ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [396] -- No Magic Phrases

[ Posted Friday, June 17th, 2016 – 18:16 PDT ]

Before we begin, we should mention that this week's talking points section consists of a few extended excerpts from President Obama's recent speech on fighting the Islamic State. What he had to say was important, and it counters several insidious talking points that have been used against him in the past, so we felt it was worth taking over this week's talking points. Just to warn everyone up front.

Because these excerpts are longish, we're going to once again have to punt on announcing the winners of our "what playground taunt should we call Donald Trump?" contest once again. Our apologies, and we swear we'll get to it next week (granted, that's what we said last week, but this time we really mean it).

We're also going to have to review the week's news in lighting fashion for an intro, because this column's already approaching Brobdingnagian lengths. Well, maybe not, but it sure is fun to run "Brobdingnagian" through the old spell-checker, and we have to find our amusements where we will in this job. Ahem. Enough meandering, let's just get on with it, shall we?

Of course, the tragic news from Orlando dominated the week's media, as once again someone with easy access to military-style weaponry takes dozens of lives. According to Donald Trump and John McCain, this is all Barack Obama's fault (of course). Personally, we think if you want to go back and point fingers, you'd have to include George W. Bush's inability to get an agreement with the Iraqi government to keep American troops there (Obama was merely following Bush's signed agreement, something McCain and all other Republicans seem to always conveniently forget), and we would even trace the real blame back to L. Paul Bremer's infamous first order of his stewardship of Iraq, which disbanded the Iraqi army and led directly to all the Sunni insurgencies since. Put plainly, if de-Ba'athifying the army had never happened, then the Islamic State would never have happened. Which John McCain (at the very least) should well know.

Newt Gingrich had another one of his patented horribly bad ideas, but we already explained why earlier in the week, so we'll just note it and move on. Thankfully, nobody else has picked up on the idea of resurrecting HUAAC.

The C.I.A. released some chilling documents detailing the torture it performed on prisoners (which included such phrases as "hung by the arms from the ceiling for almost a month" as well as one prisoner's statement: "Doctors told me that I nearly died four times"). To its credit, the Washington Post ran an article about the new documents using a headline which included the clear and unequivocal phrase "C.I.A. Torture."

Speaking of the Post, Donald Trump has now banned them from covering his rallies. In normal times, this would be shocking, but it's pretty much par for the Trump course, these days.

Some Republicans are still dreaming about dethroning Trump at their convention. Aren't they adorable, when they're asleep and dreaming such lovely dreams? Awww....

Speaking of adorable, Little Marco Rubio has now apparently decided that he does want to stay in the Senate, after all. Since he was so vocal about how he'd never do such a thing (tweet from last month: "I have only said like 10000 times I will be a private citizen in January"), it won't be very hard for Democrats to put together a few ads to remind voters of Rubio's disdain for his current job.

A fanatic in Britain killed a member of Parliament while shouting an extreme right-wing slogan, and now it seems he was inspired by American neo-Nazi groups. This immediately brought a promise from Republicans to root out such domestic support of international terrorism... oh, wait, that didn't actually happen, did it?

And finally, a nice comparison of two states, and the results of their experiments -- on the left and right -- as to how budgeting and tax policy really works in the real world (as opposed to "in conservative economists' fantasies"). In California, taxes were raised on millionaires. In Kansas, taxes were raised on the poor and slashed for the wealthy. How'd all that work out?

California's economy grew by 4.1 percent in 2015, according to new numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, tying it with Oregon for the fastest state growth of the year. That was up from 3.1 percent growth for the Golden State in 2014, which was near the top of the national pack.

The Kansas economy, on the other hand, grew 0.2 percent in 2015. That's down from 1.2 percent in 2014, and below neighboring states such as Nebraska (2.1 percent) and Missouri (1.2 percent). Kansas ended the year with two consecutive quarters of negative growth -- a shrinking economy. By a common definition of the term, the state entered 2016 in recession.

The article also points out Kansas is on the brink of a big credit downgrade "indicating there is a chance the state cannot pay its bills." Proof positive that trickle-down does not work (and indeed has never worked), and that raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy does not kill the economy one tiny little bit.

OK, that's enough of a wrap-up, let's move right along to the awards portion of our show.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have two winners for this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, both for impressive feats of political theater.

The first goes to Representative Gwen Moore from Wisconsin. Because of Republican attempts to force welfare recipients to undergo drug testing (to prove their worthiness), Moore successfully flipped this debate on its head with her own proposal: welfare drug testing for rich people. From the story:

Moore's bill would require a drug test for any tax filer who claims itemized deductions worth more than $150,000. So a wealthy guy who wants to write off massive amounts of mortgage interest would have to prove he's not on drugs.

If taxpayers with more than $150,000 in deductions didn't want to submit to a drug test, they could just use the standard deduction instead -- meaning they'd pay a whole bunch more in taxes. This would only affect families which had roughly three times the average American family's income in deductions alone, so it wouldn't affect many folks out there. And if the sacred principle is that government helping people out financially requires drug testing, then why not?

Moore explained further what led her to make the proposal:

Moore told The Guardian her most direct inspiration for the proposal, which is unlikely to become law, came from House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who unveiled his poverty policy agenda last week at a drug and alcohol treatment center in southeast Washington.

"When he stood in front of a drug treatment center and rolled out his anti-poverty initiative, pushing this narrative that poor people are drug addicts, that was the last straw," Moore said.

We've always been a big believer that the way to point out Republican hypocrisy is in the most scathingly ironic method possible, because that's really the only way to get anyone talking about the inherent contradictions in conservative ideology. If drug testing is going to be required for government benefits, why wouldn't we test those who are receiving the highest dollar amounts of such benefits? Brilliant!

While our first MIDOTW salutes a bill that is likely never going to become law, we also have to salute a senator who pushed as hard as he could to move towards actually passing meaningful legislation. Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut led the ninth-longest filibuster in American history this week, to force the Republican-led Senate to allow votes on two gun control bills from Democrats. Newtown is in Connecticut, making this a very personal subject for Murphy.

Murphy lasted until two in the morning, or almost 15 straight hours. In the end, he won -- he got Mitch McConnell to agree to bring up the Democratic bills, possibly as early as Monday. That is pretty downright impressive, seeing as how filibusters rarely actually achieve their goals.

Now, this doesn't mean that either bill is going to pass. The first would ban people on the official watchlist of suspected terrorists from buying guns. Given the existence of such watchlists, it seems a reasonable thing to do -- why should someone who is not allowed on a plane be allowed to buy a semi-automatic weapon? We have our doubts about the constitutionality of such lists in the first place (discussed earlier in the week) ourselves, but if we're going to have such a list it certainly isn't all that big a step to refusing them permission to buy weaponry.

The second would require background checks for all gun purchases, even those taking place online or at gun shows. This concept is overwhelmingly supported by the American public, but the National Rifle Association has so far been successful at blocking the idea.

As I said, even though Murphy secured a vote for these two measures, neither is likely to pass, making his filibuster an act of political theater. But again, we love a good bit of political theater, especially when it is even partially effective in moving the public debate at large.

Republicans have a crafty way to avoid paying a political price on the first measure -- they've got their own proposal which seems to ban suspected terrorists from buying guns, but it is in fact so weak that nobody would likely ever be denied as a result (current stats show that people on these watchlists are already successful at buying guns nine times out of ten, it bears mentioning). This way, Republicans can counter Democratic political ads about "voting to allow suspected terrorists to buy guns," by saying in response: "I voted for the Republican version, which protected innocent Americans' Second Amendment rights." As we said, crafty.

But perhaps the tide is very slowly turning. During and immediately after the filibuster, there was actually some talk across the aisle of creating a bipartisan bill on the watchlist problem. These talks quickly broke down, and did not result in any meaningful compromise. But they took place -- which is more than has happened in the past. So maybe there's hope, although likely not before an intervening election.

Gun control may not be as toxic politically as it was in the past for Democrats, with every passing massacre Americans are forced to witness. This week -- whether legislatively successful or not -- Senator Chris Murphy moved that debate forward in a big way. By (literally) standing his ground for 15 hours, he at least forced a Senate vote on two gun control measures that never would have seen the light of day otherwise. That is incredibly impressive, which is why he also is a winner this week of the coveted MIDOTW award.

[Congratulate Representative Gwen Moore on her House contact page, and Senator Chris Murphy on his Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Sadly, we have to hand this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to Senator Bernie Sanders.

On Tuesday, the final primary (Washington D.C.) of the 2016 season happened. Bernie lost it, by an overwhelming margin. He met that day with Hillary Clinton, which was reminiscent of her face-to-face meeting with Barack Obama a few days after the final 2008 primary. But Clinton emerged from that meeting eight years ago and started working on her concession speech, which she gave four days after the primary season closed. This was her famous "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" speech, in case anyone's forgotten.

Bernie, on the other hand, met with Clinton for 90 minutes and then gave an online speech of his own two days later. He hit all the high points of his agenda during this speech, but fell short in one big respect:

Bernie Sanders profusely thanked his supporters. He said he looked forward to working with Hillary Clinton to advance key issues. And he urged like-minded followers to run for state and local offices so they can continue the "political revolution" he began.

In short, during his 23-minute speech live-streamed across the country, Sanders sounded very much like a candidate prepared to drop out of the Democratic presidential race. But the senator from Vermont pulled up short Thursday night, neither conceding the party's nomination nor endorsing Clinton in the general election.

"The major political task that together we face in the next five months is to make certain that Donald Trump is defeated and defeated badly," Sanders said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. "And I personally intend to begin my role in that process in a very short period of time."

But "defeating Trump cannot be our only goal," Sanders cautioned, speaking from his home town of Burlington, Vt.

We find this disappointing.

Bernie is trying to walk a tightrope here, between not being called a "sellout" by his supporters, and not looking like a spoiler to everyone else. He's stopped talking about winning over the superdelegates and wresting the nomination from Clinton at the convention. He knows this isn't going to happen. He is trying to exert as much influence as he can over the party platform and the future of the party as a whole, and we do understand that.

But the choice has now become a binary one. Either vote for Clinton in November, or run the risk Donald Trump will actually be president. Those are the only two choices left. Voting third party or writing in Bernie's name may make some of his followers feel better, but depending on how close that voter's state is, it could run the risk of President Trump. There's no other way to see it now.

This year, especially, we have seen some awfully artful language from Republicans on the subject of the precise definition of the word "endorsement." They've had to dance over these metaphoric hot coals already. So there are examples for Bernie to follow to offer even a half-hearted endorsement of Clinton: "I cannot let Donald Trump become president and thus even though I do not fully endorse her agenda I will be voting for Secretary Clinton in November."

That's all Bernie needed to say in his video speech. But, for once, Bernie is the one resorting to lawyerly hair-splitting language: "I personally intend to begin my role in that process in a very short period of time." What the heck is that supposed to mean? Bernie's role -- whether he likes it or not -- in the process of the Democratic nomination is now to fight for inclusion of his ideas in the platform, but also to support the only viable candidate who can defeat Trump in the fall.

Bernie already got an extra week. It was crystal clear after the California and New Jersey primaries that Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic nomination by every measure. D.C. voted a week later, which gave Bernie some time to adjust to this reality. Then he met one-on-one with Clinton for a long discussion. The fact that he still can't bring himself to offer even a half-hearted endorsement of Clinton now, though, is disappointing. The choice for Bernie now is: work to get Hillary Clinton elected, or run the risk of President Trump. So far, he has not made up his mind, which -- even though we agreed with almost everything Bernie had to say in his video speech -- is disappointing. So much as it pains us to say it, Bernie was our MDDOTW award-winner this week.

[Contact Senator Bernie Sanders on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 396 (6/17/16)

We started today intending to point out one important thing Obama said this week, but when we read the full transcript, we decided to just do away with the talking points altogether to focus on a few excerpts from the speech. If this disappoints you and you still crave some anti-Trump talking points, you could always check out what his fellow Republicans have been saying -- just in the past week, mind you -- about Trump's reaction to the Orlando shooting. Some of them are as snarky as anything we could dream up, so that should satisfy anyone looking for our usual fare here.

President Obama actually gave two short speeches this week which merited attention. The first is the one we're focusing on, where he addressed the press corps right after a previously-scheduled meeting on the Islamic State situation. But later in the week, Obama spoke again after meeting with the victims' families down in Florida, where he further expressed his frustration at the lack of political will on gun control and the fact that he has had to be "mourner-in-chief" far too many times. This speech was also well worth reading, but we're concentrating on the earlier one instead.

Obama began by accurately portraying the state of the fight against the Islamic State (which he calls "ISIL") -- something usually missing in media reports on the fighting. The past year has truly been a turning point in the fight, at least against the "Caliphate" they've proclaimed for themselves on the ground in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq, the Islamic State has lost roughly half the ground it used to hold, and has lost all its battles. Anbar province is almost completely clear of the Islamic State, as Iraqi forces have retaken city after city. The only area left to clear is a border crossing and a few surrounding towns. That's a major accomplishment, seeing as how a little over a year ago the Islamic State was essentially on the doorstep of Baghdad and held almost the entire province. Mosul -- the biggest battle of the war, most likely -- remains to be cleared in the north, but Iraq has so far seen steady progress without a single reversal of fortune.

Syria hasn't been as much of a success story, but even there some incremental progress is being made by the various groups fighting the Islamic State (while also fighting each other, which certainly doesn't help). Here is Obama's overview of all the recent progress, from the official transcript:

At the outset, I want to reiterate our objective in this fight. Our mission is to destroy ISIL. Since I last updated the American people on our campaign two months ago, we've seen that this continues to be a difficult fight -- but we are making significant progress. Over the past two months, I've authorized a series of steps to ratchet up our fight against ISIL: additional U.S. personnel, including Special Forces, in Syria to assist local forces battling ISIL there; additional advisors to work more closely with Iraqi security forces, and additional assets, including attack helicopters; and additional support for local forces in northern Iraq. Our aircraft continue to launch from the USS Harry Truman, now in the Mediterranean. Our B-52 bombers are hitting ISIL with precision strikes. Targets are being identified and hit even more quickly -- so far, 13,000 airstrikes. This campaign at this stage is firing on all cylinders.

And as a result, ISIL is under more pressure than ever before. ISIL continues to lose key leaders. This includes Salman Abd Shahib, a senior military leader in Mosul; Abu Sa'ad al-Sudani, who plotted external attacks; Shakir Wahayb, ISIL's military leader in Iraq's Anbar province; and Maher al-Bilawi, the top ISIL commander in Fallujah. So far, we've taken out more than 120 top ISIL leaders and commanders. And our message is clear: If you target America and our allies, you will not be safe. You will never be safe.

ISIL continues to lose ground in Iraq. In the past two months, local forces in Iraq, with coalition support, have liberated the western town of Rutbah and have also pushed up the Euphrates River Valley, liberating the strategic town of Hit and breaking the ISIL siege of Haditha. Iraqi forces have surrounded Fallujah and begun to move into the city. Meanwhile, in the north, Iraqi forces continue to push up the Tigris River Valley, making gains around Makhmour, and now preparing to tighten the noose around ISIL in Mosul. All told, ISIL has now lost nearly half of the populated territory that it once controlled in Iraq -- and it will lose more.

ISIL continues to lose ground in Syria as well. Assisted by our Special Operations Forces, a coalition of local forces is now pressuring the key town of Manbij, which means the noose is tightening around ISIL in Raqqa as well. In short, our coalition continues to be on offense. ISIL is on defense. And it's now been a full year since ISIL has been able to mount a major successful offensive operation in either Syria or Iraq.

All of these points are almost never brought up during the coverage of the presidential race (or in any other context) in the mainstream media. The fight is slow, but the good guys have been winning for a while now. You'd think that would be news.

