoiled little brats at Yale and MU are complaining that the Paris terrorist attacks are stealing their limelight...

    The Democrat Party... In all it's "glory".... :^/

    Silence gives assent...

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "It's being reported that several of the Paris attackers were registered Syrian refugees..."

    It has also been reported that two of the attackers had fake Syrian and I believe Saudi Arabian passports.

    But why rush to demonize refugees until all the facts are in?

    It has been well known for a long time now that there are hundreds of French, British, American etc. citizens who have run off to fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and that eventually a lot of them will try to return home.

    In fact, I believe one of the attackers has also already been mentioned as being a French national.

  29. [29] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    @Michale [#15]

    Oh, it was definitely an ISIS op....

    Looks like you were right: Islamic State Claims Responsibility For Deadly Paris Attacks

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    But why rush to demonize refugees until all the facts are in?

    Those who are tasked with the safety and security of nations do not have the luxury of political correctness...

    People die while those of lesser minds concern themselves with feelings..

    It has been well known for a long time now that there are hundreds of French, British, American etc. citizens who have run off to fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and that eventually a lot of them will try to return home.

    Yes.. "hundreds" of local nationals..

    VS

    tens of thousands of refugees..

    The math is simple...

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    altohone wrote:

    Yes Micha

    Someone with your ethical challenges and reading comprehension difficulties would indeed believe my comment was blaming Obama.

    On the other hand, regular people would recognize that giving US taxpayer funded weapons to the terrorist group that attacked us on 9/11 and numerous other times, and claimed responsibility for the previous attack in Paris...

    ... in order to effect regime change in a country that is not responsible for any of those terror attacks and posed no threat to America...

    ... is simply insane.

    Now, if ISIS is responsible as they supposedly claim, and if they used the refugee crisis to infiltrate militants into Europe, it would absolutely be fair to lay some blame on both Obama and Hollande... because our foolish regime change effort in Syria using terrorists as proxies is absolutely the major cause of the flood of refugees.

    We also bear blame for looking the other way while our "allies" supported the militants who would become ISIS, and of course for the foolish war in Iraq that created the conditions for the rise of ISIS... and by "we", I specifically mean ALL the neolibcons... most Republicans and many Dems including Bush, Hillary and Obama too... who have been making US foreign policy for decades... not to mention all their defenders (ahem).

    But, that isn't what I was talking about in my original comment... which was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the leaders lamenting terrorism while funding and arming terrorists.

    As you can see though, I have no problem assigning blame when the blame has been earned.

    A

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like you were right: Islamic State Claims Responsibility For Deadly Paris Attacks

    Thanx, RD...

    Al Qaeda has become more targeted in it's terrorist attacks.. The Hedbo attack was a prime example of that.. While AQ's concept of "guilty" is totally whacked, they have strayed away from random mass killings... Their attacks are more targeted and specific these days..

    Once I got some details of the attacks thru various sources, the indiscriminate nature, the mass violence and casualties, I knew it was an ISIS attack...

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Yes.. "hundreds" of local nationals..

    VS

    tens of thousands of refugees..

    The math is simple..."

    Yes it is. Battle hardened and radicalized hundreds with legitimate passports flying in under the radar and who already intimately know the country and can blend in with already established friends and family are far more of a threat than poorly disorganized refugees in unfamiliar territory with no established contacts. Tell me who is more likely to take part in a sophisticated logistical operation requiring precision timing and access to weapons and support and planning under the noses of French security akin to our FBI and CIA?

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those who are tasked with the safety and security of nations do not have the luxury of political correctness...

    The idealistic concept of Better 100 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be detained loses some of it's luster and appeal when one or one's loved ones are facing the business end of an terrorist's AK-47 or suicide vest...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes it is. Battle hardened and radicalized hundreds with legitimate passports flying in under the radar and who already intimately know the country and can blend in with already established friends and family are far more of a threat than poorly disorganized refugees in unfamiliar territory with no established contacts.

    You, of course, assume that the refugees are "poorly disorganized" and have no "established contacts"...

    A CT professional, on the other hand, would acknowledge the possibility that such is not the case..

    Regardless of that, a thousand disorganized terrorists is the much larger threat.. especially if disorganized wanton indiscriminate violence is the objective...

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know what you are doing, JM...

    You are desperately trying to deflect the blame away from refugees so as to protect Obama's minting fresh new Democrat voters program..

    I am more than willing to wait and see who is right..

    But several of the attackers are Syrian refugees that got to France by way of Greece...

    It's a refugee problem... Not a local national problem..

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Regardless of that, a thousand disorganized terrorists is the much larger threat.. especially if disorganized wanton indiscriminate violence is the objective..."

