Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) chat & forums.

Show ALL Forums

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Author

Thread: Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please)

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5767 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/23/2013 12:41:39 PM
I care because the brief time you right wing nuts DID have a say you damn near destroyed us . . . It was YOUR arrogant, dramatic right wing policy to blame . . . You arrogant %$(&^/. Yes, with a capital % . . . I don't think directing offensive personal comments like those at other posters here is within the forum rules. Even so, I hope you keep doing it, just as you have been all along. Nothing could make it more clear that you make personal attacks your habitual crutch, because you don't trust your facts and reasoning enough to rely just on them and debate the issues. You have good reason not to, considering claims like the one you made recently that the President of the U.S.--vested by the Constitution with all "the executive Power"--has virtually no control over a bureau in the Executive Branch of the government.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5761 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/22/2013 5:24:46 PM
At least one congressman has said he thinks our Lois has waived the Fifth Amendment privilege by making a statement and should be called back for further questioning. I doubt she waived it by doing that, but they should let her keep still anyway. The appearance of having something to hide only makes the whole thing stink all the more, and coming at the same time as the Benghazi coverup, it's likely to make a lot of people wonder if this whole administration isn't up to quite a few things it's trying to hide. Ms. Lerner is just one of thousands of federal bureaucrats, taking her cues from the thuggish, lawless tone that Milhous has set from the beginning. Acting like he can't know what's going on in the Executive Branch--the "Gosh, I'm only the president" routine--will only work for a while. Provided, that is, that the average American is not as ignorant, dim, and gullible as the average leftist on these forums. If so, this country is done for.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5752 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/22/2013 11:44:42 AM
I see Lois Lerner is taking the Fifth today, just like disloyal communists in the U.S. government used to do when Sen. Joe McCarthy's committees questioned them about their subversive activities. It's a classic sign of guilt, but if she chooses to clam up, fine. I'm sure there is other evidence besides any admissions she might make that could be used against her. A lot of others were involved, and it seems likely one or more of them will have a lot to say about the wrongdoing the IRS was involved in. Whether there are grounds for criminal prosecution, time will tell, but it wouldn't surprise me--this seems like conspiracy, which is a serious crime. There's no question there is enough evidence for other suits. We have federal civil rights laws, and they don't allow government officials to deprive citizens of their First Amendment freedom of association.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1669 (view)

How Bad is it for Republicans? Posted: 5/22/2013 10:31:44 AM
#1667 Yes, many see Citizens United as one such unsupported interpretation of the constitution The so-called liberals who say that have never read word one of Citizens United--all they "know" about it is the propaganda put out by leftist organizations like MSNBC or the Daily Kos. Most leftists are too dim to understand the reasoning anyway, and the only freedom of speech they like is their own. the only penalties are the normal penalties for not paying federal taxes. Most of us know that people may be criminally prosecuted for not paying their federal taxes. #1659 Article V of the Constitution explains the procedure for amending it. How wanting to use the Constitution's own amendment procedure to is being hostile to the Constitution, only you know. Your cut-and-paste of someone else's thinking has the usual intellectual depth. Judging by the link title, it's in the form of a slide show, which is no surprise--simplicity for the simple. 1. It's your author's claim about this that has real "huh" quality. Even though I think it's very unlikely it will ever happen, I also would like to see the 17th Amendment repealed. It has diminished the power of states relative to the United States, making this more a national government and less a federal one. That weakens the federalist structure that is one of the basic checks on abuse of central power designed into the Constitution. 2. Truly laughable. I have never heard even one conservative call for repealing even a single clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, let alone the whole thing. What many have said, including me, is that the Citizenship Clause of that amendment should not be construed to grant the children of illegal aliens citizenship for no reason other than that they were born in the U.S. The Supreme Court interpreted the Citizenship Clause correctly in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 but got it wrong in Wong Kim Ark fourteen years later. It was that decision that opened the way to birth citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, something that continues to do enormous damage to the U.S. That's probably why leftist America-haters (not to be redundant) like it. 3. What part of the Constitution, I wonder, authorizes the federal government to buy private corporations? I also oppose centralized government economic control. That directly undermines our personal liberties, and it belongs in the old USSR, Communist China, or some other totalitarian regime, not the United States. 4. I'm not familiar with this proposal, but I think the concept of government-raised children belongs in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR. 5. I happen to oppose most term limits, but there's nothing at all radical or unusual about supporting them. Whether a term-limits measure is valid or well-advised has nothing to do with the person proposing it, despite what your author implies. 6. I don't oppose desecration of the U.S. flag enough to think it warrants a constitutional amendment, but I'm sure there are millions of intelligent, reasonable people who do. As for using the U.S. flag in clothes, furniture, etc., that's something best left to foreigners who envy and resent this country. It would give them a nice change from their usual routine of spreading anti-American propaganda. 7. I don't accept your author's premise that those tax cuts were "fiscally disastrous," and I also favor amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget. 8. Anyone who understands Roe v. Wade, as I doubt your author does, knows that the people who were really guilty of rewriting the Constitution were the five justices in the majority. Roe is such a notorious turkey that even the Court has backed well away from it. It overruled large parts of it in Casey in 1992, and although it proclaimed abortion as a fundamental right in Roe, it--significantly--no longer treats it as one. That's why some states have been tightening their restrictions on abortion. 9. I think it's ludicrous to suggest that anything in the Constitution prohibits a state from excluding same-sex couples from its marriage laws, but I'm not sure that five or more Supreme Court justices will call it that way. 10. Your author seems especially confused here. Requiring a supermajority vote for tax increases is just the sort of measure it would be natural for people who favor fiscal responsibility to favor. Limiting federal tax revenues would tend to limit the growth federal government, which conservatives want to do. The federal government we have now is operating mostly outside the Constitution. 11. I think the famous economist Milton Friedman first proposed doing this. I don't know offhand what the exact number should be, but I think an amendment to cap federal spending at some percentage of the GDP is an excellent idea. And long overdue. 12. Michele Bachmann is too pretty for me to disagree with her. She is also an extremely bright lawyer with a good understanding of both fiscal and foreign policy issues--far better than President Milhous's.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1665 (view)

How Bad is it for Republicans? Posted: 5/22/2013 2:18:17 AM
#1662 You mean there are special penalties for not paying the taxes on failure to purchase mandated coverage? I don't have either the time or the inclination to try to educate you. One friend told me he thought it was common knowledge that the Obamacare law provides for criminal penalties for those who neither buy the mandated medical insurance nor pay the tax in lieu. In fact he was surprised that someone wouldn't know it. But no amount of ignorance or dimness among leftists can surprise me. #1663 <div class="quote">the reason that the power to amend was written in, was because the founders KNEW things would likely need to be changed. I wrote in #1659 that "It was exactly because the men who wrote it knew the world would keep changing that they devoted Article V of the Constitution to the process of amending it." I don't know what you are disputing. <div class="quote">Because everyone "re-interprets" it. No, everyone does not re-interpret it. So-called liberals constantly try to do that, because they don't much care for either the Constitution or the form of government it creates. Luckily their opinions about the Constitution usually don't matter much--except when they are Supreme Court justices. Some of those justices have harmed this country a great deal. I don't think any of them has authority to treat the Constitution as a "living, breathing" document, re-interpreting it to suit changing times. That is what the amendment process is for. <div class="quote">Yes, there are lots of early re-interpretations someone can point to, (such as the Federalist Papers) I have no idea what you're talking about. Madison and Hamilton and Jay used a series of letters to the editor of a New York newspaper to explain to Americans, who naturally had questions and doubts about the new Constitution, what each part of it was meant to do, and why. None of them was using those letters, which became known as the Federalist Papers, to re-interpret the Constitution to anyone. <div class="quote">And the world has changed. Yes, you said that before, repeating what I had said. That obvious fact is not a valid reason for changing the meaning of the Constitution, any more than the fact circumstances have changed since two parties signed a contract is a valid reason for one of them to start interpreting its terms in a way that's more to his liking. <div class="quote">Further, the Supreme Court, as a part of the idea of checks and balances, DOES have the ability to re-interpret the Constitution. It's their primary job. Whether the Supreme Court is always the final interpreter of what the Constitution means is debatable, but say for now that it is. When you say "re-interpret" rather than just "interpret," though, I assume you mean "interpret according to the justices' personal opinions." But who made that their primary job? You, just by claiming it? What evidence is there, if any, that the authors of the Constitution, in creating the Supreme Court, meant it to "re-interpret" anything in the Constitution for any reason, let alone to check or balance the other two branches of government? <div class="quote">Not to mention, that every time someone who claims to believe that, quotes the Constitution and tries to apply it to something happening now, they are simultaneously saying that they are themselves, Un-American, and "hostile to the Constitution." I'm not sure if that's specious nonsense, but it's a fair approximation. What does the "that" in your "claims to believe that" refer to? The justices of the Supreme Court are constantly quoting the Constitution and trying to apply it to things happening now. Are you saying that makes them un-American and hostile to the Constitution? And if not, what on earth are you trying to say? Making unreasonable, insupportable interpretations of the Constitution to suit personal preferences, rather than to carry out the intent of the people who wrote it and the voters who approved it, is hostile to that Constitution. It is a dishonest, shortcut way of amending it through the back door when you don't have the votes to amend it legitimately, and it has become common during the past seventy or eighty years. The soi-disant liberals who support this corner-cutting want to deny it, but they are supporting the illegitimate exercise of government power. In a word, that is tyranny, and to support it is fundamentally un-American. What could be more illiberal than subverting our Constitution that way, undermining the foundation of all our personal liberties? As this process of re-writing the Constitution to make it say whatever this or that group wants goes on, it becomes less and less firmly anchored to its origins. And as it drifts away from them, it comes to mean not much more than whatever mob is shouting loudest at the time says it means. That is a very good way for a free people to lose their freedoms.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1659 (view)