Obama then spoke of how the Islamic State's finances have also been targeted, and made a plea for obstructionist Republicans to put America's national security over their petty partisanship in the Senate:

In continuing to push on this front, I want to mention that it is critical for our friends in the Senate to confirm Adam Szubin, my nominee for Under Secretary of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Adam has served in Democratic and Republican administrations. Everyone agrees he's eminently qualified. He has been working on these kinds of issues for years. It's now been more than a year since I nominated him -- more than 420 days -- and he still has not been given a full vote. There is no good reason for it. It is inexcusable. So it's time for the Senate to do its job, put our national security first, and have a vote on Adam Szubin that can lead our financial fight against ISIL and help keep our country safe.

Hint to Democrats looking for attack ads against sitting Republican senators: here's a dandy issue for an ad! Political inactivity has consequences, for us all. Obama seems almost eager to get into the fray of the campaign himself these days, and his approval rating just keeps going up, so we're looking forward to hearing more of this sort of thing in the weeks ahead.

But the real reason we decided to highlight this speech so heavily was when Obama started talking about a favorite bugaboo of Republicans everywhere, most recently regurgitated by Donald Trump: the "magic phrase" Obama refuses to use. Last year I wrote about this bizarre GOP concept:

There's an ongoing debate about the phrase "Islamic terrorism" (or "radical Islam" or similar phrasings), where conservatives insist that if politicians (specifically President Obama) would merely use the correct phrase to describe things, it will somehow bestow magical benefits. "Did you hear President Obama today?" the jihadists would incredulously say to each other, "He actually used the term 'radical Islamists' to describe us! We must have won the battle of ideas, so there's just no point in fighting on anymore. Here's my AK-47, I'm going back to my home village to grow olives." Although ridiculous, this is precisely what some Republicans seem to believe.

Finally, this week, Obama addressed this argument head-on and destroyed it once and for all. He absolutely knocked it out of the park. We thought it was a shame that when Obama's remarks were reported on television news, they were always cut to a single short soundbite or two. Because Obama eloquently buried this ridiculousness forever, and he deserves credit for the breathtaking way he did so. So here is what Obama had to say, in full, to finish this week's talking points section.

And let me make a final point. For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase "radical Islam." That's the key, they tell us -- we can't beat ISIL unless we call them "radical Islamists." What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction. Since before I was president, I've been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. As president, I have repeatedly called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world's great religions.

There has not been a moment in my seven-and-a-half years as president where we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we didn't use the label "radical Islam." Not once has an advisor of mine said: "Man, if we really use that phrase, we're going to turn this whole thing around." Not once. So if someone seriously thinks that we don't know who we're fighting, if there's anyone out there who thinks we're confused about who our enemies are, that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists who we've taken off the battlefield.

If the implication is that those of us up here and the thousands of people around the country and around the world who are working to defeat ISIL aren't taking the fight seriously, that would come as a surprise to those who have spent these last seven-and-a-half years dismantling al Qaeda in the FATA [the tribal areas of Pakistan], for example -- including the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk and the Special Forces that I ordered to get bin Laden and are now on the ground in Iraq and in Syria. They know full well who the enemy is. So do the intelligence and law enforcement officers who spend countless hours disrupting plots and protecting all Americans, including politicians who tweet and appear on cable news shows. They know who the nature of the enemy is.

So there's no magic to the phrase "radical Islam." It's a political talking point; it's not a strategy. And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism. Groups like ISIL and al Qaeda want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West. They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions. They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion-plus people; that they speak for Islam. That's their propaganda. That's how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war with an entire religion -- then we're doing the terrorists' work for them.

Now, up until this point, this argument about labels has mostly just been partisan rhetoric. And, sadly, we've all become accustomed to that kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist groups. And that kind of yapping has not prevented folks across government from doing their jobs, from sacrificing and working really hard to protect the American people.

But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mindset and this kind of thinking can be. We're starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we're fighting, where this can lead us. We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States to bar all Muslims from emigrating to America. We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests that entire religious communities are complicit in violence. Where does this stop? The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer -- they were all U.S. citizens.

Are we going to start treating all Muslim-Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith? We've heard these suggestions during the course of this campaign. Do Republican officials actually agree with this? Because that's not the America we want. It doesn't reflect our democratic ideals. It won't make us more safe; it will make us less safe -- fueling ISIL's notion that the West hates Muslims, making young Muslims in this country and around the world feel like no matter what they do, they're going to be under suspicion and under attack. It makes Muslim-Americans feel like their government is betraying them. It betrays the very values America stands for.

We've gone through moments in our history before when we acted out of fear -- and we came to regret it. We've seen our government mistreat our fellow citizens. And it has been a shameful part of our history.

This is a country founded on basic freedoms, including freedom of religion. We don't have religious tests here. Our Founders, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights are clear about that. And if we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world, but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect -- the pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil liberties -- the very things that make this country great; the very things that make us exceptional. And then the terrorists would have won. And we cannot let that happen. I will not let that happen.

-- 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

 

258 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [396] -- No Magic Phrases”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Sorry FTP is so late today, everyone. Had external life chores that were unavoidable, so couldn't devote time during the day.

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If drug testing is going to be required for government benefits, why wouldn't we test those who are receiving the highest dollar amounts of such benefits? Brilliant!

    Brilliant, indeed!

    If the latter doesn't become law then, at the very least, the former won't either and debate over it will be effectively shut down.

    This may be a tactic worth repeating on a whole host of issues that Republicans refuse to see the light on.

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    While Obama's speech briefly notes ISIL is losing territory in Syria as well as Iraq, a State Dept. dissent memo indicates that 51 diplomats, and maybe Kerry himself, think more US military muscle needs to be directed at Assad. Perhaps, but Syria is rather solidly within Russia's sphere of influence. Russia has air and anti-air assets based in Syria. The potential for escalation seems high. Israel and Turkey share a border with Syria. Have the dissenters asked the opinion of the USAF and US Navy about how well they deter potential Russian counter moves? I imagine there are scenarios in Pentagon files.

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig -

    Especially considering the near-dogfight which happened today (heard about it after writing this...)

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    President Obama's remarks on the debate over what to call the terrorists and who understands what strategy will be most effective in destroying IS were spot on.

    I'd like to see him go even further in the coming months with a special focus on why the use of torture by the US or by its surrogates should never be condoned or justified and why, going forward, anyone who engages in it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    As for the actual use of torture under the auspices of the last Bush/Cheney administration, I think President Obama would be wise, especially in the midst of the current presidential campaign, to shine a spotlight on it and ... hold your ears, Michale! ... apologize for the fact that it became SOP in the wake of the 11 September attacks and ensuing Middle East wars, explain how it did nothing to make the US safer and, in fact, was decidedly counterproductive in that regard.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Re. the diplomats' memo ...

    President Obama should answer by saying, sure, I'll implement what you advocate but, only if you all will accept the appointments of being collectively responsible for successfully managing what comes after your recommended action.

    That should shut them up.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    apologize for the fact that it became SOP in the wake of the 11 September attacks

    We don't apologize... :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, the tragic news from Orlando dominated the week's media, as once again someone with easy access to military-style weaponry takes dozens of lives.

    Cosmetically only.... The similarity ends there...

    I have a .380 on my hip right now.. In a CQC situation (which is what Orlando was) it's 10 times more lethal than the "military-style weaponry" you are bemoaning..

    But, credit where credit is due... You didn't use the TOTALLY moronic "assault rifle".... So, you get a kewpie for that.. :D

    Anyone who uses the term "assault rifle" is simply holding up a big sign that says, I AM A COMPLETE AND UTTER IGNORANT MORON WHEN IT COMES TO FIREARMS

    According to Donald Trump and John McCain, this is all Barack Obama's fault (of course).

    Just stating the facts...

    (Obama was merely following Bush's signed agreement, something McCain and all other Republicans seem to always conveniently forget),

    Obama didn't let an agreement with Afghanistan stand in the way of keeping troops in theater there...

    Let's face reality here, people.. Odumbo wanted to fulfill a campaign promise. And he didn't care how many innocent Americans, French, Belgians or any other had to die...

    That is the beginning and the end of that issue..

    Put plainly, if de-Ba'athifying the army had never happened, then the Islamic State would never have happened.

    Yea?? And if Saddam Hussein hadn't been such a prick, it never would have happened either... If the dog hadn't stopped, he would have caught the rabbit...

    Spin it all you want. Odumbo's premature pull out (make of that what you will) in Iraq is DIRECTLY responsible for the rise of the Daesch.. And Odumbo FURTHER scroo'ed the pooch by poo-poo'ing the Daesch as "the JV" and then FURTHER compounded his moronic-ness by bullshitting the American people and saying that the Daesch was "contained"...

    How many frak-ups is Odumbo going to have to make before ya'all start to question yer messiah???

    What am I saying?? Odumbo could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and no one here (Notable Exceptions Noted) would care... :^/

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, the tragic news from Orlando dominated the week's media, as once again someone with easy access to military-style weaponry takes dozens of lives.

    Cosmetically only.... The similarity ends there...

    harmament.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/semiautointro.jpg

    Tactically speaking, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between these 2 weapons..

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....

    Pop quiz, hot shots...

    In a CQC situation such as the Orlando Massacre, which weapon is more lethal..

    1. Weapon A sjfm.us/temp/weapona.jpg

    2. Weapon B sjfm.us/temp/weaponb.jpg

    If you selected Weapon B, you are wrong and as such, your opinions are not informed opinions and should be viewed in that context..

    Don't get me wrong.. Ignorance is not a crime..

    "There is no dishonor in not knowing everything"
    -SubCommander T'al

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Until Odumbo can properly identify the enemy, as Hillary Clinton has done....

    His speeches on keeping Americans safe from terrorism are not worth listening to..

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    How could Americans trust FDR if he refused to say "Nazis" during WWII??

    Answer: They couldn't...

    How can Americans trust Odumbo to properly fight islamic terrorists if he is afraid of offending islamic terrorists by CALLING them islamic terrorists??

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    President Obama doesn't deserve the name-calling you have always afforded him.

    Mr. Trump does.

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    Funding ISIS - one aspect I don't see much about is attacking ISIS's funding. There were four main components the last time I looked into this:

    1. Oil - the majority of their revenue
    2. Kidnapping and general thuggery
    3. Funding from rich donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait
    4. Taxes - especially punitive taxes on non-muslims

    Oil - I understand that we have been targeting the transport of oil within the ISIS region, reducing the revenue significantly (see 3/8/16 article in the Guardian: "Oil revenue collapse means Isis reliant on Gulf funds, inquiry hears" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/08/oil-revenue-collapse-isis-reliant-gulf-funds-inquiry-hears )

    Kidnapping - I believe this is decreasing as territory is decreasing (i.e. they are not capturing new towns with new targets for kidnapping.

    Funding from rich donors - this is seen to be increasing (see Guardian article)

    Taxes - they are squeezing an ever decreasing tax base.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How can Americans trust Odumbo to properly fight islamic terrorists if he is afraid of offending islamic terrorists by CALLING them islamic terrorists??

    This question betrays a fundamental ignorance (purposefully, I believe - which is far worse than really not understanding - about why President Obama does not call them what you and the terrorists want.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Would it be okay with you if President Obama started calling the IS and their ilk, 'Daesh' or however it is spelled?

    I understand this is a derogatory term in Arabic. Maybe there is an even better - as in even more derogatory - Arabic term for them ... ?

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Obama doesn't deserve the name-calling you have always afforded him.

    Mr. Trump does.

    That's your opinion and I respect that..

    I just don't share it..

    If ya'all want to forgo the childish name calling with regards to the GOP Candidate, I'll be happy to reciprocate...

    Would it be okay with you if President Obama started calling the IS and their ilk, 'Daesh' or however it is spelled?

    It would be OK if Obama recognized the threat that ISLAMIC TERRORISTS pose... Because if he can't, how can he possibly defeat them???

    You can bet if it was christians who were acting like this, CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS would be on the Left Wingery's lips on an hourly basis..

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    This question betrays a fundamental ignorance (purposefully, I believe - which is far worse than really not understanding - about why President Obama does not call them what you and the terrorists want.

    You have a direct line into what the terrorists want to be called??

    Do tell.. :D

    The question is a sound and rational question based on decades of experience in the field...

    But since the Left can't ANSWER the question, all that's left is to attack the questioner...

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If ya'all want to forgo the childish name calling with regards to the GOP Candidate, I'll be happy to reciprocate...

    That's a deal, as far as I'm concerned.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I don't have a problem with calling them violently deranged Islamist extremists. I also know that President Obama doesn't give a whit about 'offending' the jihadists and he has done quite a lot to defeat them.

    Has it been enough? Not yet, obviously. But, defeating these terrorists and the ideology that underpins them is a long and complicated proposition with many and varied prongs of attack. President Obama gets this but, I don't think Mr. Trump does. Mr. Trump has not to date talked about the problem in ways that lead me to believe he understands how to defeat IS and their ilk.

    I'll tell you what ... I think the US response to IS would be infinitely more effective if the American president had the support of ALL Americans in this fight, notwithstanding their disagreements with how he is going about it.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You have a direct line into what the terrorists want to be called??

    Hardly.

    But, I do understand why President Obama doesn't call them what you want him to call them and it has nothing to with being afraid to offend them.

    It is this kind of reasoning that Mr. Trump uses to imply that President Obama sympathizes with the terrorists. It's the same kind of vile thinking the GOP candidate for president used earlier to imply that Obama may not be an American citizen.

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    Killer of Jo Cox MP was shouting "Britain first" or "put Britain first" as he murdered the 41-year-old mother of two.

    Sound like anybody we know?

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ya'all want to forgo the childish name calling with regards to the GOP Candidate, I'll be happy to reciprocate...

    That's a deal, as far as I'm concerned.

    You'll have to get everyone else on board.. :D

    Good luck with that..

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Killer of Jo Cox MP was shouting "Britain first" or "put Britain first" as he murdered the 41-year-old mother of two.

    Sound like anybody we know?

    Yea...

    Democrat Omar Mateen....

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    During the worst stages of the Iraq war when both Republicans and Democrats were lining up in opposition to how the Bush administration was handling the situation, Democratic Senator Joe Biden was urging President Bush to dismiss his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and suggested that, if the vice presidency wasn't a constitutionally protected office, Vice President Cheney should resign as well because both of these gentlemen were responsible for giving President Bush some very, very bad advice.

    Senator Biden went further, as you may recall, when he introduced his sense of the Senate resolution calling for US policy in Iraq to support federalism as a way of stopping the violence and helping Iraq move toward good governance for all of its citizens. Senator Biden introduced this as a bipartisan effort along with Republican Senator Brownback and others.

    The resolution, a gift to the Bush administration in its efforts to secure Iraq, passed the US Senate by an overwhelming and unprecedented margin of 75 - 23. Unfortunately, President Bush and his national security team flatly denounced it and even went so far as to sabotage Biden's efforts.

    Just a little history of what can or could be accomplished when Republicans and Democrats work together to solve problems and what happens when they don't.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You'll have to get everyone else on board

    No, I don't. You just have to remember my pledge whenever you respond to my comments. Deal?

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Isn't 'America First' one of Mr. Trump's slogans? Do you think he even knows the history behind it?

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I don't. You just have to remember my pledge whenever you respond to my comments. Deal?

    I'll do my best..

    Isn't 'America First' one of Mr. Trump's slogans?

    Regardless of it's history...

    What's wrong with that???

    Why is it so evil for an American President to put Americans first??

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, there is nothing wrong with putting America first. The problem lies with using that phrase and knowing what its historical context is while keeping in mind all of the other things that Mr. Trump has said and the policies he advocates for.

