Hahaha. Your the one that immediately brought up a person that came to mind. I could have been referring to anyone. It is totally relevant. You don't think calling one's post retarded all the time is childish?
The GOP Lunacy Parade Continues ...
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
Hahaha. Your the one that immediately brought up a person that came to mind. I could have been referring to anyone. It is totally relevant. You don't think calling one's post retarded all the time is childish?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
But you weren't ...
I tell ya what is childish - someone who can't deal with reality ...
You know ... like the reality of no smoking gun re: Benghazi ... as but one example ...
Reminds me of my kids when they were children and they closed their eyes, covered their ears, and went: Nana-nana-boo-boo ... while you were trying to converse with them.
"You know ... like the reality of no smoking gun re: Benghazi ... as but one example ..."
Oh but there IS a smoking gun where Benghazi is concerned. Just as there was with the U.S.S. Liberty, that all finally came out. Just as there was with the attacks on the embassy in Iran, that too will someday all come out. Likely after Carter croaks.
One thing I learned for sure, when government lies it is primarily done do cover up the mistakes THEY made. The officials that make the stupid moves that lead to the debacles like Iran and Benghazi don't have to stones to admit to their mistakes, that is why they are in government and not doing something of value. They are not capable people. Their primary concern is reelection. If they have to lie to cover up what they did, either due to stupidity or a deliberate act, they will. They always have and they always will.
Obama is just as responsible for what happened in Benghazi as Carter was in Iran. I think even more so but that is personal opinion only. Carter was an idiot, I believe that Obama is a cold, calculating person who cares little what happens to anyone if it furthers his agenda. Dead ambassadors included.
Oh but there IS a smoking gun where Benghazi is concerned. Just as there was with the U.S.S. Liberty, that all finally came out. Just as there was with the attacks on the embassy in Iran, that too will someday all come out. Likely after Carter croaks.
One thing I learned for sure, when government lies it is primarily done do cover up the mistakes THEY made. The officials that make the stupid moves that lead to the debacles like Iran and Benghazi don't have to stones to admit to their mistakes, that is why they are in government and not doing something of value. They are not capable people. Their primary concern is reelection. If they have to lie to cover up what they did, either due to stupidity or a deliberate act, they will. They always have and they always will.
Obama is just as responsible for what happened in Benghazi as Carter was in Iran. I think even more so but that is personal opinion only. Carter was an idiot, I believe that Obama is a cold, calculating person who cares little what happens to anyone if it furthers his agenda. Dead ambassadors included.
Pretty much what layout said. Curious that one defends the current administration so fervently just because they made pulled the donkey lever for them and so blindly accepts the spoken word of the current regime. It didn't use to always be that way for that person. The times, they sure are a changin.
Brisco
Expert Expediter
We don't need a Smoking Gun when it comes to the BenghaziObawaHillaryGate Debacle................
IMO.....4 DEAD Americans Trumps a Smoking Gun....
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I'm just as capable of condemnation as I am praise - something that anyone who is actually capable of real observation probably has noted.
One thing I do aspire to is not to become so ideologically blind and deluded that I can do nothing other than condemn a pol - simply because of their politics - even when they don't merit it.
All people have both the good and bad points - and any true measure of an individual must include the entirety of their life.
Honest praise ... and honest condemnation, appropriately, where each is deserved or warranted.
Not if RLENT believes it's the word that best describes it, no. He has enough range of vocabulary to use a different word if appropriate, IMO.
Childish is retorting with the sort of defensive "Nahna boo boo" "I know you are, but what am I?" nonsense that is heard on every playground I've ever visited with my kids.
If the word 'retarded' is what you consider childish, I bet RLENT can come up with some synonyms. It won't change the gist of the message one bit, but it'd probly force a few of us to get out the dictionary, lol.
Be careful what you ask for.....
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yet more ***-clownery from the "Party of 'Tard" ... the spurious innuendo attempted by some "unnamed Senate Republican aide" about Hagel being influenced by "foreign governments" is particularly hilarious ... given the amount of uncontrollable slobbering these morons did over Israel in the hearing ...
