No House resolution honoring SEAL's bin Laden mission
[INDENT]"House Republicans say they have no plans to follow the Senate in passing a resolution honoring the military mission that killed Osama bin Laden.
"The decision by GOP leaders follows new rules they enacted in January scrapping the tradition of congratulatory measures, which they complained clogged up the House floor.
"The Senate on Tuesday passed a resolution, 97-0, commending “the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the United States intelligence community for the tremendous commitment, perseverance, professionalism and sacrifice they displayed in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.” The measure commended President Obama and reaffirmed the Senate’s commitment “to disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda.” It also recognized former President George W. Bush’s efforts after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/159375-house-wont-honor-seal-mission-with-a-resolution[/INDENT]
Gee, what happened to that supposed Republican patriotism, rah-rah USA, Support Our Troops stuff? Where's the flag-waving when it actually counts for something?
Shame on them.
There should be no resolution. There should be no discussion. The public does not need and has no need to know.
If this were the Bush administration they would be accused of jingoism, fear mongering, and political grandstanding. But because this is the Obama administration it is "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!", without a whimper of protest from the left. What hypocrisy.....
Shame on you bleeding hearts!
Supporting assassination.
Actually, under the circumstances, I'm still trying to figure out what the mission was/is. I think catching Hussein and killing Bin Laden are two different kettles of fish though.
There are some assignations you just have to support. :D
Awww...you fixed your typo. Now I look like a dill. lol
Awww...you fixed your typo. Now I look like a dill. lol
I can't make you look like that! I fucked up the spelling, it was me! not Ali! I am the dill! Forgive her!
feel better?
There should be no resolution. There should be no discussion. The public does not need and has no need to know.
The public doesn't need to know
what? This doesn't make sense. Care to explain?
If this were the Bush administration they would be accused of jingoism, fear mongering, and political grandstanding. But because this is the Obama administration it is "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!", without a whimper of protest from the left. What hypocrisy.....
If George W. Bush had
actually managed to kill Osama bin Laden, not a single person in this country, including those on the left, would have one word to say against a friggin' House Resolution honoring the troops who successfully carried out the mission.
What many of us on the left objected to with Bush, was his
FAKE "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" event that was nothing more than a photo op for no reason whatsoever. Nothing was
actually accomplished.
Shame on you bleeding hearts!
Supporting assassination.
I don't understand this, either, except that I guess you're just trying to turn the argument around. Though I have to say it was a pretty unsuccessful attempt.
Now, instead of using this as an opportunity to bash liberals, would you mind commenting on the subject of the OP? Do you agree that the House should
not pass a Resolution in honor of the Special Forces Team 6 that took out the Most Wanted Man in the world?
I don't understand this, either, except that I guess you're just trying to turn the argument around. Though I have to say it was a pretty unsuccessful attempt.
Now, instead of using this as an opportunity to bash liberals, would you mind commenting on the subject of the OP? Do you agree that the House should not pass a Resolution in honor of the Special Forces Team 6 that took out the Most Wanted Man in the world?
Read my lips....
1. No, the public does not need to know a God Damm thing that goes on during these missions. No details, no arm chair quarterbacking bull shit.
2. No, the House has no business ruining these peoples careers by giving them recognition. These guys want to continue to do what they do and don't want to become political pawns in Obama's game for re-election!
3. No, they are not called freaking "Special Forces Team 6"! (People like you make me want to kill kittens!)
You don't know what a Resolution is, do you?
You don't know what a Resolution is, do you?
AND you don't know who actually did the mission do you? Fool.
Read my lips....
1. No, the public does not need to know a God Damm thing that goes on during these missions. No details, no arm chair quarterbacking bull shit.
2. No, the House has no business ruining these peoples careers by giving them recognition. These guys want to continue to do what they do and don't want to become political pawns in Obama's game for re-election!
3. No, they are not called freaking "Special Forces Team 6"! (People like you make me want to kill kittens!)
The
Senate Resolution (#159 - passed 97-0)) does not provide details of the mission or name any names or say anything that would ruin any careers. Its a simple recognition of a job well done by all involved.
Get a grip, man.
Bottom line. Leave them alone. Stop trying to co-opt this event for political gain and for Obama's next election. Most people see through that BS. Note it as historical event. Don't ask questions. And move on about your business. There are new fish to fry.
Get a grip, man.
No you get a grip. Leave the issue alone and move on about your business. You have no right or need to know shit. These people do not want or need your political bs.
Bottom line. Leave them alone. Stop trying to co-opt this event for political gain and for Obama's next election. Most people see through that BS. Note it as historical event. Don't ask questions. And move on about your business. There are new fish to fry.
The best way to note it as an historical event is in form of a resolution in the Congressional Record.
Damn.
OK, I know nothing about this business but I've been told I'm a bleeding heart liberal.... and yet it appears I'd be expelled from the bleeding heart business if I said I want the government to get the fuck on with passing bills that help with the current economical situation and stop efffing about with passing bills that are essentially proclamations on done deals....
The best way to note it as an historical event is in form of a resolution in the Congressional Record.
Damn.
Oh, yea, just in case someone were to frigging forget. Now you get a grip. That is nothing more than political BS spin. I can name a hundred military milestones that got no such recognition.
OK, I know nothing about this business but I've been told I'm a bleeding heart liberal.... and yet it appears I'd be expelled from the bleeding heart business if I said I want the government to get the fuck on with passing bills that help with the current economical situation and stop efffing about with passing bills that are essentially proclamations on done deals....
:thumb:
Wow.
Ten minutes to say "thanks guys" for the historical record is just too much.
ps
At the same time that Committees are doing the work of crafting and developing legislation. Multi-tasking.
Wow.
Ten minutes to say "thanks guys" for the historical record is just too much.
Well you posted as I was posting and I did note that I knew nothing about it....
really? only 10 minutes?
Well you posted as I was posting and I did note that I knew nothing about it....
really? only 10 minutes?
Its written in advanced, agreed upon in advance, read on the floor, no debate, then voted on.
AND you don't know who actually did the mission do you? Fool.
Yes, I do. Just because I use shorthand on the internet, doesn't mean I'm stupid.
The team that carried out this mission were Joint Special Operations Command Navy SEALs, officially called Naval Special Warfare Development Group, but more commonly referred to as SEAL Team Six.
Now, would you like to show us that you know what a Resolution is, and how this particular resolution would:
1. Expose to the public a "God Damm thing that goes on during these missions. . . details [or] arm chair quarterbacking bull shit."
2. [Ruin] these peoples careers by giving them recognition." Prevent them from the ability "to continue to do what they do and [not] become political pawns in Obama's game for re-election!"
I'll even give you a hint. Here's the Resolution:
http://bennet.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=306CBF20-F639-49C6-A8BF-02A602F3BB10Wow.
Ten minutes to say "thanks guys" for the historical record is just too much.
ps
At the same time that Committees are doing the work of crafting and developing legislation. Multi-tasking.
That is why political pukes don't understand. Leave them alone. They don't want recognition. They don't get or expect medals. They don't want to meet with Obama. Do any of you understand what the hell clandestine or secret actually means? This action is about to totally fuck these peoples careers and take them away from what they love to do.
Its written in advanced, agreed upon in advance, read on the floor, no debate, then voted on.
So the people writing it in advance etc... what would they be doing otherwise, and how long does all the agreement process take?
Is it really, actually going to name them?
Merc, was that your old unit? I saw someone mention it somewhere else in one of the other threads. I was just wondering.
I'm assuming that if it was, then you'd be in a position to say what the men in the unit might and might not want. Right?
Yes, I do. Just because I use shorthand on the internet, doesn't mean I'm stupid.
The team that carried out this mission were Joint Special Operations Command Navy SEALs, officially called Naval Special Warfare Development Group, but more commonly referred to as SEAL Team Six.
Now, would you like to show us that you know what a Resolution is, and how this particular resolution would:
1. Expose to the public a "God Damm thing that goes on during these missions. . . details [or] arm chair quarterbacking bull shit."
2. [Ruin] these peoples careers by giving them recognition." Prevent them from the ability "to continue to do what they do and [not] become political pawns in Obama's game for re-election!"
I'll even give you a hint. Here's the Resolution:
http://bennet.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=306CBF20-F639-49C6-A8BF-02A602F3BB10
I don't give a shit what you think.
You are wrong.
This is BS.