    Do you think he know the historical significance and connotations of 'America First'? And, how is one to understand Mr. Trumps efforts to 'uncover' President Obama's place of birth in this same context?

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't have a problem with calling them violently deranged Islamist extremists.

    What's wrong with Islamic terrorists??

    I also know that President Obama doesn't give a whit about 'offending' the jihadists and he has done quite a lot to defeat them.

    San Bernardino... Orlando... Paris x2.... Brussels..

    Let's ask the hundreds of dead and their families if Obama has "done quite a lot to defeat them"....

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    An important part of the problem is that Mr. Trump implies that President Obama is not putting America first.

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't have a problem with 'Islamic terrorists' but, then again, I don't really care what we call them. We all know who and what they are.

    We can have a good discussion about how best to go about defeating them and their barbaric way of thinking.

    And, part of the answer has to come from the wider Muslim world in terms of an acknowledgement about what has been done in the name of mainstream Islam to empower the terrorists. But, I'm afraid to have that kind of discussion here because of the high probability of it turning into a hate fest with fingers of blame being pointed everywhere and no viable solutions being offered.

    It will take a while - for me, at least - to feel comfortable having discussions like that at this site.

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's ask the hundreds of dead and their families if Obama has "done quite a lot to defeat them"....

    I wish we could have that debate, Michale, and exchange our ideas on how to go about defeating violent Islamist extremism, pointing out where we think the present and past administrations have gone wrong and what we think they should do now.

    Sadly, I don't think we're ready to have that discussion.

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll do my best..

    That's all any of us can do. I hope it's enough.

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    San Bernardino... Orlando... Paris x2.... Brussels..

    And, let's not forget the many thousands of innocent Muslim citizens of Middle Eastern countries who have been killed by the same ilk of terrorists.

    Maybe it's time to include ALL of the victims in our thoughts and prayers as a first step in coming together to defeat the terrorists and eliminate the enablers and enabling politics of the Muslim world.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't have a problem with 'Islamic terrorists' but, then again, I don't really care what we call them. We all know who and what they are.

    Agreed..

    Apparently, Obama doesn't feel the same way...

    And, let's not forget the many thousands of innocent Muslim citizens of Middle Eastern countries who have been killed by the same ilk of terrorists.

    Again... Agreed... The blood of ALL those innocents are on the hands of Obama and his Lead From Behind strategy...

    That's all any of us can do. I hope it's enough.

    It will be... :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    i agree, in order to have that discussion we need to be willing to address the reality of the issues without name calling.

    JL

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    An important part of the problem is that Mr. Trump implies that President Obama is not putting America first.

    Considering all the facts, that is the only logical conclusion..

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    i agree, in order to have that discussion we need to be willing to address the reality of the issues without name calling.

    Count me in....

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you think he know the historical significance and connotations of 'America First'?

    He may or may not know..

    If he DOES know, I am sure he doesn't care..

    Because that's just nothing but political correctness and Trump (and the VAST MAJORITY of Americans) are sick and tired of political correctness..

    It's political correctness that lead to over 100 people being brutally murdered and wounded in Orlando...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's political correctness that lead to over 100 people being brutally murdered and wounded in Orlando...

    You must be talking about the sort of political correctness that prevents Republicans from voting for common sense regulation despite the uncomfortable fact of 80+ percent Republican voters approving of such measures. I mean, so far, gun laws have been watered down to the point that a self-loathing-wanna-be-jihadist-wife-beating-bully boy could buy his weapons over the counter, and his ammo at Wal-Mart.

    I have an idea: how about mandatory drug testing for gun purchasers? Are guns any less likely to be abused than food stamps?

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    You must be talking about the sort of political correctness that prevents Republicans from voting for common sense regulation

    there are no common sense regulations..

    There are only WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws that will do NOTHING to prevent crowd-based mass shootings and will SURE AS HELL do nothing to prevent terrorist attacks..

    ANYONE who thinks that the answer to terrorism is gun control gives up ANY right to be considered a serious person...

    And no.. I am speaking of the political correctness that allows HUGE and ONGOING warning signs about an islamic terrorist to go UNREPORTED because people are afraid of being singled out and attacked and demonized as intolerant or anti-muslim..

    I have an idea: how about mandatory drug testing for gun purchasers?

    I already have the solution... Mirror GUN LAWS to VOTING LAWS...

    Are guns any less likely to be abused than food stamps?

    Uh... yea... by a factor of a gazillion...

    I would add a "DUUUHHHHH" there, but I am trying to be civil.. :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Because that's just nothing but political correctness and Trump (and the VAST MAJORITY of Americans) are sick and tired of political correctness.."

    Actually "political correctness" is nothing more than being respectful and considerate to each other, about the kinds of terms and how we use them, when referring to each other. Those who usually denounce political correctness as a bad thing are actually really only offended that they can no longer freely use bigoted and outdated terms, based on inaccurate stereotypes, regarding certain groups of people, with cavalier abandon anymore.

    "It's political correctness that lead to over 100 people being brutally murdered and wounded in Orlando..."

    This has got to be one of the most asinine, inaccurate and false statements ever made. It was nothing of the kind. Political correctness was not responsible. That's as bad as what Trump said about Obama.

    Homophobia was responsible. Religious zealotry was responsible. Intolerance was responsible. Bigotry and prejudice were responsible. Ignorance and fear was responsible. A sick twisted belief in the superiority of a particular brand of ideology or philosophy over all others was responsible. Mental illness was responsible. Terrorism was responsible.

    But what was patently not responsible was the failure by a politician to use a highly dubious, emotionally invested, and descriptively satisfying term for some people, to define a certain person or group of persons. You can berate someone for not using your preferred term of "Radical Islamic Terrorism" all you want. But in reality, its use or not, would have made absolutely no difference whatsoever in preventing a terrible tragedy.

    What we do however have to guard against, and focus on, is in not falling into the trap of making this a war between two different cultures or civilizations as a whole. That is what plays directly into the terrorists hands. That is the way that they win. That's what Obama and others are trying to avoid by not painting with an extremely broad brush, and assigning culpability to, an entire community that we desperately need as allies, for the actions of a minority subset of that community.

    That is not being "politically correct". That is being "politically smart."

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually "political correctness" is nothing more than being respectful and considerate to each other, about the kinds of terms and how we use them, when referring to each other.

    Of course, that's the LEFT Wingery definition. :D

    And, to be fair, I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that THAT is exactly how the Left Wingery views political correctness..

    But I can ALSO assure you with complete confidence that THAT is *NOT* how the vast majority of Americans (upwards of 70%) view political correctness.. :D

    This has got to be one of the most asinine, inaccurate and false statements ever made. It was nothing of the kind. Political correctness was not responsible. That's as bad as what Trump said about Obama.

    Political correctness was ABSOLUTELY responsible..

    I'll re-post..

    And no.. I am speaking of the political correctness that allows HUGE and ONGOING warning signs about an islamic terrorist to go UNREPORTED because people are afraid of being singled out and attacked and demonized as intolerant or anti-muslim..

    Political correctness stopped people from reporting or acting on Mateen's behavior..

    And over 100 Americans paid the price...

    Homophobia was responsible.

    Bullshit.. No one is AFRAID of gay people..

    That is not being "politically correct". That is being "politically smart."

    Here's a thought..

    Why not JUST BE SMART!!!

    THAT is EXACTLY the problem with Obama and the entirety of the Left Wingery..

    EVERYTHING is sent thru a POLITICAL CORRECTNESS machine and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS determines what's POLITICALLY SMART...

    You have hit the nail on the head!!!

    Obama and the Democrats are ALL about being POLITICALLY smart..

    EVEN if it means that HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of innocent Americans have to die...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very well stated, John.

  45. [45] 
    Paula wrote:

    [41] John M: Yep!

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    thirded.

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Fourthed, and John crosses the plate. Home Run!

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    [41] Pearls before swine, John?

    [26] Isn't 'America First' one of Mr. Trump's slogans? Do you think he even knows the history behind it?

    1. Yes.
    2. I doubt it, he is an ignorant blowhard.

  49. [49] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And no.. I am speaking of the political correctness that allows HUGE and ONGOING warning signs about an islamic terrorist to go UNREPORTED because people are afraid of being singled out and attacked and demonized as intolerant or anti-muslim..

    I must have missed the part where someone failed to report a terrorist because he or she was afraid a liberal would call him or her names. I do know that he was once reported by his co-workers for making worrisome remarks and that the FBI checked him out. I know that his ex-wife reported bouts of sudden unprovoked anger & violence. I know that he had a gun permit, and a concealed carry permit, and that he worked often in security jobs, meaning that he had to pass a background check regularly. Beyond that, I dunno. Not much you could do ahead of time, unless he actually did something illegal.

    But you could limit the amount of firepower that he could buy as a civilian, and that would make him less lethal. That could be done.

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Political correctness stopped people from reporting or acting on Mateen's behavior..

    How do you know that to be the case? I think his wife was in fear for her own life, not worrying about whether or not she was being PC. If she had called the police and said she was worried he might go to some unknown place and kill some unknown people at some unknown time, that would have prevented his actions how, exactly?

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    RE #44-#47

    Like I said..

    An echo chamber... Ditto heads..

    It's a good thing I am around or ya'all would REALLY be helpless.. :D

    Balthasar,

    I must have missed the part where someone failed to report a terrorist because he or she was afraid a liberal would call him or her names.

    Yes, you did. Because you are part and parcel to the problem of political correctness.. Like JM, you think that political correctness is a GOOD thing..

    No matter HOW many innocent people die from it..

    But you could limit the amount of firepower that he could buy as a civilian, and that would make him less lethal.

    As I have proven, the type of regulations ya'all are proposing WOULDN'T limit the firepower and make him less lethal.. A 40mm Glock would have been MORE lethal in that CQC situation than ANY "assault rifle" :^/

    THAT's the point you don't get..

    ALL the regulations ya'all have proposed are NOTHING but "Wouldn't It Be Nice" laws and would have done NOTHING to prevent ANY crowd-based mass shootings or ANY terrorist attacks..

    Please don't take this the wrong way..

    But ANYONE who thinks that terrorism is caused by firearm availability and that gun control will prevent or help prevent terrorist attacks is a COMPLETE and UTTER moron and should never even open their MOUTHs on the subject...

    I mean that with all due respect.. :^/

    Listen,

    How do you know that to be the case?

    Because I have read all the reports of ALL the warning signs, NOT just from the wife...

    If even a QUARTER of those signs had actually been reported, Mateen would have been stopped..

    But people were too afraid of being demonized for being anti-muslim.. So, virtually NONE of the warning signs were reported..

    And over 100 people are now dead or wounded..

    Because of political correctness..

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    [26] Isn't 'America First' one of Mr. Trump's slogans? Do you think he even knows the history behind it?

    1. Yes.
    2. I doubt it, he is an ignorant blowhard.

    Yea, and Odumbo's incompetence has been PROVEN....

    Regardless, that's PRESIDENT ignorant blowhard to you, sunshine... :D

    Better get used to typing it..

    PRESIDENT Trump... PRESIDENT Trump...

    Because ya'all are going to be typing it a LOT after January...

    Can't happen, you say???

    Ya'all said the EXACT same thing about Trump being the GOP nominee..

    Ya'all were wrong then... Ya'll will be wrong again..

    "Marge, that rhymes and you know it!!!"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael,

    I wanted to say something regarding a post you made on another thread regarding the Orlando massacre being close quarters combat and asking which weapon is better suited for that type of scenario. That was not an example of CQC. That was a shooting gallery. And while the AR-15 isn't the best firearm for CQC, it is a great choice for when you are wanting to mow down over one hundred people.

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Because I have read all the reports of ALL the warning signs, NOT just from the wife...

    If even a QUARTER of those signs had actually been reported, Mateen would have been stopped..

    Warning signs are easy to spot when you are getting to armchair QB an event that has already occurred. What signs would have gotten him locked up? Because unless you were going to hold him in custody, you would not have been able to have stopped him.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    But ANYONE who thinks that terrorism is caused by firearm availability and that gun control will prevent or help prevent terrorist attacks is a COMPLETE and UTTER moron and should never even open their MOUTHs on the subject...

    I mean, honestly.. This is a new low in stoopidity for the Left Wingery... Which has already been ROCK BOTTOM in stoopidity to date due to the LUDICROUS notion that guns are a medical problem to be addressed by the CDC...

    I mean, the idea that GUN CONTROL will actually prevent or help prevent TERRORIST ATTACKS!!!!

    I wonder what Political Correct-meister thought up THAT little gem of uber-moronic-ness... :^/

    Terrorists used planes to kill thousands.. Better ban planes!!!

    Terrorists used cars to kill hundreds... Better ban cars!!!

    Terrorists used pressure cookers to kill dozens... Better ban pressure cookers!!!

    Terrorists put on their shoes to go commit attacks.. Better ban shoes!!!

    Terrorists breathe air so that they can commit attacks.. Better ban air!!!!

    I mean, honestly people!!?? Am *I* the only one who sees the BLATANT partisan agenda and the COMPLETE and UTTER STOOPIDITY of this line of thought???

    GUN CONTROL TO PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACKS

    Yea... THAT's the ticket....

    Jesus H. Christ!!

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, please tell me there is SOMEONE within the sound of my voice who DOESN'T swallow everything that comes out of Odumbo's mouth..

    Please tell me there is SOMEONE out there that has SOME semblance or shred of sanity and DOESN'T believe that, if we limit gun ownership by law-abiding Americans, that the terrorists will give up out of sheer frustration!!???

    Listen??? Joshua??? Liz???

    Anyone?? Anyone??? Buehler???

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Warning signs are easy to spot when you are getting to armchair QB an event that has already occurred.

    Agreed...

    But these were pretty blatant warning signs...

    How do we know?? Because it brought Mateen to the attention of the FBI.. And it was likely Political Correctness that made the SAs a little wary about pursuing further or monitoring Mateen.. If just a few more of these warning signs WERE reported, then it might have tipped the scales..

    But yer right... It's all speculation...

    But the simple fact that there IS such demonizing of those who resport muslims or blacks or gays or anyone other than white straight christian males...

    THAT is the point... THAT is the problem with the Left Wingery's idea of political correctness...

    I wanted to say something regarding a post you made on another thread regarding the Orlando massacre being close quarters combat and asking which weapon is better suited for that type of scenario. That was not an example of CQC. That was a shooting gallery.

    While I think you are being overly semantical, it's still a valid point.. But it's not MY point..

    And while the AR-15 isn't the best firearm for CQC, it is a great choice for when you are wanting to mow down over one hundred people.

    Yes it is.. But if you ban the AR-15, then Manteen would have likely used his Glock... And THAT is MORE lethal than an AR-15 in CQC *OR* a human-stocked shooting gallery..

    So, banning AR-15s will not change ANYTHING..

    Because unless you were going to hold him in custody, you would not have been able to have stopped him.

    Not necessarily.. As I said about he would have likely been further scrutinized and possibly even monitored..

    I am not saying that reporting these warning signs would have GUARANTEED that the massacre wouldn't have occurred...

    It's not a Magic Bullet...

    But it's a HELLUVA lot more of a magic bullet than any gun control regulation that has cropped up in the Left Wingery wish list..

    To date, there has not been a **SINGLE** regulation proposal that would prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings or terrorist attacks..

    NOT A SINGLE ONE

    That is ALSO my point..

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    . . . if only Obama would chant the magic bullet phrase.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    To date, there has not been a **SINGLE** regulation proposal that would prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings or terrorist attacks..

    NOT A SINGLE ONE

    Can we at least agree on that??

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    . . . if only Obama would chant the magic bullet phrase.

    .... it would prove that he at least has a grasp of WHO the enemy is...

