Obama, DeBlasio, Clinton & Bloomberg Bask in Grievance

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

#BringBackAmericanExceptionali sm

#ExterminateSmellyOlTurdflys

[trident60]

Thanks for defending me, I B. It was sadly necessary and an all too familiar happening in reasoned discourse. No human being is free from some degree of prejudicial thought, but MY perception is that the current left leaning body politic has a disproportionate bent toward maligning those with differing views, and abusing power to suppress those views. There are too many noteworthy examples to list, but a few stick out; 1. Suppressing conservative groups with IRS harassment, 2. Stonewalling Congressional inquiries into (long list here) Benghazi, Fast & Furious, VA neglect, 3. Suppression of Senate debate by dis-allowing amendments embarrassing to Democrats. All normal politics, but not seen to this degree since Watergate. All this is in the national forum and few of us little guys outside the beltway can affect much of it.

I do, however, take serious issue with being accused of advocating our military use Russian style tactics (poison gas, booby trapped toys) to win wars. This is a dizzying leap of illogical insinuation. This is the sick turn from reasoned debate and discussion to name-calling, akin to playing the race card or inciting class envy if you have nothing else to offer. I don't know if Old-T has anything to add to the facts of this discussion, but he first used mud-slinging to make his point. He might be a fine person, but he committed a morally indefensible act and is to be pitied for it. I did, and do, malign the gang of political attention getters for their publically documented repugnant actions. They are in the kitchen and are used to feeling the heat, justified or not. Private citizens should behave better, sort through the facts, and vote for better people because they have examined issues, not following what their boss, shop steward, community organizer or partisan advocate says. There is plenty of room for reasoned debate. Lord knows, there's not enough of it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Sure doesn't come across as non-advocating when I read it. But then again, the poster was anti Obama so you would obviously ignore any negative tone in his post you blind myopic fool.

More pity than hate. I reserve ridicule for those who are FAR right of me AND constantly spewing garbage--like you.

Again the hypocrite accusation, but when prodded to elaborate (like what race I am or what religion) you deflect and lie. Then you try to shout all the louder that it's everyone else who lies, not you. see, THAT is the kind of reason I ridicule you, because post after post you earn ridicule.

There you have it folks! Old-Twerp hypocritically imagines himself to be one of this forum's most even-keeled political moderates; yet, when he thinks someone has slighted his fearless leader -- Odumbo -- Old-Twerp reveals his true lib-retard fanaticism and goes into a delusional, melt-down rant hurling stupid and false accusations.

BTW, Old-Twerp, this isn't "What's My Line?", and you're not John Charles Daly. So nobody gives a flying fuck that you might be aboriginal pygmy following the dictates of Boko Haram's Salafi jihadism. Go screw your hypocritical and sanctimonious self, Old-Twerp!

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There you have it folks! Old-Twerp hypocritically imagines himself to be one of this forum's most even-keeled political moderates; yet, when he thinks someone has slighted his fearless leader -- Odumbo -- Old-Twerp reveals his true lib-retard fanaticism and goes into a delusional, melt-down rant hurling stupid and false accusations.

BTW, Old-Twerp, this isn't "What's My Line?", and you're not John Charles Daly. So nobody gives a flying fuck that you might be aboriginal pygmy following the dictates of Boko Haram's Salafi jihadism. Go screw your hypocritical and sanctimonious self, Old-Twerp!

That is a remarkable stupid post even by your incredibly low standards. YOU bring up accusations about my race and religion, then when I comment on the topics YOU brought up it is somehow narcissism on MY part? Really?

Then we have your recurring illiteracy problem: go back and read what I said. I neither defended nor attacked Obama. I just pointed out the other poster's irrational reaction to Obama. You should try reading for meaning some time, instead of your usual word skimming approach. It probably won't help you but it certainly can't hurt.

Finally, I do concede to your complete superiority in one area: I will never be able to write the kind of diarrhetic meltdown posts that you write. You truly are unsurpassed in that area.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

That is a remarkable stupid post even by your incredibly low standards. YOU bring up accusations about my race and religion, then when I comment on the topics YOU brought up it is somehow narcissism on MY part? Really?

Then we have your recurring illiteracy problem: go back and read what I said. I neither defended nor attacked Obama. I just pointed out the other poster's irrational reaction to Obama. You should try reading for meaning some time, instead of your usual word skimming approach. It probably won't help you but it certainly can't hurt.

Finally, I do concede to your complete superiority in one area: I will never be able to write the kind of diarrhetic meltdown posts that you write. You truly are unsurpassed in that area.

Yes, Old-Twerp, you did defend Odumbo, because you claimed your vicious and ignorantly unsolicited attack was based on a slight -- in your perception, Old-Twerp -- against Odumbo.

Further, Old-Twerp, it was not your "religion" or your "race" that is in question, because, as stated before, nobody gives a flying fuck that you might be aboriginal pygmy following the dictates of Boko Haram's Salafi jihadism. No one except your ignorant has made an ignorant straw man argument out of your race, Old-Twerp. And it's your "religiosity" -- not your "religion" -- that is being questioned, Old-Twerp.