The Chuck Hagel Witch-Hunt - The Daily BeastThe Chuck Hagel Witch-Hunt
by Ali Gharib Feb 6, 2013 9:00 PM EST
When Sen. John McCain said, even after his testy confirmation hearing exchange with Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel, that he wouldn't support a filibuster of the candidate, it seemed like Hagel's confirmation battle had come to an anti-climactic end. The Democratic-controlled Armed Services Committee would, along party lines, pass the nominee to the full Senate, where a super-majority could beat a filibuster and a bare Democratic majority would confirm Hagel to helm the Defense Department. But Armed Services Chair Carl Levin (D-MI), delayed tomorrow's expected committee vote, again stalling the process. "I had hoped to hold a vote on the nomination this week, but the committee’s review of the nomination is not yet complete," he said in a statement. "I intend to schedule a vote on the nomination as soon as possible.”
The problem is that the "committee's review of the nomination" will never be completed to the liking of Hagel's Republican opponents, because they've set an impossible bar for the nominee to clear. A Democratic official working on Hagel's confirmation told me: "What they're asking is unprecedented, and it's clear that it's information that he's unable to provide." The official noted that the U.S. had myriad national security concerns on its plate, not least of which was the 66,000 American troops deployed in Afghanistan right now.Senate Armed Services Committee member Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) (L) talks with committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) (R) as they and former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) arrive for Hagel's confirmation hearing to become the next secretary of defense. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)
Norman Ornstein, an expert on Congressional procedures with the American Enterprise Institute, called the requests "unprecedented." "I think it's a pretty ridiculous and outrageous thing to ask," he said. "You could say that there's been requests for detailed information [in the past], but this goes even beyond the intrusive questionnaires candidates fill out during the vetting process." Ornstein pointed the finger at Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who's questioning of Hagel during the confirmation hearing raised hackles. "That a Freshman senator would ask for that level of information says more about Ted Cruz than about anything else," Ornstein said. "I've never heard of anything like that before," he added. "But you could say that Ted Cruz in the Senate is unprecedented too."
Cruz appears to be spearheading the opposition: the Washington Post's neoconservative blogger Jennifer RubinIn wrote that the Texas Republican "circulated" the latest combative letter to Hagel. Senate Republicans asked Hagel for information he's not in a position to release, to them or anyone else, including financial information about private companies he was affiliated with but does not control. After initially asking for the information—in addition the extensive disclosures already made as part of the confirmation process—in a letter dated Jan. 29, Hagel responded with what information he could in a Feb. 5 letter. He wrote to the Republicans that some of the requested materials were not in his possession and, furthermore, that he couldn't release much of it even if it was. That's because the Republicans' requests go far beyond the scope of Hagel's personal finances and records, varying between asking him for materials that don't exist or that would violate legal agreements to release. Today, 25 Senate Republicans responded to Hagel reiterating their asks.
Among the repeated requests were those about any "foreign funding" received by eight private firms with which Hagel's been associated since leaving the Senate, mostly his service on various boards. "I have been forthright in disclosing all required information about my personal interests and holdings," Hagel wrote in his Feb. 5 response. "Your request for financial information regarding certain private corporate and non-profit entities is, by contrast, not mine to provide." He went on to write, "I do not believe I have any of the information requested. More importantly, the information you see is legally controlled by the individual entities and not mine to disclose. As a board member, I have a fiduciary duty that includes the obligation to maintain the confidentiality of non-public corporate information. The information may also be subject to various other legal requirement or contractual arrangements that prohibit its disclosure."
Ignoring the substance of that response completely, an unnamed Senate Republican aide close to the process told BuzzFeed, "Hagel is refusing to answer any of the questions or make any effort to get them the answers. He is basically telling Senators they have no right to know if he has been unduly influenced by foreign governments or foreign agents over the last five years. What is he hiding?" This line of questioning can never be sated: "If they want to hold hearings on the finances of these companies, they can do that, but it has nothing to do with Chuck Hagel's finances," said the Democratic official working on the confirmation. (The Republican aide told BuzzFeed that McCain was reconsidering his anti-filibuster stance, something a McCain spokesperson denied to the website.)