    Like I said.. It's like FDR refusing to label the enemy "NAZIs" in WWII...

    The fact that Obama seems reluctant to offend islamic terrorists makes Joe & Jane Sixpack question his competence..

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Isn't 'America First' one of Mr. Trump's slogans? Do you think he even knows the history behind it?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClQYlFVUsAAkqOh.jpg

    This is EXACTLY why AMERICA FIRST resonates with the VAST majority (upwards of 70%) of Americans..

    The Left Wingery wants to make America into a 3rd world shithole..

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly people!!?? Am *I* the only one who sees the BLATANT partisan agenda and the COMPLETE and UTTER STOOPIDITY of this line of thought???

    GUN CONTROL TO PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACKS

    Yea... THAT's the ticket....

    Obama wants the American people to focus on guns to distract from his complete and utter incompetence on terrorism...

    There has been a MAJOR terrorist attack against Americans EVERY YEAR of Obama's Administration...

    EVERY.... YEAR.....

    So it's perfectly understandable that Obama wants to blame gun ownership...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    GUN CONTROL TO PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACKS

    Please tell me there is SOMEONE out there that has SOME semblance or shred of sanity and DOESN'T believe that, if we limit gun ownership by law-abiding Americans, that the terrorists will give up out of sheer frustration!!???

    I really do think you're in the wrong blog, Michale. You are the only one here who understands this issue in such simplistic terms.

    This mantra seems to be getting under your skin. Funnily enough, because you are the only one here

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    who ever brings it up???

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    An echo chamber... Ditto heads..

    Now, you know that's not true, Michale. If we were all ditto heads then we'd all be agreeing with YOU!

    Heh.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I really do think you're in the wrong blog, Michale. You are the only one here who understands this issue in such simplistic terms.

    It IS simple...

    Guns don't shoot people of their own volition...

    This mantra seems to be getting under your skin. Funnily enough, because you are the only one here who ever brings it up???

    I didn't bring up the COMPLETELY ludicrous idea that Gun Control is a proper response to terrorism...

    Ya'all's messiah brought it up...

    I simply comment on it... :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, you know that's not true, Michale. If we were all ditto heads then we'd all be agreeing with YOU!

    Heh.

    heh...

    THAT just couldn't happen..

    Because that would herald THE END OF DAYS

    :D

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Enjoy your Sunday ... I'll be lounging poolside for the rest of the day. :)

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    But, hay... I'll be yer huckleberry...

    Explain to me how Gun Control is going to prevent terrorist attacks...

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The fact that Obama seems reluctant to offend islamic terrorists makes Joe & Jane Sixpack question his competence..

    Apparently the Sixpacks can be convinced of alot of things if Fox News repeats them enough. That doesn't make 'magic words' work any better.

    And to that point: the term 'Nazi' wasn't a term that nearly the entire German-speaking population, both here and in Europe, identified itself with. Now if FDR had said, "We're at war with radical blonde terrorists", he'd be closer to the magic format.

    And if FDR had decided to ban all Germans from entering the US (which he didn't, by the way), that would have stranded millions in Europe, including (gasp!)refugees, Jews (anarchists? communists?), scientists, and relatives of German families here in the US of A. So I don't think it's Germans - it's Japanese that you're thinking of, right? (I can't believe we're on this point..)

    As far as Obama's competence in anti-terrorism is concerned, the right is trying to turn reality on it's head. I mean, this is the guy who:

    Has ISIS surrounded.
    Took out Bin Laden.
    Took out most of Al Quaeda's top leadership, and has done the same with ISIS.
    Ordered the 'kill shot' that rescued Captain Phillips from Somali pirates.
    Convinced Iran to stand down its nuclear program, with Russia and China on our side.
    Convinced Syria to had over its entire chemical weapons stockpile to Russia.
    Convinced Cuba to enact free market reforms in return for easing of travel restrictions.

    Have there been setbacks? yes. But that's a good list. That's a damn good list. By comparison, at this point in 2008, Sarah Palin was chosen by the GOP to be a heartbeat from the Oval Office, and Bush was having shoes being thrown at him in Iraq.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Enjoy your Sunday ... I'll be lounging poolside for the rest of the day. :)

    Must be nice. :(

    I can't do that til 1800 today...

    Enjoy... :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Apparently the Sixpacks can be convinced of alot of things if Fox News repeats them enough. That doesn't make 'magic words' work any better.

    Ahhhh So THEY are all wrong and YOU are right??? :D

    And people call ME arrogant?? :D

    Seems like you are little INTOLERANT of their views, eh??

    Has ISIS surrounded.

    Yea, let's ask the people in Orlando or San Bernardino if the Daesch is "surrounded"...

    Took out Bin Laden.

    Thanks to intel from the Bush Administration that was extracted by torture..

    Took out most of Al Quaeda's top leadership, and has done the same with ISIS.

    Yea, Daesch is "contained" right?? Let's ask people in Brussels and Paris how contained Daesch is...

    Ordered the 'kill shot' that rescued Captain Phillips from Somali pirates.

    And THAT was the last time Obama showed ANY kind of competence...

    Convinced Iran to stand down its nuclear program, with Russia and China on our side.

    Yea?? And howz that working out so far?? :D

    Convinced Syria to had over its entire chemical weapons stockpile to Russia.

    BWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    A> Syria never did it.

    B> Even if SYRIA did do it, it would be like crowing that Hamas turned over it's chemical arsenal to Hezbollah..

    Convinced Cuba to enact free market reforms in return for easing of travel restrictions.

    And now dissidents are even MORE brutalized than before..

    Seriously, dood.. You are making MY point for me...

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's a damn good list.

    It is a damn good list. History will be kind to Obama and hard on the Republicans for the last 8 years.

    Plus, look at the achievements of Democratic presidents after their terms in office:

    Jimmy Carter - Habitat for Humanity, near eradication of the Guinea worm, etc.
    Bill Clinton - Clinton Foundation, etc.
    Bush 1 (I know, but by today's standards he is a Democrat) - led response to Aceh Tsunami

    Bush 2 - some nice watercolors.

    I expect in 10 years time Obama will be generating a post presidential legacy that will rival them all.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is a damn good list. History will be kind to Obama and hard on the Republicans for the last 8 years.

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary..

    "ISIS is contained"

    "ISIS is just the JV"

    THAT is Obama's legacy...

    Bush 2 - some nice watercolors.

    Wow.. You really are brimming with hatred, aren't you..

    Stop the hate, Neil.. Stop the hate...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have there been setbacks?

    So, you call HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children a "setback"???

    Wow...

    And I thought *I* was cold and brutal..

    THAT just takes the cake... :^/

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    I expect in 10 years time Obama will be generating a post presidential legacy that will rival them all.

    Even Joshua admits that Obama's administration is "nothing special" and will likely be viewed as mediocre by future historians.....

    Say it with me, Neil..

    OBAMA IS NOT THE MESSIAH...

    OBAMA IS NOT THE SECOND COMING

    :^/

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Allow me to rephrase..

    So, you call HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children being brutally slaughtered.. a "setback"???

    Wow...

    And I thought *I* was cold and brutal..

    THAT just takes the cake... :^/

    Makes more sense now..

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary..

    "ISIS is contained"

    "ISIS is just the JV"

    THAT is Obama's legacy...

    Oh and let's not forget...

    "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan".

    "Use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime is a 'red line' that we WILL respond to militarily."

    Yea, Odumbo's legacy is one bonehead moronic BS statement after another...

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bill Clinton - Clinton Foundation, etc.

    You mean the Clinton Slush Fund that takes TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars in bribes from countries that subjugate women and EXECUTES gay people???

    And YOU call that an achievement??

    Again, I thought *I* was cold and brutal... But I am a rank amateur compared to ya'all (N.E.N.) when it comes to a total lack of compassion.....

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    A possible Presidential Candidate was asked if we would see gay people in their administration..

    Here was the answer:

    I would want the best and brightest. Sexual orientation would be meaningless. I’m looking for brains and experience. If the best person for the job happens to be gay, I would certainly appoint them. One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace, good people don’t go into government. I’d want to change that.

    That was Donald Trump....

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Cartman!

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Compare and contrast that to today's Democrat Party candidate..

    A person that heads a slush fund that takes TENS of MILLIONS of dollars from regimes that EXECUTES gay people...

    These are FACTS, people...

    Which is why they are ignored... They CAN'T be spun..

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cartman!

    THEY KILLED KENNY!!!!

    :D

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, I don't watch South Park..

    I just wanted to appear hip...

    "I'm hip.. I'm with it... dacka dacka dacka"
    -Dr Evil

    :D

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The FBI didn't monitor him further because while his father's videos made him suspect to having ties to extremists, there were no actual connects found. This wasn't a terrorist attack planned by ISIL or any other group. This was the result of a lifetime of being told being gay was wrong and evil, and no matter how hard he tried to be straight, the truth is that he couldn't change his sexual orientation -- regardless of what he was told by his religion and father. This was about a person whose self-loathing was so great that he believed the only way to show he wasn't gay was to slaughter as many gay people as possible. I can't believe that I am saying this, but I actually feel bad for the guy even if I am disgusted by his cowardly act. His whole life he was made to believe he was created "less than" everyone else, that he was so vile that even God despised his existence -- all because of a sexual orientation that he had no say in.

    And guess what, the FBI doesn't consider being a closet case a threat to national security, so there was no way you would have gotten them to waste anymore time on this guy than they already had, because they could not have prevented this.

  86. [86] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The FBI didn't monitor him further because while his father's videos made him suspect to having ties to extremists, there were no actual connects found. This wasn't a terrorist attack planned by ISIL or any other group. This was the result of a lifetime of being told being gay was wrong and evil, and no matter how hard he tried to be straight, the truth is that he couldn't change his sexual orientation -- regardless of what he was told by his religion and father. This was about a person whose self-loathing was so great that he believed the only way to show he wasn't gay was to slaughter as many gay people as possible. I can't believe that I am saying this, but I actually feel bad for the guy even if I am disgusted by his cowardly act. His whole life he was made to believe he was created "less than" everyone else, that he was so vile that even God despised his existence -- all because of a sexual orientation that he had no say in.

    And guess what, the FBI doesn't consider being a closet case a threat to national security, so there was no way you would have gotten them to waste anymore time on this guy than they already had, because they could not have prevented this.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    And guess what, the FBI doesn't consider being a closet case a threat to national security, so there was no way you would have gotten them to waste anymore time on this guy than they already had, because they could not have prevented this.

    But if the FBI had the OTHER information that was not available because people were afraid to report it....

    If THAT information was in the FBI's hands, then MUCH more COULD have been done..

    Like I said.. It's all speculation.. But it's LOGICAL speculation...

    What I am saying is that the Left Wingery needs to ease up on the accusations of intolerance because SOMETIMES, when someone says, "Hay, this muslim guy is froggy" it ACTUALLY COULD MEAN SOMETHING and not just be some bigoted arsehole...

    That's all I am saying...

    Am I wrong???

    "You're not wrong.."
    -GOD, AKA Chuck

    :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    This was about a person whose self-loathing was so great that he believed the only way to show he wasn't gay was to slaughter as many gay people as possible.

    Yes, that is a possibility...

    No facts to support it, but it COULD be possible..

    But when one looks at ALL the facts that support he is an islamic terrorist...

    The gay angle takes a well-deserved back way back seat...

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Homophobia was responsible.

    Bullshit.. No one is AFRAID of gay people.."

    Pulse was targeted specifically because it was an LGBT club, not in spite of it. To whitewash the whole anti-gay aspect of it is extremely disrespectful to all those who died and were wounded in the attack. It would be like saying that someone who carries out a terrorist attack on a synagogue has absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism. You owe the entire LGBT community an apology.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pulse was targeted specifically because it was an LGBT club, not in spite of it

    Prove it..

    There are no facts to support that..

    And, as I have pointed out before (without refutation, I might add) terrorists targeting gay people is not tactically sound..

    You owe the entire LGBT community an apology.

    *I DO*???

    Some Gay Voters Say It's 'Dangerous' to Come Out for Trump
    http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/lgbtrump-gay-men-voting-donald-trump-n594691

    It looks like it's the Left Wingery that owes the gay community an apology..

    And the fact that Hillary takes TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars from countries that EXECUTE gay people...

    And the Left Wingery supports the deal with Iran who ALSO executes gay people..

    So WHO owes the gay community an apology???

    It's not me...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    More *facts* that won't be addressed....

    But, it's OK.. I still like ya'all :D

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lynch: "Partial Transcript" Of Orlando 911 Calls Will Have References To Islamic Terrorism Removed
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html

    Revisionism at it's finest.... :^/

    Why is the Odumbo Administration so afraid of calling a spade, a spade???

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Paula wrote:

    One of the observations Sam Sedar made on the Majority Report podcast last week (I forget which day) was that the FBI talked to this guy twice and, apparently, concluded he was not a "terrorist" in the sense that he didn't really know what he was talking about re: different Islamic groups, etc. Sam said the FBI is so fixated on the "Islamic terrorist" angle they ignore everything else. The guy had sent up red flags multiple times. Now, maybe it's a turf thing. Batterers, for example, I assume fall under local law enforcement versus the FBI. Clearly we need better inter-agency etc. channels/communication -- and we need to enlarge the scope of people who should be prohibited from owning guns. Like batterers. And stalkers. If someone with a history of beating up his girlfriends/wives/kids starts making violent statements some kind of intervention seems appropriate. Not necessesarily punitive -- this guy needed psychological help. But anyone ever reported for battering and stalking probably should be on some kind of watch list and it should be shared among law enforcement agencies.

    And banning assault weapons altogether would limit the amount of damage such a person could do if they lose it.

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    The problem with the FBI investigators is, as you wrote, that they are too focused on terrorism, per se, and didn't recognize that this guy was a security threat based on other criteria.

    In other words, it wasn't a failure of investigation but rather a failure of imagination.

    Nice post!

  95. [95] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And, as I have pointed out before (without refutation, I might add) terrorists targeting gay people is not tactically sound..

    Thank you for proving why this wasn't a terrorist attack in the political sense. It was an attack on a gay bar filled with gay patrons. If he was wanting to attack the Western world and strike terror into the hearts of the people of this country, why didn't he go into Disney World and commit his act of terrorism? He avoids a major landmark and iconic place that had far more potential victims to hit a small gay club? That would be like if the bombers had targeted a Boston Market instead of the Boston Marathon!

  96. [96] 
    Paula wrote:

    [94] E: Thanks!

  97. [97] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    If the Orange Menace gets to replace Clarence Thomas, he'll nominate his sister (or maybe Meat Loaf).

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is Justice Thomas going somewhere?

  99. [99] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    HuffBook says he wants to retire after the election.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Nice!

  101. [101] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Some people say that Trump is too racist to fill Clarence's seat. That's what I hear. He would nominate a white guy (probably Gary Busey). If he nominated a black judge, it would look like pandering and he would never pander. Believe me. Telepromter Orange is not a politician.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    And banning assault weapons altogether would limit the amount of damage such a person could do if they lose it.

    "assault weapons" siiggghhhhh

    There is no such thing as an "assault weapon"...

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem with the FBI investigators is, as you wrote, that they are too focused on terrorism,

    Uhh... It's kinda in the job description.... :D

    "JUDGE NOT!! LEST YE BE JUDGED!!!"
    "Uhhh... That's kinda in the job description, padre.."

    -NIGHT COURT

    :D

    per se, and didn't recognize that this guy was a security threat based on other criteria.

    What "other criteria" would that be, Liz???

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thank you for proving why this wasn't a terrorist attack in the political sense. It was an attack on a gay bar filled with gay patrons.

