##Maddow blasts erroneous Benghazi reporting: ‘ABC blew it’

[Zepp]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/16/maddow-blasts-erroneous-benghazi-
reporting-abc-blew-it/

#Maddow blasts erroneous Benghazi reporting: ‘ABC blew it’
By David Ferguson
Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:56 EDT
Skeptical Maddow is skeptical


Print Friendly and PDF
Email this page

On Wednesday night’s edition of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” host Rachel
Maddow tore into TV network ABC for its recent reporting on the Benghazi
attack and President Barack Obama’s administration’s response to the
tragedy.

Maddow opened the piece by discussing a McClatchy report that Ambassador
Chris Stevens had repeatedly turned down offers of increased security at
the consulate in Benghazi. No one is certain why, but Maddow said that
this is the only real scandal in the Benghazi attack.

“Could the attack have been prevented?” she asked. “Why wasn’t it
prevented? Why wasn’t there better security there? Why did those four
Americans die? That remains the big issue.”

Last Friday, however, reporter Jonathan Karl at ABC ran with an
anonymously sourced “scoop” in the form of a White House email chain
detailing the administration’s response to the crisis. If the ABC story
was true, the Republicans, who had been trying to make political hay of
the Benghazi attack, finally had an angle they could work.

According to ABC, the State Department (and therefore Hillary Clinton)
had desperately tried to micro-manage the talking points to be used about
the attack in order to shield the institution and its leadership from
criticism. The White House weighed on the State Department’s side, as
evidenced by emails first quoted in The Weekly Standard and then ABC.

“According to ABC News,” said Maddow, “the White House, in that email
that they quoted, clearly planned to massage the story about Benghazi at
the direction of the State Department.”

Then on Tuesday of this week, CNN’s Jake Tapper published the entirety of
the White House email, which showed ABC’s take on the story to be
completely false.

“That ABC article, turns out, was totally wrong,” she explained. “ABC
blew it. Turns out they weren’t actually quoting White House emails at
all.”

--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com

Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!

[Steve]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:40:57 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/16/maddow-blasts-erroneous-benghazi-
>reporting-abc-blew-it/
>
>#Maddow

Maddow who?

[Transition Zone]

I think its all just throwing right-wing media some crumbs.

[RogerN]

"Transition Zone" wrote in message
news:b41731da-22f1-4f4d...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

>On May 16, 10:40 am, Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:

><snip>

> > “ That ABC article, turns out, was totally wrong, ” she
>explained. “ ABC
>> blew it. Turns out they weren’t actually quoting White House emails at
> >all. ”
>
>I think its all just throwing right-wing media some crumbs.

Of course you think that, that's why Obama loves you. Obama thinks you are
the stupidest thing to ever breathe air but he depends on your kind of
stupid to back him no matter what!

RogerN

[Zepp]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:50:06 -0500, AlleyCat wrote:

> On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:09:30 -0400, In article
> <8f0ap8p5iirtb7d71...@4ax.com>, steven...@yahooooo.com
> says...
>
>> Maddow who?
>
> MaddCow! Or is it MadBull?

In any event, you're scared to death of her.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:42:53 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
wrote:

Roger, you smoke-blower, what he said is exactly right. They compared
what ABC said with the actual memo. It was vastly different.

And it's true that ABC would like to get some of that FOX News market.
There's nowhere else for them to go. They can't get anywhere by
dividing up the mass market with NBC and CBS anymore, so they have to
go after a niche -- one that has only one competitor. Look at the
Nielson ratings and you'll see for yourself.

--
Ed Huntress
>

[Steve]

<LOL> Scared to death of who??????

"Booze and cigs were the only drugs that caused me any problems
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson Sep 19 1997
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d51f705639486c96?hl=en&

[RogerN]

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:31lap81pavcjdle9p...@4ax.com...

Fox news market? People that prefer news over lies and spin? People that
prefer news over Obama's ministry of propaganda? It's easy, if they just
start reporting unbiased news then people that don't suck Obama would watch.
It's funny that true news became a "niche"!

Obama - didn't care about the will of the people, he forced Obamacare on us
against the will of the people. Ted Kennedy got replaced by a Republican
running to stop Obamacare. Obama had full majority until HE screwed it up
in 2010 (or before), still never passed a budget. Obama threw Democrats
under the bus and still the morons worship the liar. He had weapons sold
illegally to Mexican drug cartel and used executive privilege to obstruct
justice. He used the IRS to attack those that didn't agree with him. He
has attacked the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights of Americans. He acts
as if we have no constitution or he is above the constitution. Sensing
tensions in Libya, they ask to keep their security, but are denied, then
during the Benghazi attack, they need help and again are denied. They lied,
Americans died, and Hitlary asks "What difference does it make". They
search out and find a video to blame the attacks on, even though they have
word it's a terrorist attack. Obama wants to fool his stupid followers into
thinking he's effective on terrorism so he lies about the terrorist attack.
Richard Nixon was removed for far less than what Obama has gotten away with.
Obama says he's clueless to all these groups acting illegally for Obama's
benefit. What kind of a moron would believe this chief of liars? No one in
their right mind!

Ed, what would have you said if you heard the IRS was targeting the Tea
Party a couple of months ago? You would have denied it. But now the IRS
comes out and even admits they did indeed target groups that were tea party
or patriotic.

Did you hear there's another abortionist/murderer they are going after now?
He's been killing babies by cutting their throat after delivery during
attempted abortion. The pro-infant murderers drew the line at birth and
they are so damned stupid they can't even keep it within the bounds that
they set themselves.

RogerN

[Zepp]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 22:42:41 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:

> AlleyCat wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:09:30 -0400, In article
>> <8f0ap8p5iirtb7d71...@4ax.com>, steven...@yahooooo.com
>> says...
>>
>>
>> > Maddow who?
>>
>> MaddCow! Or is it MadBull?
>

> MSNBC has taken a nose dive. This is not a good thing during MAY SWEEPS.

Gosh, you know the May ratings and it's still two weeks before the end of
the month.

Truly, you are a marvel.
>
> There is more than a good chance that CNN will beat MSNBC during the
> month of May (LAST SWEEPS OF THE SEASON).
>
> MaddCow (I like that) is down 36% & there will be no room for Chris
> Hayes come July (his numbers are horrendous).

[Zepp]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:19:28 -0500, AlleyCat wrote:

> On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:45:50 +0000 (UTC), In article
> <kn3k2e$kms$18@dont- email.me>, de...@gone.com says...

>
>> In any event, you're scared to death of her.
>

> LOL WTF? Why should I be scared of a fucking Entertainment puppet?
> I can't watch someone that always talks as though it's telling teacher
> on me.
> Her and "Tingles" Chrissy Matthews. They're both nerds that happen to
> read well. Chrissy is just a fucking tattletale like that kid you always
> bullied and gave atomic wedgies to. He's a pussy.

Just keep puffing out your narrow white chest and telling us you aren't
afraid of her.

We're all very impressed.

[Tom Gardner]

Can you hear the sound of wagons circling? The sycophants will NEVER
let anything tarnish their love for Obama and will deny, divert and
deflect anything that doesn't praise and shower love and rose petals on
Obama. Nothing new. Obama could eat live babies on prime time TV and
NOTHING would change. OK, I accept that. A free phone will sure get
you far with the low-information/ignore-information left. So, why
bother bantering with them, they are too far gone to see anything but
what they are told to see.

[Zepp]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 22:44:33 -0500, AlleyCat wrote:

> On Fri, 17 May 2013 01:31:01 +0000 (UTC), In article
> <kn418k$b41$13@dont- email.me>, de...@gone.com says...

>
>
>> Just keep puffing out your narrow white chest and telling us you aren't
>> afraid of her.
>
>> We're all very impressed.
>

> LOL... just another little nerd response to try and marginalize me. My
> chest is probably twice your puny little nerd's size.

Got man boobs, do you?
>
> "We're all very impressed".
>
> Nerdy nerd reply. No one's trying to impress you, your Royal Gayness.
>
> I am what I am, and that's about twice what you are. Oh yeah... I'm not
> fat,
> dork.

Yes, you probably are.

Speaking of which, your royal dorkiness, it just came to light that ABC
was fed those bullshit memo quotes by Capitol Hill GOP staffers. Thus
destroying what little cred the GOP in the House ever had.
>
> You going to tell me why I'm afraid of someone that makes me cringe at
> the sight and sound of him? Rachel Madcow. Why am I afraid of you? I
> will be cowering under my bed until you tell me.

[Zepp]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:18:21 -0500, AlleyCat wrote:

> On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:45:50 +0000 (UTC), Zepp wrote:
>
>> In any event, you're scared to death of her.
>

> Really? How?

Well, opinions vary. Some people think it's because you're a stupid,
servile fascist, and strong women scare you.

I think it's because she really shows up your utter intellectual
inadequacy.

It could be both, of course.

[Zepp]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 00:54:48 -0400, Tom Gardner wrote:

> On 5/16/2013 7:46 PM, RogerN wrote:
>> "Ed Huntress" wrote in message
>> news:31lap81pavcjdle9p...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:42:53 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Transition Zone" wrote in message

>>>> news:b41731da-22f1-4f4d-84fc-
a4d597...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Sure is fun listening to you whine. Why, I could do that all day.

[Richard]

On 5/16/2013 11:54 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

> Can you hear the sound of wagons circling? The sycophants will NEVER let
> anything tarnish their love for Obama and will deny, divert and deflect
> anything that doesn't praise and shower love and rose petals on Obama.
> Nothing new. Obama could eat live babies on prime time TV and NOTHING
> would change. OK, I accept that. A free phone will sure get you far with
> the low-information/ignore-information left. So, why bother bantering
> with them, they are too far gone to see anything but what they are told
> to see.

Not even when he got his head handed to him on a plate yesterday
in regards to exceeded his power when he bypassed Senate to appoint
NRLB members.

Oh bloody oops...

[Steve]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 22:44:33 -0500, AlleyCat <al...@aohell.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 01:31:01 +0000 (UTC), In article <kn418k$b41$13@dont-
>email.me>, de...@gone.com says...
>
>

>> Just keep puffing out your narrow white chest and telling us you aren't
>> afraid of her.
>
>> We're all very impressed.
>

>LOL... just another little nerd response to try and marginalize me. My chest
>is probably twice your puny little nerd's size.

Zepp is short and weigh over 300 lbs. He probably has to sit to pee.

