Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

sebster wrote:

None of this will get any better until conservatives start demanding some decency from their Republicans.

You know, I asked about something like that a couple years back in one of these threads, about why the party of God and family values behaves so poorly, you know what the answer was? "Because when the Republicans do the right thing, they lose". Very telling, and I'll let you guess who said it.

My read is that they don’t care... because they object to the idea of their morality being weaponized in such fashion.

And frankly, why should they listen to a party that gave us Floatin’ Teddy, “Put Some Ice On That” Bill, Fernophile Harvey and Slappy Schneiderman???

I mean, yeah, the Republicans need to do a better job in nominating decent candidates (ie, no more Roy Moore). And we also need to be observant and hold them accountable (which we're flunking badly about that Congressional slush fund used to settle sexual harassment at the hill).

But, for non-Republicans to sit there and wag their fingers, no matter how legit/appropriate it is, will only exacerbate the political divide.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:
McCain is a fething hero. Full Stop.

Doesn't shield him from his political career... but the man is on his deathbed and comments like these are downright deplorable.

Whem you never answered the question about whether you would support a woman who helped to tortured a pregnant women, you just kinda pivoted away complaining about thread locks. What is your answer to the support of a person who helped tortured a pregnant women.

On the one hand, she's definitely qualified...

On the other... I wouldn't simply because of this PR fiasco.

Why didn't you bag on Obama & the Senate when John Brennan was confirmed?

Also I expected a lot more pushback with your stances on fetuses besides calling it a "PR fiasco"

Oh?

Then you shouldn't have too much problem with it, as your past support of planned parenthood elided.

Or... maybe understand that these senators are using this confirmation hearing to "fight back against Trump", regardless if her qualifications... because... Trump!

tneva82 wrote:
Reports of school shooting in process in california

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/11/us/california-school-shots-fired/index.html

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

sebster wrote:

None of this will get any better until conservatives start demanding some decency from their Republicans.

You know, I asked about something like that a couple years back in one of these threads, about why the party of God and family values behaves so poorly, you know what the answer was? "Because when the Republicans do the right thing, they lose". Very telling, and I'll let you guess who said it.

My read is that they don’t care... because they object to the idea of their morality being weaponized in such fashion.

And frankly, why should they listen to a party that gave us Floatin’ Teddy, “Put Some Ice On That” Bill, Fernophile Harvey and Slappy Schneiderman???

I mean, yeah, the Republicans need to do a better job in nominating decent candidates (ie, no more Roy Moore). And we also need to be observant and hold them accountable (which we're flunking badly about that Congressional slush fund used to settle sexual harassment at the hill).

But, for non-Republicans to sit there and wag their fingers, no matter how legit/appropriate it is, will only exacerbate the political divide.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:
McCain is a fething hero. Full Stop.

Doesn't shield him from his political career... but the man is on his deathbed and comments like these are downright deplorable.

Whem you never answered the question about whether you would support a woman who helped to tortured a pregnant women, you just kinda pivoted away complaining about thread locks. What is your answer to the support of a person who helped tortured a pregnant women.

On the one hand, she's definitely qualified...

On the other... I wouldn't simply because of this PR fiasco.

Why didn't you bag on Obama & the Senate when John Brennan was confirmed?

Also I expected a lot more pushback with your stances on fetuses besides calling it a "PR fiasco"

Oh?

Then you shouldn't have too much problem with it, as your past support of planned parenthood elided.

Or... maybe understand that these senators are using this confirmation hearing to "fight back against Trump", regardless if her qualifications... because... Trump!

Well I am assuming that she wanted to keep the baby since it is really the womens choice, but keep making those false equivalences whem you just keep proving my point over and over

No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

 whembly wrote:
Or... maybe understand that these senators are using this confirmation hearing to "fight back against Trump", regardless if her qualifications... because... Trump!

Gina Haspel should not have been nominated because she should be in jail. She was directly responsible for a site that engaged in torture of detainees and was instrumental in destroying evidence of war crimes.

But you know, stigginit.

 Frazzled wrote:
No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

I just saw that come up, looks like nobody was hurt thankfully. There seemed to be an attempt to link it to Conditt's bombing, but he's been dead for two almost two months now.

Thankfully it also looks like the CA event has no casualties reported, at least so far.

 whembly wrote:
Why didn't you bag on Obama & the Senate when John Brennan was confirmed?