    True enough. I will concede you have a point. But the Paris attacks have every indication of being the exact opposite. Of being a well considered, planned and highly organized attack by a disciplined group, still bent on indiscriminate violence though. Besides, there is no evidence and never has been, of the refugees being anything other than refugees, let alone containing thousands of terrorists among their number.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:
  39. [39] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "You are desperately trying to deflect the blame away from refugees so as to protect Obama's minting fresh new Democrat voters program.."

    I don't know how you got from terrorists in Paris to Obama vote rigging in America...that sounds like the kind of leap that FOX News is more worthy of...but ok.

  40. [40] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-14

    I find the timing of the Paris attacks interesting....ISIS (or whatever we are calling it these days) just suffered a major defeat at Sinjar and in contrast to earlier defensive battles, did not put up much of a fight.

    From the NYT:

    "In the hours before the taking of the city, P.K.K. and pesh merga officials said, they intercepted radio traffic from the Islamic State fighters suggesting that their forces were deserting. They said they had heard the voice of an Islamic State leader berating his fighters, warning that deserters would be beheaded."

    The widely reported killing of "Jihadi John" was another negative news story about ISIS.

    The Paris attacks may well have been an attempt to redirect the bad news cycle... ISIS defends its brand by showing it can kill civilians in Europe. It's reasonable to believe sleeper cells in Paris (and elsewhere) case multiple targets of opportunity. All ISIS leadership had to do was drop a coded E-mail giving the go ahead to hit something big.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe as a 'psychological weapon'..
    Italian press today published claims that ISIS has threatened to release the huge wave of migrants to cause chaos in Europe if they are attacked
    And letters from jihadists show plans to hide terrorists among refugees

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2958517/The-Mediterranean-sea-chaos-Gaddafi-s-chilling-prophecy-interview-ISIS-threatens-send-500-000-migrants-Europe-psychological-weapon-bombed.html

    I don't know how much more evidence ya'all need.....

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Paris attacks may well have been an attempt to redirect the bad news cycle... ISIS defends its brand by showing it can kill civilians in Europe. It's reasonable to believe sleeper cells in Paris (and elsewhere) case multiple targets of opportunity. All ISIS leadership had to do was drop a coded E-mail giving the go ahead to hit something big.

    This would seem to contradict the idea that this was a meticulously planned attack....

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know how you got from terrorists in Paris to Obama vote rigging in America...that sounds like the kind of leap that FOX News is more worthy of...but ok.

    Simple..

    Obama wants to bring tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into the United States..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama is doing this out of the goodness of his heart??

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Obama wants to bring tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into the United States..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama is doing this out of the goodness of his heart??"

    That rests on two very shaky assumptions.

    1.) That after years in this country, they would become citizens eligible to vote, and would in fact vote.

    2.) That they would vote Democratic in great enough numbers to make any difference, and would not vote Republican.

    3.) I would point out that a good number of the refugees are not Islamic but are in fact Christian Arabs fleeing areas falling under ISIS Islamic control. Conservative Christians are just as likely to end up voting Republican.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    That rests on two very shaky assumptions.

    1.) That after years in this country, they would become citizens eligible to vote, and would in fact vote.

    The idea that Democrats would wait until they are citizens is the shaky assumption..

    2.) That they would vote Democratic in great enough numbers to make any difference, and would not vote Republican.

    Yea, because it was the Republicans who welcomed them with open arms and gives them all free stuff.. :D

    Remember.. I was born AT night. Not LAST night.. :D

    I would point out that a good number of the refugees are not Islamic but are in fact Christian Arabs fleeing areas falling under ISIS Islamic control.

    Cite your evidence...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's face the facts, people..

    Terrorist attacks favor the Republican Party...

    Because no American trusts the Democrat Party to keep them safe...

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Terrorist attacks favor the Republican Party...

    And yes.. I realize how royally frak'ed up that is..

    But it IS the reality of the here and now...

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "I would point out that a good number of the refugees are not Islamic but are in fact Christian Arabs fleeing areas falling under ISIS Islamic control.

    Cite your evidence..."

    Here are but two examples:

    From August 2014, CNN report:

    Iraq's largest Christian town has been overrun by the same militant Islamists who have gained a foothold in parts of eastern Syria and western and northern Iraq.
    The latest advance by ISIS (or the Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) has caused thousands of Christians in the city to flee, just as other minority groups targeted by ISIS have done, as well as Shiite Muslims.
    The French government confirmed that the Iraqi city of Qaraqosh has fallen into the hands of the militant al Qaeda offshoot.
    "France is highly concerned about the latest progress of ISIS in the North of Iraq and by the taking of Qaraqosh, the largest Christian city of Iraq, and the horrible acts of violence that are committed," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in a statement.

    From November 2015, The Christian Post Report:

    The Islamic State terror group has captured the Syrian town of Maheen in the central Homs Province, reports have said, and is now advancing toward the nearby town of Sadad, which is home to nearly 15,000 Syriac Orthodox Christians.

