ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [431] -- Rampant Republican Hypocrisy On Syria

[ Posted Friday, April 7th, 2017 – 17:04 PDT ]

It turns out that Donald Trump is pretty good at predicting his own future behavior. You just have to change the names, that's all. A while back, Trump tweeted out the following: "Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin -- watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate."

This week, Donald Trump's poll numbers matched the lowest point Barack Obama ever hit (in his whole eight years) on the Real Clear Politics "daily average job approval" polling page: only 39.8 percent of Americans approved of the job Trump has been doing. Days later, Trump launched an airstrike on Syria. "Desperate" indeed.

But maybe Trump's not all that great at predicting the future. After all, Syria wasn't mentioned in Trump's tweet. On Syria, Trump had plenty of other advice to give Obama on Twitter. He warned Obama not to follow through on his "red line" threat, and now that the airstrike has happened, other Trump tweets are being dug up, including: "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval." Also, in the same vein: "The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria -- big mistake if he does not!" Trump, of course, did not bother getting congressional approval before launching last night's attack. Republicans in Congress -- who previously demanded such approval when Obama was in charge -- shrugged and cheered Trump on. No real surprise there.

For the first time, however, Trump opponents don't really have much to fall back on. Asking Congress to approve anything is a good way to get nothing done (as Obama found out, when he did ask Congress to approve escalating the war in Syria -- and they ignored him). Trump's action was decisive and fairly quick, which would simply not have been possible with Congress involved.

But the real reason (which, in all honesty, we have to point out) that Trump's political opponents are stymied right now is that nothing would have been different under President Hillary Clinton. How can we state this in such bold fashion? Because she told us so yesterday, mere hours before Trump launched the missiles. Here is what Clinton said:

Assad has an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of these civilian deaths as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days. And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop Sarin gas on them.

So, in this particular case, we would be in exactly the same situation now if Hillary had won the Electoral College. The missiles would have been launched, and Syrian airfields would have been attacked. That doesn't leave much of any room for saying "things would be different if Trump weren't in charge," really.

It may be tough for Democrats to admit, but politically Trump just had his best week so far. Not only will he likely get a "rally 'round the president in times of war" boost in his poll numbers, but he also scored his only real victory to date in Congress this week. Democrats successfully filibustered the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, but then Mitch McConnell went ahead and dropped the nuke, changing the Senate rules so that a majority vote is all that is needed for Supreme Court justice confirmations. While most Americans weren't paying much attention to the "changing the Senate rules" story, the upshot is that Donald Trump has seated his first Supreme Court justice. That is a solid political victory -- the only one he's really had so far from Congress.

Trump, of course, doesn't see things quite this way. On Air Force One, he was quoted saying: "I think we've had one of the most successful 13 weeks in the history of the presidency." Um, no, not really. In the first place, he's only actually been president for 11 weeks, and so far only one of them could even remotely be called "successful" in any way, when measured by actual accomplishments.

Oddly enough, Trump is taking a lot of heat from a very unexpected corner: the alt-right. Since they absolutely live for conspiracy theories, the lunatic righties are now convincing themselves that the Syrian nerve gas attack was either (1) a "false-flag" operation, not actually launched by Assad's forces, or (2) completely faked, and didn't actually happen. Either way, the thinking (if you can even call it that) goes that Trump was duped into attacking Syria, which goes against his entire "America First" campaign theme and all those "I won't get involved in Syria" campaign promises. Warped though this thinking may be, the conclusion is in some ways correct -- Trump castigated Clinton (and all his GOP opponents) for wanting to escalate the war in Syria, preferring to stay out of the mess and let them fight it out on their own. Now, he's apparently changed his mind.

The most bizarre flip-flop, though, happened in the space of a single week. The Trump administration, last week, decided to change America's official policy towards Assad, stating that it will be "up to the Syrian people" to decide whether Assad stays or goes. This is Assad's own position, it bears pointing out, and a drastic shift from calling for regime change. One chemical attack later, Trump moved 180 degrees in the opposite direction, directly attacking Assad's forces for the first time since the war began. That's a pretty big shift in a pretty short period of time, and just adds to the perception that Trump is creating his foreign policy in a very day-to-day and reactionary manner.

The fallout from the Syrian strike is yet to be determined. We didn't kill any Russian soldiers, which is good news indeed. Trump seems to have forewarned the Russians that the strike was coming, which may have helped avoid such an awkward situation. But now Russia has backed out of the agreement with the U.S. to work together to avoid belligerence between the two countries' military flights over Syria, which could have serious consequences in the weeks to come. Trump's attack so far seems to be seen by most of the world as an appropriate level of retaliation for the chemical weapons attack earlier in the week. If Trump does not escalate further, then the prevailing view of this being a measured response will likely prevail. After all, even Hillary Clinton probably would have done pretty much the same thing.

Of course, the media absolutely loved the attack, because they know that war means people watch more news. Nowhere was this more evident than watching Brian Williams literally rhapsodizing over the "beautiful" missile launches on air, complete with Leonard Cohen quotes. But then does anyone really expect anything different, at this point, from BriWi?

As usual in the age of Trump, there was so much going on this week that we're going to have to just whip through the rest of the news in lightning fashion. Even the story of the Senate going nuclear on Supreme Court confirmations -- a story which normally would have dominated news coverage all week -- was pushed to the side and treated almost as a footnote.

Early in the week, Trump made another of his accusations of criminal behavior by the Obama administration, and as usual he had absolutely no evidence to back his claim up. Trump seems to think Susan Rice broke the law, but didn't give any details. We're also still waiting on any proof whatsoever that Obama wiretapped Trump Towers, if you'll remember.

Trump seems to want to pin the blame for leaks on Rice (again, with zero evidence), but perhaps this was mere deflection from the fact that the Republican chair of the committee supposedly investigating such leaks (and Russian interference in our election) himself had to step down from the committee over charges that he leaked classified information. There's some irony for you.

Remember that time when Michael Flynn had to resign as a top Trump aide over conversations with Russian officials? Remember when Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself over the investigation because of his own conversations with Russian officials? Well, we're betting that Jared Kushner won't face anywhere near the same consequences for conveniently "forgetting" to list a bunch of contacts with Russian officials on his security disclosure forms. What's he going to do, after all -- step down from being Trump's son-in-law?

Speaking of stepping down, Steve Bannon was booted out of his principals seat on the National Security Council. Seems Bannon -- and possibly Reince Priebus -- are on thin ice because Jared doesn't much approve of them. The palace intrigue just never stops in the Trump White House. Will Bannon and Priebus be around next week? Stay tuned!

Vice President Mike Pence tried once again to revive the Republican "repeal and replace Obamacare" effort, without any noticeable success. He tried making the GOP plan even more awful -- by removing protections for people with pre-existing conditions, no less -- in an attempt to sway the Tea Partiers. Moderate Republicans recoiled in horror, and the goal of having some sort of bill together before the Easter congressional break utterly failed to materialize. Paul Ryan smartly kept out of the entire process this time, so we can't even call this "Ryancare 2.0." Now Republicans head back to their districts, where assumably some of them are going to get an earful from their constituents -- unless they all chicken out of even holding any town halls at all.

And finally, Trump just got a fairly disappointing jobs report, with fewer than 100,000 jobs created last month. Wait for it... wait for it... it's "all Obama's fault," right? We haven't actually heard any White House excuses on this yet, but we're betting we already know what they're going to say.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week, for very different reasons.

It mostly happened in the middle of the night and into the wee hours of the morning, but Senator Jeff Merkley made some history of his own in the Senate this week by mounting a "talking filibuster" against the Gorsuch confirmation. He spoke for 15 hours and 28 minutes, which puts him eighth on the list of the longest filibusters in history -- only two minutes behind Huey Long's 1935 talkathon.

Merkley knew this wasn't going to make any difference. He even politely scheduled it for the middle of the night, when few would even notice it. But he stood and talked for 15-and-a-half hours, which is a feat of stamina that is well worth noting. For making this effort and for mounting the eighth-longest filibuster ever, we feel Merkley deserves a MIDOTW award, at the very least.

Our second winner this week hit a milestone of fundraising, instead of a milestone of speechifyin'. On April 18, Georgia is going to have a special House election. Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff reported a whopping $8.3 million raised in three months. To put that in some perspective, this is seventeen times the average raised in the 2016 campaign cycle. That's a pretty stunning amount of money for a single House seat, in other words (check out the chart in that Washington Post article, which shows just how impressive this haul is).

Now, this is a Republican district, so no matter how much money Ossoff raises, he still might lose. But the district has a lot of affluent Atlanta suburbs, with many Republican voters who are not that thrilled with Donald Trump. The voting may go beyond the first round if no candidate achieves better than 50 percent of the vote, but Ossoff is currently polling at around 40 percent -- far better than any of the Republicans in the race.

This will be a very closely-watched election, for obvious reasons, but win or lose we have to say we are indeed impressed with the massive campaign chest that Jon Ossoff has put together so far. One final note: Ossoff raised most of his money online, proving once again that grassroots donations can be a very powerful force for Democrats. We wish Ossoff luck in his upcoming election, as we award him a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week for his fundraising prowess.

[Congratulate Senator Jeff Merkley on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts. As a standing policy, we do not link to candidate websites, so you'll have to seek out Jon Ossoff's site on your own, however.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one's pretty obvious this week, so this is going to be a short segment.

We have three Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week, for the three senators who voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. All three are worried about their re-election chances (in purple or red states), so they crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP rather than backing up the Democratic caucus.

There's really nothing much more that needs be said, really. Our MDDOTW winners this week are: Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Manchin.

[Contact Senator Joe Donnelly on his Senate contact page, Senator Heidi Heitkamp on her Senate contact page, and Senator Joe Manchin on his Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 431 (4/7/17)

It's still pretty early to accurately gauge the political reaction and fallout over Trump's Syrian airstrike, so we'll probably have a lot clearer talking points on the subject next week. This week, for the most part, we're more focused on pointing out the rampant hypocrisy emanating from the Republican side of the aisle. Oh, and we've got a belated April Fool's Day joke at the end, just because.

 

1
   Now we see why he didn't show up

This makes a lot more sense, now.

"Donald Trump turned down the opportunity to throw out the traditional first pitch at the Washington Nationals season-opener this week. No reason was given, which led many to speculate that he was afraid he'd get resoundingly booed if he showed up. This sounds a lot more plausible now, with the news that a massive banner, 'styled like a Russian flag,' was unfurled at the game which read: 'Impeach Trump #Resist.' No wonder he didn't show up, if that was the reception he was likely to get!"

 

2
   Sheer GOP hypocrisy

Strange how stories change when the shoe's on the other foot, isn't it?

"There's a long list of Republicans -- around 100 of them, in fact -- who signed a letter in 2013 warning President Obama that it would be unconstitutional for him to order airstrikes on Syria over the issue of chemical weapons. Obama dutifully asked Congress for an authorization for the use of military force, and Congress refused to grant it. These days, however, some of the same people who signed this letter are praising Trump's recent airstrike on Syria. Here's just one example, from Marco Rubio. After voting against giving Obama the authority to strike Syria, Rubio explained his vote by saying the president: 'was proposing what they called pinprick strikes, basically a symbolic strike to send a message, but not backed up by a clear plan.' That was then. Now that Trump has done exactly the same thing -- with no clear plan in sight -- Rubio has nothing but praise for him, saying: 'Tonight's actions show the days of being able to attack with impunity when it comes to Assad are over.' Curious how his opinion on the desirability of airstrikes shifts so dramatically depending on who is in the White House, isn't it? And Rubio's certainly not the only Republican expressing such changes of heart this week."

 

3
   Beautiful babies who can't come in

Speaking of hypocrisy...

"Donald Trump seemed to get quite emotional when talking about the youngest victims of the Assad chemical weapons attack, calling them 'children of God' and 'beautiful babies' in the past few days. He seemed downright empathetic to their plight, in fact. But apparently Trump is not so moved by the plight of the babies to go so far as to perhaps allow a few of them into the United States as refugees. When a national security spokesman was asked point-blank whether the Trump administration would consider changing their 'no Syrian refugees' position, though, the answer was: 'No, that wasn't discussed as any part of the deliberations.' So forgive me if I'm not all that moved by Trump's crocodile tears over the beautiful babies. Because apparently he still thinks they're all terrorists in swaddling clothes, or something."

 

4
   Tell us what you really feel, John

John McCain won the quote of the week from the Republican side of the aisle, that's for sure.

"Senator John McCain -- before the voting began -- had this to say about anyone who was supporting the nuclear option of changing the Senate rules for Supreme Court nominations, and I quote: Whoever says that is a stupid idiot, who has not been here and seen what I've been through and how we were able to avoid that on several occasions. And they are stupid and they've deceived their voters because they are so stupid. Unquote. Sounds like he felt pretty strongly about it, doesn't it? But then when it came to vote, McCain went right ahead and voted with (in his words) all the other stupid idiots in his party. Looks like he is comfortable talking the 'maverick' talk, but not so much when it comes to walking the 'maverick' walk."

 

5
   Uncorking a few truths

Republican Senator Bob Corker admitted a few ugly truths in the debate over the Gorsuch nomination this week, for which he should be applauded. He not only admitted that Harry Reid had used the first nuclear option when Republicans were attempting to block Obama from three appeals court nominations (who were "actually pretty decent," according to Corker), because Republicans "did not want the balance of the D.C. Circuit to change because it was at four to four" -- but he also admitted that the way Merrick Garland was treated by Republicans is what led to this point in history: "It was a pretty audacious move, let's face it, and obviously it created some hard feelings on the other side."

Corker went further, however, and predicted that the legislative filibuster is also not going to be around for much longer, despite all the statements to the contrary by his fellow Republicans, which was the truly amazing part of his speech. Democrats will quite likely dig this speech up in the future, when it actually happens, which is why we are including it today as a talking point:

Everybody says: "Oh, we are never going to do it on legislation." Come on! ... If we continue on the path we are on right now, the very next time there is a legislative proposal that one side of the aisle feels is so important they cannot let their base down, the pressure builds, and then we are going to invoke the nuclear option on the legislative piece too. That is what will happen. Somebody will do it.

. . .

Let's face it: If we do not have respect for the institution we serve and for ourselves, no one else will. For us to act like if we do it here, there is no way we would ever do it on a legislative piece -- let me tell you this: ... Two years ago, there would not have been a single Republican in our caucus who would have even considered voting for the nuclear option. As a matter of fact, we had discussions about changing it back. Then the election occurred, and we decided not to do that. ... To say that we will never get to the point at which we will not change a legislative piece -- give me a break! Somebody is not living in reality!

 

6
   50 and counting...

Bill O'Reilly had a tough week all around, which he fully deserved.

"Why is everyone so surprised that Bill O'Reilly is a serial sexual predator? I mean, I'm old enough to remember when he confused a loofah with falafel in an obscene phone call, back in 2004. Does anyone really think that was enough embarrassment to make him stop? Now it turns out that Fox News has paid out over ten million dollars to other women Bill has harassed over the years. This time, at least, corporate America is not amused -- the number of advertisers who have pulled their ads from his show is now over 50 and climbing by the day. Looks like falafel-boy is finally getting his comeuppance. To which I say: it's about time."

 

7
   From Russia, with humor

Russians aren't generally known for their humor. In fact, this week it was announced that it is now illegal in Russia to portray Vladimir Putin as a gay clown. Which, of course, prompted many to do just that, but that's really to be expected. But the Russian Foreign Ministry apparently had some fun on April Fool's Day, which we have to admit is pretty hilarious. They posted on a Facebook page a spoof answering machine message from their office, which said the following (in both Russian and English):

You have reached the Russian Embassy. Your call is very important to us. To arrange a call from a Russian diplomat to your political opponents, press 1. To use the services of Russian hackers, press 2. To request election interference, press 3 and wait until the next election campaign. Please note that all calls are recorded for quality improvement and training purposes.

-- 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

 

249 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [431] -- Rampant Republican Hypocrisy On Syria”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Good rundown. Most Impressive Dem: Jeff Merkley -- Yep!

    Since the Donald apparently followed Hillary's playbook on Syria's airport, I have a suggestion -- If he wants to salvage his disaster of a presidency he can replace Priebus with her and do everything she says and hire everyone she recommends.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Syria gases it's own people.

    In response, the U.S. bombs the Syrian Air Force, but calls ahead to make sure that, much like in the old GI Joe cartoons, everyone avoids getting hurt in the destruction.

    Russia now has to step up and spank Assad, but will do so only if they get something in return.

    The U.S. is so grateful for Putin's help in finally stopping Syria from having chemical weapons that it lifts the Russian sanction.

    Exxon begins drilling for oil 5 minutes after sanctions are lifted.

    Two days later, Tillerson quits.

    We hope you've enjoyed this latest episode of "As The Oil Churns".

  3. [3] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I'm going to try again.

    All of the reputable media outlets were saying "if it is proven that Assad was responsible", or "the chemical attack allegedly by Assad", etc...

    Why are you stating Assad is responsible for the chemical attack as a fact when journalists were not???

    What sources are you using?

    Why are you ignoring the many experts who have questioned the claim?

    Have you been reading the comments and following the links provided?

    Why aren't you questioning the politics of Democrats rallying behind Trump even?

    Why are you abandoning Obama's measured position in favor of Hillary's warmongering?

    A

  4. [4] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW and gang

    Here's a good interview with Lawrence Wilkerson (of the Colin Powell era)-

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18841

    The interviewer is either sick or his volume is low, but Wilkerson is easier to hear.

    A

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why is it a good interview?

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    Early in the week, Trump made another of his accusations of criminal behavior by the Obama administration, and as usual he had absolutely no evidence to back his claim up.

    Simply not factual... There is PLENTY of evidence to back it up.. Not the least of which that Susan Rice blatantly LIED when she claimed she knew nothing about the unmasking and then it was proven she was it's architect, she fessed up to it..

    Why would she lie??

    Word is around the beltway is she blamed an anti-muslim youtube video... :^/

    Wait for it... wait for it... it's "all Obama's fault," right?

    Why not?? When Obama was POTUS, it was all Bush's fault..

    No one had a problem about blaming the predecessor then??

    Funny, iddn't it? :D

    Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff reported a whopping $8.3 million raised in three months.

    So, big money is OK as long as it's a DEMOCRAT who is raising the millions.. :D Gotcha {wink, wink}

    Corker went further, however, and predicted that the legislative filibuster is also not going to be around for much longer:

    I hope this happens. Since we don't have to worry about a Democrat majority for the rest of our lifetimes, I would love to see the Democrats utterly and COMPLETELY impotent for the rest of my life...

    Serves them right for how bad they have frak'ed up the country the last 8 years..

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    In response, the U.S. bombs the Syrian Air Force, but calls ahead to make sure that, much like in the old GI Joe cartoons, everyone avoids getting hurt in the destruction.

    If Obama had actually had the balls to adhere to his "red line", you can bet he also would have "called ahead" to limit loss of life..

    The ONLY difference is that ya'all would have commended Obama for it..

    The power of the almighty '-D'

    :D

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    Bill O'Reilly had a tough week all around, which he fully deserved.