You keep ignoring that Brennan under Obama was entirely different then Haspel under Trump,

For example she said this during her hearing: "My moral compass is strong. I would not allow CIA to undertake activity I thought immoral even if it was technically legal. I would absolutely not permit it."

Yet people were already tortured under her watch, so apparently she does not see what she did as immoral.

Or being wilfully obtuse when asked what she would do if Trump asked her to use enhanced interrogation: "I do not believe the president would ask me to do that"

Even though we have video of Trump openly supporting and advocating for techniques like waterboarding. That is the key difference between the Obama and Trump admin.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/remysmidt/parkland-florida-families-parents-trump-shooting-victims?utm_term=.xjjBMBXKQ#.vyb9g9AKB


sterling job there.

Real classy.


what a coward.

Oh?
About That FBI ‘Source’ Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign? (open in chrome incognito to bypass the paywall)

TL;DR: They had to source within the campaign team, feeding the FBI intel.... and the FBI isn't clear how early in the campaign this started... that's a hell of a whistleblower...

If you're upset about that, you should be downright furious that Giuliani was getting information on a case he had literally zero involvement or reason to be getting information on and was using it to try to force the FBI to paint a candidate in a bad light.

But you won't be; because her emails!!!1!1!

 whembly wrote:
TL;DR: They had to source within the campaign team, feeding the FBI intel.... and the FBI isn't clear how early in the campaign this started... that's a hell of a whistleblower...

This is an op-ed, and that is speculation, not a news item. They take about 3 rhetorical jumps to gain speed to making that jump. I'm not saying it's not true, because who knows; but it's not something that this piece has established. There are an awful lot of weasel words in there, and "just asking questions" bs. It's pretty weak sauce TBH.

So...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/387273-grassley-says-trump-and-mcconnell-unlikely-to-follow-biden-rule

Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" that he personally would abide by the so-called "Biden Rule" — named after former senator and Vice President Joe Biden — if a Supreme Court vacancy opened in 2020.

But asked if Trump would want to follow the precedent, Grassley said he would not.

"I'd follow that. That would be just the 12 months, or let's say the 10 months, before the election 2020. No, he wouldn't agree with that," Grassley said of Trump.

Asked if McConnell would want to follow the rule, Grassley replied: "No, he would not agree with it."

Republicans invoked the "Biden Rule" in 2016, after then-President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Garland never received a hearing in the Senate, because Republicans argued at the time that the next president should get to fill the vacant seat.

Was there ever any doubt that the Republicans would be hypocrites?

At this point it is pretty much one of their defining characteristics.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you're upset about that, you should be downright furious that Giuliani was getting information on a case he had literally zero involvement or reason to be getting information on and was using it to try to force the FBI to paint a candidate in a bad light.

Leaking is bad.

But you won't be; because her emails!!!1!1!

...and don't forget Gorsuch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
TL;DR: They had to source within the campaign team, feeding the FBI intel.... and the FBI isn't clear how early in the campaign this started... that's a hell of a whistleblower...

This is an op-ed, and that is speculation, not a news item. They take about 3 rhetorical jumps to gain speed to making that jump. I'm not saying it's not true, because who knows; but it's not something that this piece has established. There are an awful lot of weasel words in there, and "just asking questions" bs. It's pretty weak sauce TBH.

Well... one thing, the author stops short of naming that IC asset because she couldn't corroborate. That tells me that this is more of a "good faith" op-ed, rather that the rest of the gak that the media flings w/o corroboration or (unnamed source).

 Vaktathi wrote:
So...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/387273-grassley-says-trump-and-mcconnell-unlikely-to-follow-biden-rule

Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" that he personally would abide by the so-called "Biden Rule" — named after former senator and Vice President Joe Biden — if a Supreme Court vacancy opened in 2020.

But asked if Trump would want to follow the precedent, Grassley said he would not.

"I'd follow that. That would be just the 12 months, or let's say the 10 months, before the election 2020. No, he wouldn't agree with that," Grassley said of Trump.

Asked if McConnell would want to follow the rule, Grassley replied: "No, he would not agree with it."

Republicans invoked the "Biden Rule" in 2016, after then-President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Garland never received a hearing in the Senate, because Republicans argued at the time that the next president should get to fill the vacant seat.

There's also the pesky little detail that the "Biden Rule" was to wait until after the election or to appoint someone everyone could agree on, and not to wait until the next President.