How Bad is it for Republicans? Posted: 5/21/2013 11:42:13 AM
I will say it again. Under the Obamacare law, the IRS has authority to refer a person who refuses to pay the tax in lieu of buying the mandated medical insurance to the Justice Dept. for criminal prosecution. The IRS itself has acknowledged that. If anyone here wants to dispute the point, instead of just trying to laugh it off, I will dig up the letter from the IRS that proves what I said. #1653 Thing have change a bit since 1776 The Constitution of the U.S. was written in 1787, and you are only restating the obvious. It was exactly because the men who wrote it knew the world would keep changing that they devoted Article V of the Constitution to the process of amending it. They would not have bothered, if they'd meant for whatever temporary majority might arise from time to time to make the Constitution mean whatever it pleased. The fact things have changed a great deal since the U.S. was founded is an tired excuse for ignoring the Constitution rather than trying to amend it, correctly, that leftists have used forever. The notion that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document that has to be re-interpreted to suit changing times is no more convincing now than it ever has been. It can't hide the fact people who take that line are hostile to the Constitution, and anyone in the U.S. who is hostile to the Constitution of the U.S. is fundamentally un-American.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5730 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/21/2013 11:14:21 AM
Apparently it's been some time since Civics was a regular course in American high schools. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau within the Treasury Department. Like all federal administrative agencies, it is part of the Executive Branch. If that branch "has virtually no power or control of the IRS," then nothing does. If that is the case, then everything the IRS does is an arbitrary--and therefore illegal--exercise of authority. That is the absurd result that feeble attempt to cover this lying president's rear leads to, and it won't wash. Mr. Obama is the Chief Executive, and the ultimate responsibility for every part of the Executive Branch, including the IRS, the Justice Department, and the State Department, is his.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5724 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/20/2013 5:25:39 PM
#5718 Below is a little light reading about the real cancer in the USA......... Unfortunately for Americans, he resides at 1600 Pennsylvannia Ave. All that about Frank Davis is accurate, including his CPUSA membership number. I've read excerpts from some of his columns in that red rag the Chicago Star, and they're good for a laugh. They could have been written by some of the fellow travelers on this site, who loathe America just like Davis did--and just like Milhous does. With any luck we would have impeached Milhous by now, although as Rep. Chaffetz noted, that is still a possibility. Now it comes out that President Pinocchio's enemies list included Fox News reporters James Rosen and William LaJeunesse and producer Mike Levine. The FBI was spying on their phone calls and e-mails and tracking their movements. That is an open, obvious attack on the freedom of the press, just as the intrusive search of AP reporters' files was. And the shocking abuse of power the IRS has admitted to was just as open and obvious an attack on another First Amendment freedom, the freedom of association. Like the administration's lying about Benghazi, the IRS misconduct was also an outrageously improper--and almost certainly illegal--attempt to influence a presidential election. The so-called liberals on this site don't like seeing their Golden Boy called to account. They can't defend the indefensible any better than that paid liar Jay Carney can, so they turn sulky and pout when anyone dares question how magnificent this president is. They get so used to mouthing their MSNBC-Daily Kos propaganda to other equally dim plodders that they never get tested, so the first time they get hit hard they panic and get angry. A couple of these little darlings on other forums like to shriek angrily and run to teacher, pointing at the bad man who made them feel all icky and demanding he be punished. Others, whenever facts and logic fail them and they can't debate the issue--as regularly happens--start impugning the integrity of conservatives instead. Attacking them as liars and hurling personal insults and obscenities at them is standard procedure for leftist drones, and it shows what weak sisters they are. They want to be free to say whatever they please while howling down what anyone they don't like says. It doesn't work that way.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5716 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/20/2013 9:56:24 AM
Do you have any evidence that indeed there was yellow cake? A number of countries produce yellowcake. It's just roughly processed uranium ore, and it's well known that Niger and several other African countries have uranium mines. The evidence President Bush relied on was a report by British intelligence that Iraq had sent agents to Niger and other African countries to try to buy that ore. I guess only someone who actually witnessed an Iraqi buyer discussing a purchase of yellowcake with officials of Niger could be absolutely certain, but presidents almost never have the luxury of having intelligence that certain to go on. So, you're literally sitting here beating up on someone who told the inconvenient truth that you don't like. How do you know what Joe Wilson reported was the truth? I understand he spent a week or so hanging out by the swimming pool of his hotel in the capital and never even met with the government official in charge of Niger's mining. You're the only one on the planet who says Plame was a desk jockey, besides your hero Doushe Limbaugh. I seldom listen to Rush and have never heard him say anything about that. Plame had been a field agent of sorts at one time, but she'd been working at a desk job in Washington for years. The legal analysts I heard at the time, who knew the cases involving the federal statute that protects covert operatives, thought that statute did not even come close to applying to someone in Plame's position. You're lying to yourself becasue you don't like the truth. If I felt the need to be as uncivil as you are being here, I could say just the same about you. You claim to know the truth about the Niger yellowcake affair, but I doubt you know more about it than I do. I don't care if Alan "kill all the Muslims" Derschowitz agrees with you that waterboarding isn't torture. I don't know what he thinks about that question. I was talking about his opinion that torture of whatever type would not violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process if ordered under circumstances like the ones in this case. I know torture when I see it. That's nice, but whether an act constitutes torture under U.S. law does not depend on your personal opinion about what torture is. And aside from the law, no reasonable person who knows the details of the technique that was used could think it was anything like the gruesome tortures that have taken place around the world all through history. Maybe I'll dig up the official documents that describe the enhanced interrogation techniques in detail, just to show everyone here how false the leftist, anti-American propaganda about "waterboarding" has been. The overwhelming majority of the world klnows it"s torture. The overwhelming majority of the world doesn't get a say in the national security of the U.S., so I don't give a damn what this or that foreigner thinks. You can defend war criminals all you want, but it doesn't help your integrity. The three men the CIA waterboarded were war criminals of the worst kind--and you are the one defending them. For you to do that while accusing people on our side of being war criminals doesn't help your integrity. It's almost certain those interrogations saved thousands of innocent lives. Apparently you would just have let them die.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5714 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/19/2013 2:57:40 PM
Bush is on record trying to discredit the authority of FISA as a means to justify all the phone tapping his administration did. I agree with him. The FISA was a joke that would have tied the president's hands in wartime. The Constitution never intended to let Congress do that, and Mr. Bush was right to ignore it. We'll put the racists on trial. Being a racist is not a crime. If it were, millions of white so-called liberals would have reason to worry. You are the only one on the planet who thinks waterboarding is not torture. If only hyperbole could make falsehoods facts, you'd have something. Many legal scholars don't believe the water technique used on three Muslim jihadist murderers a decade ago was torture under applicable laws. I have studied the question in a lot of detail, and I agree with them. Not only was what was done not torture--it didn't even come close to being torture. Professor Dershowitz has gone even further, saying he doesn't believe the Fifth Amendment or anything else in the Constitution prohibits torture when our national security is at stake. I agree with him, and I agree with the old observation by a Supreme Court justice that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. What those yellow lice got was very merciful. I would have done a hell of a lot worse than that, if necessary to make them tell what they knew--and it turned out to be a lot--about who they were conspiring with and what other plots were in the works. Anyone who could not bring himself to make a few Muslim jihadist war criminals uncomfortable should explain how moral it is to condemn thousands more innocent civilians to death instead. I did mention a topic in which you consistantly distort the facts. Your account of the Valerie Plame scandal is elementary at best . . . You literally defend the outing of a CIA spy. You attempt, with no success, to justify treason by attacking the victim. You brought up a topic it's clear you know very little about, and now you try to claim sole possession of the facts about it and say I'm poorly informed. Easy enough to shout that I'm wrong; not so easy to make an argument to refute what I said and support it with facts. I couldn't care less that Richard Armitage told Robert Novak who that conniving desk jockey Valerie Plame was. It didn't even come close to violating the federal statute about revealing the identity of intelligence agents. What puts lie to her insincere claim that exposed her to danger is that she and her husband agreed to be photographed for the cover of Vanity Fair, for all to see. Your blather about treason is just silly. No one involved even came close to committing treason, which is a crime defined in the Constitution itself. But I repeat--if anyone in the affair had a treasonous spirit, it was Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. Anyone with personal integrity who disagreed that strongly with the foreign policy of the president they were serving would have resigned rather than be part of it. Instead, that disloyal and dishonorable pair connived to stab Mr. Bush in the back. Shame on them, and shame on anyone who tries to defend what they did. Of course, your bubble is impenetrable when you don't like what you read. If you mean I'm not persuaded by silly, overheated rants that are based on popular myths rather than facts, you're right. If you want to make persuasive arguments, then know--really know--the facts on the subjects you choose to argue about. And the kind of slop the Daily Kos, Michael Moore films, MSNBC, and other dopey sources of leftist propaganda specialize in is only good for convincing chumps. I gave you the source when I told you what Robert Gates said. Yes--I had already read it. Mr. Gates is one of many bureaucrats who have been Secretary of Defense. Nothing makes any of them a military expert, nor have I ever claimed to be one. But I have also read comments by more than one person who is far more a military expert than Gates, and they all dismissed his comments as lame excuses for not even trying. It wasn't just that resources weren't available. Gates gave that away when he said he wouldn't have sent even a single aircraft over Benghazi anyway,because the fact there were unaccounted-for shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles in Libya made it too dangerous. Hardly the "damn the torpedos, full steam ahead" spirit. As I said, if Gates had been in charge at Pearl Harbor that Sunday morning, he would have been telling our troops to sit and wait until the commanders could get all the facts and make a considered decision, and chewing out the men who dared to fight back for taking such unnecessary risks. The fact remains that there was not even minimal security in place in Benghazi, a notorious hotbed of jihadism, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, in a country that was known to be unstable, after there had been other attacks in the city and months after the diplomats there had made clear their situation was dangerous and had asked for more security. And when it blew up, neither Obama nor anyone in his administration even tried to help. He gave a vague instruction at 5 PM and disappeared, and everyone else, including his equally insincere and devious Secretary of State, took their cues from him. They let those men die to cover his rear, and they have been lying to cover it up.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1641 (view)