    A- I said no such thing..

    and

    2- What IS it about "politics"!! Not everything revolves around politics, don'tcha know... :D

    If he was wanting to attack the Western world and strike terror into the hearts of the people of this country, why didn't he go into Disney World and commit his act of terrorism?

    One word...

    Security

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    The only word we have that this scumbag hated gay people is the word from his Taliban father.. Hardly a credible source...

    And as I have pointed out, there is absolutely NO factual relevant evidence to indicate that this scumbag targeted the Pulse BECAUSE it was a gay club..

    But, if you DO want to discuss the gay angle, I addressed that partially in comment #90..

    Towhit:

    Mainstream islam supports the execution of gay people. Why does the Left Wingery (and Weigantians) continue to support and defend islam and muslims??

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let's begin the MMMR for today... :D

    Far-left activists aren’t going away quietly — or with a pleasant aroma.

    Cheri Honkala, head of Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, is organizing the world’s largest ‘fart-in’ to be held on July 28 at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center during Hillary Clinton’s anticipated Democratic nomination acceptance speech.

    “We will be holding a massive bean supper for Bernie Sanders delegates on American Street in my Kensington neighborhood on the afternoon of July 28,” Honkala says, TruthDig reports.

    “We are setting up a Clintonville there, modeled on the Hoovervilles of the 1930s where the poor and unemployed built shanty towns. The Sanders delegates, their bellies full of beans, will be able to return to the Wells Fargo Center and greet the rhetorical flatulence of Hillary Clinton with the real thing.”
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/activists-plot-worlds-largest-fart-hillarys-acceptance-speech/

    heh

    Now THAT's funny.... :D

    Hillary Clinton is a fart joke.... :D

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    And a sad report..

    Chekov is gone... :^(

    Star Trek star Anton Yelchin has died at 27 following a tragic and strange car accident early Sunday morning in Los Angeles.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/06/19/star-trek-star-anton-yelchin-dies-27/86114886/

    He will be missed...

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Marathon runner injured in bear attack
    Woman attacked in Valles Calderas National Preserve

    http://www.koat.com/news/marathon-runner-injured-in-bear-attack/40126104

    Ooops...Better ban bears!!!

    We're here.. We're queer.. We don't want any more bears!!!
    -The Simpsons

    :D

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since it was ignored, I'll bring up another Media Report..

    Some Gay Voters Say It's 'Dangerous' to Come Out for Trump
    http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/lgbtrump-gay-men-voting-donald-trump-n594691

    Ya know, it's funny..

    The Left Wingery... and ya'all (N.E.N.) went on and on and on and on about how violent Trump and his supporters are..

    Yet, there has been LITTLE to NO violence coming from Trump and his supporters and TONS AND TONS of violence coming FROM the Left AT Trump and Trump supporters..

    And what's REALLY strange is that the condemnation from the Left (and Weigantians N.E.N.) over this violence is virtually non existent...

    I mean, if all these reports of violence and threats and intimidation and such had come from Trump and his supporters, ya'all would be posting links and condemnations left and right to the high heavens...

    But because the violence comes from the Left and is directed AT Trump and his supporters, the ONLY condemnation we ever see from ya'all is when it is cajoled and harassed from ya'all and then it's at mealy and miserable "oh yea. That's wrong..."

    I know, I know.. It's nothing new... I am always just amazed how blatant the bigotry has been of late..

    But I am sure it's just the symptoms of a General Election affliction that will fade after President Trump is elected and ya'all will go back to ya'all's normal even-keeled selves...

    On the other hand, considering it's going to be President Trump...???

    Maybe not.. :D

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate set to vote on 4 gun control measures, none expected to pass
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/20/senate-set-to-vote-on-4-gun-control-measures-none-expected-to-pass.html?intcmp=hpbt2

    This is EXACTLY why Congress is held in such low esteem by Trump supporters and every day Americans...

    BOTH sides are more interested in pushing their own agendas rather than work together for the betterment of the country and her citizens...

    This isn't a Left/Right thing or a Dem/GOP thing..

    This is BOTH Partys putting their own selfish and greedy agenda before the safety and security of this country..

    It's disgusting..

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    LGBT activists enraged over beach patrol bathroom email
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/17/lgbt-activists-enraged-over-beach-patrol-bathroom-email.html?intcmp=hphz06

    Like I said.. Political Correctness TRUMPS common sense once again..

    This is why the vast majority of Americans are sick and tired of the Left Wingery's whining and bitching and moaning...

    This is why the vast majority of Americans are sick and tired of Political Correctness...

    This is why the vast majority of Americans are going to vote TRUMP...

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it talks like a Hitler and walks like a Hitler …
    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article84512862.html

    It's a blatant sign of the depravity and desperation of the Hysterical Left Wingery that they would stoop to such blatantly false and utterly contemptible comparisons..

    In 2017, ya'all are going to be saying PRESIDENT TRUMP...

    Get used to it...

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Americans Are Right to Be Angry at President Obama
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/15/americans_are_right_to_be_angry_at_president_obama_130892.html

    Ya'all see, this is the point ya'all simply DON'T get..

    Americans have LEGITIMATE beefs against Obama and his agenda...

    But those Americans are just written off with, "Oh they are just being racist..." and ignored..

    And because the vast majority of Americans have been ignored for WAY too long....

    Now we will have President Trump..

    Obama and the entirety of the Left Wingery have made this bed...

    And it will be President Trump who is going to be tucking them into it...

    Thus endeth this weeks edition of the MMMR... :D

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that the highly-anticipated MMMR is out of the way.. :D

    I would like to have a serious discussion with anyone who wants to participate...

    In as few words as possible, give me ONE good reason why Trump can't be POTUS??

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    But before we start on Trump, I have a question..

    We're nearing the halfway point of 2016..

    Trump has given DOZENS of press conferences this year..

    Hillary's press conferences???

    ZERO.... NONE... ZILCH.... NADA....

    Hillary is ceding the media battleground to Trump...

    What's she so afraid of??

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    don't get me started. perhaps unsurprisingly, my takeaway from that article was a bit different from yours:

    “I don’t want to make any comparison to Hitler, but believe it or not his delivery and the way he conducts himself is very similar to Hitler’s way of doing things.

    He discredits everybody who disagrees with him. He’s insulting. He discriminates against everybody.” So says Martin Weiss. He’s a survivor of Auschwitz.

    that's a direct quote from someone who was THERE to see hitler, and sees real similarities. so... are you now going to attack the character and judgment of a holocaust survivor, or do you accept that there are in fact some unfortunate similarities?

    JL

  117. [117] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    or is the next step to appeal to hypocrisy and make some dubious claim about clinton and obama doing the same? perhaps a holocoaust survivor made the same statement about them?

  118. [118] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hey, perhaps the right did find someone legitimate who could make comparisons. after all, hitler did offer germans free health care and try to limit the non-nazi public's access to guns. but those similarities are substantively different from trying to discredit people based on their ethnic background, or blatantly inciting violence from one's supporters.

    JL

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    He discredits everybody who disagrees with him. He’s insulting. He discriminates against everybody.”

    Wait a minute..

    Are you talking about Trump??

    Or Odumbo??

    Because Odumbo does THE EXACT SAME THINGS...

    And THAT is my point...

    Making the Hitler comparison is beyond the pale, unless you are going to apply it EQUALLY...

    I could EASILY make the Hitler comparison to Hillary if I were so inclined...

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    hey, perhaps the right did find someone legitimate who could make comparisons.

    You mean like APPEAL TO AUTHORITY?? :D You always ding me for that, yet here you are doing it yourself..

    I don't NEED to find anyone to make comparisons..

    The comparisons are there for ALL to see..

    At least, those not enslaved by Party ideology...

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean like APPEAL TO AUTHORITY?? :D You always ding me for that, yet here you are doing it yourself..

    Waitaminute... Waitaminute...

    I know!!! I know!!!

    "Well... That's different..."

    :D

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    He discriminates against everybody.

    But, since you bring it up, let's examine this..

    How does Trump "discriminate against everybody"??

    Trump was putting women and minorities in executive positions LONG before it became in-fashion by the Left to do so..

    Trump was pro-GAY and pro-black American even while Hillary and Bill were bashing gays and black Americans...

    So, please explain (and provide FACTS) how *exactly* Trump discriminates against "everybody"...

    Don't bother because it simply is not factually accurate..

    The ONLY people that Trump discriminates against (with words only) are criminals and terrorists..

    Now, I know, I know.. Criminals and terrorists are the Democrat Party's BFFs and a great source of support...

    But do you think that Joe and Jane Sixpack have ANY problem with discrimination against criminals and terrorists??

    Because, if you do, you are not nearly as smart as I know you are...

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hillary is ceding the media battleground to Trump.

    Oh, good. You keep thinking that. Trump seems to do nothing BUT suck up all of the free air time that the media will give him. But his shtick is beginning to wear thin - he's had to go to the TelePromTer a couple of times already, and he hasn't even been nominated yet. Hillary will continue to do interviews, give speeches, do town halls, answer questions in scrums, and churn out position papers (73,645 words of policy and counting), and if anyone is still unclear about Hillary's views after that, I'm sure she'll eventually answer their questions. Until then, I'll just be relieved that she doesn't take to twitter every time she has a random thought...

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, good. You keep thinking that. Trump seems to do nothing BUT suck up all of the free air time that the media will give him. But his shtick is beginning to wear thin

    That's YOUR opinion..

    But it's only "wearing thin" for those who already hate Trump...

    It's NOT "wearing thin" for Trump supporters..

    Hillary will continue to do interviews, give speeches, do town halls, answer questions in scrums, and churn out position papers (73,645 words of policy and counting),

    yea.. Establishment/Status Quo crap..

    70% of Americans are AGAINST Establishment/Status Quo crap...

    What part of that do you not understand??

    The turning point will be the first debate... Once Trump annihilates Hillary at the first debate, Hillary will fold like a cheap suit..

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary will continue to do interviews, give speeches, do town halls, answer questions in scrums, and churn out position papers (73,645 words of policy and counting),

    yea.. Establishment/Status Quo crap..

    70% of Americans are AGAINST Establishment/Status Quo crap...

    What part of that do you not understand??

    Basically, Hillary is winning over the Establishment/Status Quo vote...

    Trump is putting the OTHER 70% of American voters in his pocket... :D

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, Trump is 1984 Reagan and Clinton is 1988 Dukakis....

    It's going to be a Democrat massacre....

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Defending the Donald: Republicans need to shrug off the media attacks on Trump
    http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/06/defending_the_donald_republicans_need_to_shrug_off.html#incart_2box_opinion

    The media sucks...

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Trump Meets Clinton, No TV Record in America Will Be Safe
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-20/when-trump-meets-clinton-no-tv-record-in-america-will-be-safe

    Two days before my 54th birthday, 26 Sep 2016, will be the first Trump/Clinton debate..

    I might actually find a bar somewhere and record the reactions live... :D

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    neilm wrote:

    69/128 comments (not including this one) = 54% from one person.

    Given that I just scroll past 54% of the posts without reading them, and I probably am not the only one, because I've learned that these comments are just a long running Gish Gallop, I think the term "Hijacking the comments" is accurate - do we have a domestic commentary terrorist on our hands?

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    69/128 comments (not including this one) = 54% from one person.

    Given that I just scroll past 54% of the posts without reading them, and

    Do the facts upset you THAT bad, Neil..

    do we have a domestic commentary terrorist on our hands?

    Wow...

    Apparently so...

    Ya know, if you spent a TENTH of the time that you do actually addressing the facts that you do analyzing my comments and attacking me personally..

    You *might* actually make a worthwhile contribution to this forum..

    But all you have is hysterical emotionalism and childish and immature personal attacks..

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would like to have a serious discussion with anyone who wants to participate...

    In as few words as possible, give me ONE good reason why Trump can't be POTUS??
    -Michale

    Apparently, I am the ONLY one here who is interested in serious discussions/debates..

    :D

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    A senior Israeli official justified the "profiling" of Muslims as potential security threats on Monday after U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump said Americans should adopt Israel's disputed practice.
    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/israeli-minister-unapologetic-security-profiling-hailed-trump-121824508.html

    I had mentioned previously that Israel uses profiling to combat terrorism.

    This was denied...

    Once again, the FACTS prove that I knew what I was talking about and that those who denied it were full of.... well, let's just say that they were in error...

    In a civilized and rational forum, the response would be, "You were right, Michale.. I was wrong. My apologies."

    Here in Weigantia, I'll just be personally attacked or blamed for something or a rather in an attempt to divert attention from the facts..

    Israel profiles muslims as potential security threats..

    This is documented fact..

    CORRECT AND FACTUAL STATEMENTS
    Michale- 6,948,422
    Weigantians- 0

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wall Street has an unambiguous message for Hillary Clinton: Don't pick Elizabeth Warren as your vice president if you want to keep getting our money.
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/20/wall-street-cash-or-elizabeth-warren-hillarys-choice.html

    You see who is pulling Hillary's strings???

    Wall Street..

    Who would have thunked it!??

    Oh... wait... :D

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The only word we have that this scumbag hated gay people is the word from his Taliban father.. Hardly a credible source...

    Yeah....he shot 102 people in a gay bar, killing 49!

    ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS!

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS!

    And the San Bernardino terrorists killed and wounded dozens at a xmas party..

    And the Paris terrorists killed HUNDREDS at a bar as soccer stadium and a magazine...

    But when a terrorist strikes a GAY club, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, IT'S ALL ABOUT GAY PEOPLE!!!

    Why doesn't the Left Wingery care when Hillary takes TENS OF MILLIONS from countries that EXECUTES gay people???

    Why does the Left Wingery jump into bed with a country that EXECUTES gay people, just to serve Odumbo's agenda???

    If the fate of gay people REALLY matters to ya'all, why don't ya'all complain about THAT???

    Because the political agenda is more important than anything else..

    THAT is why, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, when gay people are killed by muslims, NOW it's a big deal because it serves a political agenda...

    Think about it...

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look, Listen... :D

    I know this is an issue that hits close to home for you.. And I am not insensitive to your concerns, despite appearances to the contrary..

    But I have to make the logical and rational point..

    And that point is, Hillary Clinton and the Left Wingery have jumped into bed with countries that EXECUTE gay people...

    THAT seems contradictory to your attitude right now about the gay club attack...

    Why are THOSE gay lives more important than the HUNDREDS of gay people that have been executed by Hillary's BFFs??

    Isn't that a logical and rational question to ask??

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, get this..

    Lynch at the DOJ tried to pull a fast one.. She released a heavily modified transcript of the calls with the Orlando scumbag.. In that modified transcript, they had replaced all the islam connotations with christian connotations...

    I mean, could Odumbo's flunkies POSSIBLY be more transparent???

    But, under pressure, the DOJ has reversed itself and will release a full and unaltered transcripts of the conversations..

    Jeesus H Christ, I can't believe Odumbo thought he could get away with something so blatantly dishonest...

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Omar Mateen hated himself for his same-sex urges and projected his hatred on to the gay people he murdered. He claimed to be ISIS/Hezbollah at the last moment because he didn't want people to think he was gay.

    Republicans want to pretend that Orlando has nothing to do with gay people because they're up to their eyeballs in creating the conditions where gay people become self-loathers.

    It's downright bizarre for Republicans to act like they're the protectors of gay people. They apparently think everyone is as stupid as a Trumpthug.

  139. [139] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What "other criteria" would that be, Liz???

    I'm talking about criteria other than terror-related. The FBI investigations into Omar Mateen evidently uncovered that he was not a true blue ISIS/al'Qaeda-directed or inspired terrorist. And, then their investigation ended.

    It should have continued with a focus on what they did uncover - that he was an inordinately troubled young boy and man who should never have been allowed to purchase a firearm. Perhaps it was both a failure of investigation AND of imagination.