    BBC News reported that the terror group, which has captured significant territory across Syria and Iraq, has been focusing on expanding from its mainly northern and eastern strongholds toward Homs in central Syria in recent months.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was hoping for actual evidence of Christians among the hundreds of thousands of refugees flooding into Europe..

    Granted, you provide some circumstantial evidence.. But even that shows the numbers of christians within the Syrian refugees (even if there are christians) are quite small compared to the overall numbers..

    Why do you have a problem with admitting that ISIS is a grave threat??

    I know, I know.. Obama said that ISIS is "contained" and that's good enough for you...

    But, jeeeze....

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    John M wrote:

    I have no problem at all admitting that ISIS is a threat. Also, it is not just Obama and Democrats wanting to admit refugees for some nefarious vote getting purpose.

    From September 9th of this year:

    "South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham became the first Republican presidential candidate to call on the United States to admit more Syrian refugees on Tuesday. Marco Rubio, another Republican presidential contender, told reporters on Tuesday he is “open” to allowing more refugees into the United States – reiterating an answer he first provided in a radio interview on Monday. The senator (Rubio) first addressed the situation in an interview Sunday with the Boston Herald Radio and expressed particular concern for Syrian Christians who have been displaced by the ongoing civil war."

  51. [51] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "I know, I know.. Obama said that ISIS is "contained" and that's good enough for you..."

    Also, I would like to point out that there is an ocean wide difference between "containing" ISIS or anyone else as a military force occupying territory on the ground, and acts of terrorism. Terrorism by definition can never be "contained."

  52. [52] 
    John M wrote:

    ISIS as a purely conventional force poses no military or territorial threat to the United States. As a terrorist organization however, that is an entirely different matter.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, I would like to point out that there is an ocean wide difference between "containing" ISIS or anyone else as a military force occupying territory on the ground, and acts of terrorism. Terrorism by definition can never be "contained."

    And, if Obama had made that distinction, you would have a point..

    But he didn't, so you don't..

    ISIS is a terrorist organization. It is NOT a sovereign nation... You can't say, "Oh, we contained ISIS, the Nation, but cannot contain ISIS, the Terrorist Group."

    They are one and the same.. And either it's contained or it is not..

    Obviously it's not..

    Once again, it's simple..

    Obama thought he would take a victory lap and it came back to bite him on the ass...

    Just like Berghdal...

    Denying it just makes it look all the more pathetic..

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    ISIS as a purely conventional force poses no military or territorial threat to the United States. As a terrorist organization however, that is an entirely different matter.

    They are one and the same.

    THAT's the point you miss...

    And you miss it solely and completely for partisan agenda-based reasons...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of partisan agenda...

    Obama "doesn't want to speculate who is behind the Paris attacks.."

    That right there should tell you something..

    I was calling it an ISIS op at 0200hrs this morning...

    Maybe Obama should hire me as his Intel chief, eh?? :^/

    Jeezus H Chreest!!!

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, kids: A real movement needs more than hurt feelings
    http://nypost.com/2015/11/13/sorry-kids-a-real-movement-needs-more-than-hurt-feelings/

    Ain't THAT the frakin' truth!!

    The entire sorry episode can be summed up like this...

    "Waaaaaa Waaaaaaa My feelings have been hurt!!!"

    Those little cry babies are in for a rude awakening when they exit their sheltered existence and have a big heaping dose of reality....

    There are no "safe zones" in the work place, little kids.. You have to sink or swim with no one there to wipe yer snot nose...

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-42

    Not at all. Meticulous planning means you have multiple plans regularly updated, to deal with multiple contingencies, including which venue is packed on the day you get the nod to kill. This is very basic tradecraft and easier than ever with ubiquitous, modern electronic devices.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not at all. Meticulous planning means you have multiple plans regularly updated, to deal with multiple contingencies, including which venue is packed on the day you get the nod to kill. This is very basic tradecraft and easier than ever with ubiquitous, modern electronic devices.

    And yet, there is a proven and definitive link between the Syrian refugees and the attacks..

    I am not saying that this wasn't a planned attack. It obviously was...

    I am just saying that it takes more than a single email to plan it...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note:

    Correction -- "Medicare" has been changed to "Medicaid" in TP#5.

    Mea culpa.

    -CW

  60. [60] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, and...

    thanks to HuffPost commenter Alain Efstratiou for pointing the error out...

    -CW

  61. [61] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [23] -

    Yeah, "Door Into Summer" is pretty cool, aside from the romance, how can you not love a story with a time-traveling cat? Arriving in a nudist resort was a nice touch, too.

    "By His Bootstraps" is another good one (short story), although not as good as "All You Zombies."

    The Stig [40] -

    Yeah, my wife pointed this out too. Sinjar, the crucial highway to Mosul, and a coordinated (and successful) push in Syria by the Kurds all had to hurt ISIS's image.