How Bad is it for Republicans? Posted: 5/19/2013 11:19:06 AM
#1617 They are no longer allowed to fail because of the harm they do on the way down. How does capatilisim address this naturally? Without government interference, corporations that are not competitive just cease to exist. I don't claim to be an expert on bankruptcy laws, but I understand they allow large corporations to restructure rather than go out of business. #1618 The best way to have growth and innovation would be to remove pattens or have them last no longer than 5 years. What do you have against "pattens"? #1622 letting a private industry whose sole interest is their personal profit, decide what is or isn't in my best interests. The main interest of people in any private corporation is their personal profit, as is natural. People don't risk their earnings in hopes of taking a loss on the venture. Anyone who consents to medical treatment is authorizing the people who provide it to decide what is or isn't in his best interests. If a person doesn't want doctors to decide that, he's free not to use them. Unless someone can find a way to make medical profits RISE as patients get and stay healthy, doing it the way we do is going to continue to cripple our nation. It's odd that the straightforward way of paying for medical services that was common as late as the 1960's doesn't seem to have crippled our nation. You seem to be suggesting that insurers profit most when the people they insure are most unhealthy. If you are, you don't explain how that works. #1624 fvcking lawyers and their frivolous and outlandish lawsuits have driven the cost of medical malpractice insurance thru the roof....FL's (fvckin lawyers) fvcked up healthcare Thank you for once again displaying the intelligent, reasoned analysis we've come to expect from you. It's a shame the jurors in those medical malpractice cases are not all as intelligent and reasonable as you. #1625 The REST of the world does NOT agree..... I lose very little sleep worrying about what dopes around the world think about anything. They don't get a say in what Americans do. #1627 You do NOT understand what communism or capitalism is... If you do, you are doing a good job of keeping it a secret. The ability of people to PICK their government is what democracy is all about. Not really. Totalitarian countries also have often had elections--the National Socialists, for example, were elected to power in Germany. In any case, the United States is not a true democracy, but a democratic republic. THAT STATEMENT IS UN-AMERIAN .... Well, if you think so, it's worth repeating. The men who founded this country made it the very opposite of what leftists would like. The Constitution of the U.S. creates a government of strictly limited and enumerated powers, with all other powers reserved to the states and the people. That is anathema to leftists, who have a taste for totalitarianism, and so they disrespect the fact the Constitution is the highest law in the U.S. They view it instead as an obstacle to their dreams of a socialist utopia and are constantly trying to get around it. That has always made them hostile to our system of government and fundamentally un-American. #1639 Now just you go ahead and prove this lie! You may want to be more careful with that word, especially when you follow it with an exclamation point. Coming from someone who is so fastidious about reasoned, intelligent debate--and who so often has tried to enforce that standard on other posters--it seems a little uncivil. What the poster said is fact, and the IRS itself has confirmed it. Anyone who chose not to pay the fine in lieu of buying medical insurance would be subject to criminal prosecution.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5711 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/18/2013 7:26:22 PM
Quite frankly, I don't care that Teabaggers got extra scrutiny when applying for tax-exempt status. You may want to think that through a little more. A country that tolerates that kind of abuse of government power won't be free for long. I have no time for that crap, no matter who does it or what their political views are. The people responsible should be criminally prosecuted and sent to federal prison for a long stretch. The phone tappings were completely legal and were done as a matter of national security. Evidently there are a few of you who buy that transparently ridiculous excuse. You are really reaching for it to try to cover your Golden Boy's rear end, and it's a sign of how desperate his defenders must be. I didn't defend Nixon over Watergate, and neither did most people who had voted for him. But this man's supporters don't care what he does, as long as he can get away with it. You distort the facts to discredit the source rather than discrediting the information. It's easy to claim that I've distorted facts. It's also meaningless, without specifics. Specify which facts you're claiming I distorted and what the distortion was, and I will show that you're just throwing around charges you can't back up. Otherwise, I'll assume you are trying to discredit me because you're afraid to debate the issues. I notice you weren't able to cite the authority for your claim--maybe you got it out of a comic book.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 65 (view)

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State Posted: 5/18/2013 12:46:44 PM
Nothing in those e-mails makes clear who decided to cook up the story that the Youtube video caused the attack. What's clear is that it was a fabrication designed to conceal the real cause. An intercept of a conversation between jihadists affiliated with Al Qaeda soon after the attack in Benghazi showed one who had taken part in it saying he had seen the video earlier on the 11th. Nothing even suggested that viewing it was the cause of the attack--and yet that was made into the official lie peddled for many days afterward by Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Rice, and other senior officials. The calculated deception this administration continues to engage in about this outrage is very much like the antics of the Nixon administration about the Watergate break-in. I'm waiting for the cartoons to appear showing Obama with a long nose, a baleful, sideways glare, jowls, and a five-o'-clock shadow, hunching his shoulders and assuring the nation that "I am not a crook." But now, as then, many people have such an investment in the president they elected that they don't give a damn that he and his appointees are lying through their teeth. This time the liars are trying to cover up four murders, but their sycophants--most of them none too honest themselves, I'm sure--can't be bothered with minor details like that. Like their heroine Mrs. Clinton, they just dismiss all the criminal negligence and flagrant lies by those who hold the public trust--"What difference, at this point, does it make!!??"

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 1616 (view)

How Bad is it for Republicans? Posted: 5/18/2013 11:05:58 AM
Unfortunately corporations have taken over innovation Not sure what you mean by this. There's nothing to stop an individual person from inventing and patenting a thing. If only corporations have the resources to come up with the invention, then let them do it. The entire concept of healthcare breaks the rules of capitalisim and the allocation of scarce resources as a means of value. Not sure what this means either. "Capitalism" is not an entity that makes rules. Economic laws apply to the market in medical goods and services just like they do to other markets. And the medical care market, like any other, can be distorted by government intervention. When that happens, the result is inefficiency--consumers pay more and get less than they otherwise would. Insurance companies are evil entities started for profit based on having as many healthy people as possible. They make access difficult for the sick on purpose. I don't know if you're kidding, but the whole purpose of any corporation is to make a profit for the people who have invested in it. Providing insurance, for anything, depends on making accurate estimates of the probability specified things will happen. The ability to do that lowers the cost of doing business for everyone involved, which is the reason insurance originally developed. I say, you are incredibly mistaken in this perception. I'm with you there. Private property rights are as fundamental to capitalism as they are alien to communism. When people start calling for the U.S. to take one person's earnings and give them to someone else, they are calling for something that's right out of the old Soviet Union. That's what makes leftists fundamentally un-American. They dislike the very system of strictly limited central government that's designed into the Constitution of the U.S. and favor more central control of our economy. And the inevitable result is that we gradually lose the personal liberties that constitution was meant to protect from government.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 466 (view)