    "Why is everyone so surprised that Bill O'Reilly is a serial sexual predator? I mean, I'm old enough to remember when he confused a loofah with falafel in an obscene phone call, back in 2004. Does anyone really think that was enough embarrassment to make him stop? Now it turns out that Fox News has paid out over ten million dollars to other women Bill has harassed over the years.

    I guess sexual harassment is the new racism now.. The Left Wing's "go to" choice for attacking the Right.. :^/

    Nothing but politics at work. How do we know this??

    Two words.. Bubba Clinton...

    'nuff said...

    This time, at least, corporate America is not amused -- the number of advertisers who have pulled their ads from his show is now over 50 and climbing by the day. Looks like falafel-boy is finally getting his comeuppance. To which I say: it's about time."

    So, now ya'all are big on Corporate America, eh? :D

    O'Reilly's numbers are going up, so apparently the American people are fine with these meaningless accusations..

    So, now the Left is part and parcel to Corporate America and against patriotic Americans..

    I wish I could say I was surprised.. :^/

    John McCain won the quote of the week from the Republican side of the aisle, that's for sure.

    So the Senate formally established how a supermajority could shut off debate, setting a two-thirds threshold for ending a filibuster. After a bloc of southern Democrats obstructed civil rights legislation, a large bipartisan group in 1975 lowered that threshold to just 60 of the 100 senators — leaving in place the two-thirds majority for a rules change.

    From your article...

    DEMOCRATS blocked civil rights legislation!!!?????

    What a bunch of lusers.... :D

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, just for everyone's information, just finished answering yesterday's comments, starting on:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/04/06/taser-unswiftly-changes-name/#comment-98241

    enjoy...

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    Since the Donald apparently followed Hillary's playbook on Syria's airport, I have a suggestion -- If he wants to salvage his disaster of a presidency he can replace Priebus with her and do everything she says and hire everyone she recommends.

    Why on earth would President Trump want to hire a two-time LUSER who has never had any real accomplishment that wasn't on the coattails of her rapist and serial sexual harrasser/assaulter husband and whose ONLY claim to fame is being the most dishonest and corrupt person on the face of the planet AND who was part and parcel to the regime that totally devastated this country's honor and prestige for 8 years...

    The *BEST* thing for NOT-45 to do is to fade away from the public and never to be seen or heard of again...

    Her time is past.. She is a dunsel, pure and simple...

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    <All of the reputable media outlets were saying "if it is proven that Assad was responsible", or "the chemical attack allegedly by Assad", etc...

    Why are you stating Assad is responsible for the chemical attack as a fact when journalists were not???

    Because CW doesn't have to worry about being sued by Assad.. :D

    Media *ALWAYS* put 'alleged' qualifiers in.. Even with something that is widely known as a stone cold fact..

    Using that as a basis to argue innocence is re-donk-ulus...

    "It's... It's... reDONKulus!! hahahaha"
    -DONKEY, Shrek 4-Ever After

    The BEST Shrek movie IMNSHO.... :D

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    Russia now has to step up and spank Assad, but will do so only if they get something in return.

    The U.S. is so grateful for Putin's help in finally stopping Syria from having chemical weapons that it lifts the Russian sanction.

    Exxon begins drilling for oil 5 minutes after sanctions are lifted.

    Two days later, Tillerson quits.

    We hope you've enjoyed this latest episode of "As The Oil Churns".

    As pure a fiction as the soap operas you are emulating.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    michale [8] -

    You can't yell 'Bubba Clinton' every time one of your guys is caught trying to harass newswomen into giving him handjobs. It would be like me yelling 'Bush' every time a democrat is caught being stupid, or yelling 'Chaney' when a democrat is caught being cartoonishly villianous. It's too easy.

    So, now ya'all are big on Corporate America, eh?

    We've never hated Corporations, only the ones who think they can treat workers and consumers like lower forms of life. Only the ones who manipulate tax laws and public lobbying to gorge themselves at the public trough. Only the ones who support politicians who want to tear down democracy and establish an Authoritarian Oligarcic Kleptocratic Plutocracy in its place.

    The rest, we have no problem with.

    O'Reilly's numbers are going up, so apparently the American people are fine with these meaningless accusations

    Or people are fascinated with watching someone as their career implodes.

    DEMOCRATS blocked civil rights legislation!?

    Yes, DIXIECRATS blocked civil rights legislation, and then switched parties, so they're your problem now.

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    You can't yell 'Bubba Clinton' every time one of your guys is caught trying to harass newswomen into giving him handjobs.

    As long as ya'all never condemn Bubba when you are condemning the Right...

    Yer damn tootin' I can.. :D

    We've never hated Corporations,

    Bullshit..

    Yes, DIXIECRATS blocked civil rights legislation, and then switched parties, so they're your problem now.

    Nice spin..

    DEMOCRATS blocked civil rights legislation...

    Own up to the Party's past or be forever doomed to repeat it..

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    You can't yell 'Bubba Clinton' every time one of your guys is caught trying to harass newswomen into giving him handjobs.

    As long as ya'all never condemn Bubba when you are condemning the Right...

    Yer damn tootin' I can.. :D

    Basically, those who denigrate Righties that are allegedly caught at it and give any Lefties caught a pass, they are saying that they don't really mind rape, sexual assault or sexual harassment..

    They ONLY have a problem with it when it's a Righty who is allegedly doing it..

  16. [16] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, basically you're saying that O'Reilly and Ailes get a pass for their obnoxious behavior, because a democrat did something similar once in the past?

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    Hey, y'all. If you want to see some commercial-free television, watch O'Reilly. *LOL*

  18. [18] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Here's a discussion of the legality of Trump's missile attack.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18842

    Do you see no political advantage in raising the legal issues since all the Dems but two in Congress are rallying behind Trump?

    She thinks Assad is responsible for the chemical attack, but is honest enough to admit we don't know for certain.

    A

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [15]

    As long as ya'all never condemn Bubba when you are condemning the Right...

    Yer damn tootin' I can.. :D

    See, here's where you're wrong. People don't have to give equal time in their posts in order to make a point. No one has to give equal time on the blog like they're network television. It's the silliest thing you keep harping on, and it's not true. :)

    Basically, those who denigrate Righties that are allegedly caught at it and give any Lefties caught a pass, they are saying that they don't really mind rape, sexual assault or sexual harassment..

    Rubbish. They're really only saying: Nanner, nanner boo boo, you're guy got caught too.

    They ONLY have a problem with it when it's a Righty who is allegedly doing it..

    I got a problem with all of them doing it, but that doesn't mean my posts have to give equal time to something from the 1990s in order to make a post about something going on now. :)

  20. [20] 
    TheStig wrote:

    This was unquestionably Trump's best week in office.

    "That learn them Syrians!" Tom said bombastically.

    At this moment, a majority of Americans probably agree with Tom at gut level...Assad is bastard, Putin is a bastard and there is the "dawns early light effect" of watching Tomahawks take off majestically from destroyer decks (optically much better than submarine launches, good choice USN).

    This could change swiftly (sorry) if American soldiers get killed or captured on the Syrian front. "Trump really stepped in it this time!" Tom said gravely....(sorry, really sorry).

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS [20]

    So my source tells me that the Russians actually left that airstrip the day before the strike, and the Syrians were given several hours of warning and moved all their functional aircraft out of the area. The only aircraft that were hit were already non-functioning.

    That was nothing but a very expensive light show, and the airfield was back in use on Friday.

    I think if Obama had done a similar strike, the GOP and their ilk would be calling him "feckless" because nothing was accomplished but a pretty light show for political purposes. :)

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    So, basically you're saying that O'Reilly and Ailes get a pass for their obnoxious behavior, because a democrat did something similar once in the past?

    No, I am saying that those who give Democrats a pass for such behavior have no moral foundation to condemn Republicans for the behavior...

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    See, here's where you're wrong. People don't have to give equal time in their posts in order to make a point.

    They do if they want to have ANY credibility..

    So my source tells me that the Russians actually left that airstrip the day before the strike, and the Syrians were given several hours of warning and moved all their functional aircraft out of the area. The only aircraft that were hit were already non-functioning.

    Bullshit....

    Your "source" is in fantasyland..

    That was nothing but a very expensive light show, and the airfield was back in use on Friday.

    Prove it...

    I got a problem with all of them doing it,

    Prove it..

    Show me a comment where you condemned Bubba or any one of the hundreds of Democrats who have been caught at it..

    If you can't show such comments, you have absolutely no factual basis to make the claim that you have a problem with "ALL" of them who do it..

    ut that doesn't mean my posts have to give equal time to something from the 1990s in order to make a post about something going on now. :)

    It does mean that if you want to have any credibility..

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    So my source tells me that the Russians actually left that airstrip the day before the strike, and the Syrians were given several hours of warning and moved all their functional aircraft out of the area. The only aircraft that were hit were already non-functioning.

    AND you have a lot of support in email.. :D

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    I got a problem with all of them doing it,

    But we ONLY hear about it from you when a Right Winger is caught at it...

    Why is that??

    Because you DON'T care when a Left Winger is caught at it..

    At least you don't care enough to comment about it..

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T. Kirk

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Despite the temptation to focus on the distraction of the moment, why not start now and devote one column a week to 2018?
    Can anyone guess what I suggest the first article in this series should be?
    (cue Final Jeopardy theme)
    Wrong.
    Start with the recent special election in California's 34th congressional district.
    I would like to hear your analysis of the results.
    Was this special election different from the regular top-two primary?
    If not, then maybe the top-two primary system is not all that good.
    According to an article by KPCC Pasadena only 9.6% of eligible voters voted in the primary.
    If more than 50% had voted for one candidate, there would be no general election and about 5% of eligible voters would have elected the next congressman.
    As it stands now (according to Ballotpedia)
    the top two got about 28% and 19% so about 5% of eligible voters selected the top two for the general election.
    What happens in the 2018 primary? Do any of the candidates or their parties from this election cycle (primary and general) qualify for the 2018 primary or do all candidates for 2018 have the same signature or other requirements to be on the 2018 primary ballot?

  27. [27] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Thanks for the responses.

    147
    from Taser

    Easy one first.
    I was being lazy and repeating what many are doing by capitalizing "Sarin"... I think you are correct that it isn't a brand name and should be sarin.

    146
    from Taser

    Thank you for acknowledging the allegations on which Trump launched an act of war remain unproven.

    Sorry to hear you are so busy, but I did provide links showing the "rebels" may indeed have used sarin in previous attacks which they tried to blame on Assad.

    Here's what Sy Hersh wrote in the London Review of Books exposing the uncomfortable inaccuracies in the Obama era debate-

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

    At the time, defending Obama was your thing, so I fully understand not following such a story.
    Personally, I believe Obama failed to act on the "Red Line" debate precisely because of the possibility Assad wasn't responsible for the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack in Syria.
    Obama is quoted in the TI article by Glenn Greenwald (which I cited earlier) as saying that he thinks that was one of the best decisions he ever made (see the link for the exact quote).

    This is why I am confused when you and almost all the Democrats, here and in Congress, are favoring Hillary's hawkish view on Syria while rallying behind Trump over Obama's sensible view.
    Obama was a Democratic president for eight years.
    Hillary was a failed candidate.
    Why would the failed candidate's view be adopted?

    I strongly urge you and everyone here to read the article by Hersh in the LRB link, and the two letters that follow it... one critical, and one critical of that criticism that details the inaccurate claims about the range of the rockets used in the Ghouta attack..

    The critical letter references the May 2013 arrest of Islamists in Turkey who were trying to carry chemicals necessary to make sarin into Syria.

    More on that will follow due to the one link minimum.

    A

  28. [28] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Here's the report from Reuters about the arrests of Islamists in Turkey with chemicals.
    It contains a denial that they had sarin.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE94T0YO20130530

    Later analysis showed the chemicals could be used to make sarin, as noted above.

    A

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    Personally, I believe Obama failed to act on the "Red Line" debate precisely because of the possibility Assad wasn't responsible for the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack in Syria.

    In that case, Obama was a moron for issuing the "Red Line"...

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [23]

    They do if they want to have ANY credibility..

    Utter nonsense. If the guy who believes right-wing propaganda from the likes of Fox News, Breitbart, and Alex Jones conspiracy theory entertainment doesn't believe me, then I'm cool with it! :)

    Bullshit....

    Your "source" is in fantasyland..

    You have no idea where my source is; that is a FACT! :)

    Prove it...

    I don't have to. I don't care if YOU believe me.

    Prove it..

    See above.

    Show me a comment where you condemned Bubba or any one of the hundreds of Democrats who have been caught at it..

    Blah, blah, blah. See above.

    If you can't show such comments, you have absolutely no factual basis to make the claim that you have a problem with "ALL" of them who do it..

    I can make whatever claim I want. You're not the board police. I don't care if you believe me or not.

    It does mean that if you want to have any credibility..

    You're not the judge and jury of the board. No one has to prove anything to prove credibility to you. You have no moral authority to sit in judgment of everyone's posts and demand they prove anything. You're not the boss of me; that's a FACT! :)

  31. [31] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick - 21

    Tomahawks cost about 1 million $ (=1 M$) each, so 59 M$ is expensive fireworks, (the 4th of July spectacle at Washington D.C. in 2014 was 13 M$) but fairly cheap in military terms (a Zumwalt destroyer sets you back 2 B$). Washington Post showed Syrian video of destroyed aircraft in protective revetments...thick concrete roof, open at both ends, no bunker busting required, easy meat for a Tomahawk.

    Landing and launching aircraft from a targeted airfield is not a high bar, so long as you don't have to repair, arm or refuel said aircraft at said base. Any mildly competent military can fix a run way in a couple of hrs....lots Kabuki theater going on here, from all sides.

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    Utter nonsense. If the guy who believes right-wing propaganda from the likes of Fox News, Breitbart, and Alex Jones conspiracy theory entertainment doesn't believe me, then I'm cool with it! :)

    It's not a question of belief..

    It's a question of credibility..

    I could also say the same thing about you and HuffPoop, DailyKKK and New Republic...

    I don't have to. I don't care if YOU believe me.

    I'll remind you of that when you question my proclamations.. :D

    I can make whatever claim I want. You're not the board police. I don't care if you believe me or not.

    Yes, you can make any claim..

    And, if you can't support it with any facts, I can point out that you are full of kaa-kaa :D

    You're not the judge and jury of the board. No one has to prove anything to prove credibility to you. You have no moral authority to sit in judgment of everyone's posts and demand they prove anything. You're not the boss of me; that's a FACT! :)

    Hit a nerve, did I... :D Interesting..

    Think about this hysterical rant the next time you demand I substantiate a claim... :D

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    You demand substantiation from me for anything and everything..

    Yet you get hysterical when I request you to back up your claims with facts..

    Hypocrisy much?? :D

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [25]

    But we ONLY hear about it from you when a Right Winger is caught at it...

    Why is that??

    Why is it that you sit on your moral highhorse and make shit up and judge practically everyone here? Why is it that you use words like "ONLY" and sit in constant judgment? You seem to think you're the board moral police. Why is that?

    You're constantly judging everyone. Why is that?

    Because you DON'T care when a Left Winger is caught at it..

    At least you don't care enough to comment about it..

    You don't know what I care about. What makes you think you do? You're kind of obnoxious the way you constantly want to talk about EVERYTHING ELSE except politics. You ALWAYS want to get personal. Why is that?

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T. Kirk

    Simple is right. It's the same simple crap constantly where you want to discuss the poster instead of political issues. Why is that?

    ________________

    Do I sound ridiculous? I just thought I'd show you how you sound all the time! :)

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    Why is it that you sit on your moral highhorse and make shit up and judge practically everyone here? Why is it that you use words like "ONLY" and sit in constant judgment? You seem to think you're the board moral police. Why is that?

    You're constantly judging everyone. Why is that?

    Deflect much? :D

    I get it. You can't answer the question so you just go on a hysterical rant..

    You don't know what I care about. What makes you think you do?

    I know a great deal about what you care about. And what you don't care about..

    And, apparently, from all the facts, you DON'T care if a Democrat rapes, sexually assaults or sexually harasses women..

    Do I sound ridiculous?

    No, you sound hysterical and your are deflecting like crazy because I caught you in blatant hypocrisy...

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [32]

    Hit a nerve, did I... :D Interesting..

    You assume too much. Interesting. You seem overly concerned with talking about posters versus politics. Why is that?

    Think about this hysterical rant the next time you demand I substantiate a claim... :D

    Demanding that someone substantiate a claim or "prove it" is YOUR bullshit... NOT mine. If you post things without links, I'm quite capable of doing my own research to find your sources without any problem whatsoever.

    I've never seen any other LEO who whines for cites quite as much as you. Why is that? *LOL*

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [33]

    You demand substantiation from me for anything and everything..

    LIE

    Yet you get hysterical when I request you to back up your claims with facts..

    LIE

    Hypocrisy much?? :D

    Just this morning, you were talking about NOT calling people names, but what would you have to post if you weren't sitting on your moral high horse and calling people hysterical or hypocrites? You'd really not have much to say without your board police routine, right?

    Why is that? :)

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Demanding that someone substantiate a claim or "prove it" is YOUR bullshit... NOT mine.

    You are NOW claiming that you have NEVER asked me to substantiate ANY claim I made!??

    Are you SURE you want to go with that??

    Just this morning, you were talking about NOT calling people names,

    What name did I call you??

    I said you are acting hysterical and being hypocritical..

    Where is the name-calling in that??

    {{{chirrrrppppp}}} {{{chirrrrpppppp}}}

    Yea.. That's what I thought..

  39. [39] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Am I the only one outraged by this immoral and cynical action? This raid was nothing but a show to impress Brian Williams and by extension his audience. Assad was warned in advance and removed all his equipment and personal to safety before the airstrike. To use military force, to put American and other lives in danger, to countenance the destruction of human life, so that the occupant of the White House can appear "Presidential" is grievously wrong. Anyone who has ever experienced the awful horror of such an attack would only order one as LAST resort, not to send a "message". When Kissinger did this by bombing Cambodia the streets of America erupted in demonstrations of outrage, have we become so inured to this Machiavellian use of military force that we have lost our sense of moral outrage? And what was the message Assad received? That we only make a show of opposing his gassing his own people? Does any one believe this ridiculous and dangerous public relations stunt will in any way deter him? I am sure Mr Putin is happy to go along with this charade in return for what?

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Assad was warned in advance and removed all his equipment and personal to safety before the airstrike.

    Cite??

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    [39] SF Bear wrote:

    Am I the only one outraged by this immoral and cynical action?

    Not by a long shot.

    This raid was nothing but a show to impress Brian Williams and by extension his audience.

    Brian Williams! *LOL* This sure was a 180-degree turn, wasn't it?

    Assad was warned in advance and removed all his equipment and personal to safety before the airstrike.

    Yes, he was.

    To use military force, to put American and other lives in danger, to countenance the destruction of human life, so that the occupant of the White House can appear "Presidential" is grievously wrong.

    Amen. :)

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    To use military force, to put American and other lives in danger, to countenance the destruction of human life, so that the occupant of the White House can appear "Presidential" is grievously wrong.