So go screw your hypocritical and sanctimonious self, Old-Twerp!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Old-Thumper... LMAO

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There you have it folks! Old-Twerp hypocritically imagines himself to be one of this forum's most even-keeled political moderates; yet, when he thinks someone has slighted his fearless leader -- Odumbo -- Old-Twerp reveals his true lib-retard fanaticism and goes into a delusional, melt-down rant hurling stupid and false accusations.

You pathetic pathological liar. Live in your psychopathic dream world but try once every 12,000 or so posts to actually say something without lies or deceit. I know you probably can't but just for a change why don't you try? Here is my statement:

Originally Posted by Old-T
Sure doesn't come across as non-advocating when I read it. But then again, the poster was anti Obama so you would obviously ignore any negative tone in his post you blind myopic fool.

Absolutely nothing in my post supporting or attacking Obama--just a statement of fact that YOU go off the deep end every time Obama is mentioned. Which you did again here.


BTW, Old-Twerp, this isn't "What's My Line?", and you're not John Charles Daly. So nobody gives a flying fuck that you might be aboriginal pygmy following the dictates of Boko Haram's Salafi jihadism. Go screw your hypocritical and sanctimonious self, Old-Twerp!

Yep, more crap from IB. YOU said I was a racial bigot but when you were shown to be a blowhard who didn't even know what race I am--then you started saying "who cares". YOU brought up the religion issue by saying I am a religious hypocrite, but again you were shown to be better at creative fiction than facts.

But maybe, just maybe, you are telling the truth (sort of). Maybe after being embarrassed a couple times you really do no longer care. If that is the case, quit making accusations about me without substantiation and we can move on to other issues. However, you might want to stop screaming at others about not answering your questions--since you have ignored so many of mine.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Old-Thumper... LMAO

Oh so clever IIFFy! It really took you so long to come up with that one? I assumed you would have thought of it much earlier. But since I don't Thump on any book, I find such childish insults humorous more than actually insulting. I don't often say how others should act, or call down damnation of them, or scream about the evils of homosexuality while seeing male escorts. Do you?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Yep, more crap from IB. YOU said I was a racial bigot but when you were shown to be a blowhard who didn't even know what race I am--then you started saying "who cares". YOU brought up the religion issue by saying I am a religious hypocrite, but again you were shown to be better at creative fiction than facts.

You pathetic pathological liar. Live in your psychopathic dream world but try once every 12,000 or so posts to actually say something without lies or deceit. I know you probably can't but just for a change why don't you try? Here is my statement:

Absolutely nothing in my post supporting or attacking Obama--just a statement of fact that YOU go off the deep end every time Obama is mentioned. Which you did again here.

But maybe, just maybe, you are telling the truth (sort of). Maybe after being embarrassed a couple times you really do no longer care. If that is the case, quit making accusations about me without substantiation and we can move on to other issues. However, you might want to stop screaming at others about not answering your questions--since you have ignored so many of mine.

You're a liar, Old-Twerp! Called your hypocritical ass "sanctimonious", Old-Twerp, and your "race" issue is a straw man issue that you contrived! Please inform the forum as to which religion it is that preaches the virtue of "sanctimony", Old-Twerp! Until you do, STFU and go screw your hypocritical and sanctimonious self, Old-Twerp!

[Old-T]

Wow, if you ever listened to your own advice you would have about 12,100 fewer posts.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by trident60

You are correct about the long history of intelligence isolation, but it mattered little until our homeland was attacked from within. This about as concise a document that is available on the damage done by Bill Clinton's administration.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33873.pdf

It was prepared in 2007 for Congress to synopsize the history of intelligence sharing and the efforts to break down barriers between law enforcement and intelligence communities. FISA was becoming increasingly dysfunctional to break these barriers in the face of rising Islamic radicalism in the 1990's (Clinton's era). To save time, read the narrative on pages 8 and 9 where the obstruction by the Justice Department to legislative reforms is well documented. Justice's obstruction was abetted by political loyalty to traditional leftist privacy and civil liberties groups that support the likes of Sen. Patrick Leahy. All of this hand wringing about privacy and civil rights protection of terrorists went out the window post 9/11 with the Patriot Act. Congress was happy to enact the Patriot Act when we clearly saw the sad consequences of Clinton's dithering while our embassy was bombed, the Cole was bombed, and the WTC was bombed.

I will not resort to name calling to counter your simplistic arguments. I reserve such broad denigrations for our politicians who so richly deserve it. All of these things are sadly true and well documented, just not well disseminated. You won't find this stuff on Entertainment Tonight or TMZ. Its buried in boring reports and the Congressional Record. Perhaps too tedious a read for most, but regrettably for you, it documents the truth.