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists Posted: 5/16/2013 9:42:17 PM
#463 <div class="quote">Most amusing matchlight, but obviously I cannot go into any more detail or I'll have some heavy booted people from my local intelligence agency kicking down my door. I'm glad you're amused. So am I--your answer is exactly what I expected. There is all sorts of public information about nuclear weapons design, much of it written by physicists. The notion that for fear of revealing secrets, no one who knew about distinguishing characteristics of nuclear explosions could describe them, even in general terms, is good for a laugh. And it's easy enough to see why someone who's making things up would find that a convenient excuse for not explaining himself. <div class="quote">Most people especially with all the recent debate about Iran’s nuclear program, would automatically assume they were behind it so even if they weren’t they’d be number one on the list of countries to bomb . . . Lastly, some people might just have a wee bit of a problem with (killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in a counterstrike.) I don't know why you talk about what most people would assume. If what you claim about nuclear explosions leaving behind identifying prints is true, the victim of a covert attack wouldn't need to assume anything, because it could be absolutely certain who was behind it. Of course any normal person would have an enormous problem with ordering a nuclear counterattack he knew would kill civilians by the tens or hundreds of thousands. And by acknowledging that you are only making my point. When it comes to ordering such horrific retaliation, only complete certainty would do--just having a prime suspect in mind would not be good enough. <div class="quote">Both of which are arguable more effective because they have a chance to work before becoming obvious by which time it’s too late. The claim that a backpack full of even the most potent chemical weapons like VX could do anything like the damage a compact, portable atom bomb would do is laughable. The Aum Shinyo chemical attacks in Japanese subways were horrible, but they killed relatively few people for the amount of material used. Gases and aerosols dissipate and blow away, often in unforeseen directions, and that has always been a big drawback to using them in warfare. In World War I, chlorine, mustard, phosgene, etc. were effective against soldiers in the open only when enormous amounts--often dozens or even hundreds of tons, usually loaded into many thousands of artillery shells--were used. Also, once chemicals are detected, further casualties can be minimized by evacuating the area or putting on protective gear. Not so with atom bombs. Research done in the U.S. biological warfare program showed that a couple hundred pounds of properly weaponized anthrax powder could do damage on the scale of a nuclear bomb, but only if dispersed by aircraft upwind of a city under the right weather conditions. Crop dusters in the hands of jihadists could be very dangerous, but only if a nation capable of making weaponized anthrax--and most are not--had supplied them with a bunch of it. The cause of terrorism is not fighting against it. Well said. There are now millions of people in the West who serve as apologists and handmaidens for Muslim jihadists. They do this partly because they resent western civilization as much as the jihadists do, and partly because they are afraid to stand up to them. The savages only need to use violence occasionally these days, as a reminder. Most of the time, they find they can just shake their fists and utter a few bloodcurdling threats, and the decadent unbelievers start grinning and bowing and making nice. They make their lack of backbone easier to live with by dressing it up as sensitivity toward foreign cultures.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5706 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/16/2013 11:04:30 AM
I hear Milhous, the Dissembler-in-Chief, will be holding forth again today--more damage control. President Pinocchio had better have gotten his stories straight, because even some of his tamest poodles are starting to turn on him. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive . . ." I wonder how much longer his paid liar Mr. Carney and Mr. Holder, his slimy, jihadist-coddling Lackey General, will last. The trick is to wait long enough to get rid of them so it doesn't look like just another part of the coverup. As for Milhous's other paid liar, Ms. Susan "The Video Was to Blame" Rice, now that being Secretary of State is out of the question, there's always the national security advisor job. Imagine the possibilities. I think there is already enough damning stuff about Mrs. Clinton, an equally notorious liar, to make some very powerful ammunition for campaign ads a couple years from now. Her angry, callous shout about how those four men died--"What difference, at this point, does it make?"--will haunt her. So will the e-mails that now make it clear she has all along been lying through her teeth about what happened in Benghazi last September 11. She even had the gall to assure the father of one of the men she hung out to dry that the person who made that video would be held to account--when, as we now know, the video story was a lie she herself had helped cook up.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 462 (view)

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists Posted: 5/16/2013 9:54:08 AM
#437 By measuring the seismic shock, blast wave, radiation burst and then doing some heavy computing the boffins soon know how big the bomb was, what fissionable material was used and its likely configuration. That would rapidly lead them to whose bomb it was . . . knowing what material was used tells them where the material is from as due to certain reasons; all fissionable material has it’s pretty much almost unique signature . . . there will be a chemical finger print or shadow more accurately Suppose it could be determined that an explosion was caused by a ten-kiloton device that used U-235. Please explain how that would in turn reveal whose device it was. Just tell us, without going into very elaborate technical detail, just what characteristics of fissionable material create the "pretty much almost unique signature"--this "fingerprint"--that you as a physicist, like "everyone in the business," know reveals where it was produced. The bomb casing isn’t a few tin cans, but a complex materials engineering feat as it has to resist high explosive forces before the fission can occur. An artillery piece has to resist high explosive forces, too, but making one isn't usually considered a very complex feat of materials engineering. A ball of enriched uranium can only be made so big--any bigger, and it goes off in a nuclear explosion. To assemble this "critical mass" in the Hiroshima bomb, two hemispherical pieces of enriched uranium, each by itself small enough to be stable, were driven into each other by conventional explosions inside a tube very much like a section of gun barrel. It's true that the outer casing of so-called hydrogen bombs plays a big part in making them work--the casing's inner surfaces act like mirrors and have to be very exactly shaped. But with weapons that rely only on uranium or plutonium, the main problem with the outer casing has been to make it strong enough to do the job without weighing too much. The Nagasaki bomb weighed several tons, but within fifteen years the U.S. was making equally powerful atom bombs that weighed only a few hundred pounds. So I think you are overstating the materials engineering needed to make a reasonably light atom bomb. The U.S., UK, and USSR were able to make them even in the 1950's, and it's clear Iran could make them now. And if the delivery vehicle is a truck, let alone a yacht or a freighter, weight is not very important anyway. Obviously a terrorist outfit with immense resources doesn’t care about been found after the event That's anything but obvious to me, regardless of their resources. If the terrorists were acting on behalf of a nation, and if the target country itself had nuclear weapons, the survival of the nation sponsoring the attack would depend on NOT being found out. The very point I was making is that by using jihadist suicides to deliver and set off a nuclear weapon, a regime like the one in Tehran might prevent the country it had targeted from identifying its attacker with the absolute certainty needed to justify killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in a counterstrike. You are reassuring us that there would be no way for a nation to carry out a covert nuclear attack, because traces left after nuclear explosions are "fingerprints" that give away the source of the material in the bomb. I am asking you to explain, without going into such detail only graduate physics students could understand it, what those traces are.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5704 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/15/2013 4:04:21 PM
#5696 There's the Tea Party harassment by IRS. There's the AP phone taps. There's Benghazi. Better get busy. Yes, it looks like Barack "Milhous" Obama has his hands full. The Imperial Presidency is back, apparently, dirty tricks, stonewalling, enemies lists, and all. I'm waiting for Jay "Baghdad Bob" Carney to do a reprise of Ron Ziegler, and start trying to cover his lies by saying his earlier statements "are no longer operative." Letting the Lackey General turn his Justice Dept. loose on the AP was a mistake, because now even the toadying non-entities that masquerade as journalists--even Maureen Dowd, for God's sake!--are finally starting to wake up. Shades of Watergate! I can't wait for the political cartoons to start appearing--I can just picture a sinister-looking Obama with a ski-jump nose, curly hair combed straight back, hunched shoulders, and jowls covered with a five o'clock shadow, assuring the American people: "I am not a crook."

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 115 (view)

Folks and their lists. Posted: 5/15/2013 12:26:02 PM
^^^^I don't care if anyone wants to call my glass half empty or half full, as long as they keep pouring.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 459 (view)

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists Posted: 5/15/2013 12:25:42 AM
When the Zionists killed Iran's nuclear scientists ... I wonder how they marked their ammo. To hell with Iran's nuclear scientists, and to hell with the Islamist curs they work for. German scientists who were designing weapons for the Nazis were just as much fair game as an infantryman in the field. The same principle applies here. And I suspect Israel doesn't care what nationality a person is, if he is threatening its security. What happened to Gerald Bull in Brussels may be an illustration of that.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5702 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/14/2013 11:11:52 PM
You say there was no force mobilized to respond to the attack in Benghazi. So, you have insider information that disputes this: I don't have any information except what's been made public. You didn't cite the authority for that, and I doubt it's true. Secretary Panetta, Admiral Mullen, and the general in charge of the Africa Command have all made clear they opposed sending forces in. And Robert "Caution First" Gates has now dutifully covered their rear ends. In any case, if someone waited three hours before even ordering forces to move closer--forces all the way up in Croatia, for Christ's sake--he may as well not have bothered. We also know that some person or persons not yet identified ordered four special forces fighters in Tripoli not to go to Benghazi. Thank God the country still has men like Glenn Doherty, who managed not to hear any such order and was killed on that roof--eight hours into the fight--just after he'd managed to make his way there from 400 miles away in Tripoli. Comparing Benghazi to Pearl Harbor is like comparing apples to oranges. Mr. Gates said he would not have let even one U.S. warplane fly over Benghazi, because there are so many shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles floating around in Libya after Khadaffi's demise. It's not clear if there were any armed aircraft at Sigonella in Italy--if there were, they were only an hour or at most two from the fight. We know there was a company of Marines there, and I'm sure they could have grabbed their gear and jumped on a plane in a matter of minutes, in such an urgent situation. Mr. Gates said that "we don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that.” That's why I brought up Pearl Harbor--by Gates' standard, the men who fought back at such long odds that morning were reckless fools. Presumably he would have had them wait to go into harm's way until the U.S. could have properly prepared a plan of battle--after all, they could have gotten themselves killed! I'm sure Gates would also have disapproved of the extremely risky course of action the U.S. took at Midway six months later, gambling on only three carriers to stop an overwhelmingly more powerful Japanese fleet--still the strongest battle fleet in history. Surely he would have had all U.S. forces pull back to the West Coast, and kept planning and preparing, before sending anyone into harm's way. If the people calling the shots that night were as averse to risk as Mr. Gates, as they seem to have been, it's not surprising nothing more was done. As he said, "to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous.” Well, not as dangerous as doing nothing, at least for the four men who were murdered by a howling mob. And what commander has ever had the luxury of knowing all the risks exactly before acting? If any and every action is considered too risky--if the wisest course is always to wait, and then wait some more--what difference would it have made how many forces this country had nearby?