    Michale [43] -

    Get your facts right. Obama said 10,000. Not "tens of thousands."

    -CW

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, "Door Into Summer" is pretty cool, aside from the romance, how can you not love a story with a time-traveling cat? Arriving in a nudist resort was a nice touch, too.

    Yea, the romance was, by today's standards, just icky...

    Even at the time, it was weird...

    Get your facts right. Obama said 10,000. Not "tens of thousands."

    The exact number is not the issue...

    The Paris attacks were carried out by some Syrian "refugees"..

    That should ring some bells in the administration..

    On another note..

    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/sanders-aide-pushes-back-against-cbs-switch-to-215805298.html

    Seems like Bernie is afraid to talk counter-terrorism...

    Gee.. I wonder why....

    Micale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of partisan agenda...

    Obama "doesn't want to speculate who is behind the Paris attacks.."

    That right there should tell you something..

    I was calling it an ISIS op at 0200hrs this morning...

    It's Benghazi all over again...

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Marge Simpson seems to have loaned her pearls to Hillary.

  65. [65] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Arc of Instability....did Clinton just coin a phrase?

  66. [66] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Questioning is pretty tough.....will CBS be blackballed?

  67. [67] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Declaring war against ISIS would be tantamount to recognizing them as a nation.
    Probably not good idea. See Lincoln, Civil War, blockade, diplomatic snafu.

  68. [68] 
    TheStig wrote:

    O'Mallly just lost the carnival barker vote...can he retain the geek and bearded lady demographic?

  69. [69] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Sanders is scoring some hits....so is O'Malley for that matter. Civilized debate.

  70. [70] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Most candid resonse: MO's no governor has to face the level of crisis a
    POTUS .

    My take: all 3 candidates performed well, MO was most improved. Most genuine goes to Bernie. A 3 way draw more or less. Bernie seems to be pushing HC a bit more towards the base and a bit away from corporate Democrats. HC should write Bernie a nice note: "thanks for helping me triangulate."

  71. [71] 
    Paula wrote:

    Charles Pierce has a great column up about how to deal with ISIS: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-middle-eastern-oligarchies/

    Apparently it is rich elites in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates who fund these groups and we should be going after their money, not the citizens of these countries who are continually caught between warring extremists.

    I don't know a lot about this topic so don't feel equipped to debate it, but I do know that the knee-jerk response I've seen by lots of people -- the "blame all Muslims, blame the Syrian refugees" rhetoric -- strikes me as simple-minded, nasty and counter-productive. No amount of bombing innocent civilians can prevent a handful of determined people from blowing themselves up and taking a restaurant with them if they want to. More warring won't end terrorism. Following the money strikes me as a more effective approach.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    No amount of bombing innocent civilians can prevent a handful of determined people from blowing themselves up and taking a restaurant with them if they want to. More warring won't end terrorism. Following the money strikes me as a more effective approach.

    Lawsuits and tea time won't end terrorism either.. :^/

    The point is not about ending terrorism..

    The point is to make sure there are less terrorists..

    You don't do that with lawsuits...

    The reality of the here and now is that sometimes force must be applied..

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary was slammed by Bernie and O'Malley for her being in bed with Wall St..

    Her justification for being bought and paid for??

    9/11

    :^/

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the latest debate made one thing perfectly clear..

    The Democrat Party is the Party of old white people... :D

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since no one wants to engage on the Cry Babies At MU and Yale discussion, can I assume that we are all in agreement?? :D

    Yea, I know what happens when one makes an assumption..

    It makes an ass of of 'U' and 'umption'... :D

    I'll save the debate until the end of the month.. :D

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    No amount of bombing innocent civilians can prevent a handful of determined people from blowing themselves up and taking a restaurant with them if they want to.

    And let's not forget who has been "bombing innocent civilians" by the thousands...

    Bush???

    Nope.. Ya'all's own Messiah, President Obama....

    In other words, ALL of you are supporting the bombing of innocent civilians....

    Ya'all own it...

    Kinda puts things in perspective, eh? :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates

    Twenty-four hours ago, I said on the radio apropos the latest campus "safe space" nonsense:

    "This is what we're going to be talking about when the mullahs nuke us."

    Almost. When the Allahu Akbar boys opened fire, Paris was talking about the climate-change conference due to start later this month, when the world's leaders will fly in to "solve" a "problem" that doesn't exist rather than to address the one that does. But don't worry: we already have a hashtag (#PrayForParis) and doubtless there'll be another candlelight vigil of weepy tilty-headed wankers. Because as long as we all advertise how sad and sorrowful we are, who needs to do anything?