>"We're all very impressed".
>
>Nerdy nerd reply. No one's trying to impress you, your Royal Gayness.
>
>I am what I am, and that's about twice what you are. Oh yeah... I'm not fat,
>dork.
>

[Steve]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:19:31 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 May 2013 22:44:33 -0500, AlleyCat wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 01:31:01 +0000 (UTC), In article
>> <kn418k$b41$13@dont- email.me>, de...@gone.com says...
>>
>>
>>> Just keep puffing out your narrow white chest and telling us you aren't
>>> afraid of her.
>>
>>> We're all very impressed.
>>
>> LOL... just another little nerd response to try and marginalize me. My
>> chest is probably twice your puny little nerd's size.
>
>Got man boobs, do you?
>>
>> "We're all very impressed".
>>
>> Nerdy nerd reply. No one's trying to impress you, your Royal Gayness.
>>
>> I am what I am, and that's about twice what you are. Oh yeah... I'm not
>> fat,
>> dork.
>
>Yes, you probably are.
>
>Speaking of which, your royal dorkiness, it just came to light that ABC
>was fed those bullshit memo quotes by Capitol Hill GOP staffers. Thus
>destroying what little cred the GOP in the House ever had.
>

It just came to light that Zepp makes up lies because he has no
facts..

--
Ignorance and irony from Zepp:

"farms were never subject to inheritance taxes. What sort of
moron are you? "
David (Zepp) Jamieson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/5c59cc2755acd39c?hl=en

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:46:07 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
wrote:

No, the FOX News market is mostly rightists who like to hear stories
that agree with their grievances and prejudices. It makes them feel
so...affirmed, and good, and righteous.

> People that
>prefer news over Obama's ministry of propaganda? It's easy, if they just
>start reporting unbiased news then people that don't suck Obama would watch.
>It's funny that true news became a "niche"!

Oh, here we go. You find out that you had your ass up in the air over
a phony "memo" that didn't say what you think it said, and now you're
going to use your ignorance of the memo's contents as a launching pad
for one of your tirades.

We're off to the races...

Let's see...if you know the other news outlets tell lies, then why do
you watch them? And if you don't watch them, how do you know that
they're telling lies and FOX is telling the truth?

You have a logic problem there, Roger. And it's far from being your
only one.

If you'd get your nose out of FOX News, you'd be a little less antic
and angry -- because you'd find out that FOX is full of crap.

>
>Obama - didn't care about the will of the people, he forced Obamacare on us
>against the will of the people.

Nope. Every major provision of the ACA was APPROVED my large
majorities. But when you put all their favored ideas together, like
allowing young adults to continue longer on their families' plans, and
making insurance companies accept people regardless of preconditions,
and adopted the old Republica idea of mandates in universal health
care with no "freeloaders," as even Newt Gingrich and the Republican
leadership in the House promoted in the mid-'90s, and then ran it
through the FOX and Republican meat-grinder and labelled it
"Obamacare," they got their panties in a twist.

It's because too many people, like you, are vulnerable to demagogues.
Maybe it's because you watch too much FOX News.

>Ted Kennedy got replaced by a Republican
>running to stop Obamacare.

They already had it in Massachusetts, and they love it. It's called
"Romneycare" up there, but it's the same thing. So maybe your logic
problem is rearing its ugly little head again, eh?

Oh, BTW, they dumped that empty suit once they got a good look at him.
Didn't they let you know that he lost re-election on FOX? Do you know
who beat him? Or did you just forget?

> Obama had full majority until HE screwed it up
>in 2010 (or before), still never passed a budget.

Presidents don't "pass" budgets. And he submitted one every year.

> Obama threw Democrats
>under the bus and still the morons worship the liar.

Uh, I think you've got your "moron" gun aimed in the wrong direction.

>He had weapons sold
>illegally to Mexican drug cartel and used executive privilege to obstruct
>justice. He used the IRS to attack those that didn't agree with him. He
>has attacked the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights of Americans. He acts
>as if we have no constitution or he is above the constitution.

Have you read it yet? The last time we discussed this, you didn't show
any signs of knowing what's in it.

> Sensing
>tensions in Libya, they ask to keep their security, but are denied, then
>during the Benghazi attack, they need help and again are denied. They lied,
>Americans died, and Hitlary asks "What difference does it make".

You got that story all wrong. You probably heard it on FOX. You really
need some fresh air, Roger.

> They
>search out and find a video to blame the attacks on, even though they have
>word it's a terrorist attack. Obama wants to fool his stupid followers into
>thinking he's effective on terrorism so he lies about the terrorist attack.
>Richard Nixon was removed for far less than what Obama has gotten away with.
>Obama says he's clueless to all these groups acting illegally for Obama's
>benefit. What kind of a moron would believe this chief of liars? No one in
>their right mind!

You have that story all wrong, too.

>
>Ed, what would have you said if you heard the IRS was targeting the Tea
>Party a couple of months ago? You would have denied it.

I would have demanded evidence before believing it. That's the
difference between us on these issues, Roger. You wouldn't have
required evidence. You would have believed it as soon as you heard
someone say it on FOX. Because you'll believe any lie, rumor,
innuendo, or assusation as long as it's a negative assertion about the
current administration. And that's most of what they do.

> But now the IRS
>comes out and even admits they did indeed target groups that were tea party
>or patriotic.

A few points here. First, they came out an admitted it. Second, the
Treasury department rejected the IRS's claims that they've fixed it.
Third, Holder's office is pursuing criminal investigations against the
IRS offices and employees that engaged in it.

Fourth, most 501(c)(4) organizations that have political origins are
crooked and fraudulent in their pursuit of tax-exempt status. Yes,
most of them. The Tea Party units under scrutiny deserved to be
audited. But two things were wrong.

First, they should never have been targeted in isolation. There are
501(c)(4) organizations supporting the Democrats that deserve the same
scrutiny and rejection of tax-exempt status.

Second, and this is the really egregious part IMO, they obviously were
trying to tie up the organizations with unneeded demands for
information. That's the part of it that makes it criminal. And those
people should be charged with election violations and whatever else
applies.

>
>Did you hear there's another abortionist/murderer they are going after now?
>He's been killing babies by cutting their throat after delivery during
>attempted abortion.

Yeah, I heard something about it.

> The pro-infant murderers drew the line at birth and
>they are so damned stupid they can't even keep it within the bounds that
>they set themselves.

You have that wrong, too, Roger. That person, if he's real, is the
kind of illegal abortionist you're left with when you shut down the
legal ones. He's what you get when people like you get their way.

--
Ed Huntress


>
>RogerN
>
>

[Zepp]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 01:55:11 -0500, AlleyCat wrote:

> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:20:53 +0000 (UTC), Zepp wrote:
>
>> >> In any event, you're scared to death of her.
>> >
>> > Really? How?
>>
>> Well, opinions vary.
>

> Your opinions... Rachel Madcow's asshole... pee-yew.

Well, at least now we know what part of Maddow you fixate on.

Were you toileted with barbed wire and electric cattle prods or something?

But back to the subject: now it's coming to light that those memo
"quotes" that ABC so thoroughly disgraced themselves with came from GOP
staffers on the Hill. Seems the evidence wasn't doing a very good job of
supporting the presence of a scandal, so your little gang of fascists
decided to just go ahead and create some evidence.

I bet you don't even think THAT'S a scandal.

>
>> Some people think it's because you're a stupid, servile fascist, and
>> strong women scare you.
>

> Spoken like a true submissive little nerdy mama's boy. Is your mommy
> strong. Is she kind of manly looking? Were you adopted by lesbians?
>
> Strong women don't scare me. What about Rachel ManCow is so strong to
> you? Her bench press? Just because you're a 98lb. weakling and you want
> to be dominated by butch and her lover...

>
>> I think it's because she really shows up your utter intellectual
>> inadequacy.
>

> Yeah... how? She's just another whining libtardian. What makes her so
> smart? She a collich gradumate? Well, hails bales...

>
>> It could be both, of course.
>

> yup... eye iz both stupid and stoopid.
>
> You're a pathetic little brainwashed nerd that was probably molested by
> your father. Why else would you hate so much?

[Transition Zone]

On May 16, 5:42 pm, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
> "Transition Zone"  wrote in message
>
> news:b41731da-22f1-4f4d...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On May 16, 10:40 am, Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >   >  “ That ABC article, turns out, was totally wrong, ” she
> >explained.  “ ABC
> >> blew it.  Turns out they weren’t actually quoting White House emails at
> > >all. ”
>
> >I think its all just throwing right-wing media some crumbs.
>
> Of course you think that, that's why Obama loves you. Obama thinks you are
>the stupidest thing to ever breathe air but he depends on your kind
of
> stupid to back him no matter what!

I don't back Obama "no matter what". I want him to sack all pro-
Guantanamo Bay people at the Justice Department and the Defense
Department, but he won't.

(for example)

[Zepp]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:50:52 -0500, AlleyCat wrote:

> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:30:04 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
>
>> Zepp is short and weigh over 300 lbs.
>

> Doesn't matter... he'll always be a little nerd, no matter how fat he
> gets.
>
> ;-)

I see you've found your level. It's Steve.

Good on you!

[Steve]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:50:52 -0500, AlleyCat <al...@aohell.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:30:04 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
>

>> Zepp is short and weigh over 300 lbs.
>

>Doesn't matter... he'll always be a little nerd, no matter how fat he gets.
>
>;-)

I always imagined that a nerd was someone who had some useful skill
set. Zepp can't even support himself.

[MattB .]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 22:44:33 -0500, AlleyCat <al...@aohell.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 01:31:01 +0000 (UTC), In article <kn418k$b41$13@dont-
>email.me>, de...@gone.com says...
>
>

>> Just keep puffing out your narrow white chest and telling us you aren't
>> afraid of her.
>
>> We're all very impressed.
>

>LOL... just another little nerd response to try and marginalize me. My chest
>is probably twice your puny little nerd's size.

You seen any current pictures of him? He is way past obese. Then
again to keep in shape would take some personally responsibility and
effort. Something many liberals seem to lack.

I'm sure he blames conservatives that he can't see his toes while
standing as well as other parts of his body.

>
>"We're all very impressed".
>
>Nerdy nerd reply. No one's trying to impress you, your Royal Gayness.
>
>I am what I am, and that's about twice what you are. Oh yeah... I'm not fat,
>dork.
>

[David R. Birch]

On 5/17/2013 6:08 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:


>> Fox news market? People that prefer news over lies and spin?
>
> No, the FOX News market is mostly rightists who like to hear stories
> that agree with their grievances and prejudices. It makes them feel
> so...affirmed, and good, and righteous.