    Of course, it was not only acceptable, but COMMENDED when Obama did it.. :D

  43. [43] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    The intention to post this on the thread it references was foiled by a late-night inability to recall the tag for skipping lines (paragraph). So:,

    Michale was correct regarding no limitations on a president's powers as Commander in Chief under Art.II. Those commenting on the previous thread, which he criticized for raising consitutionality -as have some among the media- likely were thinking of presidential responsibilities under the War Powers Resolution (WPR). There might be, in that, some mis-interpretation of the WPR, codified as law in 50 U.S.C.

    You can find in the record that Presidents post-enactment have generally taken a position that the WPR was an unconstitutional infringement on Article II powers, You'll also find in the record that all Presidents from 1981 to 2001 provided reports to Congress "consistent with" the law, to use Pres.Clinton's characterization of his report regarding deployment of cruise missle and manned air power in Yugoslavia.

    The congressional chorus Friday calling for consultion by the White House is likely their fretting, on one hand, over their Art.I war powers, and on the other hand, over the prerogatives Congress gave themselves in the WPR for reporting by, and a role in subsequent actions by, the Commander in Chief,

    What could be interesting politically, if not legally, though, is if the Administration were to assert the WPR's requirements were not triggered by this cruise missile deployment and hence nothing is owed to Congress by either Constitution or Code. As an aside: in that case, it would probably be a good idea to have someone other than Stephan Miller announce that position to the world.

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale was correct regarding no limitations on a president's powers as Commander in Chief under Art.II.

    Thank you...

    Oh... Not sure if it's applicable, but what the hell..

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Having gotten THAT out of the way, I can see the argument where President Trump's actions MIGHT violate the WPR of 1974.. As LB indicates, no President since it's enactment has wanted to test the resolution in court for fear they would lose..

    So, there IS an argument to be made based on the resolution, although I don't feel it's a valid argument..

    What simply CANNOT be argued, however, is that there is ANYTHING in the US Constitution that precludes, prevents or forbids the POTUS from acting in his capacity as Commander In Chief without approval from Congress...

  46. [46] 
    altohone wrote:

    11

    "Media *ALWAYS* put 'alleged' qualifiers in.. Even with something that is widely known as a stone cold fact.."

    No.
    That is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of journalism and the definition of the word fact.
    Your constant misuse of the word is probably linked to this misunderstanding.

    In the case of the chemical attack in Syria, the Trumpon bombed before an investigation could take place, and journalists are absolutely accurate when they write "allegedly carried out by Assad's regime"... because it is not a fact... stone cold or otherwise.

    I've never seen a journalist use "allegedly" for a fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened on occasion since journalists (and editors) do make mistakes.

    If you have an example to present, go for it.

    A

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    That is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of journalism and the definition of the word fact.
    Your constant misuse of the word is probably linked to this misunderstanding.

    Despite Kick's claims that no one has to substantiate anything...

    I am going to have to ask you to provide any facts to prove your claims are true...

    If you have an example to present, go for it.

    Haven't you heard??

    No one is required to provide ANY substantiation of ANY claim... :D

    So says Queen Kick.. :D

    Regardless, I am going to provide substantiation..

    Just as you substantiate of your claim.. :D

  48. [48] 
    altohone wrote:

    SF Bear
    39

    I wish more people felt that way.

    I remain unconvinced that Assad was even responsible for the chemical attack. The lack of a rational explanation for such an attack doesn't seem to bother very many people.

    There was no military benefit, no political benefit, and no economic benefit for launching such an attack 48 hours after Trump decided to support keeping Assad in power.

    On the other hand, everybody from the regime change supporters to the "rebels" to weapons manufacturers to our "allies" did stand to gain from Trump's reversal.

    A

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/04/07/one-word-says-it-all-asian-airbnb-host-reportedly-leaves-guest-stranded-because-of-her-race/?utm_term=.073a871ca930

    When Suh replied that she would report the host to Airbnb for being racist, the host told her to “Go ahead” and “It’s why we have trump.”

    Trumpers.

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The lack of a rational explanation for such an attack doesn't seem to bother very many people.

    using chemical weapons on civilians is not a rational action by a rational person, it's horrific and serves no direct military purpose. that doesn't stop it from being used for irrational reasons. for years, chemical warfare has been the shortcut of choice for a brutal dictator whose armies are exhausted, looking for a quicker end to resistance against them, and who had just been told by us that their dominance was a political reality we accepted. these reasons may not be rational, but they've been good enough for assad in the past.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/syria-nerve-agent-attack-why-it-made-sense-to-assad

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01

    Despite Kick's claims that no one has to substantiate anything...

    Michale is twisting my words... again.

    Haven't you heard??

    No one is required to provide ANY substantiation of ANY claim... :D

    So says Queen Kick.. :D .

    Twisting my words again in a post to another... and he wonders why people call him a troll. So why do you think he insists on calling me names to you?

    So here's the thing: He was once again insisting that posters had to prove they weren't bigots (you know that ridiculous nonsense). So Mr. LEO actually says to me: "Apparently, from all the facts, you DON'T care if a Democrat rapes, sexually assaults or sexually harasses women."

    What kind of LEO worth a damn would actually insist a woman would excuse a sexual predator because of their Party affiliation? Sure doesn't sound like any law enforcement officer I've ever known.

    I once held an attacker at the end of a pair of scissors until a bailiff showed up and handcuffed him. I didn't ask the SOB what Party he belonged to because I didn't really care. You think that's enough proof?

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    Twisting my words again in a post to another... and he wonders why people call him a troll. So why do you think he insists on calling me names to you?

    You still have yet to show which name I called you..

    You are lying, as usual...

    Michale is twisting my words... again.

    You said that asking for substantiation is "bullshit"...

    How is that twisting??

    What kind of LEO worth a damn would actually insist a woman would excuse a sexual predator because of their Party affiliation?

    What does my being an LEO have to do with anything??

    You have a very easy way to prove that you don't excuse a sexual predator because of their Party affiliation..

    Show me a comment where, unsolicited and un-prodded, you condemned Bill Clinton or any other Democrat sexual predator...

    Until such time as you can prove your bona-fides, my claim stands as valid..

    I once held an attacker at the end of a pair of scissors until a bailiff showed up and handcuffed him. I didn't ask the SOB what Party he belonged to because I didn't really care. You think that's enough proof?

    If it actually happened.... no...

    The only acceptable proof is for you to show me a comment you made, unsolicited and un-prodded, where you condemned a sexual predator that was a Democrat...

    If you are truly against sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape, it should be VERY easy as Democrats are hip deep in those kinds of scumbags..

    "Apparently, from all the facts, you DON'T care if a Democrat rapes, sexually assaults or sexually harasses women."

    Since you are so hysterically deflecting and trying to make everything about me, I have to conclude that the claim is factual...

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    An investigation of Google Inc. has found it systematically pays female employees less than their male counterparts, U.S. Department of Labor officials said, a claim that adds to allegations of gender bias in Silicon Valley.

    The Labor Department found the gender-pay gap during a routine probe into whether Google, a federal contractor, is complying with laws that prohibit contractors from discriminating against applicants or employees.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-pays-female-workers-less-than-male-counterparts-labor-department-says-1491622997

    Democrats :eyeroll:

  54. [54] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  55. [55] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig -

    "That learn them Syrians!" Tom said bombastically.

    OK, now THAT was funny!

    Well done, sir, I doff my cap at thee...

    :-)

    -CW

  56. [56] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Re: the video attached to the link at [18], there is an interesting (and lurking, underdiscussed) speculation regarding the President's motives for the attack. Those motives have to inform any valid analysis of strategies, responses, or culpabilities. Before that, though, we get to wade through some globalist bullsh boilerplate from Phyllis Bennis following from her statement that "the UN Charter is the law of the land in the United States." That was fine; who doesn't need a laugh nowdays? But...

    Following 14:30 into the interview, she submits that the motivation for the attack was a response on a personal level to seeing the horror on television. That may cry out for some Chauncey Gardner snark, but there's one serious takeaway from her comment: it's possible that that is Occam's Razon.

    It's not clear, though, that it rises to the higher standards of Trump's Razor.

  57. [57] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [21] -

    Don't forget the cost. How much does a Tomahawk go for these days? Times 59, that adds up...

    Don Harris [26] -

    Missed the CA election, I have to admit. Gotta check where that district is...

    I have been watching the GA special election and the one in MT, too (with a popular singer running). I may write about all of them soon. But I will be cautioning people not to read too much into the results. I seem to remember in 2010 (?) a few special elections the Dems won, but then they got shellacked in the regular election. So don't overread the result.

    As for top-2, I personally hate it. I hate having two Dems on the general ballot for ANY race, and no, I am not being funny or facetious. It is a travesty of democracy to not allow all parties onto the general election ballot. Primaries are low-attendance (as you point out), and it just isn't fair. I say that while voting Dem, but I'd be just as annoyed if I lived in a state where two GOPers were on the general election ballot. It's a matter of principle -- jungle, top-2 systems are just not fair and should be abolished. Period.

    altohone [27] -

    I will check it out. I wasn't really promoting Hillary's stance (or Trump's stance), more just trying to see them both through a political lens (hey, it was Friday after all). I think both Trump and Hillary are wrong, in fact, but I think Syria is an unsolvable problem. Like Lebanon proved to be for Reagan, to draw a parallel.

    I've been mostly focused on the fight with IS, both in Syria and in Iraq, and haven't been paying enough attention to Assad and the other five or six armies in the conflict, I will admit.

    Anyway, thanks for the articles, I will check them out.

    I still think "Sarin" looks better, but then I've got a bias towards overcapitalization. It's interesting to see different media do it differently, though -- no consensus at this point.

    SF Bear [39] -

    Well, on the "impress Brian Williams" front, the raid has to be judged a complete success. Heh.

    LeaningBlue [43] -

    Excellent comment (on WPR in particular). Congress hasn't even managed to update the AUMF from... what, sixteen years ago? -- which is why everything since is kind of in "make it up as you go along" territory. Even Obama, when he asked Congress for authorization to hit Syria, stated firmly that he believed he did not need such authorization since he already had the power to act as C-in-C.

    'Twas always thus, with the WPR. Presidents posture, congresses posture, but neither is willing to take the other to court to get a decision on it. So it remains in limbo.

    OK, that's it for now...

    -CW

  58. [58] 
    altohone wrote:

    47

    Regarding my claim that you misuse and don't understand the word fact you replied-

    "I am going to have to ask you to provide any facts to prove your claims are true..."

    Fine.
    In comment 35 to Kick you wrote-

    "And, apparently, from all the facts, you DON'T care if a Democrat rapes, sexually assaults or sexually harasses women"

    You fail to make clear the "facts" to which you are referring.
    "all the facts" includes countless facts including the fact that you misuse the word fact and the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not you... but those facts aren't relevant to your claim.

    A proper reference to the relevant facts is necessary in a discussion, but particularly so when you are making such an ugly and hysterical (false) accusation based on those facts. You seem to be referring to your opinions about Kick's failure to criticize Bubba sufficiently for your liking.
    But your opinions are not facts.

    In any case, you are referring to an event that precedes the existence of this forum (when the issue was relevant and there would have been a reason to voice her opinion and a record of it), and you also have no knowledge of what she said at the time, where she said it, and to whom.
    Your ignorance about the actual facts is relevant to your claim.

    Furthermore, you mentioning Bubba's indiscretion two decades later doesn't create an obligation for anyone to comment about it now. Similarly, an indiscretion by a Republican doesn't create an obligation to mention Bubba's indiscretion.

    I feel obliged to point out that your conclusions in that quote are also clearly not substantiated by your fake "facts" and are completely out of character with what we do factually know of Kick's opinions from her comments here.

    Are you going to cite an improper use of the word allegedly by journalists now?

    A

  59. [59] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    51

    I think I killed two birds with one stone in comment 50.

    But Queen Kick does have a nice ring to it.
    I'd vote for ya.

    A

  60. [60] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    50

    Yes, attempting to paint Assad as irrational is necessary to attempt to justify a narrative that defies reason.

    If you want to summarize your link, I'll respond.
    Reading opinion pieces in the Guardian is not how I want to spend my time.

    A

  61. [61] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Michale - It doesn't matter if some democrat sometime in the past committed an atrocity, it is an atrocity none the less. What I am saying is that THIS president, THIS week, did commit an atrocity and it needs to be called out. I wasn't around when Democratic presidents (was Jackson the first?) began doing this, and that fact has no relevance to what this president is doing. A policy has merit or not aside from who is doing it, your incessant arguments to the contrary are tedious. To use our military, to place our solders in harms way, just to enhance your popularity is simply wrong regardless of who does it. It was wrong for Nixon and it is wrong for Trump.

  62. [62] 
    altohone wrote:

    LeaningBlue
    56

    I agree the Trumpon's motives are personal/political, not moral.
    The comparable number of children he killed in Mosul a week earlier makes that clear.

    I may be misunderstanding what you are saying after that though.
    Are you claiming we aren't bound by the UN Charter which we helped write and ratified?
    International treaties that we ratify do indeed become US law.

    A

  63. [63] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW
    57

    Well, if the Trumpon and Hillary are wrong in your opinion, all the Dems in Congress but two are wrong as well... including Bernie btw.
    Now there's a column I'd like to see you write.

    From a political perspective, we just saw the Dems whiff on two softballs the Trumpon lofted their way.
    Failing to call him out for acting before the facts of the attack could be determined.
    And failing to call him out on the illegal nature of his act of war... and making it impossible to do so now.
    They may well have just cost their ability to retake the House in 2018 and act as an effective opposition... and hurt their chances in 2020.

    Dems rallying behind Trump also makes it highly unlikely an investigation into who was really responsible for the chemical attack will take place... and if it was the "rebels", the actions by Trump and the Dems might encourage them to kill more Syrians with sarin in hopes of triggering further US intervention.

    But my major concern is Dems rolling over and allowing another war based on lies to occur with their support, or sufficient support.

    Yes, Abu Ivanka helped al Qaida "rebels" by acting as their air force for a day, and the nine casualties and damage he caused were horrible and pointless, but the precedent Dems just set is truly disturbing from a moral perspective.

    If there is another gas attack, would you support an invasion with ground troops BEFORE the proof of culpability can be determined?

    A

  64. [64] 
    altohone wrote:

    CW
    63

    "If there is another gas attack, would you support an invasion with ground troops BEFORE the proof of culpability can be determined?"

    Or a bombing campaign or no-fly zone?

    A

  65. [65] 
    altohone wrote:

    Oh yeah.

    I thought you were criticizing me for capitalizing Sarin.

    Spell check says both are wrong.
    I'm indifferent, and flexible.

    A

  66. [66] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    With only around 10% participation it looks like you weren't the only one that missed the special election in California's 34th district.
    Sure hope it isn't your district. :D

  67. [67] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [3] altotone -

    I don't know why you think CW approves of Hillary - it's clear to me that he can't stand her. It probably gives him heartburn to even type her name.

    He's made that doubly clear here where he notes that Trump notified Russia several hours in advance of Operation Pothole and, by glaring omission, infers that Clinton would not have had the respect for Russian and Syrian lives to do the same.

    Since he also insists that under the hated Hillary "nothing would have been different", then presumably he means that her orders would also have stipulated that no damage be done to the runway or any other crucial part of the air base; that planes would be able to take off from there as scheduled the next day.

    Ask him what he thinks St Bernie of Sanders would have done and he'll rhapsodize. Meantime, it's clear CW thinks Trump is a better option than Clinton. He even cheers Trump on when he openly flouts the Constitution.

    I was wrong to think CW is a Democrat or maybe he used to be, I don't know any more. Seems he's a Sanders Independent now.

  68. [68] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [63] altohone -

    If there is another gas attack...

    They're already setting up for another gas attack, this time with chlorine instead of sarin. The target again appears to be in or very close to Damascus - Russians moved all their people out of that city two days ago.

  69. [69] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mopshell-
    If CW is a Sanders Independent then he's doing a pretty lousy job of it. (sorry CW)
    I don't remember him mentioning anything about Sanders recent speech about the Dems needing to appeal to independents. (If you did, sorry again CW)
    But even though Sanders recognizes the need to appeal to independents, he is now a Democrat.
    He has also been working to move the Democratic Party in his direction. I recently received an email from Our Revolution suggesting that citizens run for available seats as NJ's county election officials and party chairs/representatives (or something like that) to gain votes and control over the election process in the state(s) and the Democratic Party processes.
    I don't remember CW mentioning that either.
    But even if you're right- You say that like it's a bad thing.
    I think it would be a good thing if CW and all the Dems became Sanders Democrats. It would be a huge improvement over the current Corporate Democratic Party and would encourage many independents that the Democratic Party is at least worth voting for, if not worth joining.
    The Corporate Democrats are only worth opposing.

  70. [70] 
    altohone wrote:

    Mopshell
    68

    Please share a link for these claims.

    67

    I have to say you lost me a couple of times in there.

    But see comment 57 and my response.

    A

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    I was wrong to think CW is a Democrat or maybe he used to be, I don't know any more. Seems he's a Sanders Independent now.

    It seems you can't let Hillary go, even after she gave us Trump. Very sad ...

  72. [72] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    It looks like the anti-establishment outsider has completed his transition into a neocon.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/haley-says-removing-assad-is-a-top-us-priority_us_58e996ffe4b05413bfe378f1?5oa2hsi36v2aqncdi&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    A week ago it was Assad is fine.
    24 hours ago Haley was talking about the limited strike, and saying they hoped they wouldn't need to do more.
    Now it's regime change is a top priority.

    Are Democrats going to rally behind Trump for this too?
    Another Iraq... with Hillary cheering by your side instead of in the Senate?

    Where is indivisible? The resistance? Our Revolution?

    A

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Defeating Islamic State, pushing Iranian influence out of Syria, and the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are priorities for Washington, Haley said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” which will air in full on Sunday. ...Ambassador Haley

    Don't be surprised if that nonsense doesn't air on Sunday or on any other day. Heh.

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    Even Obama, when he asked Congress for authorization to hit Syria, stated firmly that he believed he did not need such authorization since he already had the power to act as C-in-C.

    Which begs the question..

    Would Obama had reneged on his "red line" if Congress HAD authorized his Syrian strike??

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    You fail to make clear the "facts" to which you are referring.

    I was referring to the FACT that Kick is on record as condemning Righties for sexual assault, etc etc, but no where is there a record of her condemning anyone from the Left, including condemning Bill Clinton for rape..

    I have asked her repeatedly to set me straight so I can retract the claim.

    To date, she has refused to do so..

    "all the facts" includes countless facts including the fact that you misuse the word fact

    That's your opinion, unsupported by fact.

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    SFB,

    Michale - It doesn't matter if some democrat sometime in the past committed an atrocity, it is an atrocity none the less.

    But my point is, if person A does not call out the atrocity when it's committed by a Democrat, person A has absolutely no moral foundation to call out the alleged atrocity when it's committed by a Republican.

    Because, ipsofacto, it's not the ATROCITY that is the issue.. It's the fact it's a person on the Right who is committing the alleged atrocity..