    With his usual killer comedy timing, the "leader of the free world" told George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning, America" this very morning that he'd "contained" ISIS and that they're not "gaining strength". A few hours later, a cell whose members claim to have been recruited by ISIS slaughtered over 150 people in the heart of Paris and succeeded in getting two suicide bombers and a third bomb to within a few yards of the French president.
    http://www.steynonline.com/7293/the-barbarians-are-inside-and-there-are-no-gates

    Ya'all can create your "safe spaces" and go on and on about money-trails, innocent Muslims, catastrophic Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption and what the definition of 'is' is until the cows come home..

    And while ya'all are having these grand conversations while your heads are firmly in the sand, more innocent men, women and children will continue to be slaughtered by extremists who don't give a rat's ass about your "safe spaces" and your hurt feelings...

    This is the reality of the world in the here and now...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    POLL: TRUMP SURGES TO 42%...
    Says tough gun control laws in Paris contributed to tragedy...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/14/donald-trump-says-tough-gun-control-laws-in-paris-contributed-to-tragedy/

    I have to admit I am on the fence over this assessment..

    Logically speaking, it's a rational assessment of the possibility..

    But my gut tells me that gun control has little to do with the success of the attack...

    Sorry, Donald.. Gotta call ya wrong on this...

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    But since we're pointing out BS on gun claims..

    "Since we last debated in Las Vegas, nearly 3,000 people have been killed by guns. Two hundred children have been killed. This is an emergency." She said that in the same period there have been 21 mass shootings, "including one last weekend in Des Moines where three were murdered."
    -Hillary Clinton

    Bullshit upon bullshit upon bullshit....

    Closer to 2000 people have been killed by guns since the last Dem debate.. Including a vast number of legitimate self-defense deaths, justified police shootings etc etc etc...

    Less than 70 under the age of 18 have been killed by guns...

    21 mass shootings??

    Try ONE... The Des Moines shooting that Hillary cited... Which is one less death than what would qualify the incident for a crowd-based mass shooting...

    Funny how fact checking is only important with GOP debates, eh?? :^/

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary was slammed by Bernie and O'Malley for her being in bed with Wall St..

    Her justification for being bought and paid for??

    9/11

    Hay Hillary...

    Rudy called...

    He wants his slogan back..

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula[71]

    You make a very good point and your post is an excellent starting point for a real discussion about what can be done to stop violent Islamist extremism and the nihilistic ideology that underpins it.

    First, there needs to be consensus over what we call this scourge on the global community and, frankly, I'm not sure what that is. But, the civilized world needs to come together on this fundamental first step of accurately naming the problem, it seems to me.

    More importantly, and no matter what the civilized world outside of the Middle East does to help solve this problem, there can be no real progress without effective leadership from the regional powers, leadership that has up to now been seriously lacking, from Saudi Arabia to Turkey.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    First, there needs to be consensus over what we call this scourge on the global community and, frankly, I'm not sure what that is. But, the civilized world needs to come together on this fundamental first step of accurately naming the problem, it seems to me.

    You nailed it, Liz when you said "violent Islamist extremism"

    But the vast majority of the Left Wingery is simply incapable of putting any form of ISLAM in the same sentence with extremism or terrorism..

    How can one fight or combat a problem unless they actually RECOGNIZE the problem??

    More importantly, and no matter what the civilized world outside of the Middle East does to help solve this problem, there can be no real progress without effective leadership from the regional powers, leadership that has up to now been seriously lacking, from Saudi Arabia to Turkey.

    That's because the region's leaders for all intents and purposes are still stuck in the Dark Ages...

    Like I have always said... Islam is where christianity was a thousand years ago... Brutal.. Barbaric.. Uncivilized..

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You nailed it, Liz when you said "violent Islamist extremism" ... But the vast majority of the Left Wingery is simply incapable of putting any form of ISLAM in the same sentence with extremism or terrorism..

    We need to recognize, I think, that Islamist and Islam are not the same animals. This needs to be made clear by Sunni and Shi'a leaders throughout the Middle East and beyond.

    It is a grave mistake and dangerously counterproductive to equate Islam with violent Islamist extremism.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is a grave mistake and dangerously counterproductive to equate Islam with violent Islamist extremism.

    I agree...

    However, it is WORSE to IGNORE the violence that certain offshoots of Islam represents..

    As Paris has certainly indicated...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just to be clear, Michale, what do you mean by "certain offshoots of Islam"?

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... back later this evening ...

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just to be clear, Michale, what do you mean by "certain offshoots of Islam"?

    The offshoots that says it's perfectly acceptable to behead people ya don't agree with or who piss you off... :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    ... back later this evening ...

    Have fun... :D

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    ISIS claims to have over 4000 terrorists mixed in amongst Syrian refugees...

    Who wants to be the one to ignore that??

    Sure as hell not me...

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Left Wingery goes on and on about denial and deniers..