It is going to do nothing more than turn them into political pawns for Obama. These people worked their whole lives for these operations. They don't need this BS.
Oh, and I see you let Google be your friend and you finally got the unit right....:rolleyes:
So the people writing it in advance etc... what would they be doing otherwise, and how long does all the agreement process take?
I would guess a staff person wrote it. One party leader's staff calls the other party's staff person, they both agree on it and take it to their party caucus lunch . Someone reads it while they eat their Navy Bean Soup so every member can hear it and its a done deal and in the Congressional Record.
I would guess a staff person wrote it. One party leader's staff calls the other party's staff person, they both agree on it and take it to their party caucus lunch. Someone reads it while they eat their Navy Bean Soup and its a done deal and in the Congressional Record.
yah, waste of time. Guess it's the foreigner in me.
Yea, all the more reason not to do it.
yah, waste of time. Guess it's the foreigner in me.
I'll leave that to historians of the future who rely on resolutions printed in the Congressional Record to get a sense of what happened in the past.
I would guess a staff person wrote it.
Speaks to most of the BS that comes out of that dysfunctional group of whores.
OK, I know nothing about this business but I've been told I'm a bleeding heart liberal.... and yet it appears I'd be expelled from the bleeding heart business if I said I want the government to get the fuck on with passing bills that help with the current economical situation and stop efffing about with passing bills that are essentially proclamations on done deals....
Then you might be interested to know that instead of passing a Resolution recognizing the success of this mission, House Republicans (and 16 anti-choice Democrats) passed H.R. 3, which attempts to redefine rape as it pertains to abortion and effectively raises taxes on women and small businesses by "prevent[ing] women from using “itemized medical deductions, certain tax-advantaged health care accounts or tax credits included in last year’s health care law to pay for abortions or for health insurance plans that cover abortion.” In doing so, the bill forces women and small businesses that provide health insurance that covers abortion to pay more in taxes than they would otherwise. Both economic conservative Grover Norquist and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce noted that the bill is basically a tax increase."
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/04/house-gop-hr3/
Yay for "real work".
really? only 10 minutes?
Yep, only 10 minutes. That gargantuan nightmare called Medicare Part D was only open to voting for 15 minutes. Well, except that when the Republicans saw that they didn't have the votes and the bill had
failed, they held the vote open for 3 hours (at 3AM, no less) while they threatened their members and posted guards at the doors so they couldn't leave the floor.
But they don't have 10 minutes to recognize the brave men who risked their lives to rid us of the Most Wanted terrorist leader on the planet.
I'll leave that to historians of the future who rely on resolutions printed in the Congressional Record to get a sense of what happened in the past.
Oh yea, they will get a LOT out of those details now won't they! Not. It is so frigging vague it is laughable. A feel good resolution to make them look like they are doing something important.
You Americans sure like your official seals, titles and paperwork. I forgot that. For a moment. I will not ever forget what happened there, I will never look to a congressional record to remind me. I seriously doubt that without such a resolution to record the incident, it will be lost in history, but maybe it will be seen as more important to my grandchildren if that record exists?
Then you might be interested to know that instead of passing a Resolution recognizing the success of this mission, House Republicans (and 16 anti-choice Democrats) passed H.R. 3, which attempts to redefine rape as it pertains to abortion and effectively raises taxes on women and small businesses by "prevent[ing] women from using “itemized medical deductions, certain tax-advantaged health care accounts or tax credits included in last year’s health care law to pay for abortions or for health insurance plans that cover abortion.” In doing so, the bill forces women and small businesses that provide health insurance that covers abortion to pay more in taxes than they would otherwise. Both economic conservative Grover Norquist and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce noted that the bill is basically a tax increase."
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/04/house-gop-hr3/
Yay for "real work". Yep, only 10 minutes. That gargantuan nightmare called Medicare Part D was only open to voting for 15 minutes. Well, except that when the Republicans saw that they didn't have the votes, they held the vote open for 3 hours (at 3AM, no less) while they threatened their members and posted guards so they couldn't leave the floor.
But they don't have 10 minutes to recognize the brave men who risked their lives to rid us of the Most Wanted terrorist leader on the planet.
Well I am sure ST6 would be really interested to know that! Well done!
Oh yea, they will get a LOT out of those details now won't they! Not. It is so frigging vague it is laughable. A feel good resolution to make them look like they are doing something important.
Can you be more petty?
Its not a matter of details but the highest legislative body in the country saying for the Record, "job well done" to all involved.
Can you be more petty?
Can you be more stupid?
Yep, only 10 minutes. .
No time in the background?
I'll leave that to historians of the future who rely on resolutions printed in the Congressional Record to get a sense of what happened in the past.
But that is not the only way history is written (thank FSM)
Its not a matter of details but the highest legislative body in the country saying for the Record, "job well done" to all involved.
They don't give a shit.
But that is not the only way history is written (thank FSM)
It is the only official record of Congress.
But that is not the only way history is written (thank FSM)
...at least not in most of the world/eras.... although it does lend weight to history being written by the victors
It is the only official record of Congress.
so what? maybe congress needs to be more broad-minded/well-read?
It is the only official record of Congress.
...you're starting to sound a little 1984
I don't give a shit what you think.
You are wrong.
This is BS.
It is going to do nothing more than turn them into political pawns for Obama. These people worked their whole lives for these operations. They don't need this BS.
Oh, and I see you let Google be your friend and you finally got the unit right....:rolleyes:
No Google. Not wrong. Not BS. Your hysteria notwithstanding.
It is the only official record of Congress.
And no one cares..... NO ONE.
No Google. Not wrong. Not BS. Your hysteria notwithstanding.
Ok, you just believe whatever the hell you want to believe. Fool.
Really? I mean really?
a Resolution in honor of the Special Forces Team 6 that took out the Most Wanted Man in the world?
guys you need to listen to merc. he has been there and done that in real life. he speaks with the heart of a soldier. btw, merc is a retired field grade officer from jsoc. he more than likely personally knows personnel involved in this mission.
no politician took out bin laden. it was the guys on the ground who had the balls to squeeze the trigger. now i will climb down off my soap box and return to harassing the elderly
so what? maybe congress needs to be more broad-minded/well-read?
Huh?
It is not a matter of what the present Congress reads but as part of a single source of all Congressional actions, every speech, every debate, ever vote for all to read, now and in the future.
Then you might be interested to know that instead of passing a Resolution recognizing the success of this mission, House Republicans (and 16 anti-choice Democrats) passed H.R. 3, which attempts to redefine rape as it pertains to abortion and effectively raises taxes on women and small businesses by "prevent[ing] women from using “itemized medical deductions, certain tax-advantaged health care accounts or tax credits included in last year’s health care law to pay for abortions or for health insurance plans that cover abortion.” In doing so, the bill forces women and small businesses that provide health insurance that covers abortion to pay more in taxes than they would otherwise. Both economic conservative Grover Norquist and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce noted that the bill is basically a tax increase."
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/04/house-gop-hr3/
.
So are you saying the "legalise rape/ban abortion...." bill would not have passed if the mission recognition had passed?
Well I am sure ST6 would be really interested to know that! Well done!
Ah, so your shorthand is ok (ST6), but mine isn't. Getting a clearer picture of you with every post. Keep 'em coming.
No time in the background?
It's done. I linked to it and you read it. Why shouldn't Congress take a 10 minute vote and pass it?
So are you saying the "legalise rape/ban abortion...." bill would not have passed if the mission recognition had passed?
Polotfriggingtics.......... It was a political move. It had nothing to do with the said intent.
These people are blowing political smoke up your ass....
Huh?
It is not a matter of what the present Congress reads but as part of a single source of all Congressional actions, every speech, every debate, ever vote for all to read, now and in the future.
Well shit, do they never read outside of the manual?
So are you saying the "legalise rape...." bill would not have passed if the mission recognition had passed?
::scratches head::
Maybe I shouldn't have come back after all. Why do y'all seem to want to take me on?
No. I was pointing out to a fellow liberal that our wonderful Republican Congress doesn't have 10 minutes to recognize our nation's heroes, but they'll waste whatever time necessary to try to further damage women in this country. I find that disgusting. If that's the "real work" they're doing on my dime, I'd just as soon they go home. YMMV.
guys you need to listen to merc. he has been there and done that in real life. he speaks with the heart of a soldier. btw, merc is a retired field grade officer from jsoc. he more than likely personally knows personnel involved in this mission.
no politician took out bin laden. it was the guys on the ground who had the balls to squeeze the trigger. now i will climb down off my soap box and return to harassing the elderly
These kinds of
Thanks of Congress resolutions have been a practice since the American Revolution.