    What I am saying is that THIS president, THIS week, did commit an atrocity and it needs to be called out.

    It's YOUR opinion that an atrocity was committed..

    As Altohone is found of saying, all the facts are not in.. :D

    To use our military, to place our solders in harms way, just to enhance your popularity is simply wrong regardless of who does it. It was wrong for Nixon and it is wrong for Trump.

    Two problems with this claim..

    1. You don't KNOW that President Trump did it "just to enhance" his popularity..

    2. No troops were put in harm's way...

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale

    It's not a question of belief..

    It's a question of credibility..

    What is the definition of "credibility" to the "alternative facts" crowd and their ilk? 'Cause in reality where the majority are living:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credibility

    Your asinine statement above is like saying, "it's not a question of 12 inches; it's a question of 1 foot."

    You still have yet to show which name I called you..

    I could rub your nose in shit, and you'd insist you couldn't smell it.

    You said that asking for substantiation is "bullshit"...

    No. You took my statements out of context and twisted them to suit your purposes in your post to alt-01. I was obviously saying you're not the judge and jury of the board and that no one is required to post anything to prove they're worthy to comment nor follow the ridiculous credibility rules of the board police. A person can comment about a current event without reliving past decades and giving "equal time" as if they're network television.

    I think alt-01 said it best in his post where he definitively proved that you misuse and don't understand the word "fact." He's dead-on-balls accurate that "the Earth revolves around the Sun, not you" and absolutely nails it saying "your opinions are not facts." I would add that you're a member of the "alternative facts" crowd and that much of what you believe to be "facts" is mere propaganda spoon-fed to the gullible knuckle-dragging crowd.

    My only comment about O'Reilly was his commercial-free show. I was, however, defending CW's and anyone else's right to post about the subject without having to adhere to your ridiculous rules of devoting "equal time" to bashing "Bubba." Somehow, if I packed a comment box full of inflammatory language berating "Bubba" and Democrats regarding the subject, I'm quite sure I wouldn't get a lecture from you insisting I needed to prove my credibility by spending "equal time" berating Donald Trump, the admitted Sexual-Assaulter-in-Chief of the "GOP" -- Grab Our P...." -- who thinks his "friend" from the "Factor" has done absolutely nothing wrong because "when you're a star, they let you do it; you can do anything."

    If it actually happened.... no...

    Welcome to April 2017 and National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month in the age of Trump, where victims of attempted sexual assault are presumed to be making it up and guys who are constantly bragging about their law enforcement training will ask you how that's relevant to a discussion about crimes against women.

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW [57]

    Don't forget the cost. How much does a Tomahawk go for these days? Times 59, that adds up...

    Estimates are around each Tomahawk missile, made by Raytheon Co., likely cost $1 million, according to experts.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-it-will-cost-to-replace-the-tomahawks-used-in-syria-2017-04-07

    The missiles used on Thursday likely cost the U.S. military around $1 million, but the latest versions of the missile that would replace those could be more costly, depending on size of the order and other factors, said Loren Thompson, a consultant and chief operating officer of nonprofit Lexington Institute.

    The Navy’s 2017 budget has the future missiles at a unit cost of $1.5 million, higher than previous years, but that is probably because the Navy is winding down the program and does not plan, at least for now, on buying more Tomahawks after this year, said Todd Harrison, also a director with CSIS.

    According to Raytheon’s website, the cruise missile has been employed in combat more than 2,000 times since it was introduced.

    Tomahawks can fly about 1,000 miles at subsonic speeds (around 550 miles an hour), and its latest version, the Tomahawk Block IV, can be pre-programmed as well as redirected to a new target in real time and during its flight.
    ________________

    Expensive fireworks. :)

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    Because, ipsofacto, it's not the ATROCITY that is the issue.. It's the fact it's a person on the Right who is committing the alleged atrocity..

    Take, for example, the Democrat Party's response to President Bush's domestic surveillance programs and drone programs..

    The Democrat Party was all up in arms and attacked President Bush incessantly over these programs. Ostensibly the Democrats were incensed against these programs because of a MORAL position. Privacy rights and collateral killings, etc etc..

    That is a respectable position to take, even if I disagree with the substance of their argument..

    Flash forward years when Obama takes office..

    ALL OF THE SUDDEN, the Democrat Party LOVES the domestic surveillance and drone programs. LOVES them SOOO MUCH that they allow Obama to expand those programs to unheard of heights...

    In other words, we come to find out that the Democrat Party's position WASN'T a moral position, their objections WEREN'T based in morality or integrity. We come to find out that the Democrat Party's position was SOLELY and UTTERLY based on a Party agenda..

    The Democrat Party didn't REALLY care about the surveillance or drone programs..

    They ONLY cared because it was a GOP POTUS that was doing it..

    So it is with Kick's position on sexual attacks or your position on "atrocities"...

    The facts clearly show that it's not the act that's the issue..

    It's the fact that the act is committed by a person of the Right Wingery persuasion..

    That's what the facts heretodate show.. But, as I indicate, I am amiable to be proven wrong..

    All Kick has to do is show me a comment where she condemned Bill Clinton (or any Democrat) for his sexual attacks on women in the same manner (unprompted and unsolicited with no equivocation) she has condemned those on the Right..

    All you have to do is show me a comment where you condemned Obama for HIS atrocities committed.. Condemned Obama in the same manner (unprompted and unsolicited with no equivocation) you condemn President Trump..

    If neither of ya'all can do that, then the *ONLY* logical conclusion is that it's NOT the act (sexual attacks, atrocities) that bother ya'all..

    It's that the act is committed by a person of the Right Wingery persuasion. That, apparently, is what bothers ya'all...

    And THAT conclusion must be taken into account when assessing the credibility of the claims...

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [59]

    I think I killed two birds with one stone in comment 58.

    You kicked his tail feathers, but somehow I think that large flightless bird will remain with his head stuck firmly in the sand. As I've said before, you could rub his nose in shit, and he'd insist he couldn't smell it.

    Yesterday, he insisted that I was incorrect that the United States warned Russia before the missiles flew on Shayrat Airfield. He insisted that notifying Russian troops and notifying Russia are two different things, and even CW had to call him on his BS.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/04/06/taser-unswiftly-changes-name/#comment-98243

    But Queen Kick does have a nice ring to it.
    I'd vote for ya.

    If I was Queen, Punk, you wouldn't have to vote for me. I'd appoint you to be my "Jared Kushner" and pretty much put you in charge of fixing everything. Our first order of business would be to build a great big wall to keep all the knuckle-draggers out... and make Donald Trump pay for it. :)

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [62]

    I agree the Trumpon's motives are personal/political, not moral.

    Totally true, and we know Trump has the capacity to understand the concept based on his tweeting from 2012.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.
    4:39 PM - 9 Oct 2012

    The comparable number of children he killed in Mosul a week earlier makes that clear.

    Yep... that number along with the fact his "poll numbers are in tailspin" and "he is desperate."

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    I still think "Sarin" looks better, but then I've got a bias towards overcapitalization. It's interesting to see different media do it differently, though -- no consensus at this point.

    Just don't put Sari'n Ya get yer wee wee whacked when ya do that! :D heh

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    What is the definition of "credibility" to the "alternative facts" crowd and their ilk? 'Cause in reality where the majority are living:

    If we were talking about the alt-fact crowd, you would have a point.

    Since we're not, it's obviously a deflection because you have no response..

    I could rub your nose in shit, and you'd insist you couldn't smell it.

    Non-sequitor.. I asked you to point to where I called you a name..

    Can you do that??

    No??

    Didna think so..

    No. You took my statements out of context and twisted them to suit your purposes in your post to alt-01.

    Your comments were perfectly in context.. You just didn't like the context...

    I think alt-01 said it best in his post where he definitively proved that you misuse and don't understand the word "fact."

    That's your opinion and I respect that.

    But, like Altohone, you provide NO FACTS to support the claim..

    And, despite your protestations, substantiation IS required for a valid argument..

    It's real simple...

    It's easy to say "I am against rape and sexual assault regardless of whether it's a Democrat or a Republican!!"

    A very easy statement to claim..

    All I am asking is for you to substantiate that claim with FACTS...

    If you can't do that, then I have to assess the claim as false...

    Don't feel bad. You are not alone..

    MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of Left Wingers have absolutely NO PROBLEM looking the other way when a Democrat is guilty of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment...

    Why else would Bill Clinton and NOT-45 STILL be so popular??

    Even after her two-time losing streak, the Clintons are STILL the de-facto leaders of the Democrat Party..

    Why do you think the Party is in so much trouble??

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    Yesterday, he insisted that I was incorrect that the United States warned Russia before the missiles flew on Shayrat Airfield.

    And when I found out you were partially correct, I conceded the point..

    That STILL doesn't change the fact that you have failed to concede that you were wrong about it being a Constitutional violation and you STILL haven't proven you are against Democrats who commit rape and sexual assault..

    I admit when I am wrong when the facts warrant it..

    You apparently, have no such integrity...

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [72] and Elizabeth Miller [73]

    A week ago it was Assad is fine.
    24 hours ago Haley was talking about the limited strike, and saying they hoped they wouldn't need to do more.
    Now it's regime change is a top priority.

    A 1-week "evolution" coupled with a 24-hour quick change, and BAM you have a 180-degree policy change in record time. My intuition is still asking questions, and this is not helping my suspicious radar in the least.

    Are Democrats going to rally behind Trump for this too?

    The whole thing stinks.

    Defeating Islamic State, pushing Iranian influence out of Syria, and the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are priorities for Washington, Haley said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” which will air in full on Sunday. ...Ambassador Haley

    Don't be surprised if that nonsense doesn't air on Sunday or on any other day. Heh.

    Would you be surprised to see it airing on the Internet right now?

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/04/09/nikki-haley-assad-syria-sotu-tapper-intv.cnn

    "We don't see a peaceful Syria with Assad in there." Nikki Haley

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    I agree the Trumpon's motives are personal/political, not moral.

    Totally true, and we know Trump has the capacity to understand the concept based on his tweeting from 2012.

    Actually, NO WHERE did LB state or even implied that he thought President Trump's motives were personal/political..

    But why let FACTS intrude on a perfectly good hysterical rant.. :D

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    Are Democrats going to rally behind Trump for this too?

    The whole thing stinks.

    Waaaaa Waaaaaaaa Someone call the WAAAAAA-mbulance...

    Would you like some cheese with yer whine? :D

    America is back.. After 8 years of dealing with the guy who epitomizes "leading from behind" (AKA, The Coward Of The Country) our allies are respecting us again and our enemies are fearing us again..

    Life is good.. :D

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    Actually, NO WHERE did LB state or even implied that he thought President Trump's motives were personal/political..

    To be clear, LB may or may not think that. Unlike others, I don't presume to know what is in other people's heads or hearts...

    I simply point to the facts and draw logical conclusions..

    And the simple fact is, nothing in LB's comment would indicate that he thinks President Trump's motives were personal or political..

    As I said, LB may in fact believe that. But you can't discern that from LB's comment..

  89. [89] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [71] Queen Elizabeth -

    You're thrilled Clinton lost and make no secret of it. You didn't care how she lost; you just wanted her to lose so badly. For all your posturing, it really doesn't matter to you that Trump won as long as Clinton lost. You got your wish. And even better, you can jam it down the throats of anyone who supported Clinton. That must give you such a high.

  90. [90] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [70] altohone -

    please share a link for these claims

    http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/04/07/breaking-syria-retaliates-against-trump-with-chlorine-bomb-attack-report/

    [63]

    Well, if the Trumpon and Hillary are wrong in your opinion, all the Dems in Congress but two are wrong as well... including Bernie btw.
    Now there's a column I'd like to see you write.

    Oh yeah, I'd like to see that column too.

    They may well have just cost their ability to retake the House in 2018 and act as an effective opposition... and hurt their chances in 2020.

    Dems rallying behind Trump also makes it highly unlikely an investigation into who was really responsible for the chemical attack will take place...

    But my major concern is Dems rolling over and allowing another war based on lies to occur with their support, or sufficient support.

    Obviously you do not want Dems governing since you have such a poor opinion of them. Neither do Bernie supporters want anything to do with Dems. I guess you're hoping all the Dem and republican voters stay home in 2018 and 2020.

  91. [91] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [69] Don Harris -

    So you don't like republicans or Dems. Maybe you should come up with a voter suppression program that prevents everyone except Bernie supporters from voting. After all, in America it isn't illegal to rig an election; it's just illegal to investigate election fraud.

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    Welcome to April 2017 and National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month in the age of Trump, where victims of attempted sexual assault are presumed to be making it up

    You mean, like the entirety of the Left Wingery presumed that Bill Clinton's accusers just "made it up"... Like that??

    Face the facts, Kick..

    The selective outrage amongst Party zealots against sexual assaults and rapes is solely, utterly and completely based on whether the perp has a '-D' or a '-R' after their name...

    The fact that Clintons are even ACCEPTED within the Democrat Party, let alone worshipped, proves that beyond ANY doubt whatsoever...

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    And anyone with even a modicum of objectivity would acknowledge the factual nature of that conclusion..

  94. [94] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [84] Michale -

    This is a statement by Donald Trump made August 30, 2013:

    The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria - big mistake if he does not!

    So now you're calling Trump a liar by saying "...you were wrong about it being a Constitutional violation"

    Apparently Trump believed it was a violation in 2013 - so what's changed, Michale?

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    Apparently Trump believed it was a violation in 2013 - so what's changed, Michale?

    Nothing's changed..

    Trump was wrong when he made that claim in 2013...

  96. [96] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [91] Michale -

    Please provide a link to a credible source stating that Bill Clinton was found guilty of rape.

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [86]

    altohone -- I agree the Trumpon's motives are personal/political, not moral.

    Kick -- Totally true, and we know Trump has the capacity to understand the concept based on his tweeting from 2012.

    michale -- Actually, NO WHERE did LB state or even implied that he thought President Trump's motives were personal/political..

    But why let FACTS intrude on a perfectly good hysterical rant.. :D

    Nowhere does A01 say he agrees with LB. If you had any skills whatsoever in reading comprehension and retaining ideas being discussed, you would have seen that LB at [56] was discussing a video at [18] and A01 at [62] was commenting on LB's discussion at [56] containing said discussion of said video wherein the persons in the video are having a discussion regarding Trump's motives. A01 simply agreed with a part of the video discussion.

    In your hysterical haste to judge A01, you reveal your own ignorance, but your ignorance of FACTS and dearth of reading comprehension is your problem, NOT A01's problem and NOT my problem, and your inability to retain FACTS that have been discussed on this board ad nauseam are also your problem and no one else's.

    The issue of condemning violence on both sides has been covered ad nauseam on this board over and over. Your peevish neediness to discuss issues after they've been hashed and rehashed is also not A01's problem and NOT my problem... again, it's YOUR problem. Stop asking that this shit be repeated over and over. We condemn violence on both sides. We've done it several times. If you can't remember the facts, then you need to STFU and get busy reading past articles and educate yourself... DYOFR. :)

  98. [98] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [94] What? Your hero was actually wrong about something?

    What about this statement of Trump's, made on October 10, 2014:
    "Tens of millions of dollars in airstrikes had no impact because key leaders fled after hearing the strikes were coming. DUMB"

    So was it okay with you that he notified key leader Putin that the strike on Shu'ayat Air Base was coming?

  99. [99] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    The Independent front page headline:

    "NORTH KOREA SAYS IT IS 'READY FOR WAR' WITH DONALD TRUMP'S UNITED STATES"

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-ready-for-war-donald-trump-united-states-america-kim-jong-un-a7641276.html

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Nowhere does A01 say he agrees with LB.

    I agree the Trumpon's motives are personal/political, not moral.
    -Altohone

    So now were back to dissecting what the definition of IS is... :^/

    We condemn violence on both sides.

    And yet, you ONLY articulate that condemnation when you can condemn the Right..

    You IGNORE the violence from the Left...

    This is well documented..

    Not that we were talking about violence per se..

    But ya love to deflect.. :D

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    [94] What? Your hero was actually wrong about something?

    President Trump's been wrong about many things...

    Unlike your hero NOT-45 who is right on everything :D

    Please provide a link to a credible source stating that Bill Clinton was found guilty of rape.

    Please provide a link to a credible source stating that Bill O'reilly was found guilty of sexual harassment..

    Please provide a link to a credible source stating that Roger Ailes was found guilty of sexual harassment..

    Please provide a link to a credible source stating that Bill Cosby was found guilty of rape..

    If THAT is the standard you want to apply, I am more than willing to go there with you..

    As long as you apply it equally... :D

    Your problem is you want to apply one standard for Democrats and a completely different and tougher standard for Republicans.

    With Democrats, you need a signed edict from god herself that says the Democrat is guilty. Otherwise, said Democrat is as pure as the driven snow..

    With Republicans, the merest whiff of accusation is enough to convict and send said Republican straight to hell..

    It's ALL about the '-D'/'-R' after the person's name..

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    "NORTH KOREA SAYS IT IS 'READY FOR WAR' WITH DONALD TRUMP'S UNITED STATES"

    And, in other news, Donald Trump is confirmed to be the love child of Mohatma Ghandi and Mother Theresa :D

  103. [103] 
    michale wrote:

    [94] What? Your hero was actually wrong about something?

    Irregardless, the simple fact is that Trump, Kick, Altohone and anyone who claims that a President who orders a missile strike against an enemy is forbidden by the US Constitution unless Congress authorizes it is wrong, wrong, IMPRESSIVELY wrong...

    NOTHING in the US Constitution precludes, prevents, or forbids the Commander In Chief from performing his duties AS Commander In Chief..

    This is the fact whether anyone concedes it or not..

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [88]

    To be clear, LB may or may not think that. Unlike others, I don't presume to know what is in other people's heads or hearts...

    To be clear, you spend a great deal of time presuming "to know what is in other people's heads or hearts" and then insisting that they prove otherwise.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/04/07/ftp431/#comment-98282

    In the comment contained at the link above, you claim: "I know a great deal about what you care about. And what you don't care about.."

    Your opinions of other people aren't FACTS. Your inability to retain knowledge and your dearth of reading comprehension is your problem. DYOFR! :)

  105. [105] 
    michale wrote:

    To be clear, you spend a great deal of time presuming "to know what is in other people's heads or hearts" and then insisting that they prove otherwise.

    Of course, you ignore the next line because it doesn't fit your agenda..

    I simply point to the facts and draw logical conclusions..

    Your opinions of other people aren't FACTS.

    I have never claimed that they were..

    But my opinions of other people are BASED on facts..

    You cannot make the same claim.. :D

    For example, you claimed I called you a name..

    You still have not provided ANY facts to support the claim...

  106. [106] 
    Kick wrote:

    [99] michale

    Nowhere does A01 say he agrees with LB.

    I agree the Trumpon's motives are personal/political, not moral.
    -Altohone

    Where does A01 say he agrees with LB? He's agreeing with the video at [18] that he and LB were discussing. In your haste to prove him wrong, you prove nothing except your own dearth of reading comprehension. :)

    You IGNORE the violence from the Left...