Pretty much like the other network's market, mostly leftists who like to

hear stories that agree with their grievances and prejudices. It makes
them feel so...affirmed, and good, and righteous.
>
>> People that
>> prefer news over Obama's ministry of propaganda? It's easy, if they just
>> start reporting unbiased news then people that don't suck Obama would watch.
>> It's funny that true news became a "niche"!
>
> Oh, here we go. You find out that you had your ass up in the air over
> a phony "memo" that didn't say what you think it said, and now you're
> going to use your ignorance of the memo's contents as a launching pad
> for one of your tirades.
>
> We're off to the races...
>
> Let's see...if you know the other news outlets tell lies, then why do
> you watch them? And if you don't watch them, how do you know that
> they're telling lies and FOX is telling the truth?

The problem is that none are truthful, they just lie about different
things. Or fail to cover news that isn't what their market wants to
hear. Read every word, believe every tenth.

>
> You have a logic problem there, Roger. And it's far from being your
> only one.
>
> If you'd get your nose out of FOX News, you'd be a little less antic
> and angry -- because you'd find out that FOX is full of crap.
>
>>
>> Obama - didn't care about the will of the people, he forced Obamacare on us
>> against the will of the people.
>
> Nope. Every major provision of the ACA was APPROVED my large
> majorities. But when you put all their favored ideas together, like
> allowing young adults to continue longer on their families' plans, and
> making insurance companies accept people regardless of preconditions,
> and adopted the old Republica idea of mandates in universal health
> care with no "freeloaders," as even Newt Gingrich and the Republican
> leadership in the House promoted in the mid-'90s, and then ran it
> through the FOX and Republican meat-grinder and labelled it
> "Obamacare," they got their panties in a twist.
>
> It's because too many people, like you, are vulnerable to demagogues.
> Maybe it's because you watch too much FOX News.

Rachel Maddow is on Fox? Or do they have to be on Fox to be a demagogue?

> Presidents don't "pass" budgets. And he submitted one every year.

Maybe he should have submitted a budget that Congress was willing to pass

>
>> Obama threw Democrats
>> under the bus and still the morons worship the liar.
>
> Uh, I think you've got your "moron" gun aimed in the wrong direction.
>
>> He had weapons sold
>> illegally to Mexican drug cartel and used executive privilege to obstruct
>> justice. He used the IRS to attack those that didn't agree with him. He
>> has attacked the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights of Americans. He acts
>> as if we have no constitution or he is above the constitution.
>
> Have you read it yet? The last time we discussed this, you didn't show
> any signs of knowing what's in it.

Dunno about Roger, but I've read it and reread it. It now takes less
time to read because I can skip the parts ignored by the Reps and Dems
and SCOTUS.

>> But now the IRS
>> comes out and even admits they did indeed target groups that were tea party
>> or patriotic.
>
> A few points here. First, they came out an admitted it. Second, the
> Treasury department rejected the IRS's claims that they've fixed it.
> Third, Holder's office is pursuing criminal investigations against the
> IRS offices and employees that engaged in it.

Will that be after Holder arrests himself for contempt of Congress?

>
> Fourth, most 501(c)(4) organizations that have political origins are
> crooked and fraudulent in their pursuit of tax-exempt status. Yes,
> most of them. The Tea Party units under scrutiny deserved to be
> audited. But two things were wrong.
>
> First, they should never have been targeted in isolation. There are
> 501(c)(4) organizations supporting the Democrats that deserve the same
> scrutiny and rejection of tax-exempt status.
>
> Second, and this is the really egregious part IMO, they obviously were
> trying to tie up the organizations with unneeded demands for
> information. That's the part of it that makes it criminal. And those
> people should be charged with election violations and whatever else
> applies.

I'm eagerly waiting to see what happens, remembering how short an
attention span most of the public has.

>
>>
>> Did you hear there's another abortionist/murderer they are going after now?
>> He's been killing babies by cutting their throat after delivery during
>> attempted abortion.
>
> Yeah, I heard something about it.
>
>> The pro-infant murderers drew the line at birth and
>> they are so damned stupid they can't even keep it within the bounds that
>> they set themselves.
>
> You have that wrong, too, Roger. That person, if he's real, is the
> kind of illegal abortionist you're left with when you shut down the
> legal ones. He's what you get when people like you get their way.

Yes, banning abortion would be just as effective as Prohibition, which
stopped people from drinking, and the War on Drugs, which is still
keeping people from getting high. Banning anything results in the
product still being available, but without quality control.

David
>

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>On 5/17/2013 6:08 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>
>>> Fox news market? People that prefer news over lies and spin?
>>
>> No, the FOX News market is mostly rightists who like to hear stories
>> that agree with their grievances and prejudices. It makes them feel
>> so...affirmed, and good, and righteous.
>
>Pretty much like the other network's market, mostly leftists who like to
>hear stories that agree with their grievances and prejudices. It makes
>them feel so...affirmed, and good, and righteous.

If you're talking about MSNBC, there's some truth in that. But most of
the media is what the right calls the "MSM," and, collectively, it's
larger than either extreme.

People watch the MSM news to be informed. And they are, fairly well,
if they pay attention.

(BTW, FOX just announced today that Allen West will be a commentator.
I'll have to start watching again just for the insanity of it. <g>)

>>
>>> People that
>>> prefer news over Obama's ministry of propaganda? It's easy, if they just
>>> start reporting unbiased news then people that don't suck Obama would watch.
>>> It's funny that true news became a "niche"!
>>
>> Oh, here we go. You find out that you had your ass up in the air over
>> a phony "memo" that didn't say what you think it said, and now you're
>> going to use your ignorance of the memo's contents as a launching pad
>> for one of your tirades.
>>
>> We're off to the races...
>>
>> Let's see...if you know the other news outlets tell lies, then why do
>> you watch them? And if you don't watch them, how do you know that
>> they're telling lies and FOX is telling the truth?
>
>The problem is that none are truthful, they just lie about different
>things. Or fail to cover news that isn't what their market wants to
>hear. Read every word, believe every tenth.

I don't think so.

>>
>> You have a logic problem there, Roger. And it's far from being your
>> only one.
>>
>> If you'd get your nose out of FOX News, you'd be a little less antic
>> and angry -- because you'd find out that FOX is full of crap.
>>
>>>
>>> Obama - didn't care about the will of the people, he forced Obamacare on us
>>> against the will of the people.
>>
>> Nope. Every major provision of the ACA was APPROVED my large
>> majorities. But when you put all their favored ideas together, like
>> allowing young adults to continue longer on their families' plans, and
>> making insurance companies accept people regardless of preconditions,
>> and adopted the old Republica idea of mandates in universal health
>> care with no "freeloaders," as even Newt Gingrich and the Republican
>> leadership in the House promoted in the mid-'90s, and then ran it
>> through the FOX and Republican meat-grinder and labelled it
>> "Obamacare," they got their panties in a twist.
>>
>> It's because too many people, like you, are vulnerable to demagogues.
>> Maybe it's because you watch too much FOX News.
>
>Rachel Maddow is on Fox? Or do they have to be on Fox to be a demagogue?

I don't think that Roger watches Maddow. Of course, I'm sure he has an
opinion about her, but not because he watches her.

>
>
>> Presidents don't "pass" budgets. And he submitted one every year.
>
>Maybe he should have submitted a budget that Congress was willing to pass

And what would that be?

>>
>>> Obama threw Democrats
>>> under the bus and still the morons worship the liar.
>>
>> Uh, I think you've got your "moron" gun aimed in the wrong direction.
>>
>>> He had weapons sold
>>> illegally to Mexican drug cartel and used executive privilege to obstruct
>>> justice. He used the IRS to attack those that didn't agree with him. He
>>> has attacked the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights of Americans. He acts
>>> as if we have no constitution or he is above the constitution.
>>
>> Have you read it yet? The last time we discussed this, you didn't show
>> any signs of knowing what's in it.
>
>Dunno about Roger, but I've read it and reread it. It now takes less
>time to read because I can skip the parts ignored by the Reps and Dems
>and SCOTUS.

And what parts does the Supreme Court ignore?

>
>>> But now the IRS
>>> comes out and even admits they did indeed target groups that were tea party
>>> or patriotic.
>>
>> A few points here. First, they came out an admitted it. Second, the
>> Treasury department rejected the IRS's claims that they've fixed it.
>> Third, Holder's office is pursuing criminal investigations against the
>> IRS offices and employees that engaged in it.
>
>Will that be after Holder arrests himself for contempt of Congress?

Everyone is in contempt of Congress. Their approval rating is 16.6%.

[David R. Birch]

On 5/17/2013 8:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2013 6:08 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Fox news market? People that prefer news over lies and spin?
>>>
>>> No, the FOX News market is mostly rightists who like to hear stories
>>> that agree with their grievances and prejudices. It makes them feel
>>> so...affirmed, and good, and righteous.
>>
>> Pretty much like the other network's market, mostly leftists who like to
>> hear stories that agree with their grievances and prejudices. It makes
>> them feel so...affirmed, and good, and righteous.
>
> If you're talking about MSNBC, there's some truth in that. But most of
> the media is what the right calls the "MSM," and, collectively, it's
> larger than either extreme.
>
> People watch the MSM news to be informed. And they are, fairly well,
> if they pay attention.

All of them are informative in their own way, as long as you view what
they say critically, even Fox, from what little I've seen of it. The Fox
owned local station doesn't use the Fox national news show, so if I see
some specific complaint about Fox news, I view it online. So far, their
veracity is little different from MSM, they just lie about different
things, as I've said.

>
> (BTW, FOX just announced today that Allen West will be a commentator.
> I'll have to start watching again just for the insanity of it. <g>)

OK, haven't heard much of him, so now I gotta Google him.

Oh, yeah, him.

Poli Sci MA, which at least puts him a step above Hawwke-Ptooey.

No experience as community organizer unlike current POTUS plus real
military career unlike previous POTUS, so no POTUS potential.

>>> Let's see...if you know the other news outlets tell lies, then why do
>>> you watch them? And if you don't watch them, how do you know that
>>> they're telling lies and FOX is telling the truth?
>>
>> The problem is that none are truthful, they just lie about different
>> things. Or fail to cover news that isn't what their market wants to
>> hear. Read every word, believe every tenth.
>
> I don't think so.

