PIRACY: If you can't find it online, you don't deserve it. Don't support lazy thieves and avoid posting links.
0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.
There's always something bad going on the world, usually several different things, and there's really very little that America can do to keep those things from happening or stop them when they do. We can barely even keep our own selves together most of the time.
You mean this could be settled diplomatically and not with drones?
“The White House is incompetent and the dumping of illegals is intentional.”Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio takes the dumping of illegal aliens in his Maricopa County as an “affront” because Arizona has been a high-profile critic of federal immigration policy, and Arpaio has been “like the poster boy” for slamming the Justice Department and the White House.He doubts the massive wave of illegals, many of them unaccompanied minors, is a result of mere administration ineptitude.“I got my own theory,” he said. “I think the White House sometimes is incompetent, but I can’t imagine them doing this without realizing that there was going to be controversy.”Arpaio thinks President Obama is deliberately courting that controversy because the current crisis on the border gives him a chance to issue more executive orders, or prod Congress into passing immigration reforms that suit the president’s taste....The 82-year-old sheriff has 55 years of law-enforcement experience. (His birthday is Flag Day, and he says this year he spent it “locking up deadbeat dads.”) After spending many of those years fighting the drug trade as a federal agent, he finds it disappointing that the federal government spends so much time hassling him.“That’s sad, in a way,” he said. “But you know what? It doesn’t bother me. Actually, I love challenges. The more they go after me, the more happy I am, and I’m not going to surrender.”He doesn’t think America should surrender to an illegal immigration crisis some describe as intractable.“We’re the greatest country in the universe,” Arpaio declared. “You’re trying to tell me that we can’t control the illegal immigration coming into our country?”Among the other issues he has no intention of retreating from is his challenge to the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate, which he remains convinced is a forged document. Arpaio is well aware of the criticism this crusade generates, from accusations of racism lobbed against him, to charges that he’s an obsessed eccentric. He repeated his determination to push harder in the face of such adversity, and suggested his critics consider that he knows how much trouble he’s causing for himself, and how quickly it would all go away if he dropped the subject.
Should Christians be forced to reject the bombing of abortion clinics before being allowed to make a pro-life argument?
Why is the onus on her to reject the views of extremists she doesn't associate with, and view she does not hold? The insinuation always seems like "if they haven't publicly rejected radical Islam they must be a radical Islamist." Should Christians be forced to reject the bombing of abortion clinics before being allowed to make a pro-life argument?
Quote from: Phoenix Dark on June 20, 2014, 01:12:07 PMWhy is the onus on her to reject the views of extremists she doesn't associate with, and view she does not hold? The insinuation always seems like "if they haven't publicly rejected radical Islam they must be a radical Islamist." Should Christians be forced to reject the bombing of abortion clinics before being allowed to make a pro-life argument?That's crazy, True Christians would never believe or support such a thing. While these people, they're different. I mean just look at her, wearing something over her head, that's not normal.
I have a dude going off about Benghazi and Lois Lerner on my facebook feed
they shred or delete shit every few months for safety reasons.
Missing emails definitely sounds convenient...until you remember this is a government agency, specifically the fucking IRS, and they shred or delete shit every few months for safety reasons.
"What the media should be doing is encouraging everyone who has a view of what to do now in Iraq to come forward and discuss it rationally," Miller said. "But they're doing the opposite. They're trying to shut down people like Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney, all of the 'neoconservatives' who brought us this war. It's not helpful."
I don't even know what that sentence is trying to say
While we're on the subject of people who don't deserve to be listened to anymore, why are we supposed to be listen to anything Judith Miller says?
Quote from: Steve Contra on June 20, 2014, 01:20:42 PMI have a dude going off about Benghazi and Lois Lerner on my facebook feed Lerner's emails are in Iraq with the WMDs and the videos of Obama laughing while watching Benghazi unfold via dronecam. It's where Obama hides all the evidence from conservatives. It's also why he won't send troops back there. One might go Bergdal and accidentally find it.