And Mercenary was completely clueless when he said it might compromise those guys on the ground.
::scratches head::
Maybe I shouldn't have come back after all. Why do y'all seem to want to take me on?
No. I was pointing out to a fellow liberal that our wonderful Republican Congress doesn't have 10 minutes to recognize our nation's heroes, but they'll waste whatever time necessary to try to further damage women in this country. I find that disgusting. YMMV.
They had no intention of honoring said unit! It was a political ploy! The operation was being manipulated by a bunch of politicians for other means!
And Mercenary was completely clueless when he said it might compromise those guys on the ground.
Where did I say they would be "compromised on the ground"?
Ah, so your shorthand is ok (ST6), but mine isn't. Getting a clearer picture of you with every post. Keep 'em coming. It's done. I linked to it and you read it. Why shouldn't Congress take a 10 minute vote and pass it?
If it's done it's done and 10 minutes to pass it..meh, you're right, it's nothing. but the whole thing... lots of time on something that isn't as important as other things that time to prepare the thing could have been spent on. I just don't "get" the need for it at all
Where did I say they would be "compromised on the ground"?
My mistake.
It might
reveal something that goes on during these missions and ruining these peoples careers
Where in the Senate resolution would you say that happened?
It makes them feel better. Like they are part of the operation. Like they contributed. They did not. No one believes it but those who voted for it or are too embarrassed to vote no, for fear they are recorded as not supporting the troops. These people could give a shit what Congress thinks.
::scratches head::
Maybe I shouldn't have come back after all. Why do y'all seem to want to take me on?
.
i don't "want to take you on" -I think you're a starring asset to the site, and frankly, I'd've never read the thread if it weren't for you-ask the regulars -do I ever come here -do I know much about American politics?....
Yeah, I've got to agree with monster here (although that's probably because we both come from countries with a similar political system).
Over here, the PM would simply stand up in parliament and make a speech about how everything went down and who deserves a pat on the back then sit down again. It'd be recorded in the hansard notes (a record of every word said in parliament) and that'd be it aside from normal military proceedures (whatever they might be).
bmho the personnel involved in this mission don't give a damn about a resolution of thanks. they don't do things for the praise of politicians nor do they give a damn about medals. they do it for the flag and the guy standing beside them
These kinds of Thanks of Congress resolutions have been a practice since the American Revolution.
And Mercenary was completely clueless when he said it might compromise those guys on the ground.
Exactly. Even if he was a part of ST6 (assuming
I'm allowed that shorthand), it's clear he has no freaking clue what a Resolution is or what it's meant to accomplish. His asinine projections that a Resolution would somehow do harm to these guys or prevent them from doing what they do is so absurd it's laughable. And if this kind of moron could get elevated to that level, I'm suddenly more terrified of them than I ever was of OBL.
They had no intention of honoring said unit! It was a political ploy! The operation was being manipulated by a bunch of politicians for other means!
Now I'm going to call you a fucking idiot. How dare you claim that our PRESIDENT manipulated a team of Navy SEALS for
political purposes. You filthy piece of shit, you disgust me.
My mistake.
It might reveal something that goes on during these missions and ruining these peoples careers
And that is the truth. It draws attention to the unit, the missions, and the people. And they do not want or need that. Now every swinging dick independent reporter out to get a stringer on the NYT front page will be out head hunting these people. What should have happened is for the government to state what happened in the mission, never mentioned any details about anything, never told anyone what they did with the body, never told anyone they took pictures, and never told anyone what units were involved. The public has no right or need to know. The deed was done and if people don't believe them, tough shit.
bmho the personnel involved in this mission don't give a damn about a resolution of thanks. they don't do things for the praise of politicians nor do they give a damn about medals. they do it for the flag and the guy standing beside them
Its for the historical record as it has always been for 200+ years and does not ruin any careers.
Now I'm going to call you a fucking idiot. How dare you claim that our PRESIDENT manipulated a team of Navy SEALS for political purposes. You filthy piece of shit, you disgust me.
Fuck off. He is using it for re-election. Everyone can see it.
It is not the event, it is the after press he is exploiting.
Its for the historical record as it has always been for 200+ years and does not ruin any careers.
It draws un-needed and un-wanted attention.
i don't "want to take you on" -I think you're a starring asset to the site, and frankly, I'd've never read the thread if it weren't for you-ask the regulars -do I ever come here -do I know much about American politics?....
Thanks. And sorry for misinterpreting your intentions. I've had a longass go-around with Merc today, so perhaps I'm a little testy. Sorry about that.
bmho the personnel involved in this mission don't give a damn about a resolution of thanks. they don't do things for the praise of politicians nor do they give a damn about medals. they do it for the flag and the guy standing beside them
We all know they don't do it for the recognition.
That doesn't mean they don't deserve the recognition.
The Senate passed it 97-0.
What crawled up the House's ass that they won't bother to do the same?
Its for the historical record as it has always been for 200+ years and does not ruin any careers.
I sorta feel like it's already there in the history books.....why am i wrong?
Thanks. And sorry for misinterpreting your intentions. I've had a longass go-around with Merc today, so perhaps I'm a little testy. Sorry about that. We all know they don't do it for the recognition.
Gotta say, this is the closest Merc and I have ever been, and it don't smell so good.... :lol:
I sorta feel like it's already there in the history books.....why am i wrong?
The event will be in the history books.
The "Thanks of Congress" is a 200+ year protocol; the only one that serves as an official acknowledgement by the nation's highest body, with no harms to future missions or anyone reputation.
Have I told you guys we had chicken curry for dinner two nights ago, and then yesterday I had the leftovers for lunch?
Well no, you may say, but why should we care?
Because I've just noticed that my armpits smell faintly of curry!
Fuck off. He is using it for re-election. Everyone can see it.
It is not the event, it is the after press he is exploiting.
If you don't want to tangle with someone clearly smarter than you, then
you can fuck off out of my thread.
Not even a goddamn clue what a Resolution even
is, and I'm supposed to believe this dumbshit is a former Navy SEAL with JSOC?
HA HA HA HA!
I sorta feel like it's already there in the history books.....why am i wrong?
The Official Congressional Record isn't the same as "History Books". When your PM stands up and reads whatever he or she reads to thank whoever it is they're thanking, it
becomes part of the Official Record. In the U.S. House, it's not recorded, making it a part of the Official Record, unless it's voted on.
The event will be in the history books.
The "Thanks of Congress" is a 200+ year protocol; one of many that serve as an official acknowledgement, with no harms to future missions or anyone reputation.
Oh yea! Thank GOD for that, since if they political hacks didn't do it someone might have forgot about it! Hell, I hope they recorded the Twin Towers coming down in case someone might have forgot that event as well.
Waste of frigging taxpayer dollars.....
Jill, I've got to tell you, Merc is a lot smarter than some of his posts give him credit for.
If you don't want to tangle with someone clearly smarter than you, then you can fuck off out of my thread.
Now that shit right there is funny.... :lol2: Honey you don't own shit, not even this thread.
Not even a goddamn clue what a Resolution even is, and I'm supposed to believe this dumbshit is a former Navy SEAL with JSOC?
HA HA HA HA!
I am not and never stated such. Get over your fat ass already.
The Official Congressional Record isn't the same as "History Books". When your PM stands up and reads whatever he or she reads to thank whoever it is they're thanking, it becomes part of the Official Record. In the U.S. House, it's not recorded, making it a part of the Official Record, unless it's voted on.
Ok, but when the individuals can't be named... i guess it's just on a par with not understanding why many Brits are still Ok with having a Monarch. It's a cultural thing.
Anyway, I think I'll go do some gardening. Not sure why I've been feeling so defensive of merc today, but it doesn't seem to be helping at all. lol
Oh, and I can't believe no one cares about my stinky armpits!
Ok, but when the individuals can't be named... i guess it's just on a par with not understanding why many Brits are still Ok with having a Monarch. It's a cultural thing.
The Congressional Record provide an incredible snapshot of the perspective of the nation's highest legislative body on important national events of the day for any time in the last 200+ years that you cant find anywhere else.