If Obama nominated Gorsuch the GOP would have done the same thing.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you're upset about that, you should be downright furious that Giuliani was getting information on a case he had literally zero involvement or reason to be getting information on and was using it to try to force the FBI to paint a candidate in a bad light.

Leaking is bad.

But you won't be; because her emails!!!1!1!

...and don't forget Gorsuch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
TL;DR: They had to source within the campaign team, feeding the FBI intel.... and the FBI isn't clear how early in the campaign this started... that's a hell of a whistleblower...

This is an op-ed, and that is speculation, not a news item. They take about 3 rhetorical jumps to gain speed to making that jump. I'm not saying it's not true, because who knows; but it's not something that this piece has established. There are an awful lot of weasel words in there, and "just asking questions" bs. It's pretty weak sauce TBH.

Well... one thing, the author stops short of naming that IC asset because she couldn't corroborate. That tells me that this is more of a "good faith" op-ed, rather that the rest of the gak that the media flings w/o corroboration or (unnamed source).

What the feth is a "good faith" op-ed? She used a writing tactic to string you along man. This isn't a "good faith" anything. This is just an op-ed with no meat to it.

That feeling when someone who has committed treason calls someone else a terrorist

The newly elected president of the National Rifle Association has claimed that gun control activists, like those who have emerged following a deadly shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, in February, are “civil terrorists.”



Oliver North, who is best known for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal in which profits from weapons sales to Iran were secretly funneled to right-wing guerrillas in Nicaragua, was named the lobbying group’s new president earlier this week. And he has wasted no time attacking activists who have criticized the NRA’s role in continued gun violence.



“They’re not activists—this is civil terrorism. This is the kind of thing that’s never been seen against a civil rights organization in America,” Oliver North told the Washington Times. “You go back to the terrible days of Jim Crow and those kinds of things—even there you didn’t have this kind of thing.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-president-oliver-north-says-175639346.html

To be fair, he has a good idea of what an actual terrorist looks like...

 Frazzled wrote:
No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?

The ME is always dangerously close to a shooting war.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...

 Ustrello wrote:
That feeling when someone who has committed treason calls someone else a terrorist

The newly elected president of the National Rifle Association has claimed that gun control activists, like those who have emerged following a deadly shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, in February, are “civil terrorists.”



Oliver North, who is best known for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal in which profits from weapons sales to Iran were secretly funneled to right-wing guerrillas in Nicaragua, was named the lobbying group’s new president earlier this week. And he has wasted no time attacking activists who have criticized the NRA’s role in continued gun violence.



“They’re not activists—this is civil terrorism. This is the kind of thing that’s never been seen against a civil rights organization in America,” Oliver North told the Washington Times. “You go back to the terrible days of Jim Crow and those kinds of things—even there you didn’t have this kind of thing.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-president-oliver-north-says-175639346.html

This is the kind of ignorant dumbfeth rhetoric that makes the modern conservative movement such a clown college. What a gakshow.

Prestor Jon wrote:Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

If you haven't noticed but recent history has shown that the USA doesn't really need actual reasons to bomb ME countries. Just look at Iraq. And with the US leadership seeming rather unpredictable from an outside perspective things are looking interesting. It's not about what we think could be used to justify attacks but what we assume could randomly happen because all kinds of decisions from the US look erratic these day.

The US bombs ME countries it can get away with bombing, which is gakky, but Yemen and Pakistan aren't Iran and we honestly probably have some backhanded permission from such countries to bomb in their country that just won't be acknowledged for political reasons.

Syria is in a civil war.

Iran is a completely different story.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...

There’s a huge difference in competency between Mattie and Rumsfeld.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...

There’s a huge difference in competency between Mattie and Rumsfeld.

And a huge difference in competency between Trump and Dubya. In Dubya's favour.

 LordofHats wrote:
The US bombs ME countries it can get away with bombing, which is gakky, but Yemen and Pakistan aren't Iran and we honestly probably have some backhanded permission from such countries to bomb in their country that just won't be acknowledged for political reasons.

Syria is in a civil war.

Iran is a completely different story.

We’ve also sent military assets into Libya, Nigeria and the Philippines without starting a war. We might attack some Iranian assets in Syria but were not going to start a conventional war with Iran. They don’t have anything we want and they aren’t going to do anything severe enough to provoke us. Mattis isn’t going to spend lives to improve Trumps approval rating.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...

There’s a huge difference in competency between Mattie and Rumsfeld.

Unfortunately Mattis is not "The Decider".