    This is well documented..

    So then prove it if it's so "well documented." The only thing that's "well documented" is your board police bullshit where you insist people must prove they aren't Party bigots by linking to comments wherein they discuss decades old issues and give equal time... utter bullshit... and this utter bullshit plays out over and over ad nauseam on this board, and you're so far up to your eyeballs in your own little bullshit routine that you're blind, deaf, and dumb to your own ignorance.

    So here's the thing: this shit has been covered ad nauseam. DYOFR and educate yourself. Your inability to retain facts is your problem, not ours!

    Not that we were talking about violence per se..

    Idiot ex-cop proves his mastery of the subject of law enforcement by suggesting that violence against women isn't violence. Thanks for the assist, Mr. Law Enforcement Occifer. :p

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    Where does A01 say he agrees with LB? He's agreeing with the video at [18] that he and LB were discussing.

    That's one possible interpretation.. Given Altohone's well known argumentative nature, I wouldn't think it was the correct interpretation..

    But, if LB weighs in and says that he/she doesn't think it means what I thought it means, I'll be glad to concede the point..

    So then prove it if it's so "well documented."

    You can't prove a negative.. If I am wrong, it's up to YOU to provide proof that you HAVE condemned Left Wingery violence without an prodding... If you can, then once again, I'll be happy to concede the point..

    But again, we're not discussing violence in general.. I believe we were discussing rapes and sexual assaults committed by the Right and Left..

    So here's the thing: this shit has been covered ad nauseam. DYOFR and educate yourself. Your inability to retain facts is your problem, not ours!

    I did provide the facts..

    You haven't condemned ANY rapes or sexual assaults committed by the Left Wingery..

    That's a fact..

    If you have, then you can prove me wrong..

    Until you can do that, it stands as facual..

    Idiot ex-cop proves his mastery of the subject of law enforcement by suggesting that violence against women isn't violence.

    Well, I am glad you didn't stoop to name calling.. :D

    We were talking about specific violence, not violence in general.

    You deflected and tried to change the subject because you were getting yer ass whupped.. :D

    So, where do we stand.

    You haven't provided ANY facts to support your claim that you are against rapes and sexual assaults when they are committed by Democrats..

    You haven't provided ANY facts to support your claim that I called you a name in this commentary..

    You haven't provided ANY facts to support your claim that President Trump's actions vis a vis the Syrian missile strike was unconstitutional..

    In short, ALL you have is hysterical and immature personal attacks.. :D

    Color me shocked.. :D

  108. [108] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [104]

    Of course, you ignore the next line because it doesn't fit your agenda..

    That is a stunning display of ignorance to suggest I'm ignoring a line when I provide a link to the entire comment.

    I simply point to the facts and draw logical conclusions..

    No, you don't. You claim your bullshit is a fact unless people prove otherwise. It's a well documented routine that plays out over and over ad nauseam.

    And using the words hysterical and hypocritical to describe someone and inferring that they're not credible unless they prove it with a link where they equally bashed "Bubba" all while insisting you never called them a name is splitting hairs. I did not call you hysterical; I said you were acting hysterical. I did not call you a hypocrite; I said you were acting hypocritical and said "hypocrisy much?"! I don't call the Left Wingery a bunch of bigots, I simply ask them to prove they're not Party bigots.

    The only person you're deluding here is yourself. :)

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    That is a stunning display of ignorance to suggest I'm ignoring a line when I provide a link to the entire comment.

    That is a stunning display of ignorance to suggest that linking the entire comment somehow shows you weren't ignoring the ONE part that totally refutes your claim..

    No, you don't. You claim your bullshit is a fact unless people prove otherwise. It's a well documented routine that plays out over and over ad nauseam.

    Yes, that's your bullshit claim that you make over and over..

    Of course, you don't provide ANY facts to support the claim.

    Just like you don't provide ANY facts to support your claim that you care about rapes and sexual assaults by Democrats, ANY facts to support your claim that I called you a derogatory name in this commentary, ANY facts to support your claim that President Trump's actions were unconstitutional..

    You see the common thread??

    You have NO FACTS>..

    And using the words hysterical and hypocritical to describe someone and inferring that they're not credible unless they prove it with a link where they equally bashed "Bubba" all while insisting you never called them a name is splitting hairs.

    No, it's not..

    I state that you don't care about rapes and sexual assaults committed by Democrats.. You dispute the claim but provide NOTHING to prove the claim is false..

    The only person you're deluding here is yourself. :)

    Says the person who keeps coming back trying to convince herself.. :D

  110. [110] 
    michale wrote:

    So then prove it if it's so "well documented."

    If you can't remember the facts, then you need to STFU and get busy reading past articles and educate yourself... DYOFR. :)
    -Kick
    chrisweigant.com/2017/04/07/ftp431/#comment-98354

    Demanding that someone substantiate a claim or "prove it" is YOUR bullshit... NOT mine. If you post things without links, I'm quite capable of doing my own research to find your sources without any problem whatsoever.
    -Kick
    chrisweigant.com/2017/04/07/ftp431/#comment-98283

    You're not the judge and jury of the board. No one has to prove anything to prove credibility to you. You have no moral authority to sit in judgment of everyone's posts and demand they prove anything. You're not the boss of me; that's a FACT! :)
    -Kick
    chrisweigant.com/2017/04/07/ftp431/#comment-98277

    Hehehehehehehehe

    Don'tcha just HATE when your own words shoot yer credibility all to hell.. :D

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    It's patently obvious..

    *I* have to substantiate EVERY claim I make with mulitiple links..

    YOU and anyone else can say ANYTHING at all and don't have to back up ANYTHING with ANYTHING..

    Nice try...

    AIN'T gonna happen... :D

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    Com'on Kick..

    You just HAD to know that attacking me for requesting substantiation was going to come back and bite ya on yer ass... :D

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [106]

    That's one possible interpretation.. Given Altohone's well known argumentative nature, I wouldn't think it was the correct interpretation..

    You're right about one thing there: You "wouldn't think." You wouldn't think because you're too interested in finding fault with A01 versus discussing or comprehending the political issue he and LB were discussing. So you hijack my post to A01 and use it to infer he's incorrect... but it backfires because your ignorance regarding the subject matter is on full display. A01 was discussing the video at [18] wherein the people were discussing exactly what he agreed with.

    But, if LB weighs in and says that he/she doesn't think it means what I thought it means, I'll be glad to concede the point..

    So you hijack my post in agreement to A01 to infer he is hysterical, and now you want the subject of the post he quoted to weigh in on something that was none of your damn business to begin with?

    You can't prove a negative.. If I am wrong, it's up to YOU to provide proof that you HAVE condemned Left Wingery violence without an prodding... If you can, then once again, I'll be happy to concede the point..

    I have condemned violence on both sides several times... as have multiple posters on this board. That includes violence against people... all violence against all people... men people and women people... specific violence and general violence. If you can't remember the discussion: It's not my problem; it's your problem. DYOFR.

    But again, we're not discussing violence in general.. I believe we were discussing rapes and sexual assaults committed by the Right and Left..

    We weren't discussing Russian troops, we were discussing Russia... same exact bullshit argument just a different subject. Refresh your pathetic memory about what CW said about splitting hairs... CLICK, CLICK.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/04/06/taser-unswiftly-changes-name/#comment-98243

    Until you can do that, it stands as facual..

    Your opinions of people on this board are NOT facts. This too has been covered.

    Well, I am glad you didn't stoop to name calling.. :D

    I did call you a name based on the fact that you're acting like an idiot... as usual.

    My opinion about the Constitution is an opinion, and this too has already been covered yesterday. Your inability to retain it is your problem, NOT mine.

    Color me shocked.. :D

    Crayons are your thing... NOT mine. Why don't you up your game and learn how to spell and work on your reading comprehension and memory issues? :)

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mopshell (90)-
    You are correct that I do not like either division of the Corporate Party.
    I appreciate your advice, but I think I'll leave the voter suppression to the experts in the Corporate Party and stick with my plan to increase participation.

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [109]

    So all that bullshit you posted there doesn't prove that I ignore the violence from the left.

    Don'tcha just HATE when your own words shoot yer credibility all to hell.. :D

    How do those words prove that I ignore the violence from the left? All they prove is that you know how to cut and paste on the computer. :)

  116. [116] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    There are Dems that were condemned by the Dem establishment for sexual no-no's. (or should that be no-nos?- grammar is a pain in the ass!)
    John Oliver did a segment a few weeks ago about that, mentioning Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner and Carlos Danger.

    Lt.Bradshaw (man): Where's the fire Danger?
    Nick Danger: In your eyes, Lt. Bradshaw.
    Nick Danger, third eye
    How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all
    Firesign Theater

    These were all Dems that challenged the Corporate Party so they were quickly attacked by the Corporate Democrats for their indiscretions.
    It's the Corporate Party label that grants immunity from the Corporate Democrats, not the artificial Democratic label.

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [111]

    Com'on Kick..

    You just HAD to know that attacking me for requesting substantiation was going to come back and bite ya on yer ass... :D

    All you've proven there was that you know how to cut and paste and that you're full of petty bullshit that you don't mind repeating over and over like it's something new every day. Your shit is not new. It's the same bullshit every day. You really should up your game. It's old and tired, and your ignorance is showing.

    You hijacked a post from me to A01 to call him hysterical, and now everyone here gets to see how in your haste to call someone a name, you prove your own ignorance in the process.

    Now kindly leave me alone, please. I would like to discuss politics and not posters. Please stop hijacking my posts to A01 and others. A01 is way out of your league. :)

  118. [118] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    To Michale, Kick and others constantly arguing about who said what, who should condemn what, etc.

    Sports radio announcer: I'm saying that Gator fans only call in when you win. When are you Gator fans gonna call in when you lose. That's what I want to know.
    Caller: Well I'm a Gator fan and I'm calling in now
    so I don't know what your problem is.
    -Big Trouble
    (not verbatim, but you get the idea)

  119. [119] 
    michale wrote:

    I have condemned violence on both sides several times... as have multiple posters on this board.

    Yea, that's what you keep saying.. But you NEVER have *ANY* facts to substantiate your claim..

    Your opinions of people on this board are NOT facts. This too has been covered.

    Again, you bring up a straw man argument..

    I have already stated for the record that my opinions of people in Weigantia are not facts.

    But my opinions of people in Weigantia are BASED on facts..

    I did call you a name based on the fact that you're acting like an idiot... as usual.

    Yes you did..

    And you STILL haven't provided any facts to support your claim that I called you a name..

    Why not??

    Because your claim is bullshit..

    My opinion about the Constitution is an opinion, and this too has already been covered yesterday.

    And WHAT is your opinion based on??

    No facts..

    Just Party bigotry and zealotry...

    So all that bullshit you posted there doesn't prove that I ignore the violence from the left.

    No, the fact that you can't find ANY facts to prove me wrong proves that you ignore violence from the Left..

    Now kindly leave me alone, please. I would like to discuss politics and not posters. Please stop hijacking my posts to A01 and others. A01 is way out of your league. :)

    Waaaaaaa Waaaaaa Big meany Michale is picking on me!!! Waaaaaaa Waaaaaa

    If ya can't stand the heat, Kick.. Stay on the curb where ya been ...er... KICK'ed :D

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    There are Dems that were condemned by the Dem establishment for sexual no-no's. (or should that be no-nos?- grammar is a pain in the ass!)

    Yes, there ARE Dems who condemned Dems for sexual assaults and rapes..

    However, with a couple exceptions, NONE of those Dems are here in Weigantia...

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    A01 is way out of your league. :)

    Apparently not, since he runs away every time he gets PWNED by me.. :D

    Irregardless of that, the simple fact is, you claimed that asking people to "prove" things is my "bullshit"...

    Demanding that someone substantiate a claim or "prove it" is YOUR bullshit... NOT mine.

    Yet, you turn around and ask me to prove something..

    So then prove it if it's so "well documented."

    So, the FACTS clearly show that asking people to prove things is YOUR "bullshit" too.. :D

    So, you lied when you said that Demanding that someone substantiate a claim or "prove it" is YOUR bullshit... NOT mine.

    Like I said, it must really suck for you to have your own words trip ya up... :D

  122. [122] 
    altohone wrote:

    From Wikipedia-

    "Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
    1.true
    2.false
    3.unknown between true or false
    4.being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

    In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof."

    A

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're thrilled Clinton lost and make no secret of it. You didn't care how she lost; you just wanted her to lose so badly. For all your posturing, it really doesn't matter to you that Trump won as long as Clinton lost. You got your wish. And even better, you can jam it down the throats of anyone who supported Clinton. That must give you such a high.

    That really betrays a deep-seeded ignorance about my views on these issues. It is always best to refrain from making asinine comments.

  124. [124] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I'm not a huge fan of David Brooks, but "those who ignore history are bound to retweet it" is pretty memorable and I wish I'd thought of it.

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [120]

    Apparently not, since he runs away every time he gets PWNED by me.. :D

    As I've said before, enjoy your delusion.

    Irregardless of that, the simple fact is, you claimed that asking people to "prove" things is my "bullshit"...

    "Irregardless" is not a word, and it is definitely your bullshit. Read your comments where you basically can cut and paste the same commentary asking me to prove something over and over like it's a shiny new argument. It's not new. Your shit is so stale that it reeks from the stench.

    Yet, you turn around and ask me to prove something..

    Operative words there being "turn around"... and thus you prove that it's not usually something I do. Thank you again for the assist, Occifer.

    So, the FACTS clearly show that asking people to prove things is YOUR "bullshit" too.. :D

    I did "turn around" and do it, but that doesn't exactly qualify as being my "bullshit" when it's your monotonous modus operandi.

    So, you lied when you said that Demanding that someone substantiate a claim or "prove it" is YOUR bullshit... NOT mine.

    Oh, I wouldn't really call that lying. You see, as you've admitted, I "turned around" and did that. It's not really something I'd usually do... whereas it's your daily bullshit.

    Like I said, it must really suck for you to have your own words trip ya up... :D

    Tell us how it feels to hijack my post to A01 in order to make him look hysterical, but then you make yourself look ignorant because of your dearth of reading comprehension and memory... and then expect the poster to which he was responding to come along and prove something that was none of your damn business to begin with. That would be a nice change from your regular bullshit. :)

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS [123]

    I'm not a huge fan of David Brooks, but "those who ignore history are bound to retweet it" is pretty memorable and I wish I'd thought of it.

    Dang, TS, that really is good. Props to David Brooks for that one. :)

  127. [127] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    80

    I think the nicest explanation available may be early onset dementia, but sheer laziness, exposure to lead or another neurotoxin, or being dropped on his head as a baby should be ruled out first.

    -
    -

    When you ascend the throne, I will gladly accept the honor.
    I know you meant well, but perhaps a comparison to someone other than Kushner could be arranged? I'm a foot taller and at least a foot smarter.

    -
    -

    A wall seems impractical.
    I would never use one for dogs, but in this case an invisible fence may be appropriate?

    81

    Yep.
    Yep.

    85

    It's depressing to see so many Democrats setting aside common sense and instinct... or even more depressing if their true nature is being revealed.

    -
    -

    I think that same video is in the link I provided... I couldn't stomach watching her again, so I didn't confirm it.
    And I think Liz is wrong to rely on wishful thinking given what we have seen recently, though I agree with her sentiment that in a sane world Haley's comments should be pulled and disavowed... if I'm not reading into that incorrectly. Sorry if I am Liz.

    -
    -

    I'm not going to join the fray on the nonsense you are setting straight in the numerous comments after that... except to say see the first part of this comment above.
    If it's a case of dementia, pity may be appropriate.

    A

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [121]

    "Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic.

    So I guess A01 just comes along and clears up the entire load of nonsense, and all these times I've said Michale was making an ignorant argument, I was literally dead-on-balls accurate.

    Michale's argumentum ad ignorantiam is his modus operandi.

    It's just easier to say it's his bullshit.

    Way to go Punk; you beat him again because you're way out of his league. :)

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [126]

    I think the nicest explanation available may be early onset dementia, but sheer laziness, exposure to lead or another neurotoxin, or being dropped on his head as a baby should be ruled out first.

    He may well have an excuse we had not factored in. I have an idea: We should insist that he prove each one of those has not happened by linking to a previous post where he said so in the past. Then if he can't prove each one of those with a link, then we'll assume that all of those things are true. :)

    When you ascend the throne, I will gladly accept the honor. I know you meant well, but perhaps a comparison to someone other than Kushner could be arranged? I'm a foot taller and at least a foot smarter.

    Oh, goody... my very own Punk... a 7-foot tall Punk, are you seriously 7 feet tall? Dang! I dub thee Sir Charles Barkley. Or if you prefer, you may retrieve Excaliber from the watery tart and become... King Arthur. You choose. :)

    A wall seems impractical.
    I would never use one for dogs, but in this case an invisible fence may be appropriate?

    I agree, Sir Charles or King Arthur (you choose). Are we prepared to shut down our kingdom to defund the dumb wall? Hmmmmm.

    It's depressing to see so many Democrats setting aside common sense and instinct... or even more depressing if their true nature is being revealed.

    I am so suspicious too. It feels like this entire thing is by wicked design.

    BREAKING NEWS: K.T. McFarland out at NSC. McMaster strikes again. Good Sir McMaster... the only voice of reason in a sea of rank amateurs.

    I think that same video is in the link I provided... I couldn't stomach watching her again, so I didn't confirm it.

    A complete 180 in 1 week because Trump supposedly saw a video and got emotional. I'm not buying this BS. Too convenient, and Trump is not that good of an actor. Totally unbelievable. My radar is up.

    If it's a case of dementia, pity may be appropriate.

    *LOL* Then a pity party would definitely be in order, Sir Charles or King Arthur (you choose). :)

  130. [130] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW, Kick, TS, nypoet... gang

    From Scott Ritter-

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-chemical-attack-al-qaeda-played-donald-trump_us_58ea226fe4b058f0a02fca4d?

    I was hoping for such a post from him prior to the strike...

    Also, I only saw the headline, but apparently only 51% of Americans support Trump's act of war in Syria.
    Who would have guessed going by the sheeple Democrats in Congress and the media campaign selling it hard?

    A

  131. [131] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    128

    Nice.
    I needed a good laugh.

    But he'll just quote the Wikipedia bit and claim victory... double standard predictability.

    No.
    I'm only 6'5".
    But I could put my hair into liberty spikes or a Mohawk... my hair is long enough to get me to 7'... actually, I'd need to trim off about 6 inches.

    "And here's Fletch. Six five, with the afro six nine"

    Kushner looks shorter to me in the pics I've seen.

    Wow.
    Already up for promotion from hand to King?
    I am overcome with emotion m'lady.
    As for the name, I believe the historical practice gives you the right to dub me... though that usually occurred after meeting in person and a vow of loyalty... not sure what the internet er, um, protocol would be.

    Definitely check out that Scott Ritter link.
    He raises a few issues I haven't mentioned.