Fascinating reading if you like that kind of stuff.
Jill, I've got to tell you, Merc is a lot smarter than some of his posts give him credit for.
:lol:
ain't that the truth.
[COLOR="White"]mind you, a pile of turd is also a lot smarter than some of merc's posts give him credit for[/COLOR]
Oh, and I can't believe no one cares about my stinky armpits!
Too busy worrying about my own
The Congressional Record provide an incredible snapshot of the perspective of the nation's highest legislative body on important national events of the day for any time in the last 200+ years that you cant find anywhere else.
Fascinating reading if you like that kind of stuff.
If you don't mind cartoonish BS. The majority of it is worthless tripe.
Get over your fat ass already.
Say What?
Say What?
I must have been thinking about yer turd.... :blush:
Jill, I've got to tell you, Merc is a lot smarter than some of his posts give him credit for.
Right and he's shown a lot of class throughout this discussion.
The Congressional Record provide an incredible snapshot of the perspective of the nation's highest legislative body on important national events of the day for any time in the last 200+ years that you cant find anywhere else.
Fascinating reading if you like that kind of stuff.
As a citizen of an old, old country.....
official records mean fuckshit. History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time.
Say What?
You must have missed the picture "of me" he
posted today.
Cute, huh?
As a citizen of an old, old country.....
official records mean fuckshit. History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time.
Its not written by the party of the time, but reflects the actual words and actions of members of both parties, unfiltered and unedited.
You must have missed the picture "of me" he posted today.
Cute, huh?
What? you need a different size?:eek: My bad....:D
Its not written by the party of the time, but reflects the actual words and actions of members of both parties, unfiltered and unedited.
Now that is some important bullshit right there!
Right and he's shown a lot of class throughout this discussion.
I never said he was classy. lol Just smarter than his posts might make him seem. ;)
Now that is some important bullshit right there!
You're showing your ignorance again.
You must have missed the picture "of me" he posted today.
Cute, huh?
I did, and I still say wtf? what in the hell does that have to do with this, even if it were you.
Its not written by the party of the time, but reflects the actual words and actions of members of both parties, unfiltered and unedited.
OK :)
:rolleyes:
You're showing your ignorance again.
And you are showing how you put importance on stupidity. No one gives a shit. High school bands show up in Congress and get on the Congressional record every day. It is total crap bull shit. No one cares.
And you are showing how you put importance on stupidity. No one gives a shit. High school bands show up in Congress and get on the Congressional record every day. It is total crap bull shit. No one cares.
Your over-the-top behavior towards others once again has been good for lots of laughs...but if it makes you feel better about yourself, mores the pity, but rock on, dude and do your thing.
Your over-the-top behavior towards others once again has been good for lots of laughs...but if it makes you feel better about yourself, mores the pity, but rock on, dude and do your thing.
One day in Band Camp, we got to go to see Congress, and they recognized us in the Congressional Record, and it was soooooo cool!
Oh!!! and this other time, when we were in Boy Scouts! We went to see Congress in action! and they recognized us in The Congressional Record! It was so awesome! They even put all of our names in the record! And our scout master too! And my Mom who came with us got her name in it too! How awesome was that!
F&B.... I have read all (or at least most) of your posts to date and have generally, internally said "oh yeah!' But I cannot understand why this is such a big deal. It's never going to be forgotten. Why does it need this seal of approval? Or is the issue more that people are refusing the seal of approval just to show the size of their balls? (which sucks, i get that)
I'll leave that to historians of the future who rely on resolutions printed in the Congressional Record to get a sense of what happened in the past.
Speaking as a historian, I'd really like to applaud this sentiment.
Much of what we know of past governments comes from that kind of document, and debates in the House.
I don't see how it is a waste of time. It would take very little time to actually draw up. The only thing that would make it a waste of time wuold be to unnecessarily treat as a matter of controversy and waste a bunch of time discussing it and overanalysing it.
Yeah, I've got to agree with monster here (although that's probably because we both come from countries with a similar political system).
Over here, the PM would simply stand up in parliament and make a speech about how everything went down and who deserves a pat on the back then sit down again. It'd be recorded in the hansard notes (a record of every word said in parliament) and that'd be it aside from normal military proceedures (whatever they might be).
It is also entirely possible that a motion of thanks would be moved, seconded and then voted on with a show of hands. That might not happen in PMQ, but maybe in a cross party committee, which would then be reorded.
It happens in councils too, across the land. Like if there's been a major fire and the firecrews have really stepped to, there might be a thanks motion moved. It's agreed ahead of time by the party leaders and then voted on. It takes a few minutes.
But also, if as Fair&Balanced suggests, this is something that has been a practice since the Revolution, then it seems reasonable to do it now. If there is a precedent for it then to not do it is as much of a statement as doing it would be.
har. fair point (to the "speaking as a historian" post). As I said in my last post (maybe less eloquently) -I do agree that debating it for the political sake of it is a bigger waste of time. And I still contend that in this day and age there will be plenty of record or what happened without this -I can see how that wan't always the case -the masses used to be illiterate, never mind having unfettered acccess to the internet- but I get why some people want it done and it's no biggie to me if it gets ratified.
As a citizen of an old, old country.....
official records mean fuckshit. History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time.
Historians do. They also draw on other evidence, but that official record is invaluable. Not just because of what it says, but because of what can be inferred from it. I regularly consult the parliamentary record fro the period I study. I look at eveything from house debates to committee minutes. What's said and done in the House can tell historians a great deal. Not least because it is a public record of the political preoccupations of the day. When I was researching attitudes to desertion in the 18th century, my research took me all over the place, from the personal letters and memoirs of soldiers, through the debates on military finance, to the in-letters of the Secretary at War.
If the business of Congress is not routinely recorded in the way parliamentary business, without a special effort to do so, then speaking as a historian, I'd really rather they took the time to do so.
[eta] sorry, hadn't seen your previous post:)
But to answer it: one source is not necessarily more or less useful than another. They each bring certain benefits and also bear certain dangers. The best kind of evidence for a historian is a multiplicity of sources *smiles*. Preferably of such variety as to allow a glimpse into many aspects of the subject. That includes popular response and official record.
Do the SEALs need a pat on the back or are they ok with 'the satisfaction of a job well done'?
Merc "It draws attention to the unit, the missions, and the people. And they do not want or need that. Now every reporter out to get a stringer on the front page will be out head hunting these people.
Valid point - I don't like thinking about this, however its already happening & this isn't going to change that.
Merc What should have happened is for the government to state what happened in the mission, never mentioned any details about anything, never told anyone what they did with the body, never told anyone they took pictures, and never told anyone what units were involved."
Again, I agree. I think those days are gone though. Gotta deal with what is.
F&B "Its for the historical record as it has always been for 200+ years and does not ruin any careers."
Monster " I sorta feel like it's already there in the history books"
" History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time."
True, but the passing of info via word of mouth is not all that accurate and the writings of people is biased by those who did the writing and the info the had at the time. "whisper down the lane" sorta.
From what I understand this is a "no brainer." We've spent more time discussing it than they would have if they just did it.
The R's don't want to sign onto this for political reasons. Its a really tough pill to swallow for them. They've been painting Obama as weak since before the
last election and were certainly planning to use that issue in the next election (not like they have a chance anyway). All this time he has been plotting, planning and working on this. They look like fools right now. They've lost another plank in an already weak campaign. If anyone here is playing politics with this issue, its the R's.
Dana One source is not necessarily more or less useful than another. They each bring certain benefits and also bear certain dangers. The best kind of evidence for a historian is a multiplicity of sources. Preferably of such variety as to allow a glimpse into many aspects of the subject. That includes popular response and official record.
Well said - The differing perspectives is also a big plus. Varied accounts from varied sources all add to get a clearer picture of the event as possible.
So my friend and I were talking about this while we were walking this morning and she asked: if this needs to be part of congressional record for the sake of history, what about all the stuff that got recorded and was later shown to be wrong outside of congress -how does that get corrected in the history books? The example she gave was the recent statement along the lines of 90% of Planned Parenthood's money being used to fund abortions... (I realise I don't have the exact wording, but you kbnow the one I mean)
---
and Jill, sorry, I had not seen all the other shit going on and apologise if I made anything worse. I was truly just interested in it because you started the thread about it. I try to stay away from the politics threads for exactly this reason but you seemed like a rational person to discuss stuff with. I am ignorant about American politics -and a lot of Brit politics these days too- but I don't find it helpful to be told so and then given political labels when I question, so I stay away. yup chicken. I didn't mean to pile on in any way shape or form, and I am sorry for giving that impression.