Believe less than every tenth? I admit I was being generous.

>>> It's because too many people, like you, are vulnerable to demagogues.
>>> Maybe it's because you watch too much FOX News.
>>
>> Rachel Maddow is on Fox? Or do they have to be on Fox to be a demagogue?
>
> I don't think that Roger watches Maddow. Of course, I'm sure he has an
> opinion about her, but not because he watches her.

I watched her enough to form an opinion, now I ignore her like I do
Limbaugh.

>
>>
>>
>>> Presidents don't "pass" budgets. And he submitted one every year.
>>
>> Maybe he should have submitted a budget that Congress was willing to pass
>
> And what would that be?

We won't know until he tries.

>> Dunno about Roger, but I've read it and reread it. It now takes less
>> time to read because I can skip the parts ignored by the Reps and Dems
>> and SCOTUS.
>
> And what parts does the Supreme Court ignore?

Anything that threatens the oligarchy.

>>>> But now the IRS
>>>> comes out and even admits they did indeed target groups that were tea party
>>>> or patriotic.
>>>
>>> A few points here. First, they came out an admitted it. Second, the
>>> Treasury department rejected the IRS's claims that they've fixed it.
>>> Third, Holder's office is pursuing criminal investigations against the
>>> IRS offices and employees that engaged in it.
>>
>> Will that be after Holder arrests himself for contempt of Congress?
>
> Everyone is in contempt of Congress. Their approval rating is 16.6%.

But not everyone has been held in contempt of Congress like Holder has.
His position as AG and therefore part of the executive branch makes his
duty to Congress ambiguous, not to mention that the US Attorney for
civil law in the District of Columbia, in effect his subordinate, would
make the arrest. OTOH, Holder was also held in criminal contempt. I'm
not sure who would enforce that.

Hmmm...my brother was once an Assistant US Attorney for civil law in the
District of Columbia, among several hats he wore at the time. Only
argued before SCOTUS once, though. He did appear before Hinckley's
parole hearings several times to say, in effect, "Not while Nancy is
still alive."

David

[Gunner Asch]

Thats why the Great Cull is almost here. One has to take out the
trash.


--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

[Gunner Asch]

You certainly love whining. Listening to you do it half the day is
sickening to the extreme.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>

>Yes, banning abortion would be just as effective as Prohibition, which
>stopped people from drinking, and the War on Drugs, which is still
>keeping people from getting high. Banning anything results in the
>product still being available, but without quality control.
>
>David

You mean there is quality control now?

About that guy that just got convicted of multiple murders while
aborting babies........

[Michael A. Terrell]

Gunner Asch wrote:

>
> Tom Gardner wrote:
> >
> >Can you hear the sound of wagons circling? The sycophants will NEVER
> >let anything tarnish their love for Obama and will deny, divert and
> >deflect anything that doesn't praise and shower love and rose petals on
> >Obama. Nothing new. Obama could eat live babies on prime time TV and
> >NOTHING would change. OK, I accept that. A free phone will sure get
> >you far with the low-information/ignore-information left. So, why
> >bother bantering with them, they are too far gone to see anything but
> >what they are told to see.
>

> That's why the Great Cull is almost here. One has to take out the
> trash.


It will be more like the biggest job Roto-Rooter ever got.

[Transition Zone]

Saul Alinsky was a community organizer, too. So good that he was
asked to go over to Europe to teach them the same tactics.

> >>> Let's see...if you know the other news outlets tell lies, then why do
> >>> you watch them? And if you don't watch them, how do you know that
> >>> they're telling lies and FOX is telling the truth?
>
> >> The problem is that none are truthful, they just lie about different
> >> things. Or fail to cover news that isn't what their market wants to
> >> hear. Read every word, believe every tenth.
>
> > I don't think so.
>
> Believe less than every tenth? I admit I was being generous.
>
> >>> It's because too many people, like you, are vulnerable to demagogues.
> >>> Maybe it's because you watch too much FOX News.
>
> >> Rachel Maddow is on Fox? Or do they have to be on Fox to be a demagogue?
>
> > I don't think that Roger watches Maddow. Of course, I'm sure he has an
> > opinion about her, but not because he watches her.
>
> I watched her enough to form an opinion, now I ignore her like I
do
>Limbaugh.

Well there are plenty enough out there who do *not* ignore her.

[opel]

Yes, the sheeple are herd animals at best...

[David R. Birch]

On 5/18/2013 7:05 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, banning abortion would be just as effective as Prohibition, which
>> stopped people from drinking, and the War on Drugs, which is still
>> keeping people from getting high. Banning anything results in the
>> product still being available, but without quality control.
>>
>> David
>
> You mean there is quality control now?

Yes, I see a difference between a procedure done in a medical clinic and
one done in an alley. Quality control leads to survival of the woman.

>
> About that guy that just got convicted of multiple murders while
> aborting babies........

Yes, unlike the usual pro-life drivel, this was a case where a doctor
actually was killing viable babies after far too late term abortions.

David

[David R. Birch]

On 5/18/2013 12:57 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
> On May 17, 11:27 pm, "David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>>> (BTW, FOX just announced today that Allen West will be a commentator.
>>> I'll have to start watching again just for the insanity of it. <g>)
>>
>> OK, haven't heard much of him, so now I gotta Google him.
>>
>> Oh, yeah, him.
>>
>> Poli Sci MA, which at least puts him a step above Hawwke-Ptooey.
>>
> >No experience as community organizer unlike current POTUS plus real
>> military career unlike previous POTUS, so no POTUS potential.
>
> Saul Alinsky was a community organizer, too. So good that he was
> asked to go over to Europe to teach them the same tactics.

Yet he was not chosen to run for POTUS. I doubt that he would have been
so easily manipulated.

>>
>>>> Rachel Maddow is on Fox? Or do they have to be on Fox to be a demagogue?
>>
>>> I don't think that Roger watches Maddow. Of course, I'm sure he has an
>>> opinion about her, but not because he watches her.
>>
>> I watched her enough to form an opinion, now I ignore her like I
>> do Limbaugh.
>
> Well there are plenty enough out there who do *not* ignore her.

Sigh... Yes, there are always those like you among the uncritical masses.

David

[RogerN]

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news:2irep892gi2i6f5td...@4ax.com...

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
><dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, banning abortion would be just as effective as Prohibition, which
>>stopped people from drinking, and the War on Drugs, which is still
>>keeping people from getting high. Banning anything results in the
>>product still being available, but without quality control.
>>
>>David
>
>You mean there is quality control now?
>
>About that guy that just got convicted of multiple murders while
>aborting babies........
>
>
>--

Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were outlawed.
It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the left
nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!

RogerN

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:39:31 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
wrote:

I think you'd better look into the history of abortion, and find out
what it was like before it was legal. There were lots of Gosnells. Now
they're rare enough that they make national news.

We don't need those backroom abortions. And we don't need superstition
about undifferented lumps of tissue being called "babies," dictating
our laws.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

Got ammo or rope?...or barbed wire?

Stock up now.

[Zepp]

If you have a valid reason why we should ignore Rachel Maddow, by all
means, let us know.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:22:13 -0500, "David R. Birch"

<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 7:05 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
>> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, banning abortion would be just as effective as Prohibition, which
>>> stopped people from drinking, and the War on Drugs, which is still
>>> keeping people from getting high. Banning anything results in the
>>> product still being available, but without quality control.
>>>
>>> David
>>
>> You mean there is quality control now?
>
>Yes, I see a difference between a procedure done in a medical clinic and
>one done in an alley. Quality control leads to survival of the woman.
>

Odd that the doctor in question was running a clinic isnt it?

>>
>> About that guy that just got convicted of multiple murders while
>> aborting babies........
>
>Yes, unlike the usual pro-life drivel, this was a case where a doctor
>actually was killing viable babies after far too late term abortions.
>
>David

There are 2 more cases coming to the forefront in the next couple
weeks. Very similar cases.


Gosnell Case Launches Congressional Probe Into Abortion in America
Matt Vespa
May 13, 2013 - 10:30 am


Philly Abortionist Kermit Gosnell�s atrocities are well-documented in
the grand jury report, and the case�s sparse coverage in the news has
set up a rather powerful narrative concerning media bias and
censorship. Even the left has admitted that the media covered up
Gosnell to protect abortion. Yet, conservatives shamed the mainstream
media to cover the case. It now has national attention, with a
congressional probe into abortion in America. Yes, feminists,
pro-aborts, and liberals aren�t going to be happy, and this could
bring up the ever irritating �war on women� narrative from 2012.
Nevertheless, Steven Ertelt at Life News reported on May 9 that:

A House committee has launched a nationwide investigation in
response to the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the abortion practitioner
charged with multiple counts of murder for gruesome abortions and
infanticides.

The move follows letters from another committee to public health
officials in all 50 states asking them what they are doing to prevent
�House of Horrors� abortion clinics like the one Kermit Gosnell ran in
Pennsylvania.

Because the Gosnell Grand Jury report identified a �regulatory
collapse� that allowed Gosnell to go undetected for decades, the House
Judiciary Committee sent a letter to all 50 state attorneys general
asking questions about efforts to protect the civil rights of newborns
and their mothers.

[...]

Responding to that, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob
Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee
Chairman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) have sent a letter to all 50 state
attorneys general seeking to find out if state and local governments
are being stymied in their efforts to protect the civil rights of
newborns and their mothers and if the federal government might be able
to partner with states to prevent newborn homicides.

The letter asks the state attorneys general to respond to several
questions and to provide copies of any official written procedures or
guidance that relate to the gathering of information on, or the
prosecution of, newborn homicides by June 1, 2013.

This comes after Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut
blocked Sen. Mike Lee�s resolution to have hearing on Gosnell and
abortion. As a result, the House wants to know what the states are
doing to prevent more Gosnells from operating freely, and committing
infanticide. Do you hear that? It�s the sound of angry feminists and
pro-aborts on the horizon.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:39:31 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
wrote:

Ed is senile and doesnt think clearly anymore, sadly.

[RogerN]

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

news:vbqfp85kka791g0dg...@4ax.com...