    A

  132. [132] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @A[60]

    nobody has to "attempt" to justify the view that assad's regime has been behaving irrationally; they've been behaving that way since he took over from his father seventeen years ago. rational behavior among leaders in that part of the world is the exception, not the rule, and has been for seventy years.

    the guardian article provides numerous links to evidence supporting the view that assad was motivated to use chemical weapons and believed he'd get away with it. that's the only conclusion that fits the facts. i can't summarize every bit of evidence, but each counterclaim made by russia or syria has been inconsistent with on-site evidence. your view that it was a rebel conspiracy is conveniently unprovable.

    beyond all reasonable doubt, assad's regime perpetrated the attack. your level of doubt that this was the case is irrational conjecture, and has no evidence to support it.

    JL

  133. [133] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Glad to see yet another thread has achieved terminal logic velocity...

    Here is a good read from one of our very missed commentors (?) or is it commenters(?)...

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/9/1650667/-Six-steps-away-from-64-million-people

    In either case it is well worth reading.

    I'm outta here the discussion is such that I am going to spend my time enjoying the open bar and great food in the LAN Santiago departure lounge...

    Free Grey Goose, why yes, I'll pour my own....

  134. [134] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    One more thing...

    When setting the valuation for the Tomahawks used, 1 million is a good ballpark figure for the value, the real question of the valuation comes from which version was used.

    If they were the newest version block 4 missiles the value is closer to 1.4 million, which then puts the replacement value at closer to 85 million dollars, excluding of course the readiness training that had to happen prior to the launch.

    In either case the exercise pretty much can be just summed up as an expensive fireworks show, given that we did not render the airbase unusable for even 24 hours.

    I thought that the purpose of such actions was to make a regime pay for it's actions. Given that any airport runway can be re-paved and made ready for operation quickly, it still costs money and time to get it back up and operating. Why not spend an additional 20 million and crater the runway, thus creating a hole in the Syrians ability to deliver bombs and more gas?

  135. [135] 
    altohone wrote:

    ntpoet
    131

    Can't agree with anything you are saying.

    Assad agreeing to eliminate their chemical weapons stockpiles seems pretty rational.
    Not wanting to be victimized by an irrational foreign power intent on regime change seems pretty rational.
    Defending your country from foreign al Qaida interlopers sponsored by enemy powers seems pretty rational.

    We launched a global war on terror against the same gang, and killed a lot more people in the process, so the whole "brutal murderer" angle falls flat... unless double standards don't bother you.

    The evidence that al Qaida has been using chemical weapons in Syria is strong, and played a role in Obama's decision not to bomb Assad supposedly.

    Scott Ritter, the weapons inspector who was 100% correct about no WMD's being in Iraq and who tried valiantly to prevent America from making a horrible mistake by invading that country disagrees with you too (see the link).

    But the absolute worst part of your argument

    "your view that it was a rebel conspiracy is conveniently unprovable."

    is utterly ridiculous.
    An actual investigation of the site of the attack, the debris from the munitions used, and a laboratory analysis of the chemicals in the blood samples of the victims could establish that the al Qaida "rebels" were indeed responsible.

    Our incompetent president who you love and trust so dearly (yes, sarcasm) is actually the one who has acted irrationally by launching an attack BEFORE an investigation could occur.

    All the Dems in Congress and in our country who supported our dear leader despite the fact that an investigation to determine who was responsible for the attack had not occurred are the irrational ones.

    In fact, a person who insists someone is irrational but doesn't provide any evidence could be said to be projecting.

    A

  136. [136] 
    altohone wrote:

    sorry bout the typo in your name

    A

  137. [137] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [100]

    You lose, Michale. I never ever said Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes or Bill Cosby was guilty of rape. So the standard I am applying is: if you say it then YOU PROVIDE THE CITE!

    It's inescapable - YOU SAY IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT BILL CLINTON - SO FUCKING CITE YOUR SOURCE and stop trying to slither your way out of it by accusing me of something I NEVER SAID!

    Stick to the standard of if you say it, then you have to cite it.

  138. [138] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [122] Queen Elizabeth -

    I made no assumptions about what is in your head - I wouldn't want to crawl into that nasty, bitchy space - only about what you've said in many a comment. You're just too disingenuous to own your own shit.

  139. [139] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [110] You are such a slimy little snake, Michale. You NEVER substantiate anything you say when asked. You always turn it back in an ad hominem attack. About time for you to man up and own your shit.

  140. [140] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    This blog site does not take kindly to false accusations, name-calling and otherwise juvenile behavior.

  141. [141] 
    altohone wrote:

    Mopshell
    137

    I disagree with Liz on many issues, but she is decidedly not pro-Trump.

    Her constructive criticism of Hillary during the campaign could have averted a Democratic loss if her advice had been adopted, and her post election desire for Hillary to go away is a sound and reasonable position due to Hillary's negative impact on the party.

    A

  142. [142] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, Al! Enjoy the rest of your Sunday evening ... :)

  143. [143] 
    neilm wrote:

    What a farce - we want Assad to stay in power - we want Assad to be removed - "it is going to be America First! America First!" ... but not any longer.

    This is what we get with the clowns running the show.

    At least the slightly creepy new Supreme Court justice got ignored in his moment of "glory". I'm sure that bad smell will come back soon however.

  144. [144] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz

    No thanks necessary.
    Sorry I didn't beat you to it.

    Good evening to you too.

    A

  145. [145] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Re: altohone, at [62]: Do I think that we are bound by the UN Charter which we helped write and ratified?

    It doesn't matter what I think, but I'll say at the end of this comment anyway (don't peek). Here are some landmarks that might help inform your own conclusion, and understand what's underneath mine.

    Make a careful read through Hamilton's parsing discussion of the exact words he would use to give Constitutional treaty power to the president, i.e., in Federalist 75 ( http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed75.asp ).

    Take note, in passing, of the paragraph which contains "An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth." So much is implied in that paragraph, e.g., the need for independent oversight of governmental ethics. Or, perhaps, so too the need for Congress to verify that a President has no predisposition to act in any way that could form an illegal treaty.

    A good next-benchmark is to search The Cherokee Tobacco. Not a designer cigarette, but the 1870 SC case which opined "It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument." For me, that's kinda the end of the story if looking at the Charter as a Treaty in the sense of Art.II; it would constrain Congressional war powers and/or Presidential C-o-C powers. Of course, it's not the end of the story, if you follow that opinion forward.

    Next jump to the 50's, following the ratification of the UN Charter, and not coincidentally the start of the Cold War and the Red Scare. The legislative history of the Bricker Amendment is informative. As an aside, LBJ's role in defeating the amendment proves once again that it's easy to identify members of Congress who secretly aspire to the Presidency. They're the biggest defenders of Executive power.

    Identifying illegal conduct under International law is a whole other path. If one holds that the UN Charter codifies customary international practice, it will follow that military actions, for reasons or purposes outside those in the Charter, are illegal under international law.

    Finally, an interesting starting point into domestic US political realities around UN treaties is the ratification of the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, followed, 22 years later to the day, by Congress passing the legislation that was required in the ratification.

    Beyond this largely off-the-cuff travelogue across some treaty terrain, there are many rabbit holes, some leading to fever swamps of the nationalists and de-constructionists, and some to poorly grounded pontifications of the internationalists. Staying on the surface of the issue, and bringing in international law, sound arguments could be crafted that conclude the military strike was illegal. But illegal under the law of the land, as Ms. Bennis asserts in that video? I say no.

  146. [146] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    We can add President Trump of the group of Presidents who, regardless of what they might think about it, do file a timely report to Congress consistent with the War Powers Resolution.

    I gotta say, I wasn't 100% sure that he would. And that, michale, is another example of why I think it's a serious problem if it's plausible that Pres.Trump was moved to action by seeing the victims on television.

    It's not because it's true (and I choose to believe that it is not); it's because it is, in truth, the simplest way to explain it given the facts and predicates.

    As we've already seen, this has identifiable consequences for governance.

  147. [147] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Out above the patio is the nearly full moon. Here's a hypothetical to take your mind off politics.

    We know that Easter is the first Sunday following the first full moon after the equinox. This last Feb.'s full moon happened at 00:33GMT. Say that same timing had happened today, on Sunday. In London or Rome, it would be Sunday, so next week: Easter. In DC or LA, it would be Sat. night, so next week: Palm Sunday.

    Here's a thing about hypotheticals. In the real world (i.e., Vatican in this case, I hypothesize), there will be no problem if the calculations show that a determining call will never have to be made. If it's never going to happen, then it doesn't need a rule, no matter how much fun it could be to sit around a speculate on what that rule might be.

  148. [148] 
    altohone wrote:

    LeaningBlue
    144

    Thanks for the response.

    I'm heading off to hit my pillow, so I'm going to have to get into it tomorrow.
    But before I do, I have a couple of questions.

    May I ask your profession?
    There seems to be disagreement. Is your opinion widely held?
    If it's illegal under international law, but we aren't bound by the law, do you believe other nations are bound by it? Only if their constitutions don't create a loophole too?
    Is it enforceable?

    Yes and no answers are cool... except for the first question... unless that's a no.

    A

  149. [149] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [146] LB

    Thankfully we now have Unix Time which relates everything to seconds elapsed since the Beginning of The Epoch (Jan 1 1970, GMT); and hopefully all major and minor religions will adopt this Holy Standard into their scriptures.

    (Until sometime in 2038 when the 32-bit number system fails us; but hey - society will probably have collapsed by then :) ).

    Also - yes, the full moon is a beautiful sight!

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When ... the ... moon ... hits your eye like a big pizza pie - that's AMORE! ...

    "It's Cosmo's moon!"

    What movie is that from?

  151. [151] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [149] Liz

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAU4pf0uhoY

    Such a charming film... my introduction to Nick Cage...

  152. [152] 
    neilm wrote:

    If the Republicans were like a dog that caught the car with Obamacare, can you imagine the fiasco if they get another RWNJ on the Supreme Court and overturn Roe vs. Wade - it will be like a dog that caught a truck, then then reversed over the dog a few times and then set fire to the crushed corpse.

    What century are these clowns living in?

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    "Irregardless" is not a word, and it is definitely your bullshit. Read your comments where you basically can cut and paste the same commentary asking me to prove something over and over like it's a shiny new argument. It's not new. Your shit is so stale that it reeks from the stench.

    And more deflection..

    You claimed that asking people to prove their claims is "my bullshit" not yours and then you turn right around and ask me to prove a claim I made..

    You got caught in blatant hypocrisy and lying and now yer all pissy and hysterical.. :D

    I did "turn around" and do it, but that doesn't exactly qualify as being my "bullshit" when it's your monotonous modus operandi.

    Ahhhh When YOU do it, it's perfectly acceptable..

    Blatant hypocrisy... :D

    Oh, I wouldn't really call that lying.

    Of course you wouldn't. Which is ALSO a lie :D

    Tell us how it feels to hijack my post to A01 in order to make him look hysterical

    I don't "make" altohone look hysterical..

    He does that all on his own... :D

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    Altohone and Kick,

    WOW... ALL those lengthy comments JUST about lil ole me!!??

    I must have REALLY hit a nerve with ya'all that ya'all would expend soooo much time and effort just to talk about me.. :D

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    the guardian article provides numerous links to evidence supporting the view that assad was motivated to use chemical weapons and believed he'd get away with it.

    That's because he DID get away with it once before...

    your view that it was a rebel conspiracy is conveniently unprovable.

    And patently ridiculous to boot...

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    MS,

    You lose, Michale. I never ever said Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes or Bill Cosby was guilty of rape. So the standard I am applying is: if you say it then YOU PROVIDE THE CITE!

    Where did I say that YOU personally said that O'Reilly, Ailes or Cosby were guilty of rape..

    You say it, then YOU PROVIDE THE CITE.. :D

    See, this is why it's SOOO much easier if ya'all would simply quote the passage ya'all are referring to.. It would make things so much simpler... :^/

    It's inescapable - YOU SAY IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT BILL CLINTON - SO FUCKING CITE YOUR SOURCE and stop trying to slither your way out of it by accusing me of something I NEVER SAID!

    See above....

  157. [157] 
    michale wrote:

    LB,

    I have to admit, you got my head spinning. :D

    I have started this response and deleted what I started about 4 times now..

    Every time I read your comment I get one take on it and then I read it again and I get a totally different take..

    So, bear with me as my response maybe disjointed.. :D

    if it's plausible that Pres.Trump was moved to action by seeing the victims on television.

    First off, I don't really see it as a problem if a President is moved to action by seeing something on television..

    The facts clearly tell us that our previous... ahem... "leader" was moved to action by many MANY things he saw on television and in the news..

    So that, in and of itself, I don't see as a problem..

    Now, sure, coming to the defense of a dead thug is quite a bit different than launching 5 dozen cruise missiles at a sovereign country... But it's a difference only in magnitude, not a difference in cause and effect..

    Personally, I agree with what you said. I don't believe it's true either that President Trump was motivated solely by what he saw on the telly... But if he was, I wouldn't have a problem with it, per se...

    It's not because it's true (and I choose to believe that it is not); it's because it is, in truth, the simplest way to explain it given the facts and predicates.

    Gods, this is tying me up in knots!! :D You are a demon with words, my friend!! :D

    I am really going to have to let this percolate before I can respond to it coherently.. :D

    Bear with me..

    As we've already seen, this has identifiable consequences for governance.

    Yes, it does... And that is what is so aggravating.. The anti-Trumpers who go off on a fact-deprived binge do not realize the damage they are doing to this country SOLELY because their ideology dictates it..

    For better or for worse, President Trump *IS* their president..

    It would be nice if they could quit being Democrats and start acting like Americans...

    If only...

    "If only.... IF only...."
    -Hades, HERCULES

    :D

  158. [158] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    In either case the exercise pretty much can be just summed up as an expensive fireworks show, given that we did not render the airbase unusable for even 24 hours.

    Cite???

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:

    PUTIN WAR THREATS TO WEST
    WARNS TRUMP

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4395504/Iran-Russia-threaten-aggression-Syria.html

    But!! But!!! But!!!

    President Trump and Putin are bestest buddies!!!

    We know this because the Left has SAID so!!!???
    {/sarcasm}

    See?? THIS is *exactly* why it's impossible for anyone to take what ya'all (NEN) say seriously..

    Because it's *ALL* borne of nothing but political bigotry and Party fanaticism...

    It suits the Party agenda that President Trump is in bed with Putin so... VIOLA... President Trump is in bed with Putin..

    Of course, then FACTS and REALITY come a calling and, POOOOF The "truth" of the Left comes crashing down like the fact-less house of cards it was...

    And a NEW "truth" will replace it. That President Trump is so insane he is going to take us into WWIII against Russia....

    "We are at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with East Asia."

    George Orwell obviously wrote 1984 with the Democrat Party in mind....

  160. [160] 
    michale wrote:

    Battle over sanctuary cities escalating
    http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/327655-battle-over-sanctuary-cities-escalating

    Not only will cities who protect scumbag murderers and rapists and thugs lose MILLIONS in Federal funding, those moronic city leaders are going to lose MILLIONS in STATE funding as well!!!

    Kewl.....

    Next step is to start throwing those moronic city leaders in jail.... Five years in the slammer oughta do it.. :D

    "10,000 years in the Cave Of Wonder ought to chill him out!!"
    -Genie, ALADDIN

    :D

  161. [161] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [158],

    Putin and Trump have to have some "conflict" occur in order for Trump to be able to justify the lifting of sanctions as a form of "peace offering" between our two countries. Plus, this serves as a smoke screen against what might be discovered by the agencies investigating Trump's ties to Russia. Trump does know how to spin a story, that is for sure!

    [159] How do sanctuary cities protect murderers, rapists, and thugs? If a person is wanted on a federal warrant and are stopped by the police, the local police hold them for the Feds. They aren't freed to go commit crimes.

    If the Feds want the local police to enforce immigration laws, all they need do is get a court to issue a warrant for the person's arrest.

  162. [162] 
    michale wrote:

    Putin and Trump have to have some "conflict" occur in order for Trump to be able to justify the lifting of sanctions as a form of "peace offering" between our two countries. Plus, this serves as a smoke screen against what might be discovered by the agencies investigating Trump's ties to Russia. Trump does know how to spin a story, that is for sure!

    Ahhhh... So it's one big master conspiracy... :D

    And the FACTS that support this claim??

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

    Basically, what you are saying is that President Trump is such a grand 12-D puppet master, that he even has the bulk of Democrat leadership fooled.. :D

    [159] How do sanctuary cities protect murderers, rapists, and thugs? If a person is wanted on a federal warrant and are stopped by the police, the local police hold them for the Feds. They aren't freed to go commit crimes.

    Tell that to Kathleen Steinle's parents..

    If the Feds want the local police to enforce immigration laws, all they need do is get a court to issue a warrant for the person's arrest.

    No one is talking about enforcing immigration laws.

    We're talking about a federal LEO agency issuing a request to a city LEO agency to hold a criminal until said federal LEO agency can come pick them up and said city LEO agency ordered to give the finger to said federal LEO agency by said city scumbag leadership...

  163. [163] 
    michale wrote:

    They aren't freed to go commit crimes.

    Tell that to Kathleen Steinle's parents..

    I saw that, not to be sarcastically facetious (not much anyways) but rather to point out that, in the Steinle shooting, that is EXACTLY what happened..

    ICE had requested that the SUBJECT be held for pick-up. San Francisco County SO refused and released the SUBJECT. SUBJECT then stole a gun and murdered Kathleen Steinle..

    The Sanctuary concept was responsible for Kathleen Steinle's murder..

  164. [164] 
    michale wrote:

    Rio Grande Valley is unusually quiet as illegal border crossings drop to lowest point in at least 17 years
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-crossings-20170410-story.html

    Thank the gods for President Trump.... :D

  165. [165] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [129]

    From Scott Ritter-

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-chemical-attack-al-qaeda-played-donald-trump_us_58ea226fe4b058f0a02fca4d?

    I was hoping for such a post from him prior to the strike...

    Interesting article. I've read about three dozen articles, eyewitness accounts, etc., and I have to tell you, Punk, from some of the eyewitness accounts it does not sound like Sarin since there would be no odor or visible clouds that multiple eyewitnesses claimed to have seen. But, having said all that, the sheer number of deaths from this attack is not whatsoever indicative of chlorine alone, and other eyewitnesses report no odor.

    So taking all of the different eyewitness accounts together along with the Doctors Without Borders physicians who confirmed that patients' symptoms were consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent, it sounds to me like multiple CWs may have been dropped by air... so not a question of Sarin or chlorine; it was possibly both.

  166. [166] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [130]

    I'm only 6'5".
    But I could put my hair into liberty spikes or a Mohawk... my hair is long enough to get me to 7'... actually, I'd need to trim off about 6 inches.

    Hey, my hair is long enough to get me to 7' also. Heh.

    "And here's Fletch. Six five, with the afro six nine"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7AUpGXLDdk

    Wow.
    Already up for promotion from hand to King?
    I am overcome with emotion m'lady.

    Must I relieve thee of thy Tomahawk missiles until thou doth get that in check? I doth kid thee. :)

    Definitely check out that Scott Ritter link.
    He raises a few issues I haven't mentioned.

