Word...

We have been seeing a generation of media figures cratering under the historical pressure of Donald Trump. He really is powerful.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rage-is-all-the-rage-and-its-dangerous-1497571401

I am in complete agreement with ya'all on the issue of the SO...

She's completed her academy training, her past is borderline as far as morality goes and nothing she did was illegal so she should be able to serve...

Oh, I think it was politically motivated. I just questioned why you would after arguing that the Orlando Pulse shooter wasn't targeting gays intentionally and it was more that he just happened to choose the gay club to carry out his terrorist attack.

I believe at the time, I said that terrorism was the primary focus due to the subject's affiliations and statements..

While it's possible that scumbag shooter hated gays and targeted gays, it wasn't germane to the fact that this was a terrorist attack...

Put another way.. If this scumbag hated women and specifically targeted a nail salon, that wouldn't have any relevance to the fact that it was a terrorist attack..

i have no idea what that means.

It's a movie reference.. Watch Time Quest and you'll get it..

To whit, JFK is not assassinated in 1963, goes on to win re-election by a landslide and MLK is his VP....

It's an awesome movie that actually made my like Democrats.. :D

MLK actually did have some connections to russia. RFK as AG signed off on an an investigation of those ties, and what they found was that MLK was cheating on his wife.

So it was a legitimate investigation...

So, if JFK wanted J Edgar to back off because JFK was convinced the "Russia ties" were bupkiss and JFK was considering MLK for VP, technically it would have been Obstruction..

But telling Hoover to back off is WELL WITHIN the purview of the POTUS...

that's why police have official procedures. if some perp cries out against being "dominated," the officer can document for the court that procedures were followed and professional standards adhered to. if she does her job well, trying to prejudice the court by bringing up her past is more of a trap for suspects to fall into than an avenue for them to escape.

JL

Dr. Joseph Dolan: You know, it's a shame about Ed.

Fletch: Oh, it was. Yeah, it was really a shame. To go so suddenly like that.

Dr. Joseph Dolan: He was dying for years.

Fletch: Sure, but... the end was very... very sudden.

Dr. Joseph Dolan: He was in intensive care for eight weeks.

Fletch: Yeah, but I mean the very end, when he actually died. That was extremely sudden

In case you missed the point, read my comment again, and recognize the tremendous amount of violence inside and outside the Soviet Union and in S. Africa prior to the "non-violent" resolutions.

"Outcomes are not guaranteed, however. Russia is an example of democratic promise gone sideways, as is Egypt (and everywhere else affected by the 'Arab Spring'). Some non-violent revolutions are ultimately just coups that simply trade one set of autocrats for another (for example Egypt and Iran)."

Only if you stick to the list of approved reading
material full of falsehoods and revisionism.

The revolution in Egypt was overturned by a coup that reinstated an autocracy... the revolution in Iran was hardly "non-violent" and brought in a level of democracy... Tunisia has been rather successful... and, regarding the other countries affected by the Arab Spring, if by "gone sideways" you mean crushed by outside forces led by the US and Saudi Arabia, then I would agree.

A

She should definitely be allowed to start her new job as a sheriff's deputy! Her videos may have been taboo, but they weren't pornographic. She was an actress, not a prostitute. She went by a stage name, not her real name. The department worried that it would make them look bad, but had the department not made such a big deal over it, the public would most likely have never known anything about it. They wound up causing the embarrassment they claimed to want to prevent!

I wonder if the sheriff had a problem with the SEAL Team commander who did a couple of pornos with his wife, who had been an adult film star prior to their meeting and getting married?

Michale,

What proof do you have to support your claim that this shooting was politically motivated?

The scumbag Democrat shooter has a history of violence and belonged to several anti-GOP groups..

Oh, I think it was politically motivated. I just questioned why you would after arguing that the Orlando Pulse shooter wasn't targeting gays intentionally and it was more that he just happened to choose the gay club to carry out his terrorist attack.

great report. biden is such a straight shooter, it's amazing that he's been successful in politics in spite of it.