F&B.... I have read all (or at least most) of your posts to date and have generally, internally said "oh yeah!' But I cannot understand why this is such a big deal. It's never going to be forgotten. Why does it need this seal of approval? Or is the issue more that people are refusing the seal of approval just to show the size of their balls? (which sucks, i get that)
It is the size of the balls thing.
This was a no-brainer and a standard practice. The Senate, which is much more coliegial than the House, passed it in a heartbeat. The House Republicans are playing politics with it.
Classicman had it right:
...
The R's don't want to sign onto this for political reasons. Its a really tough pill to swallow for them. They've been painting Obama as weak since before the last election and were certainly planning to use that issue in the next election (not like they have a chance anyway). All this time he has been plotting, planning and working on this. They look like fools right now. They've lost another plank in an already weak campaign. If anyone here is playing politics with this issue, its the R's.
So my friend and I were talking about this while we were walking this morning and she asked: if this needs to be part of congressional record for the sake of history, what about all the stuff that got recorded and was later shown to be wrong outside of congress -how does that get corrected in the history books? The example she gave was the recent statement along the lines of 90% of Planned Parenthood's money being used to fund abortions... (I realise I don't have the exact wording, but you kbnow the one I mean)
The Congressional Record presents the unedited words and actions of members of Congress, not necessarily the truth or the facts.
A future historian studying American attitudes about abortion in 2011 will get the facts about Planned Parenthood from other reliable sources and will get a perspective on how the issue was demigogued and PP was falsly vilified by conservative members of Congress from speeches and votes recorded in the Congressional Record.
As an aside and totlly unrelated:
Here is the Congressional Record (Globe) from 1838 where a Southern Congressman introduced several resolutions stating that the Federal Government should stay the fuck out of the issue of slavery in the southern states.
http://books.google.com/books?id=AD0FAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA23&dq=Congressional+resolutions+slavery&hl=en&ei=mpTCTdGvG46tgQebtojxAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
You cant find these kind of source documents anywhere else.
So why don't we want history to be truth and facts?
So why don't we want history to be truth and facts?
In your Planned Parenthood example, the Congressional Record will show the unedited truth about how conservatives in Congress lied about the issue, relying solely on their own words and actions. It is not the purpose of the CR to correct the lies.
The facts about Planned Parenthood are available from other reliable sources.
But the killing if Bin Laden is not?
Or does it just need to be there is some format to prompt historians to look at the other resources?
But the killing if Bin Laden is not?
Or does it just need to be there is some format to prompt historians to look at the other resources?
The Congressional Record is not intended to be a record of the details of national events, but simply how Congress responded to those events, in the form of resolutions, speeches, etc.
I suspect the national security archives will have details on the entire operation when it become declassified 50 or 100 years from now.
As Dana noted, historians rely on a variety of documents and sources.
As one of those sources, the Record is unique in offering the unedited words and actions of Congress.
It is just as important to a research historian to be able to get at the lies that were told as well as the facts. It is just as useful to know the rumours and the bluster as it is to know the votes and the results.
Not all history is about setting down the facts. Some of it is an attempt to get a grip on what people were thinking, talking about, preoccupied with and playing politics around. Political shennanigans tell us a great deal about the mentality of the time we're looking at.
@ F&B
Hmmm. I'mm'a contemplate it some more.
thanks, I appreciate your opinion. :)
eta: and Dana's too. And most participants. :D
This has been a really interesting discussion.
and Jill, sorry, I had not seen all the other shit going on and apologise if I made anything worse. I was truly just interested in it because you started the thread about it. I try to stay away from the politics threads for exactly this reason but you seemed like a rational person to discuss stuff with. I am ignorant about American politics -and a lot of Brit politics these days too- but I don't find it helpful to be told so and then given political labels when I question, so I stay away. yup chicken. I didn't mean to pile on in any way shape or form, and I am sorry for giving that impression.
No worries, monster. I should have known that you didn't mean it personally, and I shouldn't have allowed the nonsense from the other thread to spill over into this one. It was really my bad for overreacting and not just taking your question at face value. FT[SIZE="1"](not Congressional)[/SIZE]R, I posted a reply to what went down in that thread,
here.
It is just as important to a research historian to be able to get at the lies that were told as well as the facts. It is just as useful to know the rumours and the bluster as it is to know the votes and the results.
Not all history is about setting down the facts. Some of it is an attempt to get a grip on what people were thinking, talking about, preoccupied with and playing politics around. Political shennanigans tell us a great deal about the mentality of the time we're looking at.
Politically speaking, a good example of why an official Congressional Record of votes on Resolutions can be important, is to look at the Resolution to institute Martin Luther King Day as a National Holiday.
[INDENT]"In 1983, CBC member Rep. Katie Hall (D-IN) re-introduced the King Holiday legislation, H.R. 3706. In the House of Representatives and in the Senate,
the bill was hotly contested. The major issues raised in the House was that the passage of the bill would elevate Dr. King to the status of the founding father, George Washington and that it would be too costly to grant federal workers an additional holiday.
"The holiday bill passed the House on a vote of 338-90 in August 1983. Despite bi-partisan support and support from the Senate leadership, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC)
led a bitter opposition to the bill in the Senate. Calling Dr. King a Communist, Helms circulated negative material in an effort to defeat the bill. Nevertheless, the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 78-22 in October 1983."
http://www.avoiceonline.org/mlk/legislation.html
[/INDENT]
Why is the Congressional Record of the votes on that Resolution important
today (well, 3 years ago, actually)?
Then-Presidential candidate John McCain was one of the 22 Senators who voted against that Resolution.
This has been a really interesting discussion.
I, for one, am very glad it has turned into that! Thank you for helping make it so!
...I appreciate your opinion. :)
...And most participants. :D
I refuse to participate in any thread that would have me as a poster.
I refuse to participate in any thread that would have me as a poster.
Wily one. :p:
I'm putting my sig back.
[INDENT]"House Republicans say they have no plans to follow the Senate in passing a resolution honoring the military mission that killed Osama bin Laden.
"The decision by GOP leaders follows new rules they enacted in January scrapping the tradition of congratulatory measures, which they complained clogged up the House floor.
"The Senate on Tuesday passed a resolution, 97-0, commending “the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the United States intelligence community for the tremendous commitment, perseverance, professionalism and sacrifice they displayed in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.” The measure commended President Obama and reaffirmed the Senate’s commitment “to disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda.” It also recognized former President George W. Bush’s efforts after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/159375-house-wont-honor-seal-mission-with-a-resolution[/INDENT]
Gee, what happened to that supposed Republican patriotism, rah-rah USA, Support Our Troops stuff? Where's the flag-waving when it actually counts for something?
Shame on them.
On the other hand, you do not make a big deal when someone shoots a mad dog.
And that is what happened here. As my friend said, "they took out the trash".
Also, there is not much a bunch of fat politicians can do to honor men such as these seals. It is like a mouse honoring a lion.
I do too, to be honest. Do I need to hand in my bleeding heart liberal card?
Montie has been healed of her possession by evil liberal demons. Hallelujah! One more has followed the light to enlightenment
Okay, here's the deal. I honestly couldn't care less if there's a freaking Resolution on record or not. If the subject had never come up, I assure you I wouldn't have even given it a second thought.
But once the Senate came together and passed a non-partisan Resolution, I thought, "How nice." Then I heard that John Boehner had defiantly refused to do so, and I was outraged.
So why was I outraged that Boehner refused to do something I wouldn't have cared had he not done in the first place?
Because once it was "out there" and the Senate had passed theirs, it became crystal clear to me that John Boehner was turning this into yet another ugly stab at our President because G-d forbid they acknowledge something he succeeded at. It wasn't about expediency or time better spent on more important legislation (they've only passed 3 fucking bills in the 4 months they've been in control as it is). It was an intentional slap in the face to our President. It was a "Screw You" if there ever was one. And I find that reprehensible.
That's why.