WASHINGTON -- Taxpayers who do not produce documents for the Internal Revenue Service will be able to offer a variety of dubious excuses under legislation introduced by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX 36) a week after the IRS offered an incredibly dubious excuse for its failure to turn documents over to House investigators.“The United States was founded on the belief government is subservient and accountable to the people. Taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to follow laws the Obama administration refuses to follow themselves,” said Stockman. “Taxpayers should be allowed to offer the same flimsy, obviously made-up excuses the Obama administration uses.”Under Stockman’s bill, “The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act,” taxpayers who do not provide documents requested by the IRS can claim one of the following reasons:1. The dog ate my tax receipts2. Convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer malfunction3. Traded documents for five terrorists4. Burned for warmth while lost in the Yukon5. Left on table in Hillary’s Book Room6. Received water damage in the trunk of Ted Kennedy’s car7. Forgot in gun case sold to Mexican drug lords8. Forced to recycle by municipal Green Czar9. Was short on toilet paper while camping10. At this point, what difference does it make?Stockman’s bill comes a week after the IRS refused to turn over to House investigators emails from former Exempt Organizations Divison director Lois Lerner that would implicate agency personnel in illegal targeting of citizens critical of President Barack Obama.
http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-bill-allows-taxpayers-to-use-same-lame-excuses-as-irs
http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-bill-allows-taxpayers-to-use-same-lame-excuses-as-irsQuoteWASHINGTON -- Taxpayers who do not produce documents for the Internal Revenue Service will be able to offer a variety of dubious excuses under legislation introduced by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX 36) a week after the IRS offered an incredibly dubious excuse for its failure to turn documents over to House investigators.“The United States was founded on the belief government is subservient and accountable to the people. Taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to follow laws the Obama administration refuses to follow themselves,” said Stockman. “Taxpayers should be allowed to offer the same flimsy, obviously made-up excuses the Obama administration uses.”Under Stockman’s bill, “The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act,” taxpayers who do not provide documents requested by the IRS can claim one of the following reasons:1. The dog ate my tax receipts2. Convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer malfunction3. Traded documents for five terrorists4. Burned for warmth while lost in the Yukon5. Left on table in Hillary’s Book Room6. Received water damage in the trunk of Ted Kennedy’s car7. Forgot in gun case sold to Mexican drug lords8. Forced to recycle by municipal Green Czar9. Was short on toilet paper while camping10. At this point, what difference does it make?Stockman’s bill comes a week after the IRS refused to turn over to House investigators emails from former Exempt Organizations Divison director Lois Lerner that would implicate agency personnel in illegal targeting of citizens critical of President Barack Obama.
At the end of the day, the IRS took a closer look at some applications.
So what the fuck is the conspiracy.
DAVID GREGORY: Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has been quite critical of this president and he wrote an op-ed this week in which he said in part, “Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is ‘ending’ the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – as though wishing [makes] it so.” Do you think Dick Cheney is a credible critic of this president?SEN. RAND PAUL: I think the same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq War. You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That’s what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable? Was the war won in 2005, when many of these people said it was won? Um… they didn’t really, I think, understand the civil war that would break out. And what’s going on now, I don’t blame on President Obama. Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East. I also blame those who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran. These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become, and I understand some of their worry…