    I did... along with dozens of eyewitness accounts, and I doubt you will like my conclusion.

  167. [167] 
    michale wrote:

    , it sounds to me like multiple CWs may have been dropped by air... so not a question of Sarin or chlorine; it was possibly both.

    Which provide compelling factual evidence that it was Assad forces who launched the CWMD attack..

    Rebels do not have the air capability to mount such an attack... Further, if it were rebels who were mounting such an attack on THEIR OWN PEOPLE, for the purposes of inducing a response, the attack would have likely been much smaller...

    All of the facts clearly indicate that it was Assad's forces that launched this CWMD attack...

  168. [168] 
    michale wrote:

    I did... along with dozens of eyewitness accounts, and I doubt you will like my conclusion.

    I did.. :D

  169. [169] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Alto-129

    Ritter's editorial addressed two things.

    First, evidence relating to the Khan Sheikhoun incident.

    Second, the subsequent US cruise missile attack on the Syrian AFB.

    I found Ritter's treatment of the of first point disappointingly superficial - it did not sway my opinion: the preponderance of available evidence from multiple sources strongly suggests (to me) that an air delivered nerve agent attack by the Syrian government side did occur.

    However I substantially agree with Ritter about the US response: it was militarily insignificant and poses serious geopolitical risks that aren't balanced by well defined geopolitical opportunities. Simply put, the US response, was a photo op for a green POTUS learning to ride his new foreign policy bicycle.

  170. [170] 
    Kick wrote:

    GT [133] I have seen several sources that say they were indeed of the Tomahawk Block IV, Tactical Tomahawk TLAM-E variety.

    I won't list cites because of the multiple link rule, and all -- scratch that -- most of us here are quite capable of looking these things up ourselves. :)

    I thought that the purpose of such actions was to make a regime pay for it's actions. Given that any airport runway can be re-paved and made ready for operation quickly, it still costs money and time to get it back up and operating. Why not spend an additional 20 million and crater the runway, thus creating a hole in the Syrians ability to deliver bombs and more gas?

    I know, right? Blow the thing to smithereens and thwart their attacks of the Syrian people. Failure to do that just adds to suspicion that the motivation behind this wasn't the people at all. Since when in his 70-year history has Trump ever cared about people? And Trump is not that good of an actor.

  171. [171] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mopshell

    C'mon, now!

    137 -- Not really fair to EM.

    138 -- Not really fair to snakes.

  172. [172] 
    michale wrote:

    137 -- Not really fair to EM.

    138 -- Not really fair to snakes.

    In other words, name-calling and personal attacks are perfectly acceptable... As long as they are directed to the right people of impure political ideology and insufficient Party zealotry....

    Wish I could say I was shocked at such hypocrisy.. Sadly, it's ya'all's (NEN) defining characteristic...

  173. [173] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM [149]

    "It's Cosmo's moon!"

    What movie is that from?

    Moonstruck

  174. [174] 
    Kick wrote:

    Charles Brown, Esq. [150]

    Such a charming film... my introduction to Nick Cage...

    Where are they now?

    If you were a Coppola, would you go by the name of "Cage"? *shakes head*

  175. [175] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    164

    I've got a crazy day, so just a short note until later.

    If it wasn't Sarin, we enter the realm of chemical weapons which are less technically difficult to produce.

    You mentioned eyewitness accounts.
    Are you referring to the eyewitness accounts from al Qaida rebels of the attack, or just the eyewitness accounts of the doctors and journalists of the aftermath?

    Do you support an investigation?

    What do you think about the reported record of chemical attacks by al Qaida in Syria?

    Do you consider the reported doubts raised in the intelligence community about who was responsible for the chemical attack in Ghouts (which supposedly influenced Obama's decision not to bomb in 2013) relevant?

    -
    -

    To me, this all seems like 2002, 2003.
    Claims by an administration, evil dictator who must be guilty, "evidence" reported by an unquestioning gung ho media, Hillary on board... ah, the memories.

    But rather than ignoring the accurate conclusions of the investigators on the ground in Iraq, there's no investigation in Syria.

    Catch ya later.

    A

  176. [176] 
    michale wrote:

    What do you think about the reported record of chemical attacks by al Qaida in Syria?

    Cite???

  177. [177] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-charles-david-koch-christopher-ruddy-mar-a-lago

    45 meets to discover what the Kochs want. Draining the swamp!

  178. [178] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting analysis of stock valuations from Business Insider. The basic premise is that companies that pay a lot of tax should do better after 45's amazing, fantastic, fabulous tax plan is in place.

    So you would think that the market would be hot on those stocks that are most likely to see a big tax cut.

    In reality, nobody who is betting with their own money trust 45 can organize a raffle, let alone something as complex politically as a new tax bill. Thus instead of these companies' stock going up, they have been going down wrt their lower taxed peers:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/high-tax-stocks-show-investors-doubt-trump-tax-cuts-2017-4

  179. [179] 
    neilm wrote:

    Talking about the tax bill, there is a rising chorus growing to insist that 45 lays out exactly how he personally will benefit from any proposed legislation (it will probably always be proposed, if these clowns can't repeal Obamacare they have less chance of agreeing on a tax bill).

    If they can get three Republican Senators to sign up for a "drain the swamp" requirement that details out 45's personal tax savings and impact on his debt structure before they agree to vote on the bill, the fireworks could be very entertaining.

  180. [180] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh, and the Democrats should definitely force McConnell to drop the last vestiges of the filibuster over the tax bill. One Russian leak of 45's taxes (and if he keeps bombing their buddy Assad, they might just try) would expose just how much money 45 and his family will make from the American people with new tax legislation.

    This will force McConnell to go nuclear to give 45 a big tax break. Even our resident fanboy might wake up to that level of corruption.

  181. [181] 
    neilm wrote:

    Just a reminder of how pathetic 45 is, he promised a room full of CEOs that he would introduce the new tax bill in 2-3 weeks.

    That promise was made on February 7.

  182. [182] 
    neilm wrote:

    Correction - February 9

  183. [183] 
    neilm wrote:

    So AG Sessions wants to stop DoJ oversight from local police forces so they can maintain any systemic racism without interference from DC.

    Will that also apply to "sanctuary" policies?

    Doubt it. Hypocrisy alert!

  184. [184] 
    neilm wrote:

    Even more fun with taxes ... the Koch Bros are running ads castigating the border adjustment - this is the bit that makes the plan work for exporters who get to claim back any VAT paid on good shipped out of the country.

    What a clown show.

  185. [185] 
    neilm wrote:

    Looks like the Clown-in-Chief might have pulled the trigger too quickly in his desperate attempt to bolster his plummeting approval ratings:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/un-sources-say-rebel-forces-not-assad-used-sarin-gas/315588/

  186. [186] 
    Paula wrote:
  187. [187] 
    goode trickle wrote:
  188. [188] 
    goode trickle wrote:
  189. [189] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    Thank you...

  190. [190] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "O'Reilly's numbers are going up, so apparently the American people are fine with these meaningless accusations.."

    Don't you know that one of the things the American people love to watch most is a train wreck or a car crash. That's what half the people at NASCAR are probably there for in the first place. Either that, or to see someone they originally put up on a pedestal unceremoniously pulled down off of it. In any case the end result is still always the same, utter destruction. In this case, O'Reilly's. A spectacular flame out may bring high ratings, but it is still a burn up. Just ask another Bill, Cosby.

  191. [191] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "DEMOCRATS blocked civil rights legislation...

    Own up to the Party's past or be forever doomed to repeat it.."

    And YET, it was a DEMOCRATIC President, LEADER of the PARTY, Lyndon Johnson, who both pushed for and signed the most significant and sweeping Civil Rights legislation in history. It sure wasn't a REPUBLICAN, Nixon, who would have done that.

  192. [192] 
    John M wrote:

    Chris, CW, wrote:

    "As for top-2, I personally hate it. I hate having two Dems on the general ballot for ANY race, and no, I am not being funny or facetious. It is a travesty of democracy to not allow all parties onto the general election ballot. Primaries are low-attendance (as you point out), and it just isn't fair. I say that while voting Dem, but I'd be just as annoyed if I lived in a state where two GOPers were on the general election ballot. It's a matter of principle -- jungle, top-2 systems are just not fair and should be abolished. Period."

    I have to disagree here. I think such runoff elections are MORE fair. NOT less. They are certainly better than what we have here in Florida, where we elected a governor TWICE, who got LESS than 50 percent of the vote each time. That means that more then 50 percent of the people, about 51 percent in fact, voted for SOMEONE ELSE. But the the ONLY reason he won, was because the opposition vote was split up among more than one candidate. How is that fair to the majority of people who voted against him and didn't want him?

  193. [193] 
    michale wrote:

    And YET, it was a DEMOCRATIC President, LEADER of the PARTY, Lyndon Johnson, who both pushed for and signed the most significant and sweeping Civil Rights legislation in history.

    "I’ll have those n****rs voting Democratic for 200 years"
    -LBJ

    Typical Democrat.. It's ALL about Party...

  194. [194] 
    michale wrote:

    I prefer the timeline where Martin Luther King JR was Vice President.. :D

  195. [195] 
    michale wrote:

    How is that fair to the majority of people who voted against him and didn't want him?

    Because you DON'T KNOW that the majority of the people voted AGAINST him..

    You just ASSUME that because it suits your agenda..

    It's entirely likely that the majority of people voted FOR someone else...

    And their candidate lost..

    Anything else is spin...

  196. [196] 
    michale wrote:

    And President Trump's popularity shoots up!!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

    Oh my, the Lefties are in a snit now!!! :D

    So, now that the polls are heading up, ya'all will adopt my position that polls are meaningless, right? :D

  197. [197] 
    neilm wrote:

    And President Trump's popularity shoots up!!

    Good one. Let's see if it is a dead cat bounce right after throwing about a few Tomahawks before we all get too excited about the amazing comeback from "record breaking dreadful" to just "historically pathetic".

  198. [198] 
    neilm wrote:

    a US president colludes with not one, but two foreign leaders who are antagonistic to our national interests at the very least, in order to stage a phony and staggeringly expensive "attack" for the sole reason of propping up a president in free fall.

    Whoo hoo - the fun is starting.

    http://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.com/2017/04/found-on-facebook-last-night.html

  199. [199] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    What part of:

    If the Feds want the local police to enforce immigration laws, all they need do is get a court to issue a warrant for the person's arrest.

    did you not understand??! The police did not have the legal authority to hold the person who shot Steinle.

    ICE had requested that the SUBJECT be held for pick-up. San Francisco County SO refused and released the SUBJECT. SUBJECT then stole a gun and murdered Kathleen Steinle.

    ICE had every opportunity to interview the SUBJECT while he was in jail. They could have arrested him, but the SUBJECT was obviously not a priority for them. If ICE had a warrant, then SFCSO would not have had a choice and would not have released him. They did not have one, and the people of SF County decided that they were not going to allow the Federal government to overstep their authority by holding citizens without cause.

  200. [200] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [192]

    How about an actual quote from LBJ? Here's one of my favorites:

    "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

  201. [201] 
    michale wrote:

    Let's see if it is a dead cat bounce right after throwing about a few Tomahawks before we all get too excited about the amazing comeback from "record breaking dreadful" to just "historically pathetic".

    Yes... LET'S....

    I am willing to hold my water if ya'all are.. :D

    No???

    Didna think so.. :D

  202. [202] 
    michale wrote:

    did you not understand??! The police did not have the legal authority to hold the person who shot Steinle.

    Yes, they did.. The Illegal Immigration Act of 1996 allows local LEOs to hold requested detainees for 48 hours..

    ICE had every opportunity to interview the SUBJECT while he was in jail.

    ICE didn't want to INTERVIEW him.. They wanted the scumbag in custody so they could DEPORT his ass.. For the SIXTH time..

    If ICE had a warrant, then SFCSO would not have had a choice and would not have released him.

    ICE had a detainer request.. JUST as legal as a warrant, per the law...

    They did not have one, and the people of SF County decided that they were not going to allow the Federal government to overstep their authority by holding citizens without cause.

    They HAD "cause".. He was an ILLEGAL... A criminal..

    The law was completely and utterly on ICE's side..

    SF SO ignored the law and Kathleen Steinle is dead because of that..

    And the Left Wing cheers.. :^/

  203. [203] 
    michale wrote:

    Whoo hoo - the fun is starting.

    http://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.com/2017/04/found-on-facebook-last-night.html

    So, NOW ya'all's "proof" is a FACEBOOK blog??

    :D heheheheheheheehehehehe

    All is good in ya'all hysterical pursuit of Party fanaticism....

    Aside to JL.. Yep.. SO much better than slavery.. :D

  204. [204] 
    michale wrote:

    Good one.

    A snit looks good on you... :D

  205. [205] 
    Paula wrote:

    "DEMOCRATS blocked civil rights legislation...

    And then the people who had a problem with civil rights left the Democratic Party to join the GOP, where they felt more at home.

  206. [206] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick and gang

    I suggested that Dems are such wusses they would give Republicans the power of the filibuster back if they regained the Senate?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-discuss-restoring-filibuster_us_58ebdfa3e4b0ca64d91848e4?jvi&amp;

    This idea that bipartisanship is good for Dems when Republicans do not honor the principle is pathetic.

    They have no concept of how to serve the interests of their voters by playing political hardball.

    I think you used the word aggravating Kick.

    A

  207. [207] 
    michale wrote:

    And then the people who had a problem with civil rights left the Democratic Party to join the GOP, where they felt more at home.

    Democrat Senator Robert Byrd

    'nuff said..

  208. [208] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    184

    While I appreciate yet another link about the al Qaida "rebels" possibly being responsible for the chemical attack in Ghouta, Syria, the article is from 2013.

    I think it's important for all Americans to keep in mind that the "rebels" may well be responsible for the recent attack, and that we should pursue an investigation before a narrative where we are blaming the wrong side leads to war based on lies AGAIN.

    A

  209. [209] 
    altohone wrote:

    167

    Of course you did.

    People like you don't want an investigation that may prove that al Qaida was responsible for the chemical attack in Syria, and want people to believe unproven assertions.

    Morally depraved, pro-torture people like you in our government thought working with dictators like Assad and Mubarak in the rendition program was a good idea.

    Morally depraved, pro-torture people like you in our government weren't satisfied with that approach, and instituted torture as a US policy.

    Morally depraved, pro-torture people like you in our government are responsible for making it more likely torture will occur in other countries, due to our horrible "leadership" and programs run out of the School of the Americas to teach right wing dictators and their forces how to subdue civilian populations through torture and death squads.

    Morally depraved pro-torture people like you in our government are responsible for making it more likely US soldiers will be tortured if they are captured in future conflicts.

    Morally depraved, pro-torture people like you in our government are responsible for the war crime of invading Iraq in an illegal war of aggression based on lies.

    Morally depraved, pro-torture people like you in our government are responsible for weakening the ability of the US to use soft power to advance US interests without resorting to unnecessary wars.

    Morally depraved, pro-torture people like you in our government are responsible for the coups in Iran, Egypt, Ukraine, Honduras, Venezuela, and numerous other countries which created death and destruction and violated international and US laws and supposed American values like democracy and justice.

    175

    You want a cite for the cites I've been providing the last few days?
    Your memory problems are not my problem.

    A

  210. [210] 
    altohone wrote:

    TS
    168

    Scott Ritter describing al Qaida's use of chemical weapons in previous attacks in Syria is crucial background information to put the recent attack into perspective.

    The "only Assad could do it" narrative is exposed as propaganda when the actual facts are known.

    His expertise that shows the eyewitness descriptions of the gas and odor not matching Sarin need to be recognized as holes in the claims being made.

    His conjecture about the recent attack was meant to raise the possibility of al Qaida's responsibility. His call for an investigation that doesn't rely on eyewitness accounts or other evidence from al Qaida "rebels" who lack credibility makes a lot of sense to me.

    I don't know why any American would trust information coming from the people who attacked us on 9/11.

    The claims about the chemical attack resulting from an aerial bombardment are ALL coming from al Qaida "rebels". The doctors who witnessed the aftermath, and who have more credibility, did not witness the attack.

    A

  211. [211] 
    Paula wrote:

    [206] Comrade Michale: Ah the old Robert Byrd canard…well, when your shoes are all gloopy with shit, it's hard to concentrate and come up with a real argument. Sad.

  212. [212] 
    altohone wrote:

    208
    part two

    Oh yeah.
    I forgot to mention the big one.

    Morally depraved, pro-torture people like you in our government are responsible for the Global War on Terror which has created somewhere between ten and twenty TIMES more Islamic terrorists today as there were when al Qaida attacked us on 9/11... making America and countries around the world less safe, while misallocating TRILLIONS of dollars, and violating our supposed values with not just torture and endless warfare, but with a targeted assassination program using drone strikes without proof of guilt or an actual threat, and that have regularly killed innocent people in countries where we are attacking without a declaration of war by Congress and with minimal oversight.

    A

  213. [213] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    ICE had a detainer request.. JUST as legal as a warrant, per the law...

    I always forget that you were military police, but then you make claims like this and it becomes clear that you never had to worry about a person's rights since those you encountered really didn't have any.

    A detainer request IS just as legal as a warrant, but only in the sense that both are legal! Lots of things are "legal", but only a few require a police agency to hold someone in custody. If ICE were arresting the subject, they would have had a warrant. The fact is that they were not sure if the person in custody was actually the person ICE was after since the age given by the jail was like 7 years older than what ICE claimed his age was.

  214. [214] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [209] Alto

    There's an interesting back-and-forth discussion going on at DKos regarding Ritter's claims:

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/9/1651744/-Putin-s-propaganda-hits-the-rec-list-the-danger-of-selective-skepticism

    Since one can only post one link at a time, I have to simply recommend that one follow the diarist's recommendation to check out the linked earlier comment thread by Rei, which in turn links to several detailed posts at bellingcat site that are of interest.

    After reading Ritter's article and then chasing those links myself (the frequent responder DDTea in the comments section of the two salient bellingcat DOT com posts is especially persuasive to me), my take away is that one the one hand, Russia's claims about the bombing of some sort of rebel lab/stockpile just aren't supported by the facts.

    (NB: The ad hominems about Ritter in the diarists post don't sway me either way; they're not relevant to the matter under consideration).

    BUT - to be clear, that doesn't mean that it follows that "since Russia's claims are wrong, therefore the standard US line is true"; anymore than claiming that the US narrative being false implies that the Russian narrative must be correct.

    Nor does it mean that, even if the standard US line were true, that therefore the current US military response is appropriate. Or even that 45 as President has the authorization to carry out that action independently even if it were justifiable / recommended. And so on and so forth.

    For my money, while the specific Russian narrative seems to fail largely on technical merits (e.g., yes, sarin can have an odor, no you can't just blow up binary components and expect them to be operational), the alternative narrative fails on political merits: I still just don't see how this action works for Assad, without some serious in-house back-stabbing going on.

    So, by all means, further investigation is recommended.