    Denial, global warming and the slaughter in Paris

    What will the White House say caused the terrorist massacre in Paris? Will it be lack of job opportunities for an at-risk population? Will it be outrage over an offensive Youtube video? Or maybe we are starting to see the practical national security effects of global warming? Whatever the administration says was the cause, they will never blame radical Islam, and that is why we cannot win the war.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/14/denial-global-warming-paris-terrorism-column/75780112/

    And yet, it's the Left Wingers who are in denial and who are the deniers..

    And THEIR denial is costing people their lives...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Criteria for electing a President:

    1) Democrats: Is the most qualified to run the country.
    2) Republicans: Says the most outrageous things about liberals.

    Is this about right?

    Strangely, I think the time travel question about baby Hitler says everything you need to know about politics.

    1) Conservatives say they kill baby Hitler.
    2) Conservatives think liberals are weak for not having the gumption to kill baby Hitler.
    3) Liberals ask if there are other options. Why not teach baby Hitler some other skills, for example?
    4) News media rakes it in from the controversy.
    5) News media faces zero criticism for a leading question with only 2 ridiculous moral choices. Kill a baby or you're responsible for the holocaust.

    This is the way our media operates daily. It does this because the corporate media isn't really news; it's marketing. And one of the easiest ways to try to get people to do what you want it to give them only two choices: one that looks "good" and one that looks "evil."

    -David

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ISIS claims to have over 4000 terrorists mixed in amongst Syrian refugees...Who wants to be the one to ignore that?? Sure as hell not me...

    I don't think anyone is ignoring the fact that terrorists will inevitably gain entrance into Europe and America via the refugee route, if not by any number of other means.

    The question to be pondered is what to do about that?

    The answers are not easy but I don't think any world leader is currently acting in ways that come close to providing answers.

  93. [93] 
    akadjian wrote:

    ISIS claims to have over 4000 terrorists mixed in amongst Syrian refugees...Who wants to be the one to ignore that?? Sure as hell not me...

    I call BS.

    If you're a terrorist, there's much easier ways to get into the U.S. Like hop on a plane.

    The refugees are the people fleeing the terrorists.

    But we get it, Michale. You don't like fur'eigners.

    -David

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Criteria for electing a President:

    1) Democrats: Is the most qualified to run the country.
    2) Republicans: Says the most outrageous things about liberals.

    Is this about right?

    That's about right from the Left's point of view..

    The Right sees it a bit different..

    What makes the Left right and the Right wrong?

    3) Liberals ask if there are other options. Why not teach baby Hitler some other skills, for example?

    Does the Left Wingery REALLY want to talk about the alternatives to killing babies??

    REALLY???

    I call BS.

    You can call BS all you want... But the claim WAS made...

    Do you want to ask Parisians how they feel about the claim??

    If you're a terrorist, there's much easier ways to get into the U.S. Like hop on a plane.

    Yes.. If you are A terrorist.. Which goes to the value of Obama's air security program, but that's another discussion..

    But if you are HUNDREDS of terrorists.. Or THOUSANDS of terrorists..

    The easiest way to get to the US is to pretend to be downtrodden, poor and persecuted.. The saps in the US eat that shit up...

    The refugees are the people fleeing the terrorists.

    Are you willing to bet your life on that?? The lives of your friends and family??

    Fine.. Then invite them to stay with you...

    But we get it, Michale. You don't like fur'eigners.

    Naw, I just don't like terrorists and criminals...

    There's a difference, don'tcha know... :D

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think anyone is ignoring the fact that terrorists will inevitably gain entrance into Europe and America via the refugee route, if not by any number of other means.

    Yes, it's inevitable.. That doesn't mean that governments are required to ASSIST the terrorists in the killing of the nation's own citizens...

    The question to be pondered is what to do about that?

    One solution is to control borders..

    What is so evil about that???

    The answers are not easy but I don't think any world leader is currently acting in ways that come close to providing answers.

    As the Paris attacks completely and utterly prove...

    But the Left's idea of open borders is, apparently, not the solution..

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Keep in mind one thing..

    ISIS Paris attacks are merely a trial run for the attacks in the US...

    You heard it here first...

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The problem is, the Left refuses to draw the proper conclusions from the Paris terrorist attacks..

    Because the proper conclusions lays bare the folly, the DANGEROUS folly, of the Left's minting-fresh-new-voters agenda...

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The problem is, the Left refuses to draw the proper conclusions from the Paris terrorist attacks..

    No, actually that is not the problem. Nor is your claim that borders are not already protected. But, it does point up why we can't have an enlightened discussion.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nor is your claim that borders are not already protected. But, it does point up why we can't have an enlightened discussion.

    If you simply dismiss arguments out of hand with no substantiation, then yes.. I agree..

    We can't have an enlightened discussion.. :D

    So, by all means...

    Enlighten me... :D

    The Left wants less border controls...

    Less border control is anathema to security...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, we learned 2 things today...

    Charlie Sheen has AIDS and Hillary Clinton suffers from senility....