JL

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/15/533058002/biden-talks-trump-faith-and-fate-in-front-of-a-live-fresh-air-audience?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=freshair

Others might enjoy it as well....

i'm of the opinion that the past is the past. if george w. bush was an alcoholic, obama and clinton smoked weed, and trump cribbed his speeches from he who shall not be named, a law enforcement officer shouldn't be denied employment based on fetishy activities she engaged in legally five years prior.

JL

i have no idea what that means. MLK actually did have some connections to russia. RFK as AG signed off on an an investigation of those ties, and what they found was that MLK was cheating on his wife.

JL

The real point here is Hoover exceeding his legal rights if MLK was being investigated solely for political reasons. But the point would not be pertinent to MLK - who else were the FBI investigating for political reasons? What if Hoover was also investigating Nixon so he "had the goods" on him - would you be OK with JFK telling Hoover to stop a fishing expedition into Nixon? Or Gerald Ford, or then Governor Reagan?

Mueller isn't investigating the role of Russian influence into the 2016 election because he wanted to, he is doing it because it is the sole reason for the position he is holding.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2017/06/former_dominatrix_fights_to_keep_job_as_sheriffs_o.html

Comments???

Agreed.... Trump has the potential, there is no denying that...

depends on the constitutional basis for the request. if the president felt the investigation was racially motivated then it would be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, and therefore the president's duty to prevent. if the president tried to influence the investigation based solely on the perception of MLK as a "good guy" then there would be no constitutional basis and it probably would be obstruction.

Assume it's the latter... Assume it's a TIME QUEST type scenario...

You could support an OBSTRUCTION charge against JFK for trying to protect MLK from the evil clutches of J Edgar?? :D

depends on the constitutional basis for the request. if the president felt the investigation was racially motivated then it would be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, and therefore the president's duty to prevent. if the president tried to influence the investigation based solely on the perception of MLK as a "good guy" then there would be no constitutional basis and it probably would be obstruction.

JL

if so, it's because he has handled this shooting crisis fairly well. his reaction showed restraint, and it seemed to me like he grasped the gravity of the situation. it is a welcome change from his prior responses to terrorist activity, such as the ones in london and manchester. if donald starts to be more appropriate on a consistent basis, his numbers will likely reflect that.

JL

Supposed President John F Kennedy had ordered FBI Director J Edgar Hoover to cease the investigation of Dr Martin Luther King Jr....

Would that be Obstruction Of Justice??

We ARE actually seeing a Rally Around The President effect....

I never thought in a MILLION years that ANYTHING could bring this country together....

Maybe there IS hope for us after all...

heh :D

Just posted a condolence note, just wanted to make sure you saw it...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/12/three-court-cases-worth-noting/#comment-102901

-CW

fair 'nuff :)

JL

That's exactly why I like reading her as well...

She is not just mouthing Party platitudes, not just a Party drone.....

I disagree with her often, but I know she is giving it to me straight without ANY Party zealotry...

absolutely!

JL

And if you can TRY and give me credit when I DO post facts, that also would make things a lot easier and a lot more amiable around here...

I will endeavor to reciprocate as well..

And, just to clarify the FACTS.. :D

All I ever said is that there was some discrepancies that were logical and rational and needed to be addressed..

The idea that, because Odumbo's grandparents put a notice in the Hawaii paper, that PROVES Odumbo was born there is ludicrous...

Further I believe I was on record as saying that, even if Odumbo HAD been born in Kenya, it would not have disqualified Odumbo from being President...

Just the FACTS.....

OK, that Paglia interview was interesting. I don't agree with all her positions, but then I rarely do.

I do like reading her stuff, though, becuase she does think for herself. Agree or disagree, at least she's not just parroting someone else's thoughts.

So thanks for the link. Wish she'd return to Salon on a regular basis...