ON KARL, ABC NEWS: Now, Rand Paul, pointing to things like that, wrote in "The Wall Street Journal" also, "Many of those clamoring for military action now are the same people who made every false assumption imaginable about the cost, challenge and purpose of the Iraq War. They have been wrong for so long, why should we listen to him -- listen to them again?" your response?FMR. VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: With all -- all due respect, John, I was a strong supporter then of going into Iraq, I'm a strong supporter now. Everybody knows what my position is. There's nothing to be argued about there.But if we spend our time debating what happened 11 or 12 years ago, we're going to miss the threat that is growing and that we do face. Rand Paul, with all due respect, is basically an isolationist. He doesn't believe we ought to be involved in that part of the world.I think it's absolutely essential.One of the things I worried about 12 years ago and that I worry about today is that there will be another 9/11 attack and that the next time, it'll be with weapons far deadlier than airline tickets and box cutters.And when we have a situation developing in Pakistan, for example, where there are nuclear weapons, where supposedly that technology has been sold to the North Koreans, at the same time, the president announces the complete withdrawal from Afghanistan right next door, that we're -- we're missing the boat. We don't understand the nature of the threat and we're unwilling to deal with it.KARL: Do you -- in your op-ed, you have a broader critique, which you're -- you're making now, as well, of the president's foreign policy. And you write, "President Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring that he has taken America down a notch."In this op-ed, you also suggest the president is a -- a fool -- that was the word you used -- only a fool would -- would take the -- the approach he's taking in Iraq right now.It almost seems like you're accusing the president of treason here, saying he's intentionally bringing America down a notch.CHENEY: No, my reference didn't refer just to Iraq. It referred to the fact that we've left a big vacuum in the Middle East by our withdrawal from Iraq with no stay-behind agreement, by the commitment he made just a couple of weeks ago, that we're going to completely withdraw from Afghanistan with no stay-behind agreement.We create a vacuum and it's being filled. And today, it's being filled by ISIS -- by Sisi (ph) from Syria. It's being filled by their attempt, obviously, to take over all of Iraq, but it's also being filled by places like Pakistan, where the Taliban have just launched a major attack on the Karachi airport.The -- the scope of the problem, in part, is based upon an unwillingness by the president to recognize we have a problem. They're still living back in the day when they claimed we got bin Laden, the terrorism problem is solved.That wasn't true then. It's even less true today. The threat is bigger than it's ever been. The danger of nuclear proliferation in the hands of terrorists is bigger than it's ever been. We need to dramatically reverse course on our defense budget. We are decimating the defense budget, not al Qaeda. We need to go back to a two war strategy, not the one war strategy that he's put in place.We have 40 brigades in the United States Army, only four of them are combat ready. He is dramatically limiting the capability of future presidents to deal with crises by virtue of the policies he's taken.Now, I don't intend any disrespect for the president, but I fundamentally disagree with him. I think he's dead wrong in terms of the course he's taken this nation and I think we're in for big trouble in the years ahead because of his refusal to recognize reality and because of his continual emphasis upon getting the U.S. basically to withdraw from that part of the world.KARL: On virtually everything you just mentioned, it seems you also have a debate within your own party. Rand Paul -- and many see him as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2016, given where he stands, again, in opposition to much of what you just talked about, could you support a Republican nominee, Rand Paul, for president?CHENEY: I haven't picked a nominee yet. But one of the things that's right at the top of my list is whether or not the individual we nominate believes in a strong America, believes in a situation where the United States is able to provide the leadership in the world, basically, to maintain the peace and to take on the al Qaeda types wherever they show up.Now, Rand Paul and -- by my standards, as I look at his -- his philosophy, is basically an isolationist. That didn't work in the 1930s, it sure as heck won't work in the aftermath of 9/11, when 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters came all the way from Afghanistan and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
What's this about Hilary Clinton and rape?
WASHINGTON — As Senator Thad Cochran, the veteran Republican, fights for his political life in Mississippi by taking the unexpected step of courting black Democrats, conservative organizations working to defeat him are planning to deploy poll watchers to monitor his campaign’s turnout operation in Tuesday’s runoff election.Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee that has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars backing Mr. Cochran’s Tea Party opponent, State Senator Chris McDaniel, said in an interview on Sunday that his group was joining with Freedom Works and the Tea Party Patriots in a “voter integrity project” in Mississippi.The groups will deploy observers in areas where Mr. Cochran is recruiting Democrats, Mr. Cuccinelli said. J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department official and conservative commentator who said he was advising the effort, described the watchers as “election observers,” mostly Mississippi residents, who will be trained to “observe whether the law is being followed.”