And you just so happen to some by the knowledge that this happened. Insignificant as you admit it is, you just happen to have heard about it. Not as though you had time to comb through a massive catalogue of the day's events from around the world, is it? Something more like, you turned on the TV/Radio or opened a newspaper and this OUTRAGE this BLOOD-BOILING OUTRAGE just, coincidentally (because nobody really plans what's in the news, do they?) just coincidentally happened to enter into your conciousness and induce this MOTHERFUCKING OUTRAGE AT THESE GODDAMN BASTARDS WHO ARE AT IT AGAIN!!!1 But of course you're not being manipulated or anything. You CHOSE to know about this, right? This pointless event which means nothing to you, and couldn't have possibly had any substantive effect on anything, ever. You CHOSE (right?) to be SO GODDAMN OUTRAGED at this non-event that there was no purpose in you hearing about. But of course, you're not being manipulated.
Right?
You know, it
is possible for grown adults to hear or read a news story and formulate an opinion based solely on facts without having been "manipulated."
Did
you bother to read the article I linked to right there in the OP? If you had, you would have found differing opinions on the issue being represented by Democrats in the house, one of whom said:
But, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), whose district includes the Pentagon, said he didn’t have a problem with the GOP decision.
“That’s their call,” he said. “It doesn’t make a whole lot of difference whether we vote for a resolution or not. I’m sure the military knows how supportive of them and how proud of them we all are.”
So tell me, was he, or the writer of the piece trying to "manipulate" me into thinking it was no big deal?
Jesus
FUCK you've got some raging assholes on this forum. Perhaps my time away was best left that way.
Sorry guys, I'm outta here again. This isn't the kind of political debate I was seeking out. This is just plain rudeness, and frankly, I have no desire to put up with it.
Peace, Out.
OK; but, we get to keep Casper as our free gift with your trial offer.
Stick around Jill. I need some friends. Apparently mine are all arseholes. ;)
JSOC it to me, JSOC it to me, JSOC it to me.
Oh, well done People. The Cellar strikes again.
Why the nastiness and aggression? Someone makes perfectly reasonable points and gets shat on again.
Ffs.
@ Flint: that post is so arrogant. You've basically accused Jill of having no mind of her own and only being interested because she's been manipulated by the press. And not only arrogant but aggressive too.
Personally, I think she made some interesting points. Her arguments stack up more firmly than the counter-argument (to me) in this thread: I have not been bombarded by news on this issue. I am basing my response entirely on what's in this thread. I have seen not one single news report about this issue. It is entirely possible to form this opinion without having it shoved fully formed into your brain by journalists. Try tackling the actual issue instead of making personal attacks.
Jesus fucking Christ.
I'm millimetres away from leaving myself right now. I am so sick of this shit.
I think you should take it up with Flint Dana. Better women than I have tried before. ;)
Anyway, Jill wont leave. She knows I, at least, think she's sexy...and smart...and everything I aspire to be. :)
Don't leave me this waaaaa...ay e ay! I can't survive...
Sorry, I'll shut up now. I've been drinking.
I think she has already decided to leave actually.
Naw...she will still post. At least, I hope she will. She's a cool chick.
Flint just pissed her off, and let's face it, who hasn't Flint pissed off?
yeah. I think it probably just followed too close on the heels of the previous debate. Straw and camel's back.
Oh buttfuck Flint in the mouth.
Hey Flint, where's your outrage at the outrage that's expressed in terms of demons and whores and demonwhores? You just pop up to get snippy with someone who actually has something to say?
jill fucked up. She should've shown her ass then Flint would've respected her up and down the street. Though, having a personality and a mind of her own might trump that admiration.
Flint's selective outrage at the outrage is outrageous. OUTRAGEOUS!!!1!!
See, jill, some in the Cellar like the women to be SEEN and not HEARD.
as Dana said: ffs
@ Flint: that post is so arrogant. You've basically accused Jill of having no mind of her own and only being interested because she's been manipulated by the press. And not only arrogant but aggressive too.
Have you noticed that flint has devolved from participating in the substance of a discussion to merely attacking individuals?
... You just pop up to get snippy with someone who actually has something to say?
jill fucked up. She should've shown her ass then Flint would've respected her up and down the street. Though, having a personality and a mind of her own might trump that admiration.
Flint's selective outrage at the outrage is outrageous. OUTRAGEOUS!!!1!!
See, jill, some in the Cellar like the women to be SEEN and not HEARD.
as Dana said: ffs
Wow. This is an excellent post and really has me re-thinking a LOT of my interaction and communication techniques/habits. I'm not saying this in relation to anyone in specific, but just how I, as a female raised largely in the 70's of Ameria, feel she MUST tailor/stifle herself to even be considered to be HEARD.
This was an ah - ha moment for me - one of many that I've recently had/been able to make a connection.
Thank you, Infinite Monkey. I feel a bit different today because of your post.
You know, it is possible for grown adults to hear or read a news story and formulate an opinion based solely on facts without having been "manipulated."
Did you bother to read the article I linked to right there in the OP? If you had, you would have found differing opinions on the issue being represented by Democrats in the house, one of whom said: So tell me, was he, or the writer of the piece trying to "manipulate" me into thinking it was no big deal?
Jesus FUCK you've got some raging assholes on this forum. Perhaps my time away was best left that way.
Sorry guys, I'm outta here again. This isn't the kind of political debate I was seeking out. This is just plain rudeness, and frankly, I have no desire to put up with it.
Peace, Out.
I think Speaker Boehner was in a tough spot and took the easy way out.
He is dealing with a freshman class of mostly Tea Party members who, IMO, not only have little or no respect for the institution of Congress as it presently exists (and has for 200+ years) but also a disdain for Obama that goes beyond policy differences. Sure, the institution has many faults, but their slash and burn approach is purely ideological and not a very pragmatic way of addressing the larger issue.
My impression is that the TP crowd has no interest in consensus building or compromise and the resolution was an issue that I assume Boehner figured was not worth pissing them off over, saving those chips for bigger battles to come.
The
resolution that was proposed in House commended the forces on site, the intel community and, heres's the problem IMO, both Bush and Obama equally.
I make that assumption based on some of their personal remarks/press releases that I have seen that give all the credit to Bush.
As to these same members of Congress on the issue of wasting time on such purposeless resolutions, I would point to the fact that they have spent hours and days on resolutions and floor speeches to kill the Affordable Care Act, knowing full well that it has no chance of passage in the Senate. A clear of waste of time.
I think this discussion has run its course, much of it in an ugly manner by a few.
Now come back, please. :)
If you come back I'll tell you tales of my days of bartending at the country club when Boehner was just then schmoozing his way up the ladder and I got to watch the Richie Rich's crawl up his ass!
Wow. This is an excellent post and really has me re-thinking a LOT of my interaction and communication techniques/habits. I'm not saying this in relation to anyone in specific, but just how I, as a female raised largely in the 70's of Ameria, feel she MUST tailor/stifle herself to even be considered to be HEARD.
This was an ah - ha moment for me - one of many that I've recently had/been able to make a connection.
Thank you, Infinite Monkey. I feel a bit different today because of your post.
I hope you feel different in a good way?
I hold you in high esteem, deservedly so. :)
F&B The resolution that was proposed in House commended the forces on site, the intel community and, here's the problem IMO, both Bush and Obama equally.
After rereading, I still don't see the issue the R's have. Pass the damn thing and get back to work. There is much to be done. I'm more than a lil pissed about this now. There isn't a lot of coverage on the issue, but it is wasting time on something that has nothing to do with the real issues at hand - Jobs, economy, deficit/debt...
STFU & get to work.
From what I've heard, the "rules" committee (which is more of a sort-of-guidelines-if-the-speaker-wants committee) of the House, at the start of the current legislative session, declared that the House would no longer vote on resolutions to honor or recognise people, groups, or events, using the bloat of resolutions honoring everything from little-league baseball teams to military operations to civil rights leaders as the rationale. And I can't say I disagree with the sentiment - even though it takes hardly any time and has no policy impact, the hundreds of bills congress passes honoring or recognising who- or whatever is a little ridiculous.
But such a categoric refusal to vote on ANY bill honoring ANYTHING is a little much. This is the kind of event that the congressional record and the idea of passing resolutions to honor people is MEANT FOR. it's either a political ploy or an extreme and fundamentalist point of view on the negativity of ANY AND ALL resolutions EVER that honor shit.
I'd like "Political Ploys" for $500. please.
When everything gets honored it does rather water down the value of being honored, which, IMO, should be reserved for things like what the SEALs done did.