  140. [140] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why are THOSE gay lives more important than the HUNDREDS of gay people that have been executed by Hillary's BFFs??

    If you were serious about having an intelligent discussion about US policy toward any number of Middle Eastern countries - if, how and why said policies should be changed or recalibrated - then you wouldn't phrase the question in such hyper-partisan and inordinately melodramatic terms.

    This is a great subject for discussion and one that is infinitely important with respect to US national interests and security.

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm talking about criteria other than terror-related.

    If it's not terror-related, the FBI wouldn't be there..

    The FBI investigations into Omar Mateen evidently uncovered that he was not a true blue ISIS/al'Qaeda-directed or inspired terrorist.

    You'll have to provide documentation for that..

    The OBAMA Adminsitration's story is that this scumbag was "self-radicalized", whatever that means..

    But the FBI has documented ties to the Daesch left and right..

    It should have continued with a focus on what they did uncover - that he was an inordinately troubled young boy and man who should never have been allowed to purchase a firearm.

    Based on what???

    He espoused hatred??

    If THAT is the only criteria, the vast majority of the Left Wingery wouldn't be able to purchase a firearm.. Including MANY Weigantians... :D

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you were serious about having an intelligent discussion about US policy toward any number of Middle Eastern countries - if, how and why said policies should be changed or recalibrated - then you wouldn't phrase the question in such hyper-partisan and inordinately melodramatic terms.

    In other words, phrase it factually accurate... :D

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    What does it matter if the Orlando scumbag targeted the club BECAUSE it was a gay club???

    I know, I know.. It would allow ya'all to hold on to the fantasy that Obama is NOT totally incompetent when it comes to keeping Americans safe...

    But does it REALLY matter??? What difference will it make???

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I mean, let's face facts..

    MAINSTREAM islam advocates the EXECUTION of gay people...

    COUNTRIES that have given TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars to Hillary Clinton EXECUTE gay people..

    What about these statements is not factual???

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    AUTHORITIES: MAN AT VEGAS RALLY SAID HE WANTED TO KILL TRUMP

    LAS VEGAS (AP) -- A federal officer says a man arrested at a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas told authorities he tried to grab an officer's gun so he could kill the candidate.

    Ahhh yes... The peacefulness of the Left Wingery, in all it's glory.... :D

    Ya'all simply CANNOT deny the facts, people...

    ALL of the violence is coming from the Left Wingery these days...

    Bury your heads in the sand all you want.. It won't change the reality..

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Omar Mateen hated himself for his same-sex urges and projected his hatred on to the gay people he murdered. He claimed to be ISIS/Hezbollah at the last moment because he didn't want people to think he was gay.

    Republicans want to pretend that Orlando has nothing to do with gay people because they're up to their eyeballs in creating the conditions where gay people become self-loathers.

    It's downright bizarre for Republicans to act like they're the protectors of gay people. They apparently think everyone is as stupid as a Trumpthug.

    I have nothing but facts and ya'all have JFC....

    It's no wonder there is such conflict around here.. :D

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You'll have to provide documentation for that..

    What? You want all the sources I've read since the massacre? I don't think so.

    If it's not terror-related, the FBI wouldn't be there..

    Well, they should be, if they are still in the business of conducting serious investigations. And, if they are not, then you may need another agency that will.

    In other words, phrase it factually accurate... :D

    That would be a good start. You should try it sometime for more than five minutes. You may be very, very pleasantly surprised.

    What about these statements is not factual???

    You could try dropping the nasty hyper-partisan tone. Of course, you'd have to find a whole other raison d'etre. :)

  148. [148] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LAS VEGAS (AP) -- A federal officer says a man arrested at a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas told authorities he tried to grab an officer's gun so he could kill the candidate.

    That guy needs to be put on the list! He should never - for as long as he lives - ever be permitted to purchase or own a firearm.

  149. [149] 
    Paula wrote:

    [138} John, [139} Elizabeth: Yep!

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you were serious about having an intelligent discussion about US policy toward any number of Middle Eastern countries - if, how and why said policies should be changed or recalibrated -

    IF???

    IF the policy of executing gay people should be changed or "recalibrated"???

    IF????

    It's really simple, Liz... It really is..

    If ya'all are REALLY against gay people being murdered, then you should condemn Hillary Clinton's acceptance of TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars from those countries that DO execute gay people...

    Of course, if ya'all DON'T care that much about gay people being murdered unless it suits Party ideology to care, then by all means.. Continue to support Hillary Clinton...

    I fail to see how this is difficult or complex... It's very black and white..

    If you care about the lives of gay people, you condemn Hillary Clinton...

    If you don't care about the lives of gay people, you support Hillary Clinton..

    Simple...

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    That guy needs to be put on the list! He should never - for as long as he lives - ever be permitted to purchase or own a firearm.

    And even if he WAS put on a list, IT WOULD NOT HAVE MADE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE!!!

    Because he tried to grab a cop's gun to assassinate Trump!!

    Thank you for proving my point, Liz..

    You also proved my point about something else..

    Instead of condemning this Left Wingery for his attempt, you push a USELESS gun control agenda...

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    re #149

    DITTO!!! DITTO!!!!

    :D

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Instead of condemning this Left Wingery for his attempt, you push a USELESS gun control agenda...

    When a Left Winger does something violent, it's just a one off by some nutjob..

    When a Right Winger does something violent, it's indicative of the ENTIRE Right Wingery...

    Ahhhhhh I love the smell of political bigotry in the evening.. :D

    Ya know, I wouldn't post so often if I didn't have such a fertile environment.. :D

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    IF the policy of executing gay people should be changed or "recalibrated"???

    To be clear - and I thought I was - I was talking about US FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD VARIOUS MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES.

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because he tried to grab a cop's gun to assassinate Trump!!Thank you for proving my point, Liz..You also proved my point about something else..Instead of condemning this Left Wingery for his attempt, you push a USELESS gun control agenda...

    So, you think this guy should not be put on a list.

    I condemn his actions. Period. Hopefully, he gets the book thrown at him and spends time in jail.

  156. [156] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    DITTO!!! DITTO!!!!:D

    Now, now.

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    What? You want all the sources I've read since the massacre? I don't think so.

    No.. Just the source that says the FBI has concluded that the scumbag has NO Daesch ties (despite the allegiance pledge :^/ ) and that this is not a terrorism investigation..

    I mean, after all, *I* am required to substantiate everything I post.. And I do..

    Shouldn't that apply to ya'all also??

    Well, they should be, if they are still in the business of conducting serious investigations. And, if they are not, then you may need another agency that will.

    If it wasn't terrorism, then the FBI has no business there.. It's SO jurisdiction.. Or OPD....

    That would be a good start. You should try it sometime for more than five minutes. You may be very, very pleasantly surprised.

    I DID phrase it factually accurate with absolutely NO SPIN..

    The problem here is ya'all CAN'T respond to it BECAUSE it has no spin...

    You could try dropping the nasty hyper-partisan tone. Of course, you'd have to find a whole other raison d'etre. :)

    Just the facts, ma'am... Just the facts..

    Or maybe you were talking about Neil's comment..

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When did the FBI start focusing on terrorism to the exclusion of everything else, some of which may be even more potentially destructive?

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    DITTO!!! DITTO!!!!:D

    Now, now.

    heh :D

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [155]

    Just for the record, the first paragraph is what Michale said and should have been put in italics ...

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, the FBI has now released complete transcripts of the killer's calls to 911 and with police.

    Releasing incomplete information is a classic case of tone deafness, to put it mildly.

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why did the White House just humiliate Loretta Lynch?
    http://nypost.com/2016/06/20/obamas-war-on-omitted/

    Seriously...

    This is just MORONIC...

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    When did the FBI start focusing on terrorism to the exclusion of everything else, some of which may be even more potentially destructive?

    Because if it WASN'T terrorism, then the FBI has absolutely NO jurisdiction...

    It would be either a county SO matter or an OPD matter, depending on what jurisdiction the PULSE is in...

    Michale

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Releasing incomplete information is a classic case of tone deafness, to put it mildly.

    EXACTLY!!!

    And it was Obama's tone deafness!!!

    I am glad we can agree...

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Step by step details on how the Clinton Campaign can use CITIZENS UNITED to the maximum benefit..

    https://guccifer2.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/memo-for-fundraising-staff.pdf

    Yea... Democrats HATE Citizens United, eh?? :^/

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat...

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just for the record, the first paragraph is what Michale said and should have been put in italics ...

    Yes, my mistake..

    My sincerest apologies..

    WOW, look at that.. ANOTHER Blue Moon!! :D

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops.. My mistake. I thought Liz was talking about a comment where I forgot the Italics...

    My mistake.. Again... And.. My apologies.. :D

    We got blue moons all over the place!! :D

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you think this guy should not be put on a list.

    As a convicted felon, he will already be precluded from purchasing a weapon...

    It's already law..

    No new WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law required...

    I condemn his actions. Period. Hopefully, he gets the book thrown at him and spends time in jail.

    It just would be nice if these actions can be condemned by Weigantians WITHOUT any prompting or cajoling..

    Like ya'all condemn every thing from the RIGHT Wingery without any prompting or cajoling???

    You see where I am coming from???

    Michale

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh... And the Orlando Scumbag was a Hillary supporter...

    Ya'all just CAN'T catch a break, can ya'all!! :D

    Michale

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh... And the Orlando Scumbag was a Hillary supporter...

    Doesn't matter, ya'all say??

    Not indicative of anything, ya'all say??

    Yea???

    What would ya'all say if the Orlando Scumbag was a Trump supporter..

    No one has to answer.. It's obvious what ya'all would say....

    Ni ni... :D

    Michale

  171. [171] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because if it WASN'T terrorism, then the FBI has absolutely NO jurisdiction...

    No, no, no - that's not what I'm talking about. The FBI is not in the business of investigating JUST terrorism cases and related individuals.

    You can't be saying that the FBI cannot investigate cases unless they are terrorist related, are you!?

  172. [172] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm talking about the FBI investigation into Omar Mateen years ago ... not the Pulse massacre.

  173. [173] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Because if it WASN'T terrorism, then the FBI has absolutely NO jurisdiction...

    Not true.

    Ahhh yes... The peacefulness of the Left Wingery, in all it's glory.... :D
    Ya'all simply CANNOT deny the facts, people...

    But you can leave them out? Any reason you chose to leave out that this guy was a British citizen who had been in the US for a a year and a half?

  174. [174] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Oh... And the Orlando Scumbag was a Hillary supporter...

    This is the source. I can see why Michale intentionally did not attribute it. It's an interesting read on how racism pushes someone like this shooter into the path he took and how Trump is wrong about American Muslims. The Hillary part is a minor detail and not the subject of the piece.

  175. [175] 
    neilm wrote:

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/06/new-leaf?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fanewleafdonaldtrumpfireshiscampaignmanager

    Trump fires Lewandowski. This may have some significance. But only, as the Economist puts it:

    "... if his former boss has finally been convinced by some brave soul or souls that the single person most likely to prevent the inauguration of President Donald Trump next January is Donald J. Trump, the ill-disciplined, thin-skinned narcissist-candidate." (Remember, this is The Economist for pete's sake.)

    Let's hope not. It is a lot of fun watching the more respectable elements of the Republican Party squirm as Trump shoots himself in the foot again and again.

    Trump not only shot himself in the foot when he insulted Judge Curiel, he simultaneously threw himself in front of the bullet that was the email report from the IG about Hillary's emails. This level of political stupidity really is unique in my experience, and is a joy to watch.

    If I were Hillary's campaign manager, I'd have two or three hugely insulting "revelations" about Trump ready for the FBI report release. Casino failures, how much the British hate him and his Golf courses, how his business empire is collapsing because of his campaign, some tasty ex-girlfriend that said he 'wasn't able to ... you know ... consummate the relationship', etc. Goad him into taking another bullet for Hillary because he starts firing off Tweets in the wrong direction.

  176. [176] 
    neilm wrote:

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/06/new-leaf?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fanewleafdonaldtrumpfireshiscampaignmanager

    Trump fires Lewandowski. This may have some significance. But only, as the Economist puts it:

    "... if his former boss has finally been convinced by some brave soul or souls that the single person most likely to prevent the inauguration of President Donald Trump next January is Donald J. Trump, the ill-disciplined, thin-skinned narcissist-candidate." (Remember, this is The Economist for pete's sake.)

  177. [177] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump not only shot himself in the foot when he insulted Judge Curiel, he simultaneously threw himself in front of the bullet that was the email report from the IG about Hillary's emails. This level of political stupidity really is unique in my experience, and is a joy to watch.

    If I were Hillary's campaign manager, I'd have two or three hugely insulting "revelations" about Trump ready for the FBI report release. Casino failures, how much the British hate him and his Golf courses, how his business empire is collapsing because of his campaign, some tasty ex-girlfriend that said he 'wasn't able to ... you know ... consummate the relationship', etc. Goad him into taking another bullet for Hillary because he starts firing off Tweets in the wrong direction.

  178. [178] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump not only shot himself in the foot when he insulted Judge Curiel, he simultaneously threw himself in front of the bullet that was the email report from the IG about Hillary's emails. This level of political stupidity really is unique in my experience, and is a joy to watch.

  179. [179] 
    neilm wrote:

    If I were Hillary's campaign manager, I'd have two or three hugely insulting "revelations" about Trump ready for the FBI report release. Casino failures, how much the British detest him and his Golf courses, how his business empire is collapsing because of his campaign, some tasty ex-girlfriend that said he 'wasn't able to ... you know ... consummate the relationship', etc. Goad him into taking another bullet for Hillary because he starts firing off Tweets in the wrong direction.

  180. [180] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Unique? Yes. A joy to watch? Ah, no.

  181. [181] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Sorry to laugh at you again, but Bernie said he was going to take it to the convention and, unlike the pols you are used to writing about, he is doing what he said he'd do.
    Very nice of you to allow him an extra week as if that was some sort of an agreed upon deadline though.

    BTW, what's the latest on those truckloads of provisional ballots in CA?
    Are they even bothering to count them?

    The "spoiler" language is absurd though.
    Bernie isn't running a third party campaign, and waiting to endorse until the convention does not a "spoiler" make.

    As for the "viable" argument, for someone who cranks out a column on Obama's job approval numbers monthly, I would think some discussion of the current presidential candidate's numbers would be in order.
    Last I saw, Trump's approval number was down to 29, and Hillary's was a lofty 42.

    In other words, a further drop in their approval numbers of a combined 6 points (and both are trending down) would amazingly make a third party candidate viable... as in able to win a plurality of the votes in November.

    Obviously, voters would have to coalesce around a single third party candidate, which is unlikely, but it's not within the realm of the impossible when so many look at Hillary and Donald and decide "none of the above" is the correct choice.

    Moving on, noting the "lighting fashion" of the intro, I saw a headline about Debbie W-S being replaced as the CEO of your party for a new corporatist chosen by Hillary... I couldn't be bothered to read the actual article, but unless the headline was mistaken, I would have thought that would merit some sort of mention.
    Maybe it happened after you posted your column? I thought I saw it Thursday though.

    Moving further on, funny that you mentioned Bush's inability to get a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi's and Bremer's decisions... but STARTING AN ILLEGAL WAR in Iraq is where the blame really belongs.

    No war, no IS.

    The illegal regime change effort in Syria where we are giving free guns to the gang who attacked us on 9/11 deserves an honorable mention of course.

    And, Hillary was a gung ho supporter of both efforts.

    So, back in the binary world of the two party system catering to our oligarchs, Trump trumps morality and legality and wisdom as considerations for making a choice in November... principles out the window.

    No thank you.

