Obama insults half of the country

markh wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

It's really an intellectually dishonest tactic, and it really makes you wonder about some peoples' motives.

Or maybe it's just simply this.

Yeah, well for the record, I wasn't questioning jack's motives. I was questioning the motives of Malkin and Hannity and the rest of the right wing talking heads.

This proves absolutely nothing. But thanks to all of you folks riding on the "crazy train," it looks like they may change the wording of a footnote just to make sure that your fragile feelings aren't hurt.

Have you even bothered to read the report yet, jack?

Representative Harmon's quote in the article that you posted pretty much says it all.

Quote :

The latest report has turned into a "political football," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. Harman, who chairs a House subcommittee on intelligence and information sharing, said the report could have been written more artfully, but added that "it was a well-intended effort to describe to law enforcement what things to look for."

"If the result is to dumb down intelligence products that could prevent the next attack to the homeland, we will all lose," she said.

happy jack wrote:

It seems that others, including the overseer of the authorship of the paper, are also taking things out of context … changing the meaning … mining quotes in a manner worthy of a creationist … and engaging in bullshit conspiratorial nonsense that even maddmaxx would be envious of.

Really? Where? I didn't see anything in that article that they came remotely close to validating any of your points. There were no "It really is a government conspiracy" admissions, no "We did define rightwing extremism to include single issue voters. Oopsie!" or "We really did insult the veterans just like the Bush administration. Our/their bad." None of that... Instead what I saw was a simple attempt to reign in a superfluous and completely manufactured PR nightmare over a report that wasn't even intended for public viewing in the first place... placating the incredibly ignorant masses. A few "that wasn't what we intended" and "that could have been written better" offered because they severely underestimated the depths conservatives would go to in order to drum up support for their public teabaggings and because saying "it could have been written better" was more PC than looking directly into the camera and shouting "Stop spouting nonsense, you partisan hacks".

Again, you can recognize this as the blowhard nonsense that it is because a) such unfounded interpretations aren't coming from the intelligence community, and b) those so "concerned" now completely failed to criticize similar reports when they were issued as far back as 2001, and they certainly aren't criticizing those reports now (they can’t claim Great Liberal Conspiracy if both administrations did it). So what were valid intelligence assessments from a Republican administration yesterday are magically part of a large liberal conspiracy today only because it's coming from a Democratic one. So spare me the melodrama and phony outrage. Honestly, is there anything more specious than crying over the semantics of a threat assessment? Aren't there far more important things going on?

Scorpion wrote:

Representative Harmon's quote in the article that you posted pretty much says it all.

Quote :

The latest report has turned into a "political football," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. Harman, who chairs a House subcommittee on intelligence and information sharing, said the report could have been written more artfully, but added that "it was a well-intended effort to describe to law enforcement what things to look for."

"If the result is to dumb down intelligence products that could prevent the next attack to the homeland, we will all lose," she said.

Agreed. Such assessments weren't subject to public opinion before, and they shouldn't be now, especially because of something as childish as hurt feelings. :shakehead:

And, of course, idiot politicians are jumping on the bandwagon. From happy's article:

Quote :

The senior Democrat of the House committee with oversight of the department said the report raises privacy and civil liberty issues. "This report appears to have blurred the line between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not," Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wrote in a letter to Napolitano.

Meanwhile, back in 2005...

Quote :

Congressman Thompson Calls for the Department of Homeland Security to do More to Fight Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists

Washington, DC — Congressman Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and other House Democratic Members, held a teleconference today to address the Department of Homeland Security’s failure to better target domestic terrorist groups on the 10-year anniversary of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. During the call, Congressman Thompson raised concerns about the Department’s failure to reassess the threat posed by right-wing domestic terrorists. He stressed the need for the Department to revise its long-term planning to address this risk.

You can read the report here. Now let's apply what we've learned...

Quote :

The FBI’s third domestic terror group targets “special interest” issues, which can be left or right-wing in affiliation - such as animal rights, environmental protection or abortion.

So by the conservative logic demonstrated earlier in the thread, anyone who loves puppies, trees, or unborn fetuses has been a domestic terrorist since 2005. DHS must have been pretty busy over the last few years.

happy jack wrote:

Yeah, I suppose shouting, "Stop spouting nonsense, you partisan hacks" would not be very PC, and is probably the reason that it was not the reflexive response for John McCain when the New York Times all but accused him of an affair with a lobbyist, or for Sarah Palin when she was being accused of burning library books and faking her pregnancy, or for Rush Limbaugh when he was being accused of wishing out loud that the nation would fail or calling soldiers phony, or for Trent Lott when he was accused of committing a lynching by wishing a one-hundred year-old man happy birthday, or for … well, you get the idea.

Holy hell... And I thought liberals were supposed to be the whiners...

Well, I figured this phony outrage was nothing more than the usual "they did it to us first!" crybaby bullshit. Thanks for admitting it, at least.

happy jack wrote:

Sucks when your words are laid open to an interpretation that you don’t care for, doesn’t it?