-CW

So sorry for your loss. Diesel sounds like one amazing K9. Please tell us about your adventures when you feel like reminiscing.

JL

Good.. That'll make things easier... :D

And we all remember how contientious you were about fact-checking and unsubstantiated rumors back then, right?

I'll be happy to concede that if ya'all are willing to concede that ya'all are acting the *EXACT* same way now??

:D

You game???

Ya'all ready to admit that ya'all are acting towards Trump EXACTLY was the Right acted towards Obama???

It would eliminate a LOT of future back and forth... :D

absolutely!

JL

i didn't claim my opinion was a fact, you're just trying to appeal to a hypocrisy that doesn't exist.

OK, unless I specifically STATE that my statement is a fact, will you get off my back and quit accusing me of bullshit things I am not doing???

I remember not so long ago when you were trying to convince us all that Obama probably hadn't been born in Hawai'i. Just like Donald Trump, for that matter.

And we all remember how contientious you were about fact-checking and unsubstantiated rumors back then, right?

[snerk... pause for laughter]

-CW

That was the Left Wing's story at the time....

Personally, I don't think it is because the Pizza Story was not a nation-wide movement that has been going on for 6 months...

But a case, albeit a tenuous case, COULD be made to that effect..

You see the difference between me and all the hysterical Weigantians??

I concede the possibility in a calm and rational manner.

Whereas they go batshit hysterical crazy in their denials..

THAT is what comes from being enslaved by Party ideology... I don't have ANY loyalty to the GOP so I can step back and calmly and rationally assess any accusation made against the GOP... AND the Dems...

97-2!

Can you say "veto-proof"?

Heh. Let's see what the House vote is...

-CW

not the definition of "IS" the definition of "FACT"

So, in other words, you are doing the EXACT same thing you accuse me of doing..

that's both fallacious argumentation and untrue. what does "intimated" mean? i didn't claim my opinion was a fact, you're just trying to appeal to a hypocrisy that doesn't exist.

JL

you've posted an article from "the right," quoting some web posts that are allegedly from "the left," all of which are copy-pasted with no context. "many" is a relative term. how many is "many?" that's an opinion. which of those posters actually support the terrorist's actions? unless you've surveyed them all, asking whether or not they support the terrorist, each of those is an opinion, based on limited data.

mind you, i don't necessarily disagree with your opinion in that case, but it, and most of your other claims of "the facts," are absolutely statements of opinion, not fact.

SO, we're back to debating what the definition of IS is... :^/

MANY is MANY... As in more than a few..

And MORE THAN A FEW on the Left have expressed their support of this scumbag Democrat shooter's actions..

So, my statement that MANY have expressed support for these actions is a FACTUAL statement..

You may not LIKE that it's a factual statement which is why you want to equivocate it to hell and back...

But, your like/dislike notwithstanding, it doesn't change the FACT that I made a factual statement and provided the FACTS to support the factual statement..

Like I said, if you want to play the semantical/technical game, I got nothing but time...

OK, well then, I retract my correction!

:-)

-CW

Nope. He posted a cartoon of Scalise on his Facebook page and made disparaging comments. That's it.

-CW

I do...

PAGLIA: Dem party 'nationwide orgy of rage and spite'...
In a wide-ranging interview Paglia talks about Donald Trump's successes, how Chuck Schumer emboldened the "resistance," why the left can't condemn Islamist terrorism, and "the cold biological truth that sex changes are impossible."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/camille-paglia-on-trump-democrats-transgenderism-and-islamist-terror/article/2008464

It's a great read and I would love to hear your thoughts on it..

you've posted an article from "the right," quoting some web posts that are allegedly from "the left," all of which are copy-pasted with no context. "many" is a relative term. how many is "many?" that's an opinion. which of those posters actually support the terrorist's actions? unless you've surveyed them all, asking whether or not they support the terrorist, each of those is an opinion, based on limited data.

mind you, i don't necessarily disagree with your opinion in that case, but it, and most of your other claims of "the facts," are absolutely statements of opinion, not fact.