>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:39:31 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
>wrote:
>

<snip>

>>
>>Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were
>>outlawed.
>>It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the left
>>nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!
>>
>>RogerN
>>
>
>Ed is senile and doesnt think clearly anymore, sadly.
>
>
>--

This is a joke article from the Onion but it's so true of the typical left
winger here.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-supporter-has-perfectly-improbable-explanati,32462/?ref=auto

RogerN

[Steve]

I think you should watch her, Wordsong.. watch her very closely

[Michael A. Terrell]

Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:23:50 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Gunner Asch wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom Gardner wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Can you hear the sound of wagons circling? The sycophants will NEVER
> >> >let anything tarnish their love for Obama and will deny, divert and
> >> >deflect anything that doesn't praise and shower love and rose petals on
> >> >Obama. Nothing new. Obama could eat live babies on prime time TV and
> >> >NOTHING would change. OK, I accept that. A free phone will sure get
> >> >you far with the low-information/ignore-information left. So, why
> >> >bother bantering with them, they are too far gone to see anything but
> >> >what they are told to see.
> >>
> >> That's why the Great Cull is almost here. One has to take out the
> >> trash.
> >
> >
> > It will be more like the biggest job Roto-Rooter ever got.
>
> Got ammo or rope?...or barbed wire?
>
> Stock up now.

Don't forget chlorine bleach & ammonia to clean up their trail of
slime. Just don't mix them, if you aren't a liberal.

[Tom Gardner]

>> Can you hear the sound of wagons circling? The sycophants will NEVER
>> let anything tarnish their love for Obama and will deny, divert and
>> deflect anything that doesn't praise and shower love and rose petals on
>> Obama. Nothing new. Obama could eat live babies on prime time TV and
>> NOTHING would change. OK, I accept that. A free phone will sure get
>> you far with the low-information/ignore-information left. So, why
>> bother bantering with them, they are too far gone to see anything but
>> what they are told to see.
>

> Sure is fun listening to you whine. Why, I could do that all day.
>

Make a tape loop. You can play it back on your free phone.

[Tom Gardner]

On 5/17/2013 4:24 AM, Richard wrote:

> On 5/16/2013 11:54 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> Can you hear the sound of wagons circling? The sycophants will NEVER let
>> anything tarnish their love for Obama and will deny, divert and deflect
>> anything that doesn't praise and shower love and rose petals on Obama.
>> Nothing new. Obama could eat live babies on prime time TV and NOTHING
>> would change. OK, I accept that. A free phone will sure get you far with
>> the low-information/ignore-information left. So, why bother bantering
>> with them, they are too far gone to see anything but what they are told
>> to see.
>

> Not even when he got his head handed to him on a plate yesterday
> in regards to exceeded his power when he bypassed Senate to appoint
> NRLB members.
>
> Oh bloody oops...
>

The NLRB is so far under the thumb that union locals now use the threat
of Arbitration at the drop of a hat because they know they will most
likely win with this NLRB.

[Tom Gardner]

I sure hope you are wrong. I keep hoping for enlightenment. Maybe the
"Great Enlightenment" is what you interpret as the "cull"

[Tom Gardner]

On 5/18/2013 3:53 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:23:50 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>
>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can you hear the sound of wagons circling? The sycophants will NEVER
>>>> let anything tarnish their love for Obama and will deny, divert and
>>>> deflect anything that doesn't praise and shower love and rose petals on
>>>> Obama. Nothing new. Obama could eat live babies on prime time TV and
>>>> NOTHING would change. OK, I accept that. A free phone will sure get
>>>> you far with the low-information/ignore-information left. So, why
>>>> bother bantering with them, they are too far gone to see anything but
>>>> what they are told to see.
>>>
>>> That's why the Great Cull is almost here. One has to take out the
>>> trash.
>>
>>
>> It will be more like the biggest job Roto-Rooter ever got.
>
> Got ammo or rope?...or barbed wire?
>
> Stock up now.
>

How about Rosary Beads of the right caliber? (Good dual-purpose?)

[Tom Gardner]

On 5/17/2013 7:08 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:46:07 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>

> No, the FOX News market is mostly rightists who like to hear stories
> that agree with their grievances and prejudices. It makes them feel
> so...affirmed, and good, and righteous.
>

>> People that
>> prefer news over Obama's ministry of propaganda? It's easy, if they just
>> start reporting unbiased news then people that don't suck Obama would watch.
>> It's funny that true news became a "niche"!
>

> Oh, here we go. You find out that you had your ass up in the air over
> a phony "memo" that didn't say what you think it said, and now you're
> going to use your ignorance of the memo's contents as a launching pad
> for one of your tirades.
>
> We're off to the races...
>

> Let's see...if you know the other news outlets tell lies, then why do
> you watch them? And if you don't watch them, how do you know that
> they're telling lies and FOX is telling the truth?
>

> You have a logic problem there, Roger. And it's far from being your
> only one.
>
> If you'd get your nose out of FOX News, you'd be a little less antic
> and angry -- because you'd find out that FOX is full of crap.
>
>>

>> Obama - didn't care about the will of the people, he forced Obamacare on us
>> against the will of the people.
>

> Nope. Every major provision of the ACA was APPROVED my large
> majorities. But when you put all their favored ideas together, like
> allowing young adults to continue longer on their families' plans, and
> making insurance companies accept people regardless of preconditions,
> and adopted the old Republica idea of mandates in universal health
> care with no "freeloaders," as even Newt Gingrich and the Republican
> leadership in the House promoted in the mid-'90s, and then ran it
> through the FOX and Republican meat-grinder and labelled it
> "Obamacare," they got their panties in a twist.
>

> It's because too many people, like you, are vulnerable to demagogues.
> Maybe it's because you watch too much FOX News.
>

>> Ted Kennedy got replaced by a Republican
>> running to stop Obamacare.
>

> They already had it in Massachusetts, and they love it. It's called
> "Romneycare" up there, but it's the same thing. So maybe your logic
> problem is rearing its ugly little head again, eh?
>
> Oh, BTW, they dumped that empty suit once they got a good look at him.
> Didn't they let you know that he lost re-election on FOX? Do you know
> who beat him? Or did you just forget?

>
>> Obama had full majority until HE screwed it up
>> in 2010 (or before), still never passed a budget.
>

> Presidents don't "pass" budgets. And he submitted one every year.
>

>> Obama threw Democrats
>> under the bus and still the morons worship the liar.
>

> Uh, I think you've got your "moron" gun aimed in the wrong direction.
>

>> He had weapons sold
>> illegally to Mexican drug cartel and used executive privilege to obstruct
>> justice. He used the IRS to attack those that didn't agree with him. He
>> has attacked the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights of Americans. He acts
>> as if we have no constitution or he is above the constitution.
>

> Have you read it yet? The last time we discussed this, you didn't show
> any signs of knowing what's in it.
>

>> Sensing
>> tensions in Libya, they ask to keep their security, but are denied, then
>> during the Benghazi attack, they need help and again are denied. They lied,
>> Americans died, and Hitlary asks "What difference does it make".
>

> You got that story all wrong. You probably heard it on FOX. You really
> need some fresh air, Roger.

>
>
>> They
>> search out and find a video to blame the attacks on, even though they have
>> word it's a terrorist attack. Obama wants to fool his stupid followers into
>> thinking he's effective on terrorism so he lies about the terrorist attack.
>> Richard Nixon was removed for far less than what Obama has gotten away with.
>> Obama says he's clueless to all these groups acting illegally for Obama's
>> benefit. What kind of a moron would believe this chief of liars? No one in
>> their right mind!
>

> You have that story all wrong, too.

>
>>
>> Ed, what would have you said if you heard the IRS was targeting the Tea
>> Party a couple of months ago? You would have denied it.
>

> I would have demanded evidence before believing it. That's the
> difference between us on these issues, Roger. You wouldn't have
> required evidence. You would have believed it as soon as you heard
> someone say it on FOX. Because you'll believe any lie, rumor,
> innuendo, or assusation as long as it's a negative assertion about the
> current administration. And that's most of what they do.

>
>> But now the IRS
>> comes out and even admits they did indeed target groups that were tea party
>> or patriotic.
>

> A few points here. First, they came out an admitted it. Second, the
> Treasury department rejected the IRS's claims that they've fixed it.
> Third, Holder's office is pursuing criminal investigations against the
> IRS offices and employees that engaged in it.
>

> Fourth, most 501(c)(4) organizations that have political origins are
> crooked and fraudulent in their pursuit of tax-exempt status. Yes,
> most of them. The Tea Party units under scrutiny deserved to be
> audited. But two things were wrong.
>
> First, they should never have been targeted in isolation. There are
> 501(c)(4) organizations supporting the Democrats that deserve the same
> scrutiny and rejection of tax-exempt status.
>
> Second, and this is the really egregious part IMO, they obviously were
> trying to tie up the organizations with unneeded demands for
> information. That's the part of it that makes it criminal. And those
> people should be charged with election violations and whatever else
> applies.
>
>>

>> Did you hear there's another abortionist/murderer they are going after now?
>> He's been killing babies by cutting their throat after delivery during
>> attempted abortion.
>

> Yeah, I heard something about it.
>

>> The pro-infant murderers drew the line at birth and
>> they are so damned stupid they can't even keep it within the bounds that
>> they set themselves.
>

> You have that wrong, too, Roger. That person, if he's real, is the
> kind of illegal abortionist you're left with when you shut down the
> legal ones. He's what you get when people like you get their way.
>

I think you spilled some on ya' Ed. You shouldn't try to carry that
much at a time! But, you do the boys proud!

[Tom Gardner]

I agree! Her inner-core audience is easily determinable.

[Tom Gardner]

So tell us, does that lump of tissue have a soul?

[Tom Gardner]

On 5/18/2013 4:50 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:39:31 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Gunner Asch" wrote in message
>> news:2irep892gi2i6f5td...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
>>> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, banning abortion would be just as effective as Prohibition, which
>>>> stopped people from drinking, and the War on Drugs, which is still
>>>> keeping people from getting high. Banning anything results in the
>>>> product still being available, but without quality control.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>
>>> You mean there is quality control now?
>>>
>>> About that guy that just got convicted of multiple murders while
>>> aborting babies........
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were outlawed.
>> It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the left
>> nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!
>>
>> RogerN
>>
>

> Ed is senile and doesn't think clearly anymore, sadly.
>
>
> --

A lifetime of narrow indoctrination.