  215. [215] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    John M (191)-
    The top-two primary is a primary election, not a run off.
    I would disagree that 50% is needed for a valid election.
    If there are more than two options then why should a majority be required? I am perfectly fine with the candidate with the most support winning in a general election, with a qualifier of 35-40% minimum for the winner and a run-off procedure if no one reaches the qualifier.
    Maybe you didn't notice the part in my comment about the 10% participation in the California top-two primary special election where if one of the candidates had achieved 50% of the primary vote there would be no general election and 5% percent of the eligible voters would have elected the next congressman.
    That's a lot less than 50%.
    The open primary part of the top-two system is good, but the top-two part has to go. Any candidate that gets 10% in the primary should be on the general election ballot and the candidate and/or their party should qualify for the next primary no matter what happens in the general election.

  216. [216] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [174]

    Moved your answers forward, Punk! :)

  217. [217] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [139] This blog site has been tolerant of your bitchiness for its entire duration. So go running to your BFF CW. You like men, don't you Elizabeth, you really suck up to CW and I bet most of the men in your life have fallen for it every time. Certainly all the males here would all defend you, maybe one female too.

    You're really good at being a bitch. You've probably been making female lives an absolute misery since high school. No wonder there's so few females on this blog. You soon get rid of us.

  218. [218] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    altohone
    140

    Oh you must be male. Elizabeth charms all the males.

  219. [219] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    155
    Michale

    And again you slither out of providing a cite for your claim because the truth is you can't. Bill Clinton has never been found guilty of rape so your constant accusations are nothing but malicious libel.

    According to Elizabeth Miller: [139]

    This blog site does not take kindly to false accusations, name-calling and otherwise juvenile behavior.

    but it has no problem with all your false accusations and name calling and juvenile behavior. But then you're male and, even more importantly, a really big donor to the site so it's okay for you to say and behave in any way you want. They can't afford to lose you.

  220. [220] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [170] Kick -

    Never noticed you defending me against Elizabeth's sly and nasty comments to me but how sweet of you to defend her when someone finally has the balls to be honest. You're defending a bully. Thanks for nothing.

  221. [221] 
    michale wrote:

    [206] Comrade Michale: Ah the old Robert Byrd canard…well, when your shoes are all gloopy with shit, it's hard to concentrate and come up with a real argument. Sad.

    Typical..

    You have no logical or rational response, so you just go with an immature personal attack.

    Typical response from a hysterical Party fanatic..

  222. [222] 
    michale wrote:

    MS,

    [206] Comrade Michale: Ah the old Robert Byrd canard…well, when your shoes are all gloopy with shit, it's hard to concentrate and come up with a real argument. Sad.

    Neither was O'Reilly, Ailes or anyone else some here attack and denigrate..

    You see, that's the point..

    Ya'all have one set of standards of the Right and a completely more lenient set of standards for the Left..

  223. [223] 
    michale wrote:

    I always forget that you were military police, but then you make claims like this and it becomes clear that you never had to worry about a person's rights since those you encountered really didn't have any.

    I was also SO..

    And saying that military people don't have rights shows an appalling ignorance of the US military..

    Now, do you have any facts to respond with? Or are you just going to sit there and try and insult me.. :D

    A detainer request IS just as legal as a warrant, but only in the sense that both are legal! Lots of things are "legal", but only a few require a police agency to hold someone in custody.

    And one of those few is a federal detainer request..

    The fact is that they were not sure if the person in custody was actually the person ICE was after since the age given by the jail was like 7 years older than what ICE claimed his age was.

    Which is the EXACT reason for the detainer request. So ICE could confirm the scumbag's identity...

    Look, we can argue semantics and what the definition of 'is' is until the cows come home..

    But the simple fact is, those Sanctuary city leaders are breaking the law.. And their actions have had a direct impact on the brutal murders of their citizens..

    You can obfuscate all you want.. But that won't eliminate that simple fact...

  224. [224] 
    michale wrote:

    CB,

    Since one can only post one link at a time, I have to simply recommend that one follow the diarist's recommendation to check out the linked earlier comment thread by Rei, which in turn links to several detailed posts at bellingcat site that are of interest.

    You CAN post more than one link at a time.. just eliminate the HTTP://www crap and put it in italics... They won't be clickable, but it's a small price to pay to read something as... ahem... "respected" as DailyKook.... :D

  225. [225] 
    michale wrote:

    The fact is that they were not sure if the person in custody was actually the person ICE was after since the age given by the jail was like 7 years older than what ICE claimed his age was.

    OMYGOD!

    An illegal immigrant criminal (I know.. Redundant) lied about his age!!

    What are the odds!!!???? :D

    The long and short of it is this..

    Federal law requires LEO agencies to honor ICE detainer requests..

    SF SO did not honor the ICE request per their bosses Sanctuary City policies, in violation of federal law...

    As a DIRECT result, Kathleen Steinle was brutally gunned down...

    Of course, no one on the Left cares about Steinle or her mourning family...

    The Left ONLY cares about scumbag illegal immigrants...

    Which explains exactly why the Democrat Party is in the shape it's in today...

  226. [226] 
    michale wrote:

    And, since we're on the subject..

    The argument that "More Americans kill Americans than illegal immigrants"???

    My response to that is.... SO???

    Logically, if their are 20 million* illegal immigrants and 600 million* American citizens, it stands to reason that OF COURSE more Americans kill Americans than illegal immigrants..

    Further, let's put it this way.. If you have 10 million Americans killed in a year, 6 million of which are killed by other Americans and 4 million of which are killed by illegal immigrants...

    If you round up and deport illegal immigrants, you SAVE 4 million American lives...

    Sure, 6 million are still dead because of other Americans, but that's another department. And, if you find malfeasance and Party zealotry causing THOSE 6 million deaths in THAT department, then we can discuss it..

    But the fact remains that by deporting illegal immigrants you STILL save 4 million American lives..

    Numbers are for examples only and do not necessarily reflect real-world conditions....

    So, the argument that Americans kill Americans in greater numbers than illegal immigrants kill Americans is a non-relevant strawman argument..

  227. [227] 
    michale wrote:

    MS,

    [206] Comrade Michale: Ah the old Robert Byrd canard…well, when your shoes are all gloopy with shit, it's hard to concentrate and come up with a real argument. Sad.

    Neither was O'Reilly, Ailes or anyone else some here attack and denigrate..

    You see, that's the point..

    Ya'all have one set of standards of the Right and a completely more lenient set of standards for the Left..

    Wooops.. Forgot to reference the proper quote..

    Let's try it again...

    And again you slither out of providing a cite for your claim because the truth is you can't.

    I didn't slither out of anything. I asked you to reference the claim so I can figure out what the hell you are talking about...

    If you can't do that, THAT is on you, not me..

    Bill Clinton has never been found guilty of rape so your constant accusations are nothing but malicious libel.

    And Bill O'Reilly, Bill Cosby and all the other Righties that many here attack and denigrate has not been found guilty of anything either..

    But that doesn't stop those people from attacking them.. And you don't come to their defense like you do Bill Clinton and NOT-45...

    You see, that's the problem.. Ya'all want one harsh and unforgiving standard applied to Righties and a different much more lenient standard applied to Lefties..

    How is this not hypocrisy??

    "But... But... But... O'Reilly paid off his accusers!! So he MUST be guilty!!!"

    Bill Clinton ALSO paid off his accusers.. So, by your OWN Leftie standard, Bubba must be guilty as well...

    You see the completely and utterly untenable position you are in??

    No matter WHAT argument you want to raise, it ALSO applies to the Lefties you worship...

  228. [228] 
    michale wrote:

    United Airlines Tumbles After Social-Media Storm Goes Global
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-11/united-airlines-tumbles-as-social-media-storm-spreads-worldwide

    You fight the law... The law will win..

    EVERY TIME....

  229. [229] 
    TheStig wrote:

    alto-209

    Ritter's argument ignores the most important evidence IMHO.

    Hospitalized Syrian patients given a Sarin antidote recovered. Those who could not be given the antidote (shortage of antidote) got worse and died. Sarin antidote does NOT work on chlorine gas, the two agents have completely different modes of action.

    The signs of Sarin and Chlorine are distinctly different. Chlorine is readily detected on the clothing and the breath of victims - long after exposure. No chlorine odor was noted by doctors.

    White phosphorus is also easily detected in the flesh and clothing of victims long after exposure.
    Docs didn't report it. Responsible forensics requires considering all evidence available. Ritter's train of thought relies on cherry picking and is beginning to look to me like conspiracy theorism.

  230. [230] 
    Paula wrote:

    [226] My advice, Comrade Michale, is to carry a plentiful supply of plastic bags with you at all times. Put them over your shoes -- that way as they fill up with crap you can keep from staining the ground and leaving the shit smell, or eau de republican from lingering.

    What's that? You mean you don't smell any shit? Well, the problem is, when you hang out among other righties, your nose gets acclimated to the stench and you stop noticing it. Then, when you venture out of your rightwing enclave the smell of lies, evasions and misdirections strikes un-republicans.

  231. [231] 
    michale wrote:

    [226] My advice, Comrade Michale, is to carry a plentiful supply of plastic bags with you at all times. Put them over your shoes -- that way as they fill up with crap you can keep from staining the ground and leaving the shit smell, or eau de republican from lingering.

    What's that? You mean you don't smell any shit? Well, the problem is, when you hang out among other righties, your nose gets acclimated to the stench and you stop noticing it. Then, when you venture out of your rightwing enclave the smell of lies, evasions and misdirections strikes un-republicans.

    DO you have ANY facts to support your position??

    No???

    Didna think so.. :D

    Remember, YOU were the won that swore up and down that NOT-45 was going to be our next President..

    She couldn't even win your own home state...

    As such, yer credibility in political matters is sub-zero..

    It's no wonder all you have is Party bigotry and hateful personal attacks..

    I pity you, my friend..

  232. [232] 
    michale wrote:

    There is simply no doubt possible that Assad launched a CWMD attack on Syrian rebels..

    No doubt at all..

  233. [233] 
    Paula wrote:

    [230] Comrade Michale:
    Remember, YOU were the won that swore up and down that NOT-45 was going to be our next President..

    Nuh uh. Never swore she'd be president. Hoped she'd be. You, in your perfect republican fashion are remember history incorrectly, or dishonestly -- take your pick. (Remember, "republican" is synonym for "liar".)

    Here's a product recommendation: Febreze! Always have a can with you when you leave your cocoon. Spray it on liberally, and as your shoes fill up, reapply.

    Friends? Not while you continue to carry water for the traitorous rightwing-lie-machine. Cannot be friends with un-patriots who think Putin is admirable and white supremacy is acceptable. Really, we need to start a freedom-lover exchange program: you, for example, can move to Russia in exchange for a Russian who understands and appreciates genuine democracy. Everybody wins!

  234. [234] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/andrea-mitchell-donald-trump-215008

    "It is totally sui generis. I’ve never seen anything like this,” Mitchell says. “I have never seen anything like this where people just flat-out lie. You know, black is white and white is black, and they mislead you. It's really disconcerting to see the podium in the White House briefing room being used to mislead or misdirect or obfuscate."

    Trumpers!

  235. [235] 
    michale wrote:

    President Trump’s proposed wall with Mexico will kick off in the San Diego border community of Otay Mesa, U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed Monday.
    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/la-me-san-diego-border-wall-20170410-story.html

    My old patrol area.. Along with San Ysidro...

    So much for the claim that President Trump was lying about the wall.. :D

  236. [236] 
    michale wrote:

    "It is totally sui generis. I’ve never seen anything like this,” Mitchell says. “I have never seen anything like this where people just flat-out lie. You know, black is white and white is black, and they mislead you. It's really disconcerting to see the podium in the White House briefing room being used to mislead or misdirect or obfuscate."

    "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan."
    -Mr Barack Obama

    Of course, you ignore THOSE lies because they are acceptable to your Party bigotry....

  237. [237] 
    michale wrote:

    Nuh uh. Never swore she'd be president. Hoped she'd be.

    What a crock o crap.. I can go back and find your comments where you swore up and down that NOT-45 was going to win and the President Trump was going down in flames. You swore up and down how NOT-45 was going to carry Ohio and you were part of that...

    I could find ALL your comments, but why bother.. You would just ignore it or try to deny it...

    Friends? Not while you continue to carry water for the traitorous rightwing-lie-machine. Cannot be friends with un-patriots who think Putin is admirable and white supremacy is acceptable. Really, we need to start a freedom-lover exchange program: you, for example, can move to Russia in exchange for a Russian who understands and appreciates genuine democracy. Everybody wins!

    Change "right wing" to "black people" and you will realize how utterly bigoted your comments are...

  238. [238] 
    michale wrote:

    So, no FACTS to support your position...

    Gotcha {wink wink} :D

  239. [239] 
    Paula wrote:

    Comrade Michale:

    Your problem is, as the shit fills you up and starts to leak out your shoes, people notice. That's why republicans are becoming seen as so very grotesque -- its the overwhelming stench. Now, if you moved to Russia (I'm not sure if the stench carries MORE ore LESS in the crisp, cold air -- does humidity have any effect on smells?) there's plenty of vodka available to help people cope with all the official lying that goes on there so I think you'd attract less attention.

    In Putin's Russia you can enjoy ALL the benefits of life under a true dictatorship where men in boots can haul people away for being, oh, gay for instance. Where they can shoot political opponents down in the street, or throw them off buildings, or poison them. I'm sure you'd sign right up and happily do Putin's bidding, just like Trumpy!

    Or - here's an idea - you can go to work for one of the digital-bot outfits! You're very good at pushing propaganda online -- it could be a whole new career for you! And you're white so you can feel all nice and safe!

    Really, your gifts are wasted here.

  240. [240] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mopshell [219]

    Never noticed you defending me against Elizabeth's sly and nasty comments to me but how sweet of you to defend her when someone finally has the balls to be honest. You're defending a bully. Thanks for nothing.

    Oh, c'mon. I only remember being on the board a few times when you were on. I defended us cursing because it seemed like it was acceptable for the guys but not us.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/11/friday-talking-points-415-donald-trump-and-andrew-jackson/#comment-88453

    As far as that comment, I should have included [89] in my reference because what I was trying to say there is that I don't believe it is fair to say that EM was thrilled when HRC lost and to get overly upset with her about something like that. That's all. :)

  241. [241] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I defended us cursing because it seemed like it was acceptable for the guys but not us.

    When it comes to cursing, the guys around here have NOTHING on you two! :)

  242. [242] 
    michale wrote:

    Looks like the GOP pulled out a squeaker in the Kansas special election..

    Looks like CW was dead on ballz right when he cautioned Dems not to read too much into it.. :D

  243. [243] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM [240]

    When it comes to cursing, the guys around here have NOTHING on you two! :)

    I disagree because Michale use the "F" word a lot in his movie quotes, and then there's this little nugget from Melizabeth Killer:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/06/comey-needs-to-clear-the-air/#comment-96012

    I don't mind being reminded to tone it down, but the guys with the potty mouths seem to never get reprimanded. Bust them too, EM! :)

  244. [244] 
    michale wrote:

    I disagree because Michale use the "F" word a lot in his movie quotes,

    The movie quotes use the F word. Michale does not..

    I simply quote them faithfully and factually..

  245. [245] 
    michale wrote:

    don't mind being reminded to tone it down, but the guys with the potty mouths seem to never get reprimanded. Bust them too, EM! :)

    In other words, you are saying that, since EM doesn't apply the reprimand equally, she has no moral foundation to reprimand you.. :D

    Sounds familiar.. :D

  246. [246] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale -

    I asked you to reference the claim so I can figure out what the hell you are talking about...

    You do not have the poor English comprehension you are claiming to have. You pretend not to understand perfectly plain English because that's that's your MO, that's your way of slithering out of answering a challenge. You refuse to do it because you know you'd lose the challenge. So you deflect, pretend not to understand, go into either both-sides-do-it or whataboutism or both. It's pathetic. You should have more self respect.

    I repeat: Bill Clinton has never been found guilty of rape so your constant accusations are nothing but malicious libel.

    And Bill O'Reilly, Bill Cosby and all the other Righties that many here attack and denigrate has not been found guilty of anything either..
    There you go again - this has nothing to do with these men.

    There is one issue here and one only: you have maliciously slandered Bill Clinton without ever providing a shred of evidence. When asked for one cite - just one legitimate cite, you refuse to give one. Instead you rant and rave about what some other unnamed people have said about some right wingers.

    But then is only about you and what you have accused Bill Clinton of. Until you can man up and provide proof of your slanderous accusations, you do not have the moral authority to comment on what anybody has said about other people.

  247. [247] 
    michale wrote:

    I repeat: Bill Clinton has never been found guilty of rape so your constant accusations are nothing but malicious libel.

    And I repeat.. Neither has Bill O'Reilly.. So, why don't you come to his defense like you do Bill Clinton's???

    And Bill O'Reilly, Bill Cosby and all the other Righties that many here attack and denigrate has not been found guilty of anything either..
    There you go again - this has nothing to do with these men.

    It has EVERYTHING to do with those men.

    ALL of them have never been found guilty of rape..

    Yet you only choose to defend the guy with the '-D' after his name..

    I am asking why...

    There is one issue here and one only: you have maliciously slandered Bill Clinton without ever providing a shred of evidence.

    The evidence and facts that condemn Bill Clinton is plentiful.. Only someone ruled by Partisan ideology would not acknowledge it..

    When asked for one cite - just one legitimate cite, you refuse to give one. Instead you rant and rave about what some other unnamed people have said about some right wingers.

    You have asked for MANY cites. So many, it's impossible to keep them all straight. And when I ask you to clarify which cite you mean, you go all postal on me with a buttload of unfounded personal attacks..

    The fact that you continue to refuse to provide me which cite you are referring to leads me to the logical conclusion that YOU don't even know which cite you are referring to...

    So, until you can point to a specific point you are questioning, we just go round and round..

  248. [248] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [243]

    The movie quotes use the F word. Michale does not..

    I simply quote them faithfully and factually..

    Well, the issue was using profanity in our posts, and we all know that your comments don't compose and submit themselves. So you're guilty of using profanity in your posts.

    Case closed. :)

  249. [249] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [244]

    In other words, you are saying that, since EM doesn't apply the reprimand equally, she has no moral foundation to reprimand you.. :D

    Sounds familiar.. :D

    In other words, you're twisting my words again AND your reading comprehension problem is again on display for all the world to see. No, I'm saying exactly what I wrote:

    I don't mind being reminded to tone it down, but the guys with the potty mouths seem to never get reprimanded. Bust them too, EM! :)

    EM makes a good point whether she does it "equally" or not, and I think I make a good point about busting the guys too... especially you with your movie quotes that are the worst offenders (they don't post themselves).

    You seem to be hung up on your utter nonsensical "moral authority" argument. No one needs a "moral authority" in order to make a good point, and no one needs to argue both sides of an issue in order to make a good point either. That load of crap is the justification you use in order to shut down debate or avoid having to debate, which the entire purpose of this board is discussing and debating political issues. Insisting people have no moral authority to comment merely proves you'd rather argue about people than actual political topics. Rather than actual political debate, you're debating about debating because it's so much easier than actually debating issues. :)

Comments for this article are closed.