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    And we learned something else..

    Over 470 killed and wounded in the Paris terrorist attacks..

    According to Obama, that's a "setback"...

    Yea... OK.... :^/

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The most important thing that we are learning is that, 14 years after 9/11, world leaders and those who seek the seat of power still cannot summon the intellect nor the political will to come together to defeat a relatively small group of terrorists.

    Worse than that, what they have done - over the last many years and over the last few days - has only made the situation much more difficult to effectively deal with.

    One thing is for sure, if governments the world over had responded more collectively and effectively to the threat of terrorism, that threat would be greatly reduced today, if not essentially eliminated.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    State of Florida has joined several other other states in telling the Obama Administration, NOT ONLY 'NO', BUT 'HELL NO!!!' when it comes to Syrian Refugees...

    Who called it???

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    The most important thing that we are learning is that, 14 years after 9/11, world leaders and those who seek the seat of power still cannot summon the intellect nor the political will to come together to defeat a relatively small group of terrorists.

    No... The most important thing we are learning is that, 14 years after 9/11, the citizens of liberal countries cannot summon the will to allow their government to do what is necessary to collectively and effectively reduce the threat of terrorism..

    Bush tried... And look what it got him...

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem, Liz is that no one in the current Administration understands the terrorist mind-set..

    They think, "Oh just give them hope and change and love and they will quit being terrorists.."

    Madonna Wrong To Think Terrorists Will Stop By Giving Them “Dignity And Respect” And “Love Unconditionally”
    http://www.gossipcop.com/madonna-paris-attacks-terrorists-dignity-respect-isis-love-unconditionally-video/

    That's the Left Wingery mindset and it's THAT mind-set that gets people killed..

    Terrorists are animals.. Pure and simple...

    Once you develop THAT mind-set... The mind-set that reflects reality....

    Dealing with them effectively is easy...

    Do you "reason" with a great white shark?? Do you "reason" with a rabid bear??

    No... You put them down as quickly and efficiently as possible..

    It's simple...

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I don’t think ISIS is gaining strength. What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them.”
    -President Obama

    “I read the intelligence faithfully. ISIL is not contained. ISIL is expanding. They just put out a video saying it is their intent to attack this country. I think we have to be prepared.”
    -Senator Dianne Feinstein

    Our POTUS...

    Doesn't know National Security from his ass.. :^/

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth (81) -- Yep.

    Sadly, all the warmongers are salivating again and all the "all Muslims are Terrorists" idiots are spraying spittle again and conservatives are running around celebrating Republican Governors trying to refuse Syrian refugees and conservatives are twisting the President's comments today because they can never tell the truth when a lie will gin up hysteria.

    So, keeping in mind that Conservatives have nothing useful to offer and everything they say will be stupid, counter-productive, bloodthirsty and xenophobic, the real question is what do the thinking-people on the planet do? Certainly there needs to be a recognition, as you point out, that the planet needs to unite on this -- and, as I had mentioned in the earlier post -- we need to follow the money. Charles Pierce had another column up noting that Anonymous has been shutting down ISIS websites today -- good for them. We've already seen that sheer military might mostly wastes money, kills innocent people and helps ISIS recruit. It ISN'T the answer. It may have it's place, but it isn't, by itself, the answer.

    Of course anything Michale suggests we should do the opposite of.

    I'll be interested to see what John Kerry has to say. I hope the President will stick to his position of not-being-a-knee-jerk-idiot since the cry for stupidity will be as loud as republicans can make it (inbetween their whimpers about meanie reporters asking them to explain their tax plans).

    I will be interested in hearing what Hillary and Bernie have to say and will be doing a lot of reading on the subject.

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course anything Michale suggests we should do the opposite of.

    Agreed. :)

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    running around celebrating Republican Governors trying to refuse Syrian refugees

    Ain't no "TRYING" about it, sugar.. :D They are doing it..

    and conservatives are twisting the President's comments today

    Ain't no "TWISTING" either.. Just stating the facts. Something you apparently have an issue with.. :D

    I will be interested in hearing what Hillary and Bernie have to say and will be doing a lot of reading on the subject.

    They can't even admit who the enemy is... They are completely useless in the issue..

    Of course anything Michale suggests we should do the opposite of.

    Yea, cause that's worked SO WELL to date, eh??

    Doing the opposite of what Michale suggests is why there are over 470 dead and wounded in Paris, sweethart...

    But, by all means.. Continue to advocate letting innocent men, women and children die...

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here Are the Growing Number of U.S. Governors Saying No to Syrian Refugees
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/16/here-are-the-nine-u-s-states-saying-no-to-syrian-refugees/

    You were saying something about Governors "trying" to stop Syrian refugees???

    That number is up to 23 state Governors, both Republican AND DEMOCRAT governors... Something you fail to acknowledge...

    Almost half the states in the country are closing their doors...