[Tom Gardner]

On 5/18/2013 5:21 PM, RogerN wrote:
> "Gunner Asch" wrote in message
> news:vbqfp85kka791g0dg...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:39:31 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
>> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were
>>> outlawed.
>>> It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the left
>>> nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!
>>>
>>> RogerN
>>>
>>
>> Ed is senile and doesnt think clearly anymore, sadly.
>>
>>
>> --
>
> This is a joke article from the Onion but it's so true of the typical left
> winger here.
>
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-supporter-has-perfectly-improbable-explanati,32462/?ref=auto
>
> RogerN
>
>

That's EXACTLY what the left is doing!

[Zepp]

People who are literate?

Fascists' worst enemy!

[Zepp]

Souls are a religious superstition.

[Gunner Asch]

Great Enlightenment could be interpreted as the removal of Dark Forces
(The Left) from America. With so many Leftwingers mixed together in
mass graves....we could tear down most slums and ghettos..and let the
sunlight in.


--

[Gunner Asch]

Like "Liberal Superiority"

Same in fact.

[David R. Birch]

On 5/18/2013 3:07 PM, Zepp wrote:

>>>> I watched her enough to form an opinion, now I ignore her like I
>>>> do Limbaugh.
>>>
>>> Well there are plenty enough out there who do *not* ignore her.
>>
>> Sigh... Yes, there are always those like you among the uncritical
>> masses.
>>
>> David
>
> If you have a valid reason why we should ignore Rachel Maddow, by all
> means, let us know.

If you can listen to her and take what she says seriously, go for it.

All I hear from her is left wing rant, just like all I hear from
Limbaugh is right wing rant.

I don't take either clown seriously.

David

[David R. Birch]

On 5/18/2013 3:49 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:22:13 -0500, "David R. Birch"
> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2013 7:05 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
>>> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, banning abortion would be just as effective as Prohibition, which
>>>> stopped people from drinking, and the War on Drugs, which is still
>>>> keeping people from getting high. Banning anything results in the
>>>> product still being available, but without quality control.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>
>>> You mean there is quality control now?
>>
>> Yes, I see a difference between a procedure done in a medical clinic and
>> one done in an alley. Quality control leads to survival of the woman.
>>
> Odd that the doctor in question was running a clinic isnt it?

From what I've read, it was more like the pre-Roe v. Wade back alley.

>
>>>
>>> About that guy that just got convicted of multiple murders while
>>> aborting babies........
>>
>> Yes, unlike the usual pro-life drivel, this was a case where a doctor
>> actually was killing viable babies after far too late term abortions.
>>
>> David
>
> There are 2 more cases coming to the forefront in the next couple
> weeks. Very similar cases.
>
>
> Gosnell Case Launches Congressional Probe Into Abortion in America
> Matt Vespa
> May 13, 2013 - 10:30 am
>
>

> Philly Abortionist Kermit Gosnell�s atrocities are well-documented in
> the grand jury report, and the case�s sparse coverage in the news has

> set up a rather powerful narrative concerning media bias and
> censorship. Even the left has admitted that the media covered up
> Gosnell to protect abortion. Yet, conservatives shamed the mainstream
> media to cover the case. It now has national attention, with a
> congressional probe into abortion in America. Yes, feminists,

> pro-aborts, and liberals aren�t going to be happy, and this could
> bring up the ever irritating �war on women� narrative from 2012.

> Nevertheless, Steven Ertelt at Life News reported on May 9 that:
>
> A House committee has launched a nationwide investigation in
> response to the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the abortion practitioner
> charged with multiple counts of murder for gruesome abortions and
> infanticides.
>
> The move follows letters from another committee to public health
> officials in all 50 states asking them what they are doing to prevent

> �House of Horrors� abortion clinics like the one Kermit Gosnell ran in
> Pennsylvania.
>
> Because the Gosnell Grand Jury report identified a �regulatory
> collapse� that allowed Gosnell to go undetected for decades, the House

> Judiciary Committee sent a letter to all 50 state attorneys general
> asking questions about efforts to protect the civil rights of newborns
> and their mothers.
>
> [...]
>
> Responding to that, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob
> Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee
> Chairman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) have sent a letter to all 50 state
> attorneys general seeking to find out if state and local governments
> are being stymied in their efforts to protect the civil rights of
> newborns and their mothers and if the federal government might be able
> to partner with states to prevent newborn homicides.
>
> The letter asks the state attorneys general to respond to several
> questions and to provide copies of any official written procedures or
> guidance that relate to the gathering of information on, or the
> prosecution of, newborn homicides by June 1, 2013.
>
> This comes after Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut

> blocked Sen. Mike Lee�s resolution to have hearing on Gosnell and

> abortion. As a result, the House wants to know what the states are
> doing to prevent more Gosnells from operating freely, and committing

> infanticide. Do you hear that? It�s the sound of angry feminists and
> pro-aborts on the horizon.

I'm all for providing safer health care for women. That was your point,
wasn't it?

David

[David R. Birch]

On 5/18/2013 3:50 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

>> Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were outlawed.
>> It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the left
>> nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!
>>
>> RogerN
>>
>
> Ed is senile and doesnt think clearly anymore, sadly.

You were the guy who couldn't afford $25 for an 1891 carbine rear sight
leaf, yet wanted to buy a $1000 FN49 from me.

Sadly, how long has been it since you thought clearly?

David

[David R. Birch]

On 5/18/2013 8:58 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

>> I think you'd better look into the history of abortion, and find out
>> what it was like before it was legal. There were lots of Gosnells. Now
>> they're rare enough that they make national news.
>>
>> We don't need those backroom abortions. And we don't need superstition
>> about undifferented lumps of tissue being called "babies," dictating
>> our laws.
>>
>
> So tell us, does that lump of tissue have a soul?

Do you? Do any of us? Answer the questions without referring to
religious authority or your own personal belief, I want an objective
answer, not something based on superstitious fear.

David

[RogerN]

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

news:vbqfp85kka791g0dg...@4ax.com...

>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:39:31 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
>wrote:
>

<snip>

>>
>>Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were
>>outlawed.
>>It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the left
>>nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!
>>
>>RogerN
>>
>
>Ed is senile and doesnt think clearly anymore, sadly.
>
>
>--

I see Hillary is indeed qualified for the Democrats nominee for President,
she has a lot of experience in being involved in scandals!

http://www.infowars.com/flashback-hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation-for-lying-unethical-behavior/

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/05/hillary-clinton-watergate-our-first-taste-of-her-delicious-corruption-2-2519382.html

http://www.wnd.com/2008/04/60962/

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52621

Seems to be a good liberal you have to be an immoral unethical lying piece
of shit, that's what they like, birds of a feather.

RogerN

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:06:14 -0500, "David R. Birch"

<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 3:49 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:22:13 -0500, "David R. Birch"
>> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/18/2013 7:05 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
>>>> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, banning abortion would be just as effective as Prohibition, which
>>>>> stopped people from drinking, and the War on Drugs, which is still
>>>>> keeping people from getting high. Banning anything results in the
>>>>> product still being available, but without quality control.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> You mean there is quality control now?
>>>
>>> Yes, I see a difference between a procedure done in a medical clinic and
>>> one done in an alley. Quality control leads to survival of the woman.
>>>
>> Odd that the doctor in question was running a clinic isnt it?
>
> From what I've read, it was more like the pre-Roe v. Wade back alley.

In practice perhaps..but it was a legal medical establishment provided
to perform legal abortions.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>> About that guy that just got convicted of multiple murders while
>>>> aborting babies........
>>>
>>> Yes, unlike the usual pro-life drivel, this was a case where a doctor
>>> actually was killing viable babies after far too late term abortions.
>>>
>>> David
>>
>> There are 2 more cases coming to the forefront in the next couple
>> weeks. Very similar cases.
>>
>>
>> Gosnell Case Launches Congressional Probe Into Abortion in America
>> Matt Vespa
>> May 13, 2013 - 10:30 am
>>
>>

>> Philly Abortionist Kermit Gosnell�s atrocities are well-documented in
>> the grand jury report, and the case�s sparse coverage in the news has

>> set up a rather powerful narrative concerning media bias and
>> censorship. Even the left has admitted that the media covered up
>> Gosnell to protect abortion. Yet, conservatives shamed the mainstream
>> media to cover the case. It now has national attention, with a
>> congressional probe into abortion in America. Yes, feminists,

>> pro-aborts, and liberals aren�t going to be happy, and this could
>> bring up the ever irritating �war on women� narrative from 2012.

>> Nevertheless, Steven Ertelt at Life News reported on May 9 that:
>>
>> A House committee has launched a nationwide investigation in
>> response to the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the abortion practitioner
>> charged with multiple counts of murder for gruesome abortions and
>> infanticides.
>>
>> The move follows letters from another committee to public health
>> officials in all 50 states asking them what they are doing to prevent

>> �House of Horrors� abortion clinics like the one Kermit Gosnell ran in
>> Pennsylvania.
>>
>> Because the Gosnell Grand Jury report identified a �regulatory
>> collapse� that allowed Gosnell to go undetected for decades, the House

>> Judiciary Committee sent a letter to all 50 state attorneys general
>> asking questions about efforts to protect the civil rights of newborns
>> and their mothers.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Responding to that, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob
>> Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee
>> Chairman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) have sent a letter to all 50 state
>> attorneys general seeking to find out if state and local governments
>> are being stymied in their efforts to protect the civil rights of
>> newborns and their mothers and if the federal government might be able
>> to partner with states to prevent newborn homicides.
>>
>> The letter asks the state attorneys general to respond to several
>> questions and to provide copies of any official written procedures or
>> guidance that relate to the gathering of information on, or the
>> prosecution of, newborn homicides by June 1, 2013.
>>
>> This comes after Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut

>> blocked Sen. Mike Lee�s resolution to have hearing on Gosnell and

>> abortion. As a result, the House wants to know what the states are
>> doing to prevent more Gosnells from operating freely, and committing

>> infanticide. Do you hear that? It�s the sound of angry feminists and

>> pro-aborts on the horizon.
>
>I'm all for providing safer health care for women. That was your point,
>wasn't it?
>
>David

Yet your "safe legal abortion clinic" was really a murder factory
wasnt it?

Say..seen this?


http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/irs-face-lawsuit-over-theft-60-million-patient-health-records

IRS faces class action lawsuit over theft of 60 million medical
records
California HIPAA-covered entity sues big time
SAN DIEGO | March 15, 2013

This story has been updated.

The Internal Revenue Service could now be facing a class action
lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the
health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records
of all California state judges.
According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered
entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million
medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents.
The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included
psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug
treatment and other medical treatment data.