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5697 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/14/2013 9:02:03 AM
There were troops mobilized within an hour. They were way too far away to get there in time to save the mission, but they got to the annex quickly enough to save some lives. What troops are you referring to? I know of only one man, Glenn Doherty, who came from outside Benghazi to help. He did that not because of orders, but in spite of them, and the Islamist savages murdered him only minutes after he arrived on the scene. Mr. Robert Gates probably thinks it was "cartoon-like" for American pilots at Pearl Harbor to jump in the nearest plane that had some gas in its tanks and some ammunition in its guns, dodge the bombs and bullets, and go up to attack the enemy. And those cartoon-like Marine pilots across the way at Kaneohe Bay were just as reckless. Imagine overreacting like that! Probably cartoon-like, too, in Mr. Gates' view, for those sailors to run to the nearest machine gun on the ship that would still fire and blaze away at the Japanese planes. It's all fine to talk about taking initiative when every second counts, and whatever hell may be waiting around the corner, charging right into it. But if these men had been more sober and responsible, like the current senior leadership in the Pentagon, they would have remained at their stations and waited for further instructions. You just can't be too cautious in very dangerous situations. All this heroic stuff is fine for movies, but it gets people killed. If Mr. Gates were in charge, I'm sure he would never have authorized any U.S. forces to take such hasty, ill-considered actions. Those men could easily have been badly injured, or worse, because of their recklessness. After all, it wasn't clear that Sunday morning what was happening, and it's no good just to go charging into trouble until the situation can be properly assessed in an atmosphere of calm deliberation. Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Panetta, and the others were right just to turn in, get a good night's sleep, and see how things looked in the morning. If hotheads like Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty wanted to ignore orders and take unnecessary risks, no one else can be responsible for what happened to them. And it really is in bad taste for Mr. Woods' father to keep saying he thinks our former Secretary of State was insincere when she spoke with him about his son's death.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 56 (view)

what is Time? Posted: 5/13/2013 6:25:41 PM
One characteristic of time I think is very interesting is that the arrow of time only points one way. The reason has to do with the fact entropy is increasing. When you pour cream into your cup of coffee, there is an almost countless number of different ways the molecules of the two substances can mix together. But there is only one arrangement in which the two are not mixed--when the coffee is in the cup and the cream is still in the pitcher. That means it's far more likely for things to happen in the sequence we see--where at first the coffee and cream are separate, and then after the cream is poured in, they are mixed--than it is for the sequence to run backwards. The entropy of the mixture is greater than the entropy of the separate ingredients.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 18 (view)

Thoughts on Recent Pope-Parody News Story Posted: 5/13/2013 12:21:07 PM
#2 On the quiz, the student received a 100% for answering questions like 'The earth is billions of years old' and 'Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago' with the answer: 'false.' When asked what day God made the dinosaurs on, the child answered '6th.' In the mind of the teacher this was exactly correct. According to the Bible: Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago. God made the dinosaurs, along with the other land animals, on Day 6 of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:20–25, 31). Did you personally witness this quiz? If not, where did you get this information? In any case, I'm with the teacher. In fact I thought it was common knowledge the dinosaurs were running around at the time of the cavemen. That's been shown in I don't know how many movies, like that one with Raquel Welch. And in King Kong and Godzilla and Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs were running around biting up a storm right in modern times. Anyway, I think what that woman did is speech protected by the First Amendment. How dare any state try to make laws telling people they can't show off their privates in public! This is a free country, and anyone should be able to express their sexual nature any way they want, any time they want. Next thing you know, the bluenoses will want laws against things like incestuous polygamy, NAMBLA campouts in residential back yards, and group bestiality in front of the city hall.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5693 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/13/2013 11:54:59 AM
I also see that you have an issue with presenting factual information. And I see that you rely on unsupported assertions like that one because you can't make your case. If you think I have misstated any facts, prove it. You won't, because you can't. I just don't take your world of make believe issues very seriously because I see through your motivations, very plainly. There you go again, as if by reflex, doubting the motives of people who dare to disagree with you. Not only does that reveal your inability to argue the issues, but it's also irrelevant. What may motivate a person to make an argument has nothing whatever to do with the merits of that argument itself. I won't tell you what I do Apparently it's quite a secret, but it's not one that interests me. Obviously reality has been marching right in step with me on this... It's not obvious that's so just because you say it is. I see the same thing in the folks who freak out about Obama with all their baseless charges. Again, the same thing. You are too short on facts and reasoning to refute those charges, so you glibly call them baseless and expect us just to take your word for it. I wonder if you've been studying tapes of Jay Carney. They exist on all 'sides' but that doesn't excuser any of them for the outright lies they promote. Most of the people I see promoting outright lies are supporters of Mr. Obama. Hardly surprising, given what a damned liar he himself is. And Mr. Holder and Mrs. Clinton are just as dishonest, right to the core.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5691 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/13/2013 10:03:46 AM
with the same cowardly tactics of innuendo and accusation Are you still here, denouncing other posters because you can't debate the issues? I hoped you had taken your parting shot and disappeared, as you said you were doing. I haven't heard anyone use innuendo in denouncing Mrs. Clinton's actions about Benghazi. The accusations have been direct. And accusing her of dereliction and lying is not a tactic, let alone a cowardly one. It is a charge that she played a important part in leaving four employees of the department she was in charge of to be murdered by a pack of Islamist savages, and then lied to cover the mess up. Once again, I notice you can't explain why her critics are wrong. If what they are saying about the way she and her boss handled the Sept. 11 attack is as baseless as you claim, it should be very easy to refute it with facts. If you can, you might want to look into Jay Carney's job--I doubt he'll have it much longer. #5689 They are putting their Internet Economics degrees Do you have a degree in Economics? From what school? Funny that the right wing kinda conservatives seem A-OK to profile people for skin color, gender, nationality, religion, etc., just don't judge anyone for their words and actions. Most of the bigots I've ever met have been self-styled liberals. They're too ignorant to stick to debating the issues, so instead they continually make vicious, personal attacks on anyone who dares challenge the tenets of their quasi-religion.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5688 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/12/2013 5:23:25 PM
You act as if she wasn't a spy. She wasn't--that's why I called her .007. She was a desk jockey like most CIA employees. The proof is that she and her lackluster husband Wilson cared so little about keeping her identity secret that they were glad to be photographed for the cover of--apt choice--Vanity Fair. There is a federal law against blowing the cover of a secret U.S. operative, but the legal analysts familiar with the cases interpreting that law said at the time that making Plame's identity public didn't come within a mile of breaking it. It was not Scooter Libby but Richard Armitage who was responsible for leaking our Valerie's name to Robert Novak in retaliation. And this was done only after Plame and Wilson, working with a nest of other dishonorable and disloyal government employees, tried to undermine the president they were supposed to be serving--in the midst of a national security crisis!--by falsely accusing him of claiming something we now know was true. If anything in this affair was treasonous in spirit, it was that. If they felt so strongly that the administration was lying about Iraq shopping for yellowcake in Niger, or that an invasion of Iraq would be wrong, they should just have said they couldn't in good conscience be party to any of that, and resigned. But everyone knew Cheney himself should have been tried and convicted of treason. I think the days of trying U.S. Vice-Presidents for treason began and ended with Aaron Burr. Like most treason trials in U.S. history, that one was very much political, but what Burr had done was far more serious than anything involving Plame. The Constitution's definition of treason has two planks: Giving aid and comfort to the enemy; and levying war against the United States. In most of the trials, the person was charged with giving aid and comfort. But President Jefferson charged his former Vice-President with treason on the ground that he had levied war against the U.S. In a trial presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall, the jury acquitted Burr.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5684 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/12/2013 1:24:57 PM
None of you showed any outrage when these ELEVEN attacks were done when Bush was president. You guys never mentioned any of these attacks when they happened. I wonder how you know that. I wasn't even posting here that long ago. By the way, I see you left out a few attacks. Remember the 1979 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, during Mr. Carter's presidency, in which the compound was overrun and hostages taken and held for more than a year? It's not surprising the Khomeinists would have dared to do that, after Carter's unprecedented refusal to support Shah Reza Pahlavi had practically invite that pack of Islamist war criminals to take power in Iran. I notice you also left out the 1998 Al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in which more than 200 people were killed and thousands wounded. Wasn't Mr. Clinton president at the time? Maybe he was busy with other things. I also notice that in two of the incidents on your list, the ones at Athens and Sana'a, the attack was nothing more than someone firing an RPG or mortar rounds at the embassy and missing. And yet you include them in your list of "ELEVEN [your caps] successful embassy attacks." There's nothing "successful" about an attack that completely misses the target. What other facts, I wonder, are you distorting? Even they must tire of slogging through the BS after awhile. I got tired of slogging through yours a long time ago. Once again, you seem to think you can take the shortcut of substituting wild assertions about other posters for the fact-based arguments about the topic you apparently can't make, and no one will notice. Why don't you address the issue, and enlighten us about how diligent Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton were in dealing with the events in Benghazi that night? Please tell us exactly what steps, if any, they took to protect the Americans there, and why four of those Americans were killed in spite of all these extraordinary efforts. Tell us, in other words, why the people who were there and just testified are lying--because that's not the story they told. I doubt you can. The series of revisions a State Dept. official directly responsible to Mrs. Clinton made to the talking points on this incident and her stated reasons for making them have for two days now been a matter of record. These revisions were made the Friday before Susan Rice, the U.N. Ambassador, was trotted out on five Sunday talk shows to give the world a false account of what happened in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11-12, 2012. It's obvious to any reasonable person who looks carefully at what language was changed, and the reasons this official gave for wanting it changed, that Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney--and maybe others--have been lying about this all along. Carney even continues to make the obviously false claim that only one trivial revision about the word "consulate" was made.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5678 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/12/2013 10:16:12 AM
Although the U.S. is a republic (i.e. citizenship is inherited or granted by petition only), the 14th Amendment changed that: By requiring that those born in the U.S. must be "subject to the jurisdiction" (meaning having no foreign allegiance as noted in the congressional record when discussing the Amendment) I agree about that magic phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment--it is about foreign allegiance. Barack Hussein Obama aside, it's also very important to the problem of illegal immigration and "anchor babies." In 1884, the Supreme Court interpreted the Citizenship Clause, then only sixteen years old, in Elk v. Wilkins. And it got it right. But fourteen years later in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray, who had also written the Elk decision, reversed course and held that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a citizen by birth. In the early 1980's, when the flood of illegal aliens was already doing a lot of damage to this country, the Court had an opportunity in Plyler v. Doe to overrule Wong Kim Ark. Instead, it blandly accepted birth citizenship for children of illegal aliens, paving the way for the enormous harm those aliens have continued to do to the U.S. in the thirty years since. It's not too late--the Court could--should--make clear that the Citizenship Clause does not make a child born to alien parents illegally in the U.S. a citizen solely because it was born on U.S. soil. #5670 This says a lot more about you than you probably realize. I wonder if you realize what your continuing habit of making glib personal attacks on other posters says about you. It's a dead giveaway that you don't have the knowledge or the debating skills to rebut their arguments on the points, so you rely on those personal attacks as a cheap substitute and hope no one notices. That is standard operating procedure on these forums for so-called liberals, most of whom learned the simplistic propaganda they dimly accept as fact from MSNBC, Michael Moore films, and the "news" put out by late-night TV comics.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 440 (view)