Another request of Hagel came in the Jan. 29 letter for a list, transcripts, videos and recordings, and other information about speeches the nominee gave since leaving the Senate. Hagel complied with the request, noting in his response that "all available prepared texts and transcripts have been provided to the Committee." Hagel added that he gave about two dozen speeches arranged by a D.C. speakers' bureau, and provided a list of the talks. The "contract for these engagements stipulates that they are off-the-record, private and not recorded," he wrote in response to the request. "I did not prepare a written text for any of those engagements." In other words, the requested information about those speeches does not exist. "What they're asking for is completely unprecedented and almost impossible to compile," a Senate Democratic aide told me. "The Pentagon believes they've handed over all the information they're legally obligated to hand over." Hagel's already released large amount of information, going well beyond the legally required public disclosures. Listed in his Feb. 5 response, this information was all available to Republicans well before the hearings.
"It's absurd," Steve Clemons, a friend of Hagel's and Washington editor-at-large of the Atlantic told me when I asked about the requests. "He's given them every transcript, every video, every shred of everything that he's done. But they don't believe it," Clemons, who wrote about Cruz's request for transcripts today, said.
The only missing piece, then, was why Levin acceded to these unreasonable Republican requests. "U.S. Senators who head committees have a commitment to making sure not that the demands of the opposition are always met, but that respect is always shown," Clemons said. "I sort of think Levin should have said, 'Hey, he has responded.'"
Joel Rubin, the director of policy and government affairs with the Ploughshares Fund, which wants a quick confirmation and applauded the nomination, echoed the sentiment: "Chairmen of committees want to make sure everyone on the committee gets their concerns answered," he said. "Levin's not the type of chairman who forces the minority's hand. I don't think it's unlimited time, but this is an attempt to give that benefit to the minority. At a certain point, the chairman will decide whether or not that request has been satisfied enough to go forward with the vote."
The Democratic official was less forgiving: "The White House still expects that the Senate will move swiftly to confrim Chuck Hagel," the said. "With 66,000 troops in Afghanistan and other pressing national security issues, we really need to move forward with this confirmation. It's the responsible thing to do when we're at war."
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Anyone besides me see at least one tweensy-weensy little problem with this:
Yeah, sure Lindsay dahling ... how could anyone possibly think that any elected officials in DC are intimidated by "The Lobby" ...
Just Who Do They Represent: At Hagel Hearing, Concern for Israel Tops U.S. Troops in Combat | TIME.com
When Senator Mike Lee took his turn to cross-examine defense-secretary nominee Chuck Hagel during last Thursday’s confirmation hearing, he expressed considerable concern for Israel’s security.
“Let’s say those Palestinians who have engaged in acts of terrorism, perhaps in retaliation against Israel for Israel defending itself,” the Republican from Utah asked, ”do they have a legitimate gripe?”
Hagel responded that “terrorism can never be justified under any circumstances.”
Lee continued, bringing up the possibility that Israel might withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. “Do you view that as a tenable solution?” he asked Hagel. “Do you believe such borders are militarily defensible?”
This went on and on. In fact, Lee—by himself—made reference to Israel and its security a total of 16 times.
Why is this important? It’s important because Lee never mentioned Afghanistan and the 66,000 U.S. troops at war there.
And Lee was not alone.
Freshman Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas also grilled Hagel about Israel. He mentioned the Jewish state 10 times—without ever once referring to Afghanistan or the U.S. troops in combat there.
When it was their turn to question Hagel, GOP senators Roy Blunt of Missouri and Roger Wicker of Mississippi each referred to Israel in a half dozen instances.
Neither mentioned Afghanistan.
In nearly eight hours of interrogation and testimony, Israel and its interests were referred to by the Senate Armed Services Committee a total of 106 times.
On the other hand, there were a mere 24 references made to Afghanistan and the Americans fighting there—most by Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the committee.
Nuclear-armed Pakistan—where the U.S. frequently targets militants with drone-launched Hellfire missiles—barely merited mention at all.