"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by
several Internal Revenue Service agents," wrote Robert E. Barnes,
attorney representing the John Doe Company, in the official complaint.
"No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no
subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the
10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil
investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to
the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on
the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the
company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged
records," the complaint continued.

According to the complaint, the IRS agents obtained a search warrant
for financial data pertaining to a former employee of the John Doe
Company, however, "it did not authorize any seizure of any healthcare
or medical record of any persons, least of all third parties
completely unrelated to the matter," the complaint read.

The IRS did not respond to multiple inquiries regarding the case.

�If the allegations are true, the IRS is in trouble,� wrote Jim Pyles,
Washington-based healthcare privacy lawyer, in a statement to
Healthcare IT News. �By both constitutional law and HIPAA, then I
think we have a problem.�


Pyles added that the Fourth Amendment was drafted in response to the
General Warrants issued by the King of England under which his
officers could search for any evidence of crime without showing
probable cause. �The drafters expressly sought to curb that practice
in the 4th Amendment which guarantees the �right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures,�� he explained. If the allegations
are true, �they way overstepped the limits of the search warrant.�

Just recently, IRS officials have been under fire over routinely
searching through Americans� emails, an action the American Civil
Liberties Union bills as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The
agency�s justification of this process may foreshadow the fate of the
California lawsuit. According to New York Daily News, back in 2009 the
IRS wrote, �The Fourth Amendment does not protect communications held
in electronic storage, such as email messages stored on a server,
because Internet users do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy
in such communication.�
The class action lawsuit against the IRS seeks $25,000 in compensatory
damages "per violation per individual" in addition to punitive damages
for constitutional violations. Thus, compensatory damages could start
at a minimum of $250 billion.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:10:11 -0500, "David R. Birch"
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 3:50 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>>> Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were outlawed.
>>> It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the left
>>> nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!
>>>
>>> RogerN
>>>
>>
>> Ed is senile and doesnt think clearly anymore, sadly.
>
>You were the guy who couldn't afford $25 for an 1891 carbine rear sight
>leaf, yet wanted to buy a $1000 FN49 from me.

Wanted to buy? Not at a grand. Not fucking bloody likely. In fact..I
swapped for another one 2 weeks ago in 7x57.

>
>Sadly, how long has been it since you thought clearly?
>
>David

.05 Nanoseconds ago, based on my best estimate.

So how long has it been that you told the truth? Years?

Wanted to buy? For a grand? LOL

Gunner

[Dänk 42Ø]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:58:32 -0500, RogerN wrote:

> "Gunner Asch" wrote in message
> news:vbqfp85kka791g0dg...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:39:31 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>>
>>>Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were
>>>outlawed.
>>>It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the
>>>left nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!
>>>
>>>RogerN
>>>
>>>
>>Ed is senile and doesnt think clearly anymore, sadly.
>>
>>
>>--
>
> I see Hillary is indeed qualified for the Democrats nominee for
> President, she has a lot of experience in being involved in scandals!

I am usually accused of being a rightard by leftards, but I think for
myself and in this case I have been defending Hillary against her
rightarded opponents.

I may not necessarily agree with Hillary's politics, but I can see that
she is highly intelligent and a capable leader.

Hillary was her Party's "fingered" candidate in 2008, her nomination
having been worked out in the usual backroom deals. Then suddenly an
unknown but kharismatic Kool-Aid Kult leader comes out of nowhere and the
Party throws Hillary under the proverbial bus.

Though there were demands from Hillaristas for Chairman Obama to appoint
her as his Veep, he refused to because her personality overpowers his.
So he sentenced her to be Secretary of State. A very important job, to
be sure, but one that involves constant foreign travel, thus keeping his
main rival out of the public eye (Americans pay little attention to
foreign affairs).

But before rightards start renewed attacks on Hillary (because she is
obviously the most qualified and experienced Democrap), they should
consider that she is Chairman Obama's primary rival in the 2016
"election."

Yes, I know that the 22nd Amendment sets a two-term limit for presidents,
but so did Venezuela's constitution when Hugo Chavez took office
(actually one-term). The problem with leftist revolutionary leaders is
that they believe they are Gawd's gift to creation, and pesky things like
mortal constitutions are not going to stand in their way of gaining
absolute power.

Subcomandante Hillary is the only mortal who can successfully challenge
Chairman Obama in 2016. The Republitards don't stand a chance, unless
they can find someone with an IQ over 45 who doesn't believe the earth is
flat, AND who doesn't come across as a snotty bourgeois pig and/or creepy
child molester. Good luck.

[David R. Birch]

On 5/18/2013 11:20 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:06:14 -0500, "David R. Birch"
> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2013 3:49 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:22:13 -0500, "David R. Birch"
>>> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2013 7:05 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
>>>>> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, banning abortion would be just as effective as Prohibition, which
>>>>>> stopped people from drinking, and the War on Drugs, which is still
>>>>>> keeping people from getting high. Banning anything results in the
>>>>>> product still being available, but without quality control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean there is quality control now?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I see a difference between a procedure done in a medical clinic and
>>>> one done in an alley. Quality control leads to survival of the woman.
>>>>
>>> Odd that the doctor in question was running a clinic isnt it?
>>
>> From what I've read, it was more like the pre-Roe v. Wade back alley.
>
> In practice perhaps..but it was a legal medical establishment provided
> to perform legal abortions.

And is no longer, because of its VERY atypical practices. So someone who
was actually doing what pro-lifers claim was shut down when he was
discovered.

So?

>>
>> I'm all for providing safer health care for women. That was your point,
>> wasn't it?
>>
>> David
>
> Yet your "safe legal abortion clinic" was really a murder factory
> wasnt it?

In the sense that it was like the pre-Roe v. Wade back alley abortions, yes.

The quotation marks you use would only be appropriate if I had used the
phrase you put in quotes.

Seems you want to go on record as opposing safer health care for women.


>
> Say..seen this?

Yes.

David

[David R. Birch]

On 5/18/2013 11:23 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:10:11 -0500, "David R. Birch"
> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2013 3:50 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>>> Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were outlawed.
>>>> It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the left
>>>> nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!
>>>>
>>>> RogerN
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ed is senile and doesnt think clearly anymore, sadly.
>>
>> You were the guy who couldn't afford $25 for an 1891 carbine rear sight
>> leaf, yet wanted to buy a $1000 FN49 from me.
>
> Wanted to buy? Not at a grand. Not fucking bloody likely. In fact..I
> swapped for another one 2 weeks ago in 7x57.

So have you bought that $25 carbine sight leaf yet?

You expressed an interest in a 30'06 FN49. I never quoted a price, but
any I have is worth at least that much. I have a Colombian contract
available, total contract was 1000 rifles, of which there are about 20
in the US. Also, 2 Venezuelans in 7x57, NRA VG+. Consecutive serial #s.

>> Sadly, how long has been it since you thought clearly?
>>
>> David
>
> .05 Nanoseconds ago, based on my best estimate.

Yet you keep whining about the after effects of your stroke.

>
> So how long has it been that you told the truth? Years?

.05 Nanoseconds ago, based on my best estimate.
>
> Wanted to buy? For a grand? LOL
>
> Gunner

As you wish. I don't have any FN49 rifles bad enough for you to be able
to afford.

David

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:33:26 -0500, "David R. Birch"

And you think it was unique and there are no others like it?
<G>
Watch the news in the next few weeks....

>So?
>
>
>>>
>>> I'm all for providing safer health care for women. That was your point,
>>> wasn't it?
>>>
>>> David
>>
>> Yet your "safe legal abortion clinic" was really a murder factory
>> wasnt it?
>
>In the sense that it was like the pre-Roe v. Wade back alley abortions, yes.
>
>The quotation marks you use would only be appropriate if I had used the
>phrase you put in quotes.

Actually...I simply quoted what you intended to say, but avoided it.

>
>Seems you want to go on record as opposing safer health care for women.

Seems you want to go on record as approving of baby murders.
>
>
>>
>> Say..seen this?
>
>Yes.
>
>David

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:46:07 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
wrote:

> Sensing
>tensions in Libya, they ask to keep their security, but are denied, then
>during the Benghazi attack, they need help and again are denied. They lied,
>Americans died, and Hitlary asks "What difference does it make".

Bullshit.


Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security,
U.S. officials say

CAIRO � In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in
Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher
Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the
senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns
that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government
officials told McClatchy.

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks
that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn
down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation
in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials
held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S.
diplomatic compound in Benghazi.
Read more here:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZTNYu2fM98#storylink=cpy

[Steve]

...and it seems that the crazy woman needs all the viewers she can
scrape up, even those who like Zepp, can't afford the products that
sponsor her.

[Tom Gardner]

In any case, repair of the country and the world will take generations.
The left sure has fucked things up!

[Tom Gardner]

Yep! All those Obama-phone types on YouTube sure are good examples!
Need some links?

[Tom Gardner]

What sponsors does she have?

[Tom Gardner]

Just like "Global Warming"!

[Tom Gardner]

Science has proven the existence of a soul since the moment of
conception. Where have you been?

[Steve]

I have no idea.. I've removed MSNBC from my channel list.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tom Gardner wrote:

>
> Ed Huntress wrote:
> >
> > I think you'd better look into the history of abortion, and find out
> > what it was like before it was legal. There were lots of Gosnells. Now
> > they're rare enough that they make national news.
> >
> > We don't need those backroom abortions. And we don't need superstition
> > about undifferented lumps of tissue being called "babies," dictating
> > our laws.
>
> So tell us, does that lump of tissue have a soul?

Does Ed have a soul?

[David R. Birch]

Fascinating! Send me some links to this breakthrough!

I tried to google it but found only pseudo-scientific religious nonsense.

David

[David R. Birch]

On 5/19/2013 3:06 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:33:26 -0500, "David R. Birch"
> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>> And is no longer, because of its VERY atypical practices. So someone who
>> was actually doing what pro-lifers claim was shut down when he was
>> discovered.
>>
> And you think it was unique and there are no others like it?
> <G>

Nope, where one can abuse women, others can, too.

> Watch the news in the next few weeks....

Yet the fact that its newsworthy shows how uncommon it is.

>> The quotation marks you use would only be appropriate if I had used the
>> phrase you put in quotes.
>
> Actually...I simply quoted what you intended to say, but avoided it.