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists Posted: 5/11/2013 12:13:30 PM
Secondly, who are you to impose your views onto those whose religion & culture are not in line with your own! Shariah is not just a theological concept, but a prescription for all aspects of living. It is as oppressive and as fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization as was Nazism. Like Nazism, the fact shariah is by nature a supremacist philosophy makes it hostile to our way of life. Islamists refuse to assimilate when they move to non-Islamic countries--like the Nazis, they want to take over and make everyone else dance to their tune. There is only one way that ends, and it is by superior force. Those Muslims who talk about whipping unbelievers into submission should first make sure they can do the whipping, in case the unbelievers refuse to sit still for it. From what I've read, the Muslim yokels who came from Pakistan and elsewhere to fight the Americans in Afghanistan found that being on the wrong end of a few bombing strikes somehow took all the fight out of them. To hell with them all, and to hell with the leftists who make excuses for them.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5666 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/11/2013 1:01:54 AM
Obama and Clinton killed them? A person can be guilty by omission as well as by commission. They turned a blind eye and let those four men die, and I have all the more contempt for both of them because of it. If Obama did anything that evening that even remotely resembled what a commander should do when he knew Americans were in great danger, he has all along had every reason to detail his actions. And yet in all this time, no one has heard that he did a damned thing, other than issue a vague general instruction about 5 pm and then go up to his quarters and ignore the whole thing, as it raged on for another seven or eight hours. A real president would have told his Defense Secretary to use whatever force was needed to save the people under attack and to do it immediately, with the cooperation of the Libyan government if possible, and without it if necessary. He also would have made clear he wanted to be kept informed personally and often about what was being done. Your sincerity is questionable when you didn't give a shit about Bush's lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction Of course you're welcome to question my sincerity all you like, any time. I don't accept the claim that President Bush lied about those weapons. To tell a lie, a person first has to know the truth, and then intentionally say the opposite. Please tell us how President Bush could have known for certain that Iraq did not have active programs whose aim was to produce chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. How could he, or any of the intelligence agencies of the major powers--which all agreed with the U.S. that Iraq very likely had reconstituted these programs--have known it had not, when no one had been allowed to inspect its facilities for the past four years? I wonder about the sincerity of anyone who purposely mischaracterizes a person's statement of a sincere conviction that later proves to be false as flat-out lying. The world knew Iraq had produced military chemicals--mustard, phosgene, tabun, sarin--because after the Gulf War international inspectors had witnessed the destruction of its stockpiles. The same is true of biological weapons--for example, the inspectors had witnessed the destruction of thousands of gallons of anthrax culture and of the machinery used to dehydrate this culture and treat it in other ways necessary to make weaponized anthrax. And both inspections of Tuwaith and other facilities and the accounts of defectors established that Iraq had been trying to produce nuclear weapons. Knowing Hussein's character, his history, and his bad intentions, what reasonable person would not have thought he had used four years of secrecy and the enormous revenues gained from gaming the exemption from sanctions that allowed Iraq to sell some of its oil to rebuild all he had lost? Was there a report put in front of their faces that said "terrorists are determined to strike inside Egypt" like the intelligence report the was given to Bush about bin Laden? Were you just as disgruntled by that coverup? I don't acknowledge that President Bush ever received any specific report about Bin Laden or 9/11, so I don't accept that there was anything to cover up. But I do know that for years Mr. B.J. Clinton had encouraged Muslim jihadists by continuing to make only limp, feckless responses to their attacks. When Muslim jihadists bombed the Cole, Clinton's response was to do nothing at all. It was eight years of thatkind of weakness by the second president ever impeached that invited 9/11. his lies about Valerie Plame Don't try to feed me that. Valerie ".007" Plame is a damned lying phony, and so is her husband. Wilson was a minor official who'd had unimportant assignments at various African embassies, and she pulled strings to get him sent to Niger. The whole purpose of his visit, most of which he spent sitting by the pool in a hotel in Niamey, was to cook up information to dispute the administration's claim that Iraq had sent officials to Niger and other African countries to try to buy uranium ore. Of course that is exactly what Iraq was doing. It is Plame, Wilson, and the disloyal officials who encouraged their stratagem who are the real liars. If they had been people of integrity, they would have resigned if they felt in good conscience they could no longer serve President Bush because of his policy toward Iraq. The fact is...none of you Republicans care about Ambassador Stevens I've told you before I'm not a Republican. And what concerns me, as with Watergate, is the high-level abuse of power and the lying to the American people. I never claimed to care about Mr. Stevens personally. I differ there from Mrs. Clinton, who never seemed to tire of referring to the man she had let die as "Chris," in between wiping away an occasional tear and calculating just the right amount of choking to put into her voice, at just the right poignant moment. The thought that early that morning, up on that lonely roof, those two brave ex-SEALS gave their lives for the likes of her and Barack Obama makes me sick. Anyone wanna tell me what the impeachable offense is? An impeachable offense is pretty much whatever enough members of Congress want to make one. If you doubt that, study the political machinations behind Andrew Johnson's impeachment. I don't need to make the case, and neither does anyone else--impeachment is a political process something like a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system--not a criminal trial.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 69 (view)

Proper/improper attire? Posted: 5/10/2013 11:18:43 PM
Colorful Bermuda shorts with high black socks is always a winning combination when you want to say "class," and all the more so when you match them with a pair of wingtips. I find a white belt and a short-sleeved white nylon shirt, worn with either a very narrow black tie or a western-style bolo tie, completes this look, which is appropriate in the very finest places.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5663 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/10/2013 8:40:56 PM
If Hillary "What difference does it make!!??" Clinton does know something sordid about Obama's past, he had better be careful about trying to throw her under the bus in the Benghazi coverup. Jay Carney, Mr. Obama's paid liar, said yesterday that the talking points used by another liar, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, had not been altered "by anyone here in the White House." Don't think Mrs. Clinton--and her husband--didn't notice that very significant caveat. And don't think they won't strike back if Obama tries to pin the blame on her, after she lied about Benghazi to help him get re-elected. It wouldn't surprise me to see our impeached ex-President start speaking out soon, leading the charge so his wife can stay above the fray--apparently he doesn't much like Obama anyway. The conspirators in silence may be starting to turn on each other. The four Americans who were killed in a hellhole late last September 11 by Muslim jihadists were purposely sacrificed by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Both of them either knew or should have known right away--should in fact much earlier have anticipated and prepared for--what was happening in Benghazi. And yet for more than seven hours that evening, none of them--not Clinton, not Panetta, and particularly not the person ultimately responsible, President Obama--took any effective action to save the men under fire. They turned their backs on these men because they were afraid that if they gave them the help they needed, less than two months before election day, it would hurt Obama's chances by exposing his foreign policy for the disaster that it is. At least two of those men jumped in to help other Americans when no one else would, and when no one helped them either, the jihadist mob finally killed them. The likes of Clinton and Obama are not fit to clean their boots.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5654 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/10/2013 3:14:42 PM
^^^^That picture of a slight, simpering young Mr. Obama sitting languidly on the sofa next to his Middle Eastern roommate at Accidental College speaks volumes.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 435 (view)