    "Trying" my ass.. :D

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/17/04/2E84AD5D00000578-3320882-image-a-1_1447734782842.jpg

    That's our POTUS...

    Always behind the curve when it comes to what the majority of Americans want...

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    John M,

    3.) I would point out that a good number of the refugees are not Islamic but are in fact Christian Arabs fleeing areas falling under ISIS Islamic control. Conservative Christians are just as likely to end up voting Republican.

    Sorry, JM.. I gotz to call BULLSHIT on that..

    So Far: Syrian Refugees in U.S. Include 2,098 Muslims, 53 Christians
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-christians-are-greatest-peril-least-likely-be-admitted

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    But the discrimination against christians with regards to refugee status is completely understandable..

    As you state, christians are usually reliable GOP voters...

    It's also well-documented that muslims vote Democrat....

    So, the FACT that the Obama administration is admitting muslim refugees over christian refugees by a factor of 20 to 1 is simply more evidence that Obama and the Democrats are minting fresh new Dem voters....

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    You were saying something about Governors "trying" to stop Syrian refugees???
    "That number is up to 23 state Governors, both Republican AND DEMOCRAT governors... Something you fail to acknowledge...
    Almost half the states in the country are closing their doors...
    "Trying" my ass.. :D"

    22 Republican governors and only ONE Democratic governor (New Hampshire) is hardly the bi-partisan revolt that you are trying to make it seem. Also, there is not ONE thing ANY of those governor's can do about stopping people from taking up residence in their state that would NOT be unconstitutional. So those governors can bluster all they want, but in they are totally powerless to do anything about it. About all they can do is deny state government funding but that's all. They can't stop the people from coming in and they can't stop the federal government. Only Congress might be able to do that.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    22 Republican governors and only ONE Democratic governor (New Hampshire) is hardly the bi-partisan revolt that you are trying to make it seem. Also, there is not ONE thing ANY of those governor's can do about stopping people from taking up residence in their state that would NOT be unconstitutional.

    Bull...

    If these people are not documented properly, you bet yer ass there is something the Governor can do..

    So those governors can bluster all they want, but in they are totally powerless to do anything about it.

    You want to bet???

    How is Obama going to FORCE states to take in undocumented refugees??

    Tell ya what.. Why not house ALL of the refugees at the White House??

    You have a problem with that??

    Thought so...

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for the record, it's up to 25 Governors who are telling Obama to take his refugees and shove them up his ass...

    And yes.. it's a LOT more bi-partisan than TrainWreckCare ever was...

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "If these people are not documented properly, you bet yer ass there is something the Governor can do.."

    You just answered your own question Michale. And if they ARE documented properly??? Then there is squat they can do....

    "How is Obama going to FORCE states to take in undocumented refugees??"

    Hmmm, I guess you never heard of federalizing the National Guard? If segregationist southern governors could not stop integration, how do you think modern governors are going to stop bus loads of refugees? They could not even stop refugees being distributed among the various states in the 1980's from Cuba. Or do you not remember the Mariel boat lift and Chrome detention center, etc,?

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    You just answered your own question Michale. And if they ARE documented properly??? Then there is squat they can do....

    And where will they be until they are "documented properly"??

    Or is Obama just going to pass out documents to anyone who wants them in their native countries??

    Yea, yer right. I wouldn't put it past him to do that..

    Gotta mint those fresh new Democrat voters by any means necessary..

    Hmmm, I guess you never heard of federalizing the National Guard? If segregationist southern governors could not stop integration, how do you think modern governors are going to stop bus loads of refugees?

    Murrieta, CA...

    'nuff said..

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    You watch, JM...

    Within a week, Obama is going to announce the suspension of the Syrian refugee program..

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the SPOILED BRATS department...

    Seems our favorite immature morons are whining and complaining the Paris terrorist attacks that killed and wounded over 470 innocent people have stolen their 15 mins of fame...

    What happens if your army of hate-filled crazies gets upstaged by another army of hate-filled crazies? Apparently you go nuts—ideally in pubic. At least that’s what the racialists of Black Lives Matter movement did when ISIS terrorists in Paris went on a killing spree last Friday.

    Rather than sympathize with those were actually oppressed in Paris by rampaging jihadists, Black Lives Matter aficionados took to Twitter with the hashtag, “#FUCKParis.” Such was the degree of upset that an attack on a NATO ally might temporarily distract the stream of liberal politicians pandering to the cop-hating Black Lives Matter movement.

    Yep.. That's a Democrat group, through and through...

    Aren't ya'all so proud?? :^/

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    jhentai wrote:

    re robert heinlein stories "the man who travelled in elephants" is very good and so is "the unpleasant profession of jonathan hoag"!

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    jhentai,

    Thanx!! I'll definitely have to check those out...

    And, as I am wont to do...

    "WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Don't worry.. You get used to it.. :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.