JL

Seems like you are your own worst example.

If you mean I am acting exactly like the Left acts, then sadly I must concede that...

But the difference with the previous shootings is that they were BOOB shootings and this one was not...

Got a link to that? Haven't read any Camille Paglia since she left Salon, be interesting to see what she's up to these days...

-CW

You're just proving your own point. You are here treating the shooting as a partisan issue, mere hours after it happens. After every Righty shooting, you plead for partisanship and talk of the "mentally ill guy".

Seems like you are your own worst example.

-CW

But it's an OPINION that you intimated was a FACT...

So, in other words, you are doing the EXACT same thing you accuse me of doing..

Stating opinions and claiming they are facts..

I stuck that line in there because he reportedly had some pretty strong words against the DNC and Team Hillary (remember, he was a Bernie supporter). So who's to say whether he would have done the same thing if Debbie Wasserman Schultz had been out there? That was my only point.

Fair enough.. I withdraw my objection as I missed your point.. Apologies...

However, the scumbag Democrat shooter specifically targeted Republicans and verbally CONFIRMED that Republicans were on the field prior to opening fire..

My 25+ years of investigative experience tells me his motives were quite clear...

Thought that was pretty good, possibly the best Dubya quote I've ever seen.

That *IS* a damn good quote and I readily accept it... The problem around here is there are very VERY few who would also accept it..

We're all hoping Trump will fire Mueller. We don't really believe Trump is that monumentally stupid, but we can hope, right?

Ya'all didn't think that Trump would fire Comey... :D

And I don't think it's stoopid, I think it's brilliant..

Ya'all's problem is that ya'all are judging President Trump as if he was a run o the mill politician...

After all, it didn't work out real good for Nixon. After the SNM, his own party deserted him. Don't forget that part..

It might work out the same for Trump.. But it also might work out awesome for Trump and, by extension, awesome for this country...

Just really really bad for Democrats...

Giving an exception to the IRA is only valid if the IRA had limited itself to military or combatant targets.

To the best of my knowledge, the IRA did NOT limit themselves in such a way so their exception is not valid...

Yeah, I rather thought we'd be in agreement on this one. Seems like the subject has come up previously, and I could have sworn we were both largely on the same page on this one.

-CW

So is the entire Right and Republican Party responsible for the attack on the pizza joint in DC?

-CW

yes it's an opinion, supported with new facts every time you claim one of your opinions to be a fact, including comment 70. feel free to keep digging your hole deeper though.

JL

You heard it here first.

We're all hoping Trump will fire Mueller. We don't really believe Trump is that monumentally stupid, but we can hope, right?

After all, it didn't work out real good for Nixon. After the SNM, his own party deserted him. Don't forget that part...

-CW

I stuck that line in there because he reportedly had some pretty strong words against the DNC and Team Hillary (remember, he was a Bernie supporter). So who's to say whether he would have done the same thing if Debbie Wasserman Schultz had been out there? That was my only point.

Here's a quote for you to past on the wall next to your keyboard:

"Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" -George W Bush

Thought that was pretty good, possibly the best Dubya quote I've ever seen.

-CW

THANK YOU, CW....

I get loads of shit when I make the same claim...

Can you say "Saturday Night Massacre"?

Heh.

And, as has been aptly proven, President Trump doesn't give a shit about what the Hysterical Left will say or do...

Put another way, the Left will hysterically attack President Trump NO MATTER WHAT President Trump does..

That being a FACT (wink wink :D) why should President Trump care what the hysterical Dumbocrats or the hysterical Rethuglicans are going to do??

And THAT is an opinion, unsupported by facts...

And, as I have aptly proven in comments #68, #69 and #70 (YNMV) your assessment of my statements is faulty and based more on Party ideology then on facts and reality.. Especially comment #70 whereas I totally demolish your claim that my statement wasn't a fact, but was an opinion..