It’s difficult to interpret this message any other way: the Senate Armed Services Committee—particularly its Republican membership—is more concerned with the apparent American defense secretary’s relationship with Israel than with the future of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the fate of U.S. troops engaged in both locations.
We are approaching a host of critical and delicate decisions on how many — and how fast — U.S. troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan. Yet, after more than a decade at war there — and nearly 2,100 U.S. lives lost — the people charged with overseeing the operation seem no longer interested.
While Israel is a strategic ally in a precarious situation (the committee also frequently brought up Iran), at best, this sends a disheartening message to the American men and women serving down range, under hostile fire. After 11 years of fighting, committee members seem to have little concern for what the likely incoming defense secretary thinks of the situation.
Fatigue is a factor—both parties are more than ready to be done with the Afghan venture. But beginnings, and endings, of any enterprise are often the most important. If anyone has a right to be exhausted of this process, to be tired of thinking about it, living it, and troubleshooting it, it’s not senators in Washington.
It’s the men and women who have fought—and are fighting—there.
After so much blood and treasure, it shouldn’t be too much to ask that the people who sent them there, and have kept them there, pay fuller attention to our ongoing hot war—even as it enters its final stages. It’s the least they could do for the soldier taking fire today.
Brandon Friedman is a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and author of The War I Always Wanted. He is a vice president at Fleishman-Hillard International Communications in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter at @BFriedmanDC.
Yeah, sure Lindsay dahling ... how could anyone possibly think that any elected officials in DC are intimidated by "The Lobby" ...
Last edited:
You're the one who mentioned the childishness. If you don't think it is, then feel free to have a tard fest when posting for all I care.Not if RLENT believes it's the word that best describes it, no. He has enough range of vocabulary to use a different word if appropriate, IMO.
Childish is retorting with the sort of defensive "Nahna boo boo" "I know you are, but what am I?" nonsense that is heard on every playground I've ever visited with my kids.
If the word 'retarded' is what you consider childish, I bet RLENT can come up with some synonyms. It won't change the gist of the message one bit, but it'd probly force a few of us to get out the dictionary, lol.
Be careful what you ask for.....
Cheri said:
Someone Muttly or something. Right into the ground. No underground. Good luck with the Chinese.
Is that the nana boo boo your referring to ? Truly priceless gibberish. Pot calling the kettle black roadrunner.
You're the one who mentioned the childishness. If you don't think it is, then feel free to have a tard fest when posting for all I care.Not if RLENT believes it's the word that best describes it, no. He has enough range of vocabulary to use a different word if appropriate, IMO.
Childish is retorting with the sort of defensive "Nahna boo boo" "I know you are, but what am I?" nonsense that is heard on every playground I've ever visited with my kids.
If the word 'retarded' is what you consider childish, I bet RLENT can come up with some synonyms. It won't change the gist of the message one bit, but it'd probly force a few of us to get out the dictionary, lol.
Be careful what you ask for.....
Cheri said:
Someone Muttly or something. Right into the ground. No underground. Good luck with the Chinese.
Is that the nana boo boo your referring to ? Truly priceless gibberish. Pot calling the kettle black roadrunner.
This all sounds warm and fuzzy but, as you like to say, your views are source of public record. Don't recall any admonishments from you on the current administration after four years. When someone brings up certain "anomalies" with the current regime, more often that not it is labeled by you as some sort of witch hunt. It's called checks and balances. My guess is such labels are more about ones deep hatred for a particular "faction" in the party. Therefore, when there is true "transgressions" by the current regime, instead of calling them out, it appears there is a willingness to downplay or sweep it under under the rug as no big whoop. A sort of ends justify the means mentality, i.e. can't let that "faction" get the upper hand so whatever the hit the fan moments there are is small potatoes to the alternative.
Just remember those small potatoes like Benghazi and Fast and Furious involved lives too.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
This sniveling little douchebag (the Toe-tapper) ought to be on trial for treason:
Poor Lindsey is all verklempt about the Big O hanging out there all alone for violating the Constitution and institutionalizing the depriving Americans of their due process rights ... what a disgusting little weasel ...
Of course, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyways ... for the benefit of apparently "recall challenged" crowd) that Obama is guilty of same ... and ought to be brought up on articles of impeachment ...