    And, before the SCOTUS argument gets whipped out again, I hope you noted the 5-3 ruling that allows illegal searches that came in today...
    ... yup... one of them "liberal" Supremes was the deciding vote.
    Corporatist, Constitution trashing, NSA and FBI enabling, Wall Street coddling "liberal" justices just do not motivate me enough to vote against Trump.

    As for Obama's speech about the "success" we are having in Iraq, I have to take issue with the repeated use of the word "liberated" in his description of the cities reclaimed from IS.

    I saw some pictures, and I think the word "flattened" is more fitting. Gutted, destroyed, ruined... all would be better than "liberated".

    I'm sure those freed Iraqis are going to be thanking us for generations (yes, sarcasm).

    Thanks again Hillary!

    A

    PS- I was in the middle of replying to some comments to last Friday's column when the comments crashed.
    Haven't had a chance to go back yet... my apologies to all... not that you'll like what I have to say.

  182. [182] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I saw some pictures, and I think the word "flattened" is more fitting. Gutted, destroyed, ruined... all would be better than "liberated".

    Indeed!

    Flattened is the new liberated, Middle-Eastern style.

  183. [183] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Haven't had a chance to go back yet... my apologies to all... not that you'll like what I have to say.

    Take your time, Al. :)

  184. [184] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Yeah, well, every time I checked in the comments still weren't working.

    It wasn't laziness... until the weekend that is.

    I'll post to this thread to make it easy on ya.
    A

  185. [185] 
    altohone wrote:

    BTW CW

    Maybe it's the complete boondoggle of the horrible redesign over at HP, but your column was nowhere to be found over there.

    Did they redesign you off the home page and politics section?

    Was it the bit on BDS?

    A

  186. [186] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You can't be saying that the FBI cannot investigate cases unless they are terrorist related, are you!?

    The FBI has a very specific charter and the rules are explicit as to what they can and cannot investigate...

    If this wasn't an act of terrorism, then the FBI has absolutely no jurisdiction..

    I'm talking about the FBI investigation into Omar Mateen years ago ... not the Pulse massacre.

    Ahhhh.. OK.. My apologies..

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    FOSBashiKook,

    This is the source. I can see why Michale intentionally did not attribute it. It's an interesting read on how racism pushes someone like this shooter into the path he took and how Trump is wrong about American Muslims. The Hillary part is a minor detail and not the subject of the piece.

    So???

    What does that matter??

    Jeezus, FOS, you are REALLY reaching...

    The Orlando scumbag liked Hillary..

    This is fact...

    If the scumbag liked Trump, ya'all would be screaming it to the high heavens..

    Michale

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because if it WASN'T terrorism, then the FBI has absolutely NO jurisdiction...

    Not true.

    IS true...

    The RP can REQUEST FBI assistance... But the local agency still retains jurisdiction and the FBI is simply sub-contracted for forensics, etc etc etc..

    Get your facts straight, FOS...

    "Don't cross brains with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time."
    -Ensign Sulu

    :D

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm talking about the FBI investigation into Omar Mateen years ago ... not the Pulse massacre.

    Ahhhh.. OK.. My apologies..

    And ANOTHER Blue Moon hits Weigantia..

    That's what's so great about Weigantia.. We get the most awesomest phenoms!! :D

    Michale

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    SECRET SERVICE OFFICER SET FOR TV INTERVIEWS; BROADCAST NETWORKS BLACKLIST
    MON JUNE 20 2016 19:47:25 ET
    **Exclusive**

    Team Hillary is working overtime to block former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne from appearing on ANY broadcast network, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

    Byrne is set to reveal what he observed inside the White House while protecting the First Family in the 1990s.

    'What I saw sickened me,' Byrne explains. 'I want you to hear my story.'

    Byrne paints a picture of Hillary as a deranged madwoman running interference on Bill's sexploits.

    The book 'CRISIS OF CHARACTER' is finally set for release next Monday. It has already became the top seller at AMAZON for the month of June.

    And now Clinton's circle is preparing to hit back hard!

    POLITICO plans an early morning attack on Byrne's credibility, sources claim, despite his having served in federal law enforcement for nearly thirty years.

    Meanwhile, Hillary's campaign has won assurances that he will not be invited to spread 'lies' on any of the nation's broadcast networks.
    http://drudgereport.com/flashss1.htm

    Hillary is toast.. We're going to hear ALL about what Hillary is REALLY like...

    Michale

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Regarding the scumbag Democrat that tried to assassinate Trump...

    I condemn his actions. Period. Hopefully, he gets the book thrown at him and spends time in jail.

    You notice how no one else (N.E.N.) condemns his actions??

    I think that is very telling...

    Imagine the outcry is some Right Wing scumbag had tried to grab a cops gun to kill Hillary???

    The Hysterical rants around here would be long and as far as the eye could see...

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Trump not only shot himself in the foot when he insulted Judge Curiel,

    The fact that Trump merely stated EXACTLY what Sotomayer herself had stated is completely lost on you...

    That's what's so... unique.. about those enslaved by ideology...

    Ya'all hysterical rant and scream when someone on the Right says something and you totally miss the fact that it's EXACTLY what someone on the Left has said that YOU support!!! :D

    It's a hoot..

    "No, you know what?? It IS funny.. It's a hoot that you don't get why we need this."
    -Tony Stark, AVENGERS, AGE OF ULTRON

    :D

    Michale

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of the MCU, off on a tangent....

    Has anyone noticed that superhero "secret identities" are being pushed to the wayside??

    Everyone knows that Tony Stark is Iron Man.. Everyone knows that Steve Rogers is Captain America... Everyone knows that his highness, King T'Challa of Wakanda is Black Panther.... Everyone knows that Peter Parker is Spiderman...

    I wonder if there is a psychological explanation why this has gone in that direction..

    Anyone??? Anyone???

    Michale

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooo!!! Oooo!!!! Another Trump/Hitler parallel !!!!

    Trump survived an assassination attempt!!! Just like Hitler!!!!

    THAT'S conclusive proof!!!!!

    {/sarc}

    I apologize (blue moon!!!) if it appears I don't take ya'all's Trump/Hitler comparisons seriously..

    The fact is.. I don't...

    And if ya'all could actually LOOK at the Trump/Hitler crap seriously and objectively.... Ya'all would be appalled and embarrassed by how low ya'all have sunk...

    Michale

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Do you want to discuss and debate the wisdom of the Obama administration trying to scrub all islamic references from the Orlando scumbag's words and replace them with christian references??

    I think we might be able to find some common ground there...

    Michale

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, before the SCOTUS argument gets whipped out again, I hope you noted the 5-3 ruling that allows illegal searches that came in today...

    Yea, that's the hysterical spin..

    The FACTS though, are quite different..

    All the ruling says is that if LEOs make an honest mistake, the evidence resulting from that honest mistake is still valid...

    In this case, it took a scumbag meth-head off the streets..

    I fail to see any problem...

    Read a book called OUTRAGE.... That puts it all in perspective..

    Michale

  198. [198] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you want to discuss and debate the wisdom of the Obama administration trying to scrub all islamic references from the Orlando scumbag's words and replace them with christian references??

    And replace them with what? That's just as ridiculous as the silly redactions which leave the administration open to a heap of criticism, unnecessarily.

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    And replace them with what? That's just as ridiculous as the silly redactions which leave the administration open to a heap of criticism, unnecessarily.

    Exactly!!

    Obama is so fired up to protect islam, he is making stoopid and bone head mistakes that just EMPHASIS what Obama is trying to hide...

    It's ridonkulus!!

    Michale

  200. [200] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What is President Obama trying to hide, Michale.

    You are getting closer to having a good discussion but still a long ways off with insinuations like that.

    Why don't you just come right out with what you think Obama is hiding?

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is President Obama trying to hide, Michale.

    He is trying to hide the terrorist islam connection... He is trying to divorce islam from terrorism...

    Why don't you just come right out with what you think Obama is hiding?

    OK... :D

    If 95% of religion-based terrorists are of one religion and 5% of terrorists encompass all other religions...

    Where is the logical place to put the enforcement and prevention assets???

    Put another way... If we lived in Ireland during The Troubles, would it be logical for enforcement and prevent assets to concentrate on muslims??? Of course not...

    As I have said time and time again... If you have a murder suspect who is chinese, you don't send your assets to Harlem...

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is President Obama trying to hide, Michale.

    He is trying to hide the terrorist islam connection... He is trying to divorce islam from terrorism...

    Now, why is Obama trying to hide or mitigate this connection???

    THAT is the $64,000 question...

    Michale

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do you think Obama altered the transcripts to take out any islam references and replace them with christian references??

    Michale

  204. [204] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't know what you're talking about, Michale ...

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know what you're talking about, Michale ...

    I am talking about the Obama Administration via the DOJ, releasing an altered transcript of the Orlanda scumbag's calls.. A redacted transcript that replaced islamic jargon with christian jargon..

    Once the Obama administration was caught at this, the White House bypassed the DOJ and had the FBI release the full unredacted and unaltered transcript..

    What are YOU talking about???

    Michale

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    What do you think of comment #191??

    Michale

  207. [207] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am talking about the Obama Administration via the DOJ, releasing an altered transcript of the Orlanda scumbag's calls.. A redacted transcript that replaced islamic jargon with christian jargon..

    You expect me to take that seriously?

  208. [208] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Has anyone noticed that superhero "secret identities" are being pushed to the wayside??

    I can't say that I've noticed anything of the kind.

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    You expect me to take that seriously?

    It's what happened...

    Michale

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has anyone noticed that superhero "secret identities" are being pushed to the wayside??

    I can't say that I've noticed anything of the kind.

    Really?? Tony Stark announces he is Iron Man at the end of the first Iron Man...

    Daredevil is telling people left and right who he really is...

    Steve Rogers is outted blatantly as Captain America...

    Peter Parker is exposed in Spiderman III...

    I just remember when I was a kid watching these shows that people had to DIE to protect the secret identities..

    It's not a big deal.. I just thought it noteworthy.. :D

    Michale

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:
  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/21/white-tv-anchor-fired-after-racial-comments-fights-back-with-discrimination-lawsuit/

    Another example of why the VAST majority of Americans are sick and tired of Political Correctness...

    Another Trump voter is born...

    Michale

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen...

    On a completely unrelated note..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYNLM47cnt0

    You've seen this???

    Michale

  214. [214] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I am talking about the Obama Administration via the DOJ, releasing an altered transcript of the Orlanda scumbag's calls.. A redacted transcript that replaced islamic jargon with christian jargon..

    You simply cannot be allowed to get away with that sort of very recent revisionist history.

    Even the source you cite from USAToday did not claim what you claim. The transcript was redacted to omit certain words and phrases. The transcript was not altered to replace anything with anything else. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS MISINFORMATION FROM AND WHY DO YOU PERSIST IN REGURGITATING HERE, OF ALL PLACES!!!

    I cannot take this seriously because it is decidedly NON-SERIOUS!!!

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    The transcript was redacted to omit certain words and phrases. The transcript was not altered to replace anything with anything else.

    Yes, it was, Liz...

    Even doing the redacting is bad enough. ESPECIALLY for the reasons given..

    But there were many instances where the DOJ changed 'allah' to 'god'...

    This is fact. And the fact that you are reacting like you are proves it's a VERY serious issue..

    Michale

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    When Omar Mateen called 911 during his shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, the man pledged allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS) and repeated the common Islamic phrase "Allah the merciful," but those phrases did not appear in the transcript of the call published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on Monday morning. On Sunday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the head of the Justice Department, explicitly said the FBI, which is under her jurisdiction, would doctor the text of the transcripts to remove the Islamic State. But more telling is what she did not say -- not only were the mentions of ISIS taken out, but the word "Allah" was altered to read "God" instead.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/80eda062-21c5-39a1-a5c9-a96425049bd2/ss_fbi-changes-'allah'-to-'god'.html?nhp=1

    You can deny the facts all you want, Liz..

    But it won't make the facts any less factual...

    The DOJ altered the transcripts to make the scumbag shooter less islamic..

    Just like NBC altered the audio in the Sanford shooting to make Zimmerman a racist..

    Apparently, it's a Left Wingery thing....

    "Just the fax, ma'am.. Just the fax.."
    -John McClane, DIE HARD III, Die Harder

    :D

    Michale

  217. [217] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The transcript of the 911 call did not 'replace' or 'alter' what Mateen said. It TRANSLATED what he said in Arabic to English and it indicated "said in Arabic".

    I think you are making too much of this. Having sais that, I think the released transcript should have read exactly like he said it - in English and Arabic.

    But, any serious thinking person would not read this transcript as being any less 'Islamic' than it actually is.

    Your original posts made it sound like the FBI was completely changing the transcript. Next time, don't be so melodramatic about it - especially when you could have made your point more seriously by questioning why the FBI would wish to translate into English what Mateen said in Arabic.

  218. [218] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Directly from the transcript:

    "In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent [said in Arabic]"

    You see, the FBI didn't replace Allah with God. Rather, the FBI translated that entire phrase from Arabic into English.

    And, contrary to the source you cited, the Islamic State does indeed appear in the transcript, more than once.

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    But that is NOT what the Orlando scumbag said..

    He said ALLAH... Allah is not "arabic" for god..

    Allah is allah..

    The mere fact that the DOJ had to backtrack and issue the ACTUAL transcript rather than the redacted/altered one PROVES that I am not being "melodramatic" about it..

    You yourself said how ridiculous it was for Obama to try such a stunt...

    Michale

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-clinton-is-a-world-class-liar-224653

    Hillary doesn't stand a chance...

    The vast majority of Americans... Republicans, Independents/NPAs and Democrats all agree with Trump about Hillary...

    Michale

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://morningconsult.com/2016/06/22/poll-voters-trust-trump-keep-america-safe/

    Voters trust Trump more than Hillary to keep Americans safe...

    Michale

  222. [222] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "But when a terrorist strikes a GAY club, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, IT'S ALL ABOUT GAY PEOPLE!!!"

    Once again, you miss the POINT entirely! It's not ALL about gay people. It's about certain DOMESTIC politicians and commentators, YOURSELF included, going to great lengths to completely deny the anti-gay nature of the attack, and by doing so, totally disrespecting those who were killed and injured by trivializing a defining aspect of their lives and identities as worthwhile human beings.

    "Why are THOSE gay lives more important than the HUNDREDS of gay people that have been executed by Hillary's BFFs??"

    Because of what I just said above. It's not that their lives are more important, it is because of how some people, including you, are trying to spin the issue and characterize it, that makes it MORE important.

    "What does it matter if the Orlando scumbag targeted the club BECAUSE it was a gay club???""But does it REALLY matter??? What difference will it make???"

    Again, because of what I just said above.

    "Why doesn't the Left Wingery care when Hillary takes TENS OF MILLIONS from countries that EXECUTES gay people???"

    Because, what should or should not be OFFICIAL American conduct and policy regarding INTERNATIONAL affairs and other nations is a totally SEPARATE discussion for another time and place.

    "Prove it..
    There are no facts to support that..""And as I have pointed out, there is absolutely NO factual relevant evidence to indicate that this scumbag targeted the Pulse BECAUSE it was a gay club.."

    O.K. If you wont' believe me, maybe you WILL believe Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who said the following, and I QUOTE: "We know the shooter was a radical Islamist extremist inspired by ISIS. We also know he intentionally targeted the LGBT community. The administration should release the full, unredacted transcript, so the public is clear-eyed about who did this, and why."

    "You owe the entire LGBT community an apology.

    *I DO*???"

    YES, YOU STILL DO

    "Why doesn't the Left Wingery care when Hillary takes TENS OF MILLIONS from countries that EXECUTES gay people???"