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists Posted: 5/10/2013 11:11:07 AM
Like Israel, Iran does not wish to be invaded again by its neighbors, and this is why (like Israel) they've embarked on developing nuclear weapons . . . Thus, their aim is to become nuclear as a deterrent against future attacks,and little else. That's a nice bit of conjecture, but nothing more. The regime in Tehran has no valid reason to view post-Hussein Iraq as a threat to Iran. Or maybe you think the regime has good reason to think Afghanistan is planning to invade Iran. I don't think that they'd be so stupid as to give them nuclear weapons. I see. You--and you must be well read in history--don't think so. So Israelis can just sit back, relax, and let Iran make all the nuclear weapons it sees fit. The Iranians know quite well that in doing so, they will be struck heavily in retaliation. I wonder how you know what the mullahs do or do not know quite well. I also wonder how a nation that was the victim of a nuclear terrorist attack could be certain who was responsible. All any government would know is that one of its cities had just been blown up by an atom bomb. A nuclear explosion set off by suicides would leave no clear evidence of who had brought the bomb, or how, or who had made or supplied it. Only if the victimized nation had nuclear weapons itself could it strike back very strongly. And when it comes to ordering a response that would surely kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, any sane national leadership would need a lot more than just a good guess about where to deliver that response. Nuclear deterrence only works when the source of a nuclear attack is absolutely unmistakable, as it was with the U.S. and the USSR during the Cold War, so that the attacker has no way to hide. The only true illegitimate regime Iran had was the one run by the Shah (another evil dictator which was imposed on them by the US & Britain), after the legitimate elected leader (Mr Mossedegh) was ousted . . . Year after year of oppression drove the Iranians to a slow boil! This culminated with the Khomeini take over in the mid 70's. The rest is modern history, and fodder for the myopics who can't look past to see what prompted it all! . . . Evil is, what evil does! Your history is not as accurate as you seem to imagine, no matter how many exclamation points you punctuate it with. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of Iran in 1941 after British and Soviet forces occupied Iran and deposed his father. The Soviet Union was fighting for its life after the German invasion earlier that year, and there was a pressing need for a land route by which to supply the Soviets, given the hazards of trying to send ships up to Murmansk across the U-boat-infested North Atlantic. That means Pahlavi had already been ruling Iran as Shah, or king, for more than a decade when the political crisis began that eventually cost Mossadegh his position as Prime Minister. By 1953 the Cold War had long since turned hot in Korea, costing the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. servicemen, and for years, in one place after another, Stalin had been making his expansionist designs all too clear. President Eisenhower, continuing the strategy of containment of the Soviet Union the U.S. had started to follow at the end of WWII, felt that Mossadegh's hostility to the West and connections with the Tudeh, the Iranian communist party, made him too great a threat to U.S. interests to tolerate. The notion that the U.S., by taking part in the 1953 coup that pushed Mossadegh out of power, assured the rise of Khomeini twenty-six years later, is standard leftist dogma. It's also simplistic anti-American cant that's meant to cover for Muslim jihadists, much like the refrain that the U.S. brought 9/11 on itself.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 37 (view)

The Anterior Fornix Erogenous Zone (aka the AFE Zone or A-Spot) Posted: 5/9/2013 10:06:59 PM
Anterior fornix? This could go on forever, I think, with someone or other designating this or that part of the body as the "spot" which is the holy grail of orgasms. What I've noticed is that all these spots seem to lie near some part of the clitoral crura--the two large, buried branches of the clitoris. These are a few inches long on average, so there are lots of places where indirect pressure will stimulate them. More and more, I think that even though the glans and shaft, the very small, visible part of the clitoris, seem to get all the attention, the most intense orgasms involve the unseen, lesser-known bulk of that organ. The Graffenberg spot, which is sort of the original of all these, is usually considered to be on the front wall of the vagina an inch or two in. That's not too far behind the point where the clitoris divides into two branches just in front of the urethra. And the tissues in that area are very closely connected, so that pressure at one point will be sensed at other points nearby. That would also explain an erogenous zone that's been called the "U-spot," the area at the opening of the urethra. Anyway, food for thought. I think this is a question that calls for a lot more field research--no reason why science can't be fun.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 430 (view)

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists Posted: 5/9/2013 7:32:22 PM
#428 <div class="quote">Meanwhile, Israel, its avowed enemy who has repeatedly threatened military action against it for even pursuing the idea of peaceful nuclear technology That is a lie the Islamists who run Iran put out to cover what they're up to, and for reasons you know best you chose to repeat it here. No fair-minded person believes, even for a moment, that the Iranian regime is not trying to make nuclear bombs. A couple years ago I debunked this lie on these forums by citing and quoting from a very complex technical appendix to an IAEA report. That appendix describes in detail a number of specific technical features of Iran's nuclear facilities that are adapted to and typical of a nuclear weapons program, but would have little or no use in a non-military program to make nuclear electric generating stations, conduct pure scientific research, make radioisotopes for medical use, etc. If anyone wants proof, I will take the time to find this document again. #429 <div class="quote">Extra care has to be taken with Iran because they supply two terrorist organizations with weapons. If they gained nuclear capabilities, those weapons could easily be smuggled to Hezbollah or Hamas. You are exactly right. Iran created Hizballah as its proxy in Lebanon, and it has trained, equipped, and funded it. It has used Hizballah jihadists to carry out bombings overseas before, for example the ones that killed many Jews in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. It's very likely that Lebanese Hizballah were part of the group of Iranian-trained jihadists who entered a compound in Karbala, Iraq in 2007, speaking English and wearing American uniforms, seized four U.S. soldiers, and later murdered these men while they were in handcuffs. Those were war crimes, ordered by an illegitimate regime for which war crimes have been standard procedure since it was spawned in 1979.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 187 (view)

Jodi Arias Trial Posted: 5/9/2013 8:39:19 AM
I heard she said she'd rather be executed. I doubt it--sounds more like the sort of clever manipulation that's a psychopath's stock in trade. Maybe too clever--we'll see.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5646 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/8/2013 9:32:58 PM
Your plethora of self-righteous verbosity betrays your feigned attempt at emotional control while ironically hinting at a profound sense of intellectual inferiority. Reminds me of the pretentious baloney winemakers often put on the label to describe the bottle's contents. Can you put that in plain English so your intellectual inferiors can understand it? Whatever you were yammering about, I notice it didn't address any of the points I made, but rather just attacked me personally. I also notice that that's the very kind of tactic I was writing about. Which politicians is your self-esteem aligned with? Just wondered. I didn't even mention any political figures, let alone craft anything in honor of any of them. Nor has what I think of myself ever depended on the success of any political figure. You seem to be imagining things again.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 184 (view)

Jodi Arias Trial Posted: 5/8/2013 7:19:14 PM
but where I live (Florida) death penalty cases usually take at least 10 years to work through the level of appeals. I think it's even more drawn out than that here in California--and it's ridiculous. All contested issues should be consolidated in one appeal, and it should be rushed to the front of the line. If there have been no errors likely to have affected the verdict, then carry out the sentence. I can't imagine why in any capital case execution should be delayed more than one year after conviction. I don't think all murders warrant a death penalty--but I think this one does. not all feminists are the same That's true. Some are even worse than the others.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 29 (view)

Kermit Gosnell alledged murderer. Posted: 5/8/2013 3:59:12 PM
#28 Actually what he did was quite a bit different as his crimes where some of the most unspeakable crimes, but what you describes would be a complete different type of murder and one would be suffering from a different psychosis . . . Though what makes you think he will get off? You say this doctor committed "some of the most unspeakable crimes," and yet you also say he was suffering from a psychosis of some type. If so, he should be able to use an insanity defense to escape conviction. I also don't see why it would be a "complete different kind of murder" if it had taken place in a NICU. The poster you're taking issue with made a valid point--knowingly, purposely killing an infant after it's been fully born is murder, no matter where it is done.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5639 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/7/2013 2:16:39 PM
I laughed because I figured some RWNJ went and cried to the moderators because a Canadian was in here ripping them apart, calling them out on their bs, and had a more accurate account of current events than did the RWNJs. Suddenly, there was an addition to the title of this thread and that Canadian couldn't set people straight here anymore. They were no match for him intellectually, so they got a moderator to fight for them. I always thought "projection" was one of those ridiculous therapy-culture constructs until I began to see the posts on these forums by so-called liberals. Here's a great example--what you accuse "right wing nut jobs" of doing is the very thing leftists do all the time. Trying to shut other people up is anathema to true conservatives, who believe in free, reasoned debate. The only two posters I have ever reported here were mental cases who, even after I'd warned them, insisted on making personal slanders too disgusting to repeat. In one case I was the target, and the other time the sewage was being directed at a lady. And yet trying to silence the opposition is right out of the leftist playbook--standard operating procedure for know-nothing drones. There are several leftist weasels here who are constantly tattling to teacher because some mean, Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, fascist hater made them feel all icky by challenging their delusions with facts and reason--both of which they are highly allergic to. The moment they see they're in way over their heads--and that usually doesn't take long--they start the name-calling and the obscenities. I sometimes wonder if they do that just because they're cowards, or because they're purposely trying to get threads closed down. These leftists do this for the same reason they try to impose political correctness to censor and silence people whose views they don't like: Beneath their disguise of caring, kindness and kumbayah, these people are nasty, intolerant little brownshirts. They hate civilized debate and freedom of speech as much as any Gauleiter or Red Guard ever did, and they prove it on these forums every day. It's fun to unmask them--and all the more fun because it's so easy to get these totalitarian mutts to show their true colors. You are one of the few I don't include in this group. I don't consider you a leftist true believer, but just a misguided Democrat I pray will one day see the light. After all, when he was young and didn't know any better, even Ronald Reagan was a New Deal Democrat. I hope you're enjoying Washington--I hear the western half, at least, is a very liberal place, packed with environmental extremists--and that you'll keep posting here. I can always use good sparring partners who aren't that easy to hit--it makes me bear down.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 415 (view)