I mean, if you want to play the technical/semantical game, I am more than willing to wrestle in the mud with ya....

:D

Seems to fit those definitions to me.

But that's just my opinion. I do realize different people differ on when to use the label.

Was glad to see Stephen Colbert clearly say "this was an act of terror" in his monologue last night, though.

-CW

Mueller can be fired, but it'd be messy. Here's a story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/13/can-the-president-fire-special-counsel-robert-mueller-and-then-what/?utm_term=.5d3ddbf50cb0

and (even better) a nice flowchart to show what would have to happen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/06/13/how-trump-could-fire-the-special-counsel-if-he-were-foolish-enough-to-try/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_speccounsel-fix-1250pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl&utm_term=.089e7f759b1a

Can you say "Saturday Night Massacre"?

Heh.

-CW

And that is the BIGGEST pile of felgercarb of ALL the piles and felgercarb there are in the world...

The fact that Saint Ronnie said it notwithstanding..

There is nothing about freedom in terrorism and there is NOTHING noble about a terrorist...

NYT Uses GOP Shooting To Falsely Attack Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/nyt-uses-gop-shooting-to-falsely-attack-sarah-palin-with-debunked-conspiracy-theory/

I think you're reading too much into what I was attempting to say.

I was casting about for any way anyone could NOT call the shooter a terrorist (in order to reject it), and used guerrilla war and the IRA as an example of a different label that might have been used, only to then say why it couldn't in this case.

But I didn't address guerrilla war in any real way. So to be clear: guerrilla warriors can certainly be terrorists. The IRA were terrorists. No question.

The debate in that case is what I alluded to -- what is and what is not a valid military target. Now, as Reagan said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and all of that. But in the worst days of the Troubles, there was a serious debate over tactics.

What is and what is not a legitimate military target? This gets even trickier in the context of a war declared by a non-state group. That's one definition of guerrilla war.

But guerrilla war can be waged without terrorism. I have no perfect example to give (would have to do a lot of research), but the possibility does exist.

If a guerrilla group wages war only on government military forces on the other side, that's just war, not terrorism. When it does happen, the groups are usually called "rebels."

Problem is, absent some very favorable terrain being held by the rebels, it's usually a losing game for them (the state's forces are usually a lot bigger and better supplied).

So guerrilla groups often resort to terrorism of one sort or another. Kidnapping for profit, extortion of anyone they can threaten, stuff like that should also be counted as terrorism.

But normally, this means purposely attacking civilian populations in order to spread terror to achieve their political aims.

Such as bombing shopping areas in London during the Xmas season, for instance -- which the IRA did indeed do.

This is why the tactics debate raged. If innocent civilians are not valid targets (no one but terrorists would argue that they are), and state military forces are, what else could be?

In Northern Ireland, the police forces and Ulster militias were targeted. The British government was targeted, and at least one prominent assassination happened (by blowing up his yacht... Lord Mountbattan? I'd have to check...). There were arguments about both such tactics, but later on the IRA even realized that blowing the boat up was probably the most unproductive thing they'd ever done.

That's all I was alluding to in those first few paragraphs -- the "valid military target" debate. Was the British Prime Minister a valid target? The IRA launched a few (dud) mortars into the grounds of 10 Downing Street at one point.

I didn't really think the whole argument was necessary in this article, so I just brought it up to quickly reject it. But in no way was I suggesting that guerrilla war can't also be terrorism, or that the IRA were not terrorists. I was trying to make a point of "scale" -- one guy can't wage a guerrilla war, because one guy isn't an army, in other words.

Sorry for the confusion.

-CW

you already do, for everyone's statements but your own. and if there were not already sufficient evidence of your complete lack of understanding about what facts and opinions are, there's this little gem from last month:

In your opinion...

"No, it[sic] YOUR opinion that it's fact.."

Please the Court, while we reserve the right to call rebuttal witnesses if the need arises, the Government rests.
~jack ross

JL

So, you might want to be careful where you cast NO-FACTS stones...