WOW!! Does that open up a whole new paradigm of discussion! I can quote
and respond to not what you said, but what I imagine you might have
intended to say.

>>
>> Seems you want to go on record as opposing safer health care for women.
>
> Seems you want to go on record as approving of baby murders.

I imagine you intended to say "I am an ignorant fool who wishes to
impose my superstitious fears on everyone".

You just made this so much clearer!

David

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:14:06 -0400, Tom Gardner <Mars@Tacks> wrote:

>On 5/17/2013 7:08 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:46:07 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>

>> No, the FOX News market is mostly rightists who like to hear stories
>> that agree with their grievances and prejudices. It makes them feel
>> so...affirmed, and good, and righteous.

>>
>>> People that
>>> prefer news over Obama's ministry of propaganda? It's easy, if they just
>>> start reporting unbiased news then people that don't suck Obama would watch.
>>> It's funny that true news became a "niche"!
>>

>> Oh, here we go. You find out that you had your ass up in the air over
>> a phony "memo" that didn't say what you think it said, and now you're
>> going to use your ignorance of the memo's contents as a launching pad
>> for one of your tirades.
>>
>> We're off to the races...
>>
>> Let's see...if you know the other news outlets tell lies, then why do
>> you watch them? And if you don't watch them, how do you know that
>> they're telling lies and FOX is telling the truth?
>>
>> You have a logic problem there, Roger. And it's far from being your
>> only one.
>>
>> If you'd get your nose out of FOX News, you'd be a little less antic
>> and angry -- because you'd find out that FOX is full of crap.

>>
>>>
>>> Obama - didn't care about the will of the people, he forced Obamacare on us
>>> against the will of the people.
>>

>> Nope. Every major provision of the ACA was APPROVED my large
>> majorities. But when you put all their favored ideas together, like
>> allowing young adults to continue longer on their families' plans, and
>> making insurance companies accept people regardless of preconditions,
>> and adopted the old Republica idea of mandates in universal health
>> care with no "freeloaders," as even Newt Gingrich and the Republican
>> leadership in the House promoted in the mid-'90s, and then ran it
>> through the FOX and Republican meat-grinder and labelled it
>> "Obamacare," they got their panties in a twist.
>>
>> It's because too many people, like you, are vulnerable to demagogues.
>> Maybe it's because you watch too much FOX News.

>>
>>> Ted Kennedy got replaced by a Republican
>>> running to stop Obamacare.
>>

>> They already had it in Massachusetts, and they love it. It's called
>> "Romneycare" up there, but it's the same thing. So maybe your logic
>> problem is rearing its ugly little head again, eh?
>>
>> Oh, BTW, they dumped that empty suit once they got a good look at him.
>> Didn't they let you know that he lost re-election on FOX? Do you know
>> who beat him? Or did you just forget?

>>
>>> Obama had full majority until HE screwed it up
>>> in 2010 (or before), still never passed a budget.
>>

>> Presidents don't "pass" budgets. And he submitted one every year.

>>
>>> Obama threw Democrats
>>> under the bus and still the morons worship the liar.
>>

>> Uh, I think you've got your "moron" gun aimed in the wrong direction.

>>
>>> He had weapons sold
>>> illegally to Mexican drug cartel and used executive privilege to obstruct
>>> justice. He used the IRS to attack those that didn't agree with him. He
>>> has attacked the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights of Americans. He acts
>>> as if we have no constitution or he is above the constitution.
>>

>> Have you read it yet? The last time we discussed this, you didn't show
>> any signs of knowing what's in it.

>>
>>> Sensing
>>> tensions in Libya, they ask to keep their security, but are denied, then
>>> during the Benghazi attack, they need help and again are denied. They lied,
>>> Americans died, and Hitlary asks "What difference does it make".
>>

>> You got that story all wrong. You probably heard it on FOX. You really
>> need some fresh air, Roger.

>>
>>
>>> They
>>> search out and find a video to blame the attacks on, even though they have
>>> word it's a terrorist attack. Obama wants to fool his stupid followers into
>>> thinking he's effective on terrorism so he lies about the terrorist attack.
>>> Richard Nixon was removed for far less than what Obama has gotten away with.
>>> Obama says he's clueless to all these groups acting illegally for Obama's
>>> benefit. What kind of a moron would believe this chief of liars? No one in
>>> their right mind!
>>

>> You have that story all wrong, too.

>>
>>>
>>> Ed, what would have you said if you heard the IRS was targeting the Tea
>>> Party a couple of months ago? You would have denied it.
>>

>> I would have demanded evidence before believing it. That's the
>> difference between us on these issues, Roger. You wouldn't have
>> required evidence. You would have believed it as soon as you heard
>> someone say it on FOX. Because you'll believe any lie, rumor,
>> innuendo, or assusation as long as it's a negative assertion about the
>> current administration. And that's most of what they do.

>>
>>> But now the IRS
>>> comes out and even admits they did indeed target groups that were tea party
>>> or patriotic.
>>

>> A few points here. First, they came out an admitted it. Second, the
>> Treasury department rejected the IRS's claims that they've fixed it.
>> Third, Holder's office is pursuing criminal investigations against the
>> IRS offices and employees that engaged in it.
>>
>> Fourth, most 501(c)(4) organizations that have political origins are
>> crooked and fraudulent in their pursuit of tax-exempt status. Yes,
>> most of them. The Tea Party units under scrutiny deserved to be
>> audited. But two things were wrong.
>>
>> First, they should never have been targeted in isolation. There are
>> 501(c)(4) organizations supporting the Democrats that deserve the same
>> scrutiny and rejection of tax-exempt status.
>>
>> Second, and this is the really egregious part IMO, they obviously were
>> trying to tie up the organizations with unneeded demands for
>> information. That's the part of it that makes it criminal. And those
>> people should be charged with election violations and whatever else
>> applies.

>>
>>>
>>> Did you hear there's another abortionist/murderer they are going after now?
>>> He's been killing babies by cutting their throat after delivery during
>>> attempted abortion.
>>

>> Yeah, I heard something about it.

>>
>>> The pro-infant murderers drew the line at birth and
>>> they are so damned stupid they can't even keep it within the bounds that
>>> they set themselves.
>>

>> You have that wrong, too, Roger. That person, if he's real, is the
>> kind of illegal abortionist you're left with when you shut down the
>> legal ones. He's what you get when people like you get their way.
>>
>
>I think you spilled some on ya' Ed. You shouldn't try to carry that
>much at a time! But, you do the boys proud!

When you read Roger's diatribes, remember this: There is nothing in
his posts, on this subject or otherwise, indicating that he gives a
damn about kids. But there is a long string of his posts documenting
his grievences about women.

That's what's going on here. And as for the history of illegal
abortion, as late as 1950, long after antibiotics were available to
clean up the potentially lethal sepsis that frequently accompanied
illegal abortions, at least 1200 women per year died from illegal
abortions. Last year, the number who died from *legal* abortions was
12.

Those are the reported numbers. Many deaths of women in illegal
abortions were covered up with other supposed reasons for death.

That's the consequence of making abortion illegal. If you want to
restore the traditional, patriarchal dominance of women that was the
male prerogative in the golden days to which conservatives and
reactionaries would like to return, that's what you get.

Roger seems to favor that time.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:58:17 -0400, Tom Gardner <Mars@Tacks> wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 3:19 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:39:31 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gunner Asch" wrote in message
>>> news:2irep892gi2i6f5td...@4ax.com...
>>>

>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
>>>> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, banning abortion would be just as effective as Prohibition, which
>>>>> stopped people from drinking, and the War on Drugs, which is still
>>>>> keeping people from getting high. Banning anything results in the
>>>>> product still being available, but without quality control.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> You mean there is quality control now?
>>>>
>>>> About that guy that just got convicted of multiple murders while
>>>> aborting babies........
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were outlawed.
>>> It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the left
>>> nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!
>>

>> I think you'd better look into the history of abortion, and find out
>> what it was like before it was legal. There were lots of Gosnells. Now
>> they're rare enough that they make national news.
>>
>> We don't need those backroom abortions. And we don't need superstition
>> about undifferented lumps of tissue being called "babies," dictating
>> our laws.
>>
>
>So tell us, does that lump of tissue have a soul?

I'll see if I can look. How do you tell if it has one?

St. Thomas Aquinas and almost all Christian clergy said no, for close
to 2,000 years, but they didn't have microscopes or voltmeters. What
do you think?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:59:31 -0400, Tom Gardner <Mars@Tacks> wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 4:50 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:39:31 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gunner Asch" wrote in message
>>> news:2irep892gi2i6f5td...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:23:07 -0500, "David R. Birch"
>>>> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, banning abortion would be just as effective as Prohibition, which
>>>>> stopped people from drinking, and the War on Drugs, which is still
>>>>> keeping people from getting high. Banning anything results in the
>>>>> product still being available, but without quality control.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> You mean there is quality control now?
>>>>
>>>> About that guy that just got convicted of multiple murders while
>>>> aborting babies........
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were outlawed.
>>> It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the left
>>> nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!
>>>

>>> RogerN
>>>
>>
>> Ed is senile and doesn't think clearly anymore, sadly.
>>
>>
>> --
>
>A lifetime of narrow indoctrination.

Actually, it's something that's completely alien to Gunner, Roger,
you, and the rightards: A lifetime of seeking and caring about the
truth.

It gives Gunner hives, and Roger is allergic to it.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:02:40 -0400, Tom Gardner <Mars@Tacks> wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 5:21 PM, RogerN wrote:
>> "Gunner Asch" wrote in message

>> news:vbqfp85kka791g0dg...@4ax.com...

>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:39:31 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>> <snip>

>>>>
>>>> Ed says this Gosnell thing is what would happen if abortions were
>>>> outlawed.
>>>> It's been legal around 40 years and it's happening now! I think the left
>>>> nuts want an abortion clinic in every home!
>>>>
>>>> RogerN
>>>>
>>>

>>> Ed is senile and doesnt think clearly anymore, sadly.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> This is a joke article from the Onion but it's so true of the typical left
>> winger here.
>>
>> http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-supporter-has-perfectly-improbable-explanati,32462/?ref=auto
>>
>> RogerN
>>
>>
>
>
>That's EXACTLY what the left is doing!

This is more like the truth of what's happening in this country:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-supposes-its-outraged-by-white-house-scanda,32486/

--
Ed Huntress

[Zepp]

In the reality-based world. Enjoy your little superstitions.