BTW, Bush did run the Taliban, and by association Al Qaeda, out of Afghanistan. It is well documented in Woodward's excellent narrative, "Bush at War". It is a stunning narrative of insurgent war on the cheap. The CIA bought whole armies of Pashtun mercenary fighters for $50 million. UBL and his minions were forced across the border to friendlier venues. Their survivors enjoy sanctuary there today. You probably know so many wounded veterans because we cannot fight a war like the Russians who came within an eyelash of cleansing Afghanistan until we smuggled in SAM's to the Mujahedeen. Russia was playing to win with helicopter gunships, poison gas, and booby trapped kids toys. Total war, not nation building. The Russians were losing ground almost from day one. Total war was needed because the whole country was against them. Once the stingers arrived, Russian troop discipline and morale fell apart once it was obvious ground troops would get little to none in the way of air reinforcement, troop extraction, air support or medivac support. Helicopter crews never knew when some one was going to reach out and touch them.

Not spewing hate, just facts. BTW see if you can manage to spell Al Qaeda correctly. Al Quida???

Just facts? Save time?
To save time and to get the facts, read the summary. It's shorter and more concise than pages 8 and 9 and gives an overall picture.

Summary

Almost all assessments of the attacks of September 11, 2001, have concluded

that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies had failed to share information

that might have provided advance warning of the plot. This realization led Congress

to approve provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) and subsequent

legislation that removed barriers to information sharing between intelligence and law

enforcement agencies, and mandated exchanges of information relating to terrorist

threats. Most experts agreed that statutory changes, albeit difficult to enact, were

essential to change the approaches taken by executive branch agencies.

The barriers that existed prior to September 2001 had a long history based on

a determination to prevent government spying on U.S. persons. This had led to the

establishment of high statutory barriers to the sharing of law enforcement and

intelligence information. The statutes laid the foundation of the so-called “wall”

between intelligence and law enforcement that was buttressed by regulations, Justice

Department policies, and guidance from the judicial branch.

Despite the widespread acceptance of a barrier between law enforcement and

intelligence, by the early 1990s it had become apparent to some that the two

communities could mutually support efforts to combat international criminal

activities including narcotics smuggling. Later in the decade dangerous threats to the

U.S. posed by international terrorists came into sharper focus. Nevertheless, efforts

to adjust laws, regulations, and practices did not succeed, drawing strong opposition

from civil libertarians. (you know, sog, iffy, whirly, ibculling) Only the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks overcame earlier

concerns and led Congress and the executive branch to remove most statutory

barriers to information sharing.

Laws and regulations have changed significantly since September 2001 and an

Information Sharing Executive (ISE) has been established within the Office of the

Director of National Intelligence to design and implement information sharing

procedures. It is clear, however, that sustaining the exchange of law enforcement and

intelligence information remains a challenge. In particular, there is continued

concern about sharing of information that might in some way jeopardize the rights

of free speech or association of U.S. persons. This opposition has contributed to the

difficulty Congress has had in addressing legislation in this area and can be expected

to continue. Some argue that, given the extent of legislation enacted in recent years,

extensive oversight of information sharing efforts may be an appropriate way to

ensure that the balance between ensuring domestic security and protecting civil

liberties can be maintained.

In no way goes the report take any particular group or administration to task, except civil libertarians of course, for creating road blocks or not sharing intelligence information.

And BTW, if you cite Woodward's "Bush at War" then his follow up book, "State of Denial" is a must read. He details how the Bush administration manipulated information about the war in Iraq in his first 2 books on the subject. He had complete and total access to Bush and gang for the first 2 books. They cut that off when he began asking questions they didn't like. Almost every fact or quote in "State of Denial" has a footnote detailing where it came from.

[skirtchaser79411]

WHO SHOT JFK THE CIA, THE CHICAGO MOB. OR HIT TEAM THEY BOUGHT WHO CARES.
OUR GOVERMENT KNOWS AND WONT TELL THAT IS FUCKING SCARY

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by skirtchaser79411

WHO SHOT JFK THE CIA, THE CHICAGO MOB. OR HIT TEAM THEY BOUGHT WHO CARES.
OUR GOVERMENT KNOWS AND WONT TELL THAT IS FUCKING SCARY

Did you take a wrong turn and wind up in a thread u out weren't expecting to be in?

By the way, you left out Castro as retaliation for the Bay of Pigs.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Wow, if you ever listened to your own advice you would have about 12,100 fewer posts.

But you're the sanctimonious asshole whose perpetual mantra is "thumpers", Old-Twerp! So STFU and go screw your hypocritical and sanctimonious self, Old-Twerp!

[Old-T]

Even for you that post makes no sense, IB. Unless you are finally conceding that you are a brainless egomaniac and this is your public self immolation. Could be--that would be a glorious day for logic on here.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Even for you that post makes no sense, IB. Unless you are finally conceding that you are a brainless egomaniac and this is your public self immolation. Could be--that would be a glorious day for logic on here.

It makes complete sense, Old-Twerp, you're a sanctimonious asshole and your denigrating mantra has been and is "thumper". One need only do a forum search to show you for the sanctimonious fraud you are, Old-Twerp.