Because it's clear that ya'all are living in a fact-less glass house...

Ya'all's hysterical joy of Mueller investigating Trump for obstruction is a PERFECT example of ya'all claiming bullshit as "FACT"....

Wish I could claim it, but don't think I can.

Or were you just makin' chit chat??? :D

Nope, this is a statement of fact..

Many on the Left *DO* support these kinds of activities and I have posted the FACTS that prove it's a fact..

So, out of the three complaints you made, you have a statement that is 50% fact and 50% fact-based opinion, you have a statement that is NOT an opinion, but rather a conclusion and it's a fact based conclusion.. And you have a final statement that you claim is an opinion when in FACT, it's a bona fide and provable (AND PROVEN) fact.....

So, I would say yer battin' a little on the low side, slugger... :D

if it feels like you're the only one commenting, perhaps it's because your comments are too offensive to merit a response.

Stated perfectly. Thank you.

It's a conclusion, not an opinion or a fact...

And it's a logical and rational conclusion based on the FACTS, therefore it's a fact-based conclusion...

And, since you haven't offered ANY OTHER FACTS to counter my fact-based conclusion, then it stands...

I get it.. It's much easier to attack the messenger than to refute the fact-based conclusions and fact-based opinions...

1. "scumbag democrat" - calling someone a scumbag is an opinion, not a fact.

Actually, it's a FACT that the scumbag shooter was a Democrat...

You see how biased you are?? You don't even give me any credit for the FACT... You have two words, one is fact and one is fact-based...

Yet, you don't give ANY credit for the FACT part of my statement which is 50% of the statement..

You see what I am up against.. Ideologically based bias....

3. "many on the Left support and encourage such things..." - whether statements constitute support and encouragement are opinions, not facts.

OK, if THAT is the criteria ya want to use, I'll apply that to ya'all's statements and we'll see how many of ya'all's statements are "fact"..

Deal?? :D

. also, paula generally posts only once or twice consecutively, while your norm is more in the twelve to fifteen range.

Ahhhh So being a Party bigot is perfectly acceptable if it's in moderation...

Gotcha {wink, wink} :D

But, once again, everything is about...

It's a good thing I give ya so much fodder... Else you would actually have to address the FACTS!!! :D

there's no need to spin, you claim your opinions to be facts on a regular basis, including at least three times in this column:

1. "scumbag democrat" - calling someone a scumbag is an opinion, not a fact.

2. "This incident is simply a natural progression" - that's an inference, which is a kind of opinion, not a kind of fact.

3. "many on the Left support and encourage such things..." - whether statements constitute support and encouragement are opinions, not facts.

and that's just TODAY.

You let Paula get away with so much bullshit and bigotry and call me on practically every point I make..

again, you're misinterpreting silence as assent, or letting someone "get away with" whatever BS they happen to post. if i respond to something, it means i think there may be some value in doing so. if i don't respond to something, it means i don't see the value in doing so. also, paula generally posts only once or twice consecutively, while your norm is more in the twelve to fifteen range.

JL

Palin was criticized because, prior to the shooting, she'd posted a map of 'targeted' congressmen, including Giffords, using 'crosshairs' (like gun sights) to indicate their districts. She reacted to this criticism by posting on Twitter: "'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!'", which, I guess was her way of calming everything down.

Yes, Palin was criticized in the IMMEDIATE aftermath of the Giffords shooting. NO ONE on the Left waited for any sort of FACTS to start pointing fingers at the Right...

And NOW you get all indignant when a Democrat scumbag terrorist who is a Bernie volunteer guns down Republicans and people on the Right and in the middle point out, "Hmmmmm Maybe the Left Wing should tone down some of it's hateful and violent rhetoric, eh??"

Talk about ducking responsibility... :^/

the stupidest explanation is usually the right one.

JL

more like there's not enough rational basis for the claim to be even considered.