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists Posted: 5/7/2013 12:57:54 AM
#409 and it could happen if China decides it must protect their interests in Iran. What are you referring to? What interests does China have in Iran that are such it would even consider using force to defend them? #408 "sustainable positive change will only happen when the two sides come together and agree to start looking forward. They need not forget the past, but their survival depends on their ability to evolve beyond it." That may be what you would like to see happen, and it probably would be desirable. Peace and harmony usually are. But the fact you want a peaceful, cooperative solution doesn't make that the only possibility. What is desirable and what is necessary are two completely different things. How does Israel's survival, for instance, depend on accommodating hostile Arab neighbors, as you suggest? Why should it? Unless these groups or nations have the military force needed to defeat Israel in war, it could guarantee its safety for good by defeating them so decisively they would never threaten it again. It would survive, and they wouldn't. A nation's demonstrated ability and determination to destroy hostile forces that threaten its people are what keep it safe, just as they always have been. When it comes to protecting the lives of millions of civilians from foreign threats, superior force is what counts, and nice-sounding phrases about "evolving," "looking forward," "sustainable positive change," etc. mean nothing. International relations are not couples therapy.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 407 (view)

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists Posted: 5/6/2013 4:16:27 PM
makes me wonder if you can actually tell when a sentence starts and finishes That depends on whose sentences they are. Most of yours don't seem to have any clear beginning or ending. rather than think of you simply as not being the brightest bulb on the planet I'm bright enough to know I'm very far from being that. And you can think of me any way you please. it is a ploy or strategy to enable contortion of other posters words to misrepresent them I have no need or desire to misrepresent anything you or anyone writes here. I take statements here as I find them, and then respond. If you think I misinterpreted your garbled, run-on sentences, then try writing more clearly. sometimes wonder who the “savages” really are I'm sure you do. Next you'll be telling us that mass-murdering Muslim jihadists, who glorify cruelty and bloodshed and believe everyone who disagrees with them is a germ that is infecting Allah's realm and must be killed, are no more depraved than anyone else. And Joseph Mengele was just the boy next door. maybe a look in your own mirror wouldn’t go amiss as people who do such an excellent job of mimicking them may well be able to so as they’re so similar eh. Your weak attempt at personally insulting me is as predictable as it is ineffective. It can't hide the fact you weren't able to refute anything I said about Jew-hating Muslim jihadist savages. I've seen people with your views stick up for Muslim jihadists so often that I've come to expect that too. It puts me in mind of an excellent book by Andy McCarthy that I'd like to recommend: "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America."

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 404 (view)

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists Posted: 5/6/2013 11:06:07 AM
#403 that condemnation by the people of Israel is the only thing that limits their hierarchy’s actions I'm not sure what you mean by this "hierarchy." I understand Israel is a parliamentary democracy, with the government responsive to the will of the people. You acknowledge that public disapproval of Sharon's involvement in what happened at those camps forced him to resign. so their hierarchy will hold back outright assault of any other country unless they have majority support from their people which am sure their propaganda machine is working on in earnest Oh, now I see. The Israel people have elected a government that, once elected, connives to make those people do its evil bidding. They are nothing but the dumb dupes of this wicked entity, which has studied the mistakes of thirty years ago and figured out craftier ways of hiding its cruel intentions. This Zionist entity now tells Israelis just what to think and whom to attack next, and they nod their agreement like so many puppets. it seems to be doing the trick with a few posters around here as well. And whose propaganda machine has done the trick with you, I wonder? in order to have a voice in organisations like the United Nations and other international bodies one has to actually be a nation to fully participate, so Israel was born and got what it wanted, funny how they proceed to flout the very international organisations they so wanted to be part of when things don’t go their way eh. In your history, then, Israel was created so it could be part of the United Nations, but no sooner is it admitted than it ungratefully begins to stir up trouble by flouting the will of this wonderful, fair, and idealistic body. Who knew? Most adults know that nations defend their vital interests as best they can, just as they always have. I know it would be more convenient for the Jew-haters of the world, amply represented among the third-world pisspot nations with chairs in the General Assembly, if Israelis would just roll over and agree to be slaughtered. I'm sure that's also the dream of all the seventh-century savages who squat in the sand among the red ants and--when they aren't busy performing clitoridectomies, burning dogs alive for fun, stoning adulterers and homosexuals to death, or designing suicide vests for their children, howl for the blood of Jews. And I'm sure Western leftists, who are always glad to serve as these curs' handmaidens, hope to see that same result. Funny though how these people pout when Israel won't play along eh.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5636 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/6/2013 10:12:42 AM
BTW, which is also prompting rebellion from a lot of reactionary folks (aka, anti-Modernity) representing the status quo and the old guard... like the Taliban, christian Fundies, White Supremacists, Gay bashers, Right Wingersand the other regressives like our friend Matchlight here, who all wanna remain in the comfy womb of De Nile. I've heard that hackneyed bit of c0cktail-party pop psychology before. Apparently it passes for informed analysis among the MSNBC crowd--people who consider Janeane Garofalo a brilliant thinker. I have never had anything to do with the types in your list. I'm not a Muslim jihadist, I'm a very poor Christian, I think racial supremacism is an insult to our war dead, and I don't much care what homosexuals do. In trying to insult me by comparing me to these intolerant types you only put your ignorance--and your own intolerance--on full display. No one who thinks like you is my friend. To the extent so-called liberals favor arbitrary, illegitimate government, they favor tyranny. They want to create the very kind of concentrated political power our Constitution was painstakingly designed to prevent. That view is statist and fundamentally un-American--it belongs in Mussolini's Italy or Stalin's Soviet Union. And you have it just backwards. It is the ironically-styled progressives and liberals who are stuck in the past. They cling to 1930's New Deal policies, decades after it had become clear those policies were undermining our individual freedoms while driving this country into the ground. In contrast, the vision of the men who founded this country is as imaginative--revolutionary--today as it was then. The essential nature of people has not changed, nor have the principles of how best we can be governed. Those principles, more brilliantly translated into practical form in our Constitution than ever before or since in all the world's history, are our guarantee of freedom from arbitrary, tyrannical rule. I treasure them, and you do not.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 402 (view)

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists Posted: 5/5/2013 11:29:34 PM
^^^^I'm glad to see you reveal your tactics so clearly. You saw you couldn't begin to answer any of my points, so instead you fell back on lame, off-topic attempts to insult me personally. Weak stuff. LMAO ... would love to see their faces if they finally get their "Rapture" and the Zionists won't let them stay, but they're glad to get the money the believers (Christians) give them. I have no idea what you are talking about with raptures, money, etc. I wonder if you do.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5631 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/5/2013 9:39:37 PM
^^^^^Thank you for more of the inspired, original thinking we've come to expect from you. I noticed the snide, nasty implied slur by Mr. Smith--whoever the hell he is--that Rockeller was booed because he denounced the Ku Klux Klan and the John Birch Society. There were plenty of other reasons that had nothing to do with that for any conservative to dislike Nelson Rockefeller. The Ku Klux Klan was strongly associated with the Democrats right from the beginning. Franklin Roosevelt appointed Hugo Black, once an important Klan official in Alabama, to the Supreme Court. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, for years a leading figure in the Democratic Party, was also a Klan stalwart. And no true conservative supports the John Birch Society, as William Buckley made clear many years ago in his comments about that group. Or as I would prefer to call it, the once Grand Old Party now co-opted by RWNJ's, bigots and religious whackos... It would be more accurate to say that the Democratic Party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy has been co-opted by ignorant leftist dim bulbs who despise this country, even while they choose to live in it. Whatever harms the interests of the United States, whether illegal aliens or Muslim jihadists, it's a good bet these drones are for it. And they have a president after their own hearts--a damned statist liar who has nothing but contempt for America and its constitution.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 5628 (view)

Our New President (This is California Residents Only Thread Please) Posted: 5/5/2013 11:27:06 AM
And for what it's worth, am personally more along the lines of a Rockefeller Republican (remember them?) I remember them very well, and nothing you've written here suggests your views are anything like theirs. They more or less respected the Constitution, whereas you've made clear you don't. I never heard Scranton, Rockefeller, et al. show anything even remotely like the contempt you've shown here for the federalist structure inherent in the Constitution, in which all but the limited, enumerated powers granted to the U.S. are reserved to the states and to the people. You went so far as to say you could hardly imagine any power a state should have. And that is a statist, totalitarian view, however you try to dress it up as moderate.

matchlight

Joined: 1/31/2009

Msg: 391 (view)

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists Posted: 5/5/2013 11:01:09 AM
Every post I make sends them spinning and spitting ... Of course. The quality of your knowledge and analysis of this subject is obvious. I was wondering how long it would be before the forum Zionists would come in and start bragging on that. Once again, you are making a false claim. I am not a Zionist, nor am I Jewish, nor have I ever been either. And in the Jewish religious writings, it's also the duty of true believers to destroy (not just Muslims but) anything that is not Jewish. So what is your point? I made my point. Make yours, if you can. Please tell us exactly which "Jewish religious writings" make it a religious duty of Jews to kill non-Jews. Yeah ... I was thinking the same thing. Great minds think alike, I guess. You conveniently ignore that the violence the regime in Iran has been practicing for four decades now is motivated by Islamist beliefs. And the same has been true of the violence in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Chechnya, Uzbekhistan, the Philippines, Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, and other countries with substantial Muslim populations. The people doing the killing do it in the name of Allah.

Show ALL Forums