Hey, look! You can be taught! Ain't progress grand?

happy jack wrote:

I don’t feel that I made a very big deal over this – all told, I probably wrote a paragraph or two. You, on the other hand, have probably placed yourself in danger of developing carpal tunnel with your reams of response.

Don't be jealous of my mad typing skillz. Practice, baby, practice.

happy jack wrote:

Odd though, that if there’s no substance to this, it still bothers you so much.

No substance doesn't equate to no impact. They're talking about dumbing down our intelligence reports because of this... that they can now be so influenced by public opinion doesn't worry you at all? Not even a little? Nah... You're ok sacrificing the safety of the country just to stick it to the liberals. Take that, hippies!

happy jack wrote:

But rather than blame me for posting an opinion on an inconsequential message board, you might want to direct some of that outrage toward the people who would, and who actually have the capability to, put this country at risk.

Well, first off, of course most of it was directed towards you. You did post the story in a discussion forum after all. But did I really blame you? I thought I merely said you were hilariously wrong when you stated "Obama insults half of the country" as well as pointing out the hypocracy of your feigned outrage over this one report and no others. My only point in mentioning the safety of this country was to call attention to the fact that you seemed to be comfortable with the consequences of such a demonstrably phony story for no other reason than to stick it to the liberals. But you can guarantee that when (hopefully if) the Republican/Democratic waterheads and their media cheerleaders start any hearings or investigations I will direct my outrage towards them, along with any idiots who fall for such political grandstanding.

happy jack wrote:

If the people your little Water Walker put in charge of the nation's security are so unprincipled that they would intentionally dumb down intelligence so as to pacify some anonymous dumbass on an internet forum rather than have themselves look bad, then I think we have a little bit more to worry about than my humble opinion.

They're not dumbing it down for you; if this kind of bullshit sensationalism was coming only from you I'd simply be pointing and laughing. Instead, the Republicans rolled this into their nationwide teabagging festival as another part in their never ending fearmongering campaign, and now everyone is jumping on the bandwagon in an attempt to garner some of the ridiculous support its gotten and are now talking of wasting taxpayer time and money on investigations and hearings. Yes, that's an entirely different beast altogether than your nonsensical rants about "the Messiah". The DHS has real shit to do instead of participating in some phony Congressional witchhunt. Hell, Congress has real shit to do too. If the "Oh yeah... uh... We'll look into it" isn't anything other than paltry lip service, I'll agree with you... we're hosed. I'm already disappointed they didn't start out with "Stop spouting nonsense, you partisan hacks" like they should have.

happy jack wrote:

I've noticed that you and a few others get rather testy when He is referred to as 'the Messiah'.
Would it make you feel any better if I told you that I genuflect when I use that term?

Nah... I could care less. I just think such a behavior is downright hilarious. And if you're genuflecting when referring to him, well... then you're buried far deeper into your ODS than I'd imagined. It's just that people who constantly refer to politicians in such grand terms are usually incapable of a rational discussion about them or their policies. They create these nonsensical and nonexistent caricatures of the individual, a strawman usually placed in the center of vast conspiracies, and fall back on them to avoid addressing any actual points raised during discussions.

The Second Coming? Seriously?!?

Cuba's leaders weren't even present at the conference in Trinidad, so how exactly did the President "buddy up with Fidel and Raul?"

Yeah Lois- he only buddied up to two out of the four you posted about so clearly he's not a Socialist Muslim...

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Cuba's leaders weren't even present at the conference in Trinidad, so how exactly did the President "buddy up with Fidel and Raul?"

I guess you've been away from civilization. He has had communication with The Cubans concerning relations. He was stroking those guys BEFORE the conference.Does it make you feel good when a poster has to explain everything to you? Are you that shallow?

Let's see if Barry's popularity takes a hit on this latest blunder. HUGO CHAVEZ? DANIEL ORTEGA? The CASTROS? Nothing but a bunch of two bit dictators that have NOTHING, NOTHING to offer The U.S.

Lois,Why don't you explain to all of us "shallow" people how well the Bush policies worked with these countries?

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Lois,Why don't you explain to all of us "shallow" people how well the Bush policies worked with these countries?

Ah yes, George Bush. Saw that coming! George Bush ruined my life, George Bush ruined my life!
These two-bit dictators, and the "policies" go back as far as Ronald Reagan. How can you even defend what this know nothing did during the conference?

Easy!

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Lois,Why don't you explain to all of us "shallow" people how well the Bush policies worked with these countries?

Ah yes, George Bush. Saw that coming! George Bush ruined my life, George Bush ruined my life!
These two-bit dictators, and the "policies" go back as far as Ronald Reagan. How can you even defend what this know nothing did during the conference?

Easy!

Unbelievable...

Yeah,Nixon talked to Mao,Reagan talked to Gorbachev,and now Obama is talking to Chavez. Bush OTOH reached out to no one. You are now free to rattle off all his foreign policy accomplishments during the last 8 years.

Quote :

What does anybody south of the Rio Grande River have that we can use.

Raul has lots of sugar, nickel and cobalt while Hugo has lots of oil that's used to make gasoline that you use in your car or whatever you have that gets to from point A to B.

Anything else you want to know?