If thats how ya want to spin it.. :D

your oft-repeated claim that your opinions are "the facts" doesn't leave any room for rational discussion, so people give up trying to engage.

Again, you spin my facts as opinions... My facts are my facts and my opinions are my opinions and nay the two shall meet.. :D

your offensive posts are more likely to be noticed because there are much more of them. what you perceive as hypocrisy is really just a question of volume.

Again, however you want to justify the unjustifiable...

You let Paula get away with so much bullshit and bigotry and call me on practically every point I make..

It's hard to take things seriously when it's so blatantly Party biased...

But I still like ya, so that's something.. :D

I completely agree with the possibility that Trump may have committed no crime. That said, if you are the prosecutor tasked with looking for criminal behavior, then business records are great place to start. Especially when investigating a guy tied to about a bizillion different businesses. Records are a reliable horse, and I think in the correct position relative to the cart.

Trump's razor? Don't recall that one myself, but my memory is less than perfect.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/14/senate-overwhelmingly-votes-to-impose-new-sanctions-on-russia-over-election-meddling.html

more like there's not enough rational basis for the claim to be even considered. your oft-repeated claim that your opinions are "the facts" doesn't leave any room for rational discussion, so people give up trying to engage. consider it a testament to your winning personality that some of us are still willing to discuss a few of your less outlandish arguments.

JL

your offensive posts are more likely to be noticed because there are much more of them. what you perceive as hypocrisy is really just a question of volume.

JL

to me, it's fully possible that none of donald's missteps were illegal.

And, once again, credit where credit is due....

:D

perhaps, but you're the only offensive commenter to assert that because we don't feel like engaging in your BS the rest of us must therefore agree with you.

You misunderstand me completely and unequivocally..

I am not saying that you agree with me when ya'all retreat to ya'all's safe spaces..

I know that ya'all would rather chew on broken glass immersed in 90% pure rubbing alcohol rather than agree with me... :D

I am saying that, when ya'all cede the thread to me, it's because ya'all have no logical or rational counter-argument with in which to dispute my claims..

Hence the oft-visited "debate" regarding my posting style... :D

The simple fact is that the hateful and hurtful and violent rhetoric that has been coming from the Left is directly linked to the scumbag Democrat terrorist that gunned down Republicans...

Now, if you would like to debate THAT, rather than my posting style....

"I am all ears"
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

Having said that, I'll be off the grid for an hour or so to reinstall my windows here at work.. :(

So don't think that lack of response is indicative of lack of desire :D

Why not just avoid making unsubstantiated claims. That way you won't have to go around apologizing or retracting

Seriously!!!????

The entire discussion about Trump from ya'all is based on unsubstantiated claims..

No one seems to have a problem with unsubstantiated claims then!!

But THAT is exactly my point..

JL points out my "offensive" comments, but more often than not (credit where credit is due, he has been known to, on RARE occasions, to take someone else to task for offensive comments) gives a pass to ideologically acceptable comments that are offensive..

You slap me :D about unsubstantiated claims yet are completely silent when entire debates are based on NOTHING but unsubstantiated claims...

Is a little consistency too much to ask????

i think you're putting the cart before the horse on this investigation. mueller is investigating thoroughly, as one would expect someone with his credentials to do. to me, it's fully possible that none of donald's missteps were illegal. wasn't it you who first referred us to trump's razor?

JL

Why not just avoid making unsubstantiated claims. That way you won't have to go around apologizing or retracting ...

Another thing. There is no 5th Amendment when it comes to documents.

"Based on the people Mueller has hired, my best guess is that he is looking for a motive in the debt structure of 45's businesses."

Tried and true. Worked on Al Capone....and Al never Twittered.

perhaps, but you're the only offensive commenter to assert that because we don't feel like engaging in your BS the rest of us must therefore agree with you.

JL

he was no upstanding citizen, he'd been arrested multiple times for DUI and other sundry offenses that had nothing to do with his political affiliation. forget the rest of the gun control debate, how about we just don't let CRIMINALS have guns?