QuoteDAVID GREGORY: Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has been quite critical of this president and he wrote an op-ed this week in which he said in part, “Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is ‘ending’ the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – as though wishing [makes] it so.” Do you think Dick Cheney is a credible critic of this president?SEN. RAND PAUL: I think the same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq War. You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That’s what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable? Was the war won in 2005, when many of these people said it was won? Um… they didn’t really, I think, understand the civil war that would break out. And what’s going on now, I don’t blame on President Obama. Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East. I also blame those who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran. These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become, and I understand some of their worry…QuoteON KARL, ABC NEWS: Now, Rand Paul, pointing to things like that, wrote in "The Wall Street Journal" also, "Many of those clamoring for military action now are the same people who made every false assumption imaginable about the cost, challenge and purpose of the Iraq War. They have been wrong for so long, why should we listen to him -- listen to them again?" your response?FMR. VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: With all -- all due respect, John, I was a strong supporter then of going into Iraq, I'm a strong supporter now. Everybody knows what my position is. There's nothing to be argued about there.But if we spend our time debating what happened 11 or 12 years ago, we're going to miss the threat that is growing and that we do face. Rand Paul, with all due respect, is basically an isolationist. He doesn't believe we ought to be involved in that part of the world.I think it's absolutely essential.One of the things I worried about 12 years ago and that I worry about today is that there will be another 9/11 attack and that the next time, it'll be with weapons far deadlier than airline tickets and box cutters.And when we have a situation developing in Pakistan, for example, where there are nuclear weapons, where supposedly that technology has been sold to the North Koreans, at the same time, the president announces the complete withdrawal from Afghanistan right next door, that we're -- we're missing the boat. We don't understand the nature of the threat and we're unwilling to deal with it.KARL: Do you -- in your op-ed, you have a broader critique, which you're -- you're making now, as well, of the president's foreign policy. And you write, "President Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring that he has taken America down a notch."In this op-ed, you also suggest the president is a -- a fool -- that was the word you used -- only a fool would -- would take the -- the approach he's taking in Iraq right now.It almost seems like you're accusing the president of treason here, saying he's intentionally bringing America down a notch.CHENEY: No, my reference didn't refer just to Iraq. It referred to the fact that we've left a big vacuum in the Middle East by our withdrawal from Iraq with no stay-behind agreement, by the commitment he made just a couple of weeks ago, that we're going to completely withdraw from Afghanistan with no stay-behind agreement.We create a vacuum and it's being filled. And today, it's being filled by ISIS -- by Sisi (ph) from Syria. It's being filled by their attempt, obviously, to take over all of Iraq, but it's also being filled by places like Pakistan, where the Taliban have just launched a major attack on the Karachi airport.The -- the scope of the problem, in part, is based upon an unwillingness by the president to recognize we have a problem. They're still living back in the day when they claimed we got bin Laden, the terrorism problem is solved.That wasn't true then. It's even less true today. The threat is bigger than it's ever been. The danger of nuclear proliferation in the hands of terrorists is bigger than it's ever been. We need to dramatically reverse course on our defense budget. We are decimating the defense budget, not al Qaeda. We need to go back to a two war strategy, not the one war strategy that he's put in place.We have 40 brigades in the United States Army, only four of them are combat ready. He is dramatically limiting the capability of future presidents to deal with crises by virtue of the policies he's taken.Now, I don't intend any disrespect for the president, but I fundamentally disagree with him. I think he's dead wrong in terms of the course he's taken this nation and I think we're in for big trouble in the years ahead because of his refusal to recognize reality and because of his continual emphasis upon getting the U.S. basically to withdraw from that part of the world.KARL: On virtually everything you just mentioned, it seems you also have a debate within your own party. Rand Paul -- and many see him as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2016, given where he stands, again, in opposition to much of what you just talked about, could you support a Republican nominee, Rand Paul, for president?CHENEY: I haven't picked a nominee yet. But one of the things that's right at the top of my list is whether or not the individual we nominate believes in a strong America, believes in a situation where the United States is able to provide the leadership in the world, basically, to maintain the peace and to take on the al Qaeda types wherever they show up.Now, Rand Paul and -- by my standards, as I look at his -- his philosophy, is basically an isolationist. That didn't work in the 1930s, it sure as heck won't work in the aftermath of 9/11, when 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters came all the way from Afghanistan and killed 3,000 of our citizens.BOOM. RAND DOWN FOR THE COUNT.Also: more redefinition of isolationist.