Of course, the only guy who likely has the stones to actually propose, or do it, has retired.
In the big scheme of things, some things really matter ... other things not so much ...
In terms of things that do matter, the President's culpability for fuel prices ain't one of them ....
Lindsey Graham Tells Us What We Already Knew « LewRockwell.com Blog
Poor Lindsey is all verklempt about the Big O hanging out there all alone for violating the Constitution and institutionalizing the depriving Americans of their due process rights ... what a disgusting little weasel ...
Of course, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyways ... for the benefit of apparently "recall challenged" crowd) that Obama is guilty of same ... and ought to be brought up on articles of impeachment ...
Of course, the only guy who likely has the stones to actually propose, or do it, has retired.
In the big scheme of things, some things really matter ... other things not so much ...
In terms of things that do matter, the President's culpability for fuel prices ain't one of them ....
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
SNL basically nails it ... but then doesn't have the balls to actually air it ...
But even just the fact that they released it online has Abe Foxman over @ ADL in a complete snit ...
Be forewarned - some (or all ?) of the subject matter of the following video clip may be considered to be OBSCENE - depending on your sensitivities ... it is, however, just hilarious:
... O' Parody, thy name is Truth ...
But even just the fact that they released it online has Abe Foxman over @ ADL in a complete snit ...
Be forewarned - some (or all ?) of the subject matter of the following video clip may be considered to be OBSCENE - depending on your sensitivities ... it is, however, just hilarious:
... O' Parody, thy name is Truth ...
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
One vote down ... and perhaps only one more to go:
Senate committee advances Hagel nomination for defense secretary - The Washington Post
And Uncle Harry sez there will be no GOP "blocking" of the nomination:
Harry Reid says he will not honor holds GOP senators place on Chuck Hagel.
After this is all over, perhaps some good folks will rise to the occasion and be magnanimous in victory ... and take up a collection to buy Senator Sissy-Boy (R-SC) that nice pink tutu he's always lusted after ...
Senate committee advances Hagel nomination for defense secretary - The Washington Post
And Uncle Harry sez there will be no GOP "blocking" of the nomination:
Harry Reid says he will not honor holds GOP senators place on Chuck Hagel.
After this is all over, perhaps some good folks will rise to the occasion and be magnanimous in victory ... and take up a collection to buy Senator Sissy-Boy (R-SC) that nice pink tutu he's always lusted after ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
A little ditty from back in 2003, where the (current) Breitbart editor - who was behind the recent Chuck Hagel "Friends of Hamas" hoax by the way - calls for ethnically cleansing all Palestinians:
Transfer is not a dirty word - Ben Shapiro
Of course, the actual action of doing so would be "a crime against humanity" as defined under international law, and assimilable to war crimes:
Ethnic cleansing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Transfer is not a dirty word - Ben Shapiro
Of course, the actual action of doing so would be "a crime against humanity" as defined under international law, and assimilable to war crimes:
Ethnic cleansing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
That is not the childish retorts to which I referred, it was a response to your last post: "He's rolling something."
What I meant was Someone [that'd be you], into the ground. No - even deeper: underground.
Good luck with the Chinese referred to just how far under you were getting buried: clear to the other side of the world - guess you slept through geography class.
See, it wasn't gibberish - it just sailed right over your muttly head, is all.
The nana boo boo meant the kind of 'slams' you were lobbing back: very impressive, if you're about 7 years old.
That is not the childish retorts to which I referred, it was a response to your last post: "He's rolling something."
What I meant was Someone [that'd be you], into the ground. No - even deeper: underground.
Good luck with the Chinese referred to just how far under you were getting buried: clear to the other side of the world - guess you slept through geography class.
See, it wasn't gibberish - it just sailed right over your muttly head, is all.
The nana boo boo meant the kind of 'slams' you were lobbing back: very impressive, if you're about 7 years old.
I got it the FIRST time. Chinese on the other side of the world. Dig to china. Yes got it. Ok. Let it go. Let it go now. Take Dreamer's advice. No more personal attacks. Deal?.. deal.