JL

silence gives assent? not in this lifetime.

I would acknowledge that if it were applied fairly and impartially..

But it only seems to be applied ideologically..

if it feels like you're the only one commenting, perhaps it's because your comments are too offensive to merit a response.

Oh puulleeeeezzee.. When it comes to "offensive" comments, I am FAR from the only guilty party in that regard..

Now, if you are claiming that my "offensive" comments are practically the only ones that are targeted, then yes.. You are dead on ballz accurate in that assessment.....

suggesting a response via policy positions on gun control is not even in the same universe as claiming that

Of course, in YOUR opinion, it isn't..

And THAT is because you agree with the whole gun control premise and reject the idea that Democrats can be hateful and hurtful and violent and intolerant...

I have ample man-boobs, so a medal would be nice.. :D

Seriously, though..

How about a simple, "That's a very good point, Michale.. Kudos..."

"it's because your comments are too offensive to merit a response."

Exactly.

Sophistry is not discussion. The best response is nothing. Cut off the oxygen and let him ferment in his little Mason Jar.

it's always tough when a family member passes, whether that member is of the two or four-legged variety. sorry for your loss.

JL

The scumbag Democrat shooter has a history of violence and belonged to several anti-GOP groups..

And that, in ya'all's eyes, would be MORE than enough evidence to convict any Right Winger....

I'll post it when I find it..

They are quite valid for assessing the law here in the United States.... But they are not valid because they are subjective... They rely on the definition of unlawful which is a subjective definition..

What proof do you have to support your claim that this shooting was politically motivated?

Yer kidding, right??

The Democrat scumbag shooter asked if it were Democrats or Republicans on the field immediately before the shots rang out..

The scumbag Democrat shooter has a history of violence and belonged to several anti-GOP groups..

Did you ask these kinds of questions in the immediate aftermath of the Dylan Roof shooting??

No you did not..

Why??

Because it was a Right wing shooter and you didn't care about anything THEN but assigning blame against the entirety of the Right Wing..

You said it a terrorist attack against the U.S. by an Islamic extremist that just happened to occur at a gay club.

And I, as is per the norm in these cases, was dead on ballz accurate...

So please, share with me how you know that this wasn't just another terrorist attack against the U.S. that just happened to occur at a ball field the GOP was practicing at?

Because of the afore mentioned FACTS in the previous commentary....

Indeed.

silence gives assent? not in this lifetime.

suggesting a response via policy positions on gun control is not even in the same universe as claiming that "A member of the Democrat Party, with the full encouragement of the Left Wingery, has committed an act of terrorism against the United States..."

if it feels like you're the only one commenting, perhaps it's because your comments are too offensive to merit a response.

JL

This Democrat scumbag shooters attack fully qualifies for the label of Terrorism...

"My" definitions come from the government. They are quite valid.
What proof do you have to support your claim that this shooting was politically motivated?

I know that seems like an odd question, unless you remember that It was about one year ago that you told me that I was wrong to claim that the Orlando shooting was an act of self-loathing, homophobic violence despite multiple witnesses claiming to have seen the shooter at the club multiple times in the past and reports of his father's disdain for gays.

You said it a terrorist attack against the U.S. by an Islamic extremist that just happened to occur at a gay club.

So please, share with me how you know that this wasn't just another terrorist attack against the U.S. that just happened to occur at a ball field the GOP was practicing at?

Self-defense is not threatening language...

Calling everyone else out for turning a tragedy into a partisan blame game while doing it yourself; my God that is just so pathetic!

No, what is pathetic is that ya'all try to duck the responsibility of turning every shooting/tragedy such as this into a partisan blame game..

The *ONLY* time ya'all DON'T want to play the blame game is when it's the Democrat Party and you Lefties who are to blame..

THAT is pathetic...

It was your own Odumbo who stated that Democrats MUST politicize these tragedies...

So, look in the mirror if you want to see who is guilty of politicizing these tragedies...