Special Olympics notwithstanding, we are not all winners worthy of special mention and honor.
Special Olympics notwithstanding, we are not all winners worthy of special mention and honor.
Damn. Seriously? Who knew?
SPOILER ALERT:
Dana, I know you are probably feeling a bit stunned, it was a double whammy for me because I found that out at the same time I learned there was no easter bunny. It made for a rough year.
I'm sorry, what? What about the Easter Bunny? OHMIGOD, wtf happened to the Easter Bunny!?
He ran away with post # 327.
Nooooooo! Come back!!!!!!
That twat still owes me an egg.
You can have my ovaries?!?
Are they made of chocolate?
Special Olympics notwithstanding, we are not all winners worthy of special mention and honor.
I am though. Me me me me me infnity.
We'll see how hypocritical they are when a repubican does something praiseworthy.
Are they made of chocolate?
No, they're made of locators.
We'll see how hypocritical they are when a repubican does something praiseworthy.
Haahahaahhhahhahahahahaa...that was funny. Say that again! That was one of those jokes where the premise is so ludicrous you have to laugh, right? What's that called again? :lol:
No, they're made of locators.
:mecry:
They're made of pain and anguish! You bastids.
After reading this sad, hateful thread I've decided to post this poem here. It explains how I feel about myself and this thread and the Cellar, as it has been these past few days. I'm not being cheeky or tongue in cheek. I'm being honest about my feelings.
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
I agree Bri. The second coming is nigh. When the Republican control both houses and the presidency, then the dawn of the era will begin
i knew someone would shit all over my post.
Why try?
I agree Bri. The second coming is nigh. When the Republican control both houses and the presidency, then the dawn of the era will begin
The dawn of what era? The Age of Nefarious? :eyebrow:
:mecry:
They're made of pain and anguish! You bastids.
yeah. I'm really only interested in chocolate.
@ bri: awesome poem.
This is the dawning of the age of nefarious, age of nefarious
NE FAR EEEEEEE ous
This is the dawning of the age of nefarious, age of nefarious
NE FAR EEEEEEE ous
Yes sir, that is what I was going for. ;)
I believe classic crystallized it best, first when he said the refusal of the House to pass a similar bill is because the leadership does not want to acknowledge a political point for their political opponent.
They have LOUDLY made their political point of their own, though. I find their refusal petty.
You know, it is possible for grown adults to hear or read a news story and formulate an opinion based solely on facts without having been "manipulated."
You totally missed the point, then.
Somebody, somewhere, actually
chooses what is shown on the news. This part, you have no control over.
Your reaction, this discussion, and everything else is completely based on the fact that this was ON THE NEWS TO BEGIN WITH. I ask again. Have you been manipulated? I'm not questioning your ability to interpret a news story. I'm questioning whether this was news to begin with.
Flint makes an important observation that, having been in the lie-making industry for 30 something years, I can personally corroborate.
What you see as "news" is often not even based on actual events.
I'm not saying it didn't happen (a lot of things happen). I'm saying: who cares?
If it had no other purpose than to intentionally outrage people, why was it shown? Why were news consumers outraged, and why did this discussion happen? To further the cause of political divisiveness? Mission Accomplished.
Meanwhile, many things that were actually important passed by without comment. The news is largely nonsense.
I'm not saying it didn't happen (a lot of things happen). I'm saying: who cares?
If it had no other purpose than to intentionally outrage people, why was it shown? Why was this person outraged, and why did this discussion happen? To further the cause of political divisiveness. Mission Accomplished.
I'm not saying you said it didn't happen. I'm saying that what you see on 'the news' is not only chosen by someone with some sort of agenda, it often isn't even fact. And, even in the best of cases it is only one side of a complex story.
As a friend of mine says, "There's what He said, and there's what She said, and there's what really happened."
And I agree about the one purpose being political divisiveness. Another thought I usually have is "Who stands to profit from this story and in what way?" You can usually follow the money trail back to the source.
As a friend of mine says, "There's what He said, and there's what She said, and there's what really happened."
Pooka always says "There are THREE sides to every story." Meaning, what your friend said.
Dude, are you banging my wife?
doesn't matter.
Jill is gone.
Pooka always says "There are THREE sides to every story." Meaning, what your friend said.
Dude, are you banging my wife?
Well, there's what she said, and what I say, and what... wait? What? No way man. She's married.
doesn't matter.
Jill is gone.
Yeah, she's a real hep cat, daddy-o.
People are free to make their own decisions.
You totally missed the point, then.
Somebody, somewhere, actually chooses what is shown on the news. This part, you have no control over.
Your reaction, this discussion, and everything else is completely based on the fact that this was ON THE NEWS TO BEGIN WITH. I ask again. Have you been manipulated? I'm not questioning your ability to interpret a news story. I'm questioning whether this was news to begin with.
I read the opening post Flint. I read the article and saw the site at which the article is posted. I also read your post addressed directly to Jill.
She may have missed your point. I certainly missed your point. I contend that the reason the point was missed is that you don't really make that point in your post. It is LOUDLY proclaiming about how she came to HEAR about it, and lots OF OTHER STUFF about her state of mind, ESPECIALLY about being MANIPULATED, etc., etc. The point "is this news?" is never made in your first post. That's why it was missed.
And you just so happen to some by the knowledge that this happened. Insignificant as you admit it is, you just happen to have heard about it. Not as though you had time to comb through a massive catalogue of the day's events from around the world, is it? Something more like, you turned on the TV/Radio or opened a newspaper and this OUTRAGE this BLOOD-BOILING OUTRAGE just, coincidentally (because nobody really plans what's in the news, do they?) just coincidentally happened to enter into your conciousness and induce this MOTHERFUCKING OUTRAGE AT THESE GODDAMN BASTARDS WHO ARE AT IT AGAIN!!!1 But of course you're not being manipulated or anything. You CHOSE to know about this, right? This pointless event which means nothing to you, and couldn't have possibly had any substantive effect on anything, ever. You CHOSE (right?) to be SO GODDAMN OUTRAGED at this non-event that there was no purpose in you hearing about. But of course, you're not being manipulated.
Right?
You even go so far as contradict yourself in your following post.
I ask again. Have you been manipulated?
--OR--
I'm not questioning your ability to interpret a news story.
Which one is it? Are you asking if she's been manipulated or are you confident in her ability to interpret news stories? Contradiction.
But as for your complaint about your point, this question:
I'm questioning whether this was news to begin with.
does not show up in your first post. No one can get a point you don't make man.
I disagree, and I stand by everything I've posted. It isn't contradictory, and I don't need to defend it because it is self-explanatory. The end.
I disagree, and I stand by everything I've posted. It isn't contradictory, and I don't need to defend it because it is self explanatory. The end.
See? Works for *EVERYBODY*, but that is how learning stops. If you end your side of the discussion, then I can't learn anything more about you or your thought process. What you've written is *not* self explanatory, a person's words need the actual person to explain them.
If you say A, and I say, hm.. I don't see it. And you just leave it there, tha's fine, cool. My (apparently incorrect) understanding will remain similarly unchanged. But I'll wonder what was the purpose of your remarks. Were you trying to inform me, amuse me, persuade me? Were you just thinking out loud with none of these intentions? I don't know. I'm just left with what I've got.
and I've got an image of what I've already said, plus one of you with a closed mind.
communication is the sending and receiving of information. Lots of sending here, but a lamentable lack of receiving.
Read the post again and imagine that it is about what I said it is about. I meant exactly what I said.
…just so happen to…you just happen to have heard about it…just, coincidentally (because nobody really plans what's in the news, do they?) just coincidentally happened to enter into your consciousness...you chose to know about this, right?…
right.
I did read all of that, more than once. In every reading, the subject (largely omitted in your quoting) is "you", Jill, since you were addressing her. The object was her understanding, her knowledge and the provenance of that knowledge.
Your point is made obliquely at best and the most direct reference to the insignificance of this item and its news-un-worthiness is in the negative "...nobody does plan..do they?". the quote you show might have been what you wrote when you were thinking "Man, this is such a non-issue, why all the fuss in the first place?", but what came out was very different.
I haven’t said anything (not one single thing!) about how someone interprets a news story, or their knowledge thereof. Double-check if you like.
The manipulation I have been referring to is the fact that this story was on the news to begin with. That has, in fact, been stated in every sentence of every post that I have made. You can choose to remain purposefully obtuse, if you like. Again, people are free to make their own decisions.