    We do care, but the issue was domestic policy, not foreign policy. And if you are going to condemn Hillary Clinton for supporting the type of relationship we have with nations like Saudi Arabia regarding their policies toward gays, then why aren't YOU Michael, also condemning all past Presidents and candidates from both parties, who have supported the same type of relationship with Saudi Arabia??? That would include; McCain, Romney, and both Bushes, as well as Hillary and Bill Clinton and Obama. Why single out Hillary Clinton only, when it has been a bipartisan official U.S. government position for many decades???

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    HILLARY MOST CORRUPT EVER TO SEEK PRESIDENCY...
    -Donald Trump

    Truer words were never spoken....

    Michale

  224. [224] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "In as few words as possible, give me ONE good reason why Trump can't be POTUS??"

    Because he will never get or be able to assemble, a winning electoral college vote majority combination, in any way shape or form, and it is impossible for him to do, in a free and fair election with a majority of the popular vote.

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, you miss the POINT entirely! It's not ALL about gay people. It's about certain DOMESTIC politicians and commentators, YOURSELF included, going to great lengths to completely deny the anti-gay nature of the attack, and by doing so, totally disrespecting those who were killed and injured by trivializing a defining aspect of their lives and identities as worthwhile human beings.

    I am not denying the gay nature of the attacks.. And I am certainly not trivalizing the deaths of almost 50 human beings..

    I am saying that, as a TERRORIST attack, the fact that they were gay is NOT RELEVANT...

    Why would you want to emphasis the gay aspect of the terrorist attack???

    Why didn't you emphasize the CHRISTIAN nature of the San Bernardino attack..

    It was a TERRORIST attack.. PERIOD..

    The choice of targets is NOT relevant..

    "At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!!!"
    -Hillary Clinton

    Because of what I just said above. It's not that their lives are more important, it is because of how some people, including you, are trying to spin the issue and characterize it, that makes it MORE important.

    I am not trying to spin ANYTHING.. It's ya'all who are doing the spin... As if this is MORE than a terrorist attack because gay people were the target..

    It's also a not-so-artful dodge so you don't have to explain why the gay people being EXECUTED by islam governments is less important...

    We do care,

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary..

    If you cared, you wouldn't support Hillary Clinton...

    but the issue was domestic policy, not foreign policy.

    And that matters to the dead gay people... how exactly???

    Why single out Hillary Clinton only, when it has been a bipartisan official U.S. government position for many decades???

    Because all those past government positions are not running for President in the here and now...

    Again, a not-so-artful dodge, so you don't have to explain why you support Hillary when she has the blood of THOUSANDS of gay people on her hands...

    Michale

  226. [226] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    I get it..

    You get SOME of what you support thru Hillary Clinton.. I understand that.. Better a half loaf then no loaf at all, right??

    In other words, ideological loyalty trumps your support of gay people and the gay community..

    I get that.. I really do...

    But don't try to pass off that you "care" for gay people as some absolute virtue...

    It's NOT absolute... It's variable depending on which way the political winds blow...

    If you want to look at someone who IS absolute about their principles and their integrity, check out Glenn Greenwald...

    He is wrong about practically everything he says, but NO ONE can ever doubt his integrity or that he stays true to his beliefs..

    No one here can make that same claim...

    Michale

  227. [227] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you want to look at someone who IS absolute about their principles and their integrity, check out Glenn Greenwald...

    He is wrong about practically everything he says, but NO ONE can ever doubt his integrity or that he stays true to his beliefs..

    No one here can make that same claim...

    Myself included...

    Michale

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-22/something-strange-emerges-when-looking-behind-brexit-bookie-odds

    This is why I don't hold much faith in the betting markets when determining what will and will not happen..

    Like polls, there are factors that can influence the outcomes that have nothing to do with the event in question..

    Michale

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    "After the worst mass shooting in modern history, it's time for Speaker Ryan to bring a bill to the floor."
    -House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md

    It wasn't a mass shooting, ya fraking moron!!!!

    It was a terrorist attack!!!!

    I can just picture these utter morons on the afternoon of Dec 7th 1941...

    "AFTER the worst airplane catastrophe in US history, it's time for the Speaker to bring this transportation legislation to the floor!!!"
    -Moronic Democrats

    I said it before and I'll say it again..

    ANYONE who thinks that Gun Control will prevent or help prevent terrorist attacks is an ignorant MORON who gives up ALL rights to speak intelligently on the subject...

    Michale..

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7734

    Yep... Democrat Candidate Hillary Clinton...

    How ya'all support her is beyond me...

    Michale

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    Emails: Key security features disabled on Clinton's server
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a154/emails-key-security-features-disabled-clintons-server

    Hillary is toast...

    Michale

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy crap!!!!

    Re: INCOMING BANK DEPOSIT: $1,670,012.00

    Hey,

    You are personally invited for Google Trader System..
    In Case, If you don’t know what “Google trader” is..

    It’s an online trading software.. Allowing the users to
    Make up to $10,000/Day.. (NO Experience Required)

    ==>> Please Get Your Free Access Now

    P.S. Please don’t share this link with any one,
    It’s only private to you

    P.P.S. Get your FREE Access ASAP because we already
    have limited spots!

    ==>> Get Access Now

    Talks soon,

    - Support
    Google Trader App

    I need to send them my bank information and PIN right now!!!!! :D

    heh

    Michale

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    Freddie Gray Van Driver Found Not Guilty of Murder
    http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/06/23/officer-charged-with-murder-in-freddie-gray-case-learns-his-fate-today/

    And ANOTHER cop whose ONLY 'crime' is doing their duty is exonerated...

    How many of these politically correct kangaroo trials are we going to have to endure before Democrats get it thru their heads that cops doing their duty is NOT racist...

    Michale

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    You seem to be my go-to guy :D for issues such as those raised in #233... What can I say.. I am a sucker for common ground.. :D

    Your thoughts???

    Michale

  235. [235] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    in the interest of common ground, how about what happened to peter liang? thoughts?

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thoughts???

    A tragic error from a rookie cop...

    But no malice aforethought, no intent to do anything but be a good cop and protect and serve...

    The results.... Justice served...

    Michale

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, I agree with the defense attorney here.. No crime was committed.. It was a tragic accident...

    The cop was not ready to patrol the streets of New York...

    But a crime???

    No, no crime here...

    Michale

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    My apologies.. (BLUE MOON!!!)

    I don't think that's the "common ground" that you were looking for....

    Michale

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    HOLY CRAP!!!!

    BREXIT!!!! :D

    What IS it about Obama that, whenever he goes to the mat for something, it always goes the OPPOSITE!?? :D

    Michale

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Leave campaign argued during a bitter four-month referendum campaign that the only way Britain could "take back control" of its own affairs would be to leave the EU.

    Leave dismissed warnings from economists and international bodies about the economic impact of Brexit as "scaremongering" by a self-serving elite.

    Troo dat...

    Michale

  241. [241] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    BREXIT is a warning that the nationalists are on the march.

    Finally, the Long War in the middle east and the long lines of refugees coming out of that war and into the West, combined with the effort to combat the the now-constant threat of terroristic harrassment by home-grown and imported extremists (otherwise known as whack-a-mole), is taking a toll on the golden age of pan-Europeanism. It seems that nativism and nationalism are popping up everywhere in Europe except for Germany, and maybe I'm not looking hard enough for it there.

    Not entirely coincidentally, there is more than a little nationalism and nativism in Trump's appeals to his voters.

    So anyone who thinks that Hillary is going to cruise to victory this fall ought to look very, very hard at Brexit and note how much those vote percentages mirror recent polls in the US election.

    On a lighter note, Cameron really screwed the pooch on this one. It's so bad that, in the future, an act of political self-immolation by referendum could be called "a Cameron".

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Well said...

    As I am reading all the media reports, I am struck by one fact..

    Immigration seemed to be the catalyst that started and fed the BREXIT crowd...

    This mirrors the same mood here in the US towards illegal immigration...

    A victory for the LEAVE crowd in the UK does not portend good things for the Democrats here in the US, since the mood of the LEAVE crowd is very similar to the mood of over 70% of Americans here in the US...

    On a lighter note, Cameron really screwed the pooch on this one. It's so bad that, in the future, an act of political self-immolation by referendum could be called "a Cameron".

    heh :D

    Michale

  243. [243] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    the mood of the LEAVE crowd is very similar to the mood of over 70% of Americans here in the US...

    What, sleepy? In favor of better background checks? (that number is actually in the high eighties percentile, even among Republicans.)

    Because Trump only nailed down about 50% of his own party in the primaries, and polls indicate that his views have NO support among Democrats, so this 70% percent number of which you speak - it has the lingering odor of Hereford excrement.

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    What, sleepy? In favor of better background checks?

    I was referring to the fact that upwards of 70% of Americans think this country is heading in the wrong direction..

    But if you WANT to talk about gun control and background checks, background checks are already being done on gun owners..

    Of course, you might be thinking of the Gun Show loophole.. That's a myth...

    Because Trump only nailed down about 50% of his own party in the primaries, and polls indicate that his views have NO support among Democrats

    Really???

    Upwards of 30% of Democrats polled support Trump..
    shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/trump-poll.jpg

    Unions are moving en masse to support Trump...
    washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/donald-trumps-union-support-scares-democrats/

    Me thinks your claim is more wishful thinking than anything else...

    Michale

  245. [245] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The choice of targets is NOT relevant.."

    It was COMPLETELY relevant! He CHOSE an LGBT nightclub on purpose because it was LGBT. If he wanted to make a big political splash in the terrorism world, why didn't he chose a much higher profile target like Disney??? The theme park might have security but any number of clubs, restaurants, etc, at Downtown Disney does not!

    "Again, a not-so-artful dodge, so you don't have to explain why you support Hillary when she has the blood of THOUSANDS of gay people on her hands..."

    And Donald Trump won't????

    Donald Trump this past Tuesday met behind closed doors with 400 of America's Christian conservatives who have devoted their lives to Jesus Christ and their professional careers to demonizing LGBT people. Among those who follow the culture wars, the names are foundational. Every person invited has had an intentionally negative, often dangerous and extremely harmful impact on LGBT people and the LGBT community.

    Among them, James Dobson, who founded both Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. Tony Perkins, who turned Dobson's Family Research Council into a certified anti-gay hate group. Tim Wildmon, head of the anti-gay hate group American Family Association. Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America. Televangelist Pat Robertson, who blamed 9/11 on gay people. Ralph Reed, who headed Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, and now runs the Faith & Freedom Coalition. Ronnie Floyd, president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Family Leader president Bob Vander Plaats. American Values president Gary Bauer. Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

  246. [246] 
    Michale wrote:

    He CHOSE an LGBT nightclub on purpose because it was LGBT.

    Despite all the facts to the contrary...

    And Donald Trump won't????

    Donald Trump DOESN'T have the blood of thousands of innocent gay people on his hands......

    Hillary Clinton cannot make the same claim....

    That's my point, yer not-so-artful dodge notwithstanding..

    Michale

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it this way...

    If Donald Trump's campaign has been bankrolled by governments that EXECUTE gay people, if a Donald Trump slush fund had been enriched to the tune of TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS by governments that EXECUTE gay people....

    Ya'all would be screaming it from the highest rooftops...

    But because it's HILLARY CLINTON we're talking about, it doesn't even rate a mention...

    Why is that???

    Because Party Loyalty is more important than innocent gay lives...

    Michale

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's approach this from a different angle and establish some common ground..

    Can we ALL agree that governments that execute gay people SOLELY because they are gay is bad...

    Can we agree on that???

    Michale

  249. [249] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump this past Tuesday met behind closed doors with 400 of America's Christian conservatives

    AP: CLINTON CALENDAR HIDES 75 MEETINGS WITH DONORS...
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article85708367.html

    You were saying???

    "Transparency is for thee, but not for me."
    -Hillary Clinton

    Michale

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Clinton scandals, none forgettable and all memorable, are the gift that keeps on giving. One that bubbled to the surface again this week was the tale of one Rajiv Fernando, who traded millions to the Clinton Foundation, the family sponge, for an appointment to the International Security Advisory Board. Mr. Fernando was owner of something called Chopper Trading, hardly a qualification to measure and advise the secretary of State on nuclear weapons and national security, even with his access to national secrets. He served only briefly, until questions were asked, with nuclear scientists, former senators, Cabinet officers and presidential security advisers.
    This cash-for-access trade smelled so rank that even Hillary’s top aides could finally not abide the stench. Asked Philippe Reines, an assistant secretary of State: “Couldn’t he have landed a spot on the President’s Physical Fitness Council?”
    Hillary’s the authority on how to sell the White House. She practiced by peddling the Lincoln bedroom to campaign donors when she was the first lady. Now she’s after a bigger inventory, and the Donald has her number.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/23/the-bad-moon-rising-over-hillary-clinton/

    THIS is ya'all's candidate??? :^/

    Michale

  251. [251] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "He CHOSE an LGBT nightclub on purpose because it was LGBT.

    Despite all the facts to the contrary..."

    What facts to the contrary Michale??? You have NO Facts to the contrary, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you over and over again. Or did you forget my post about Paul Ryan said also??? Not to mention what both the shooter himself has said, as well as his own father and others who knew him. Sheesh!!!

  252. [252] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Donald Trump this past Tuesday met behind closed doors with 400 of America's Christian conservatives"

    Once again Michale, you MISSED the point entirely!!! What was important was NOT that either Trump or Clinton met with supporters in private or not. What WAS important was how many of those supporters were rabidly anti-gay!

  253. [253] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Democrat support for Donald Trump??

    Uprising in the Rust Belt
    They used to be Democrats. Now they really could hand Donald Trump the White House.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/coal-country-democrats-donald-trump-2016-213988

    Shurley, you jest... :D

    Michale

  254. [254] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again Michale, you MISSED the point entirely!!! What was important was NOT that either Trump or Clinton met with supporters in private or not. What WAS important was how many of those supporters were rabidly anti-gay!

    And Democrat supporters are rabidly anti-successful American..

    What's the difference???

    Let me put it to you this way...

    Hillary takes TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from countries whose governments EXECUTE gay people...

    Does that mean that Hillary is going to start executing gay people???

    Of course not...

    Donald Trump meets with people who are rabidly anti-gay...

    Does that mean TRUMP is now going to be rabidly anti-gay??

    Of course not..

    You can't demonize Trump for meeting with people who are anti-gay, yet give Hillary a pass for taking TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from people who EXECUTE gay people...

    In the grand scheme of things, what Trump is doing is HEADS AND SHOULDERS less bad than what Hillary is doing..

    Yet, you refuse to condemn Hillary at all and actually ACTIVELY SUPPORT Hillary...

    Non sequitor...

    Michale

  255. [255] 
    Michale wrote:

    What facts to the contrary Michale??? You have NO Facts to the contrary, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you over and over again

    You are saying that the Orlando scumbag CHOOSE the gay club specifically because it was gay..

    Cite your factual and relevant evidence to support the claim..

    He could have choose another target is NOT valid evidence..

    Michale

  256. [256] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even if it's true that he specifically choose PULSE because it was a gay club, that simply shows the islamic attitudes towards gay people...

    Islam wants to KILL gay people..

    Yet you support bringing MORE supporters of islam into this country...

    Again... Non sequitor...

    Michale

  257. [257] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, either this islamic terrorist scumbag specifically targeted a gay club or he did not..

    If he did, so what???

    That just proves the islamic hatred towards gay people...

    But I fail to understand the relevance in preventing further terrorist attacks...

    Michale

  258. [258] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-curse-hillaryism-article-1.2685706

    That's Hillary's problem, in a nutshell...

    The vast majority of Americans (upwards of 70%) are demanding change..

    Hillary is the candidate who is promising 4 more years of the same...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.