By that logic we shouldn't discuss anything that has been in the news.
Glad you're sticking with me Flint. Because only *now* do I understand (my third understanding) of your point. You're point is "... (something/someone/all of us.... um??) is being manipulated by the existence of a story in the media.
You've been much, much clearer in the past. The fucking *math* question was clearer than this.
So should we all say how clever you are because you've said what we all knew in the first place anyway Flint? We've had massive discussions on this board about the news is reported differently depending on the sources' political affiliations.
My question to you is this. Why would you choose this particular thread to get in an extra couple of digs at Jill when there are a hundred other threads and posters to which you could have posted the same thing?
Clearly jill expressed why she was upset with the content of the article. I personally give her enough credit to realize that it may not have been reported and then she may never have known. I suspect that it's going to be all over the news now anyway though, so really, what's your point Flint?
So should we all...
No, you should all fuck off.
Except BigV.
lol...sorry. No can do.
Again, I know what your point was, but I'd still like to know why you decided to have a go at Jill with it when there were others who were less upset about a previous confrontation who you could have bothered with it.
I read a post and replied to it. That is all.
I don't know who or what you're talking about in regards to a "previous confrontation" and I truly, deeply, do not care. On principle.
Well I guess we should expect to see the same post quite a few more times then?
Don't bother yourself with having expectations of me. I don't, of you.
Received information as opposed to personal discovery.
All information has to be received/acquired one way or another. It's how that information is disseminated that leads to personal discovery.
Not really. You pick up a glass of water and drink some. you know if it is cold or hot. I tell you the water is cold and you believe me w/o verifying it for yourself you are relying on received information instead of perceived information.
The point I am making has to do with a passive attitude about news and other info instead of an active attitude. Even if it is just applying some critical thinking to received info, it seems like a much better approach to take, tasting before you swallow, as it were.
Nothing in jill's posts suggests she was approsching the news reports uncritically
And WTF anyway, this forum is called politics. Where do we get our info in order to discuss it? From the media. Flint was just being a dick.
And WTF anyway, this forum is called politics. Where do we get our info in order to discuss it? From the media. Flint was just being a dick.
unless the politicians are able to influence the media...... ?
Well, to be fair, I think Jill might have overreacted because of the other bashing. Flint was just a minor annoyance, but maybe the straw that broke the camels back? Anyway, I hope she'll change her mind, I like her voice. Much better than mine, I've become very disinterested in politics because everyone I know have such polar beliefs and you can't have a reasonable conversation. FFS my brother in law started yelling when we were trying to discuss evolution being taught in schools, and he's a biology major!
unless the politicians are able to influence the media...... ?
That's endless loop-de-loopity thinking ...AAARRRGGHHHH :nuts:
Well, to be fair, I think Jill might have overreacted because of the other bashing. Flint was just a minor annoyance, but maybe the straw that broke the camels back? Anyway, I hope she'll change her mind, I like her voice. Much better than mine, I've become very disinterested in politics because everyone I know have such polar beliefs and you can't have a reasonable conversation. FFS my brother in law started yelling when we were trying to discuss evolution being taught in schools, and he's a biology major!
I appreciate her too and for the same reason. I cant keep up a well-informed discussion, because I'm just not well informed. But I like being able to read it.
I agree over-reaction. Not un-understandable.
By that logic we shouldn't discuss anything that has been in the news.
Just what I was thinking.
Well I guess we should expect to see the same post quite a few more times then?
Probably not. Consistency is not Flint's forte.
No, you should all fuck off.
Thanks for the recommendation, merc.
...but maybe the straw that broke the camels back? ...
You think calling Jill a camel is going to entice her back? Why not just come out and say what you really think about her?
I understand that my point could have been misunderstood, BUT…
Once I’ve explained, step by step, exactly what I meant, and exactly what I didn’t mean, several times over, then what does that say about the peanut gallery who snipes at me with purposefully dishonest cheap shots? Either you’re too thick-headed to put two and two together, or you’re repeating outright fabrications with intent to be malicious, for no apparent reason. Either way, great job! Keep up the good work, weak-minded fools!
It doesn't bother me at all, and I don't regret anything I've said (why would I?) but at least the sloppy thinkers have revealed themselves.
but at least the sloppy thinkers have revealed themselves.
Just now?, after all this time....? :p:
must be the 5 year revealing
... Once I’ve explained, step by step
Slowly he turned...step by step...inch by inch..., then suddenly ..."
the sloppy thinkers have revealed themselves.
I understand that my point could have been misunderstood, BUT…
Once I’ve explained, step by step, exactly what I meant, and exactly what I didn’t mean, several times over, then what does that say about the peanut gallery who snipes at me with purposefully dishonest cheap shots? Either you’re too thick-headed to put two and two together, or you’re repeating outright fabrications with intent to be malicious, for no apparent reason. Either way, great job! Keep up the good work, weak-minded fools!
It doesn't bother me at all, and I don't regret anything I've said (why would I?) but at least the sloppy thinkers have revealed themselves.
Translation: It's everybody else's fault, and your all a bunch of poopy heads! :sniff:
Gosh. In this deeply fractured society, it is now an option to believe that the other side is not just incorrect, not just wrong, not even just stupid, but actually broken.
It doesn't bother me at all, and I don't regret anything I've said (why would I?) but at least the sloppy thinkers have revealed themselves.
Is there such as thing as sloppy second thoughts?
Translation: It's everybody else's fault, and your all a bunch of poopy heads! :sniff:
Of course, reworking the text to read "poppyheads," now...
This, from the guy who within living memory melted down, screamed about how he passive-aggressively hoped someone (but not him, O No) would buttfuck me in the mouth (as he put it) over my pro-selfdefense views, and essentially pissed himself so thoroughly the entire Cellar came to a standstill, stared him down, and watched his bowtie turn yellow. An unforgettable and colorful spasm of childishness. And people think they should wonder at me thumbing my nose at the Left end of the spectrum?? The wonder is they do not do so themselves.
Spexx, is this some life's plan of yours or is it simply that you cannot help yourself, and must look ridiculous? I will mention your want of mastery of possessive pronouns vis-à-vis contractions only to claim unconvincingly that I forbear to mention it. Copyediting -- it's a good thing. Your keyboard does have a Backspace key.
On Topic now: so the House did not pass a resolution; the Senate did. That's sufficient. I'm okay with "sufficient."
Is there such as thing as sloppy second thoughts?
For these, we look to you, tw. A lot of junk food for thought goes through your keyboard.
This, from the guy who within living memory melted down, screamed about how he passive-aggressively hoped someone (but not him, O No) would buttfuck me in the mouth (as he put it) over my pro-selfdefense views, and essentially pissed himself so thoroughly the entire Cellar came to a standstill, stared him down, and watched his bowtie turn yellow. ."
Is this true Spexxvet? Did you try and get UG buttfucked in the mouth?
Shame on you Spexx. For shame!
Is this true Spexxvet? Did you try and get UG buttfucked in the mouth?
Shame on you Spexx. For shame!
Sorry, I don't recall....
:corn: this shit is funny as hell. You all are a bunch of self absorbed God damm fools. But, really this is funny to watch.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/160301-gop-says-intel-bill-wil-pay-tribute-to-bin-laden-mission
House Republican leaders who were criticized for not commemorating the death of Osama bin Laden say an intelligence bill headed to the floor this week will honor the achievement.
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Tuesday said legislation lawmakers will consider later this week will "pay tribute" to the military and the intelligence community in lieu of a resolution expressly honoring the mission that took out bin Laden. ...
“As we considered that last week, we deal with the rules we put in place in the House, and we’ve said since we assumed the majority that we want to be substantive and meaningful,” Cantor said at his weekly press briefing.
“We also understand the large impact that was gained by the intelligence community and the SEALs activity in Pakistan and obviously is worthy of our support. So we believe the best way to express that support [and] extend congratulations is in the context of the intel bill,” Cantor said.
GOP leaders had indicated from the outset last week that a congratulatory resolution was not in the offing, but Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday it remained under discussion....
Cantor noted the Congress has not approved a full intelligence authorization bill in six years, and he predicted this one would pass the Senate and make it to the president’s desk. The GOP bill reduces the budget authority of the various intelligence agencies by $47 billion, though Republicans hope the legislation will bring more clarity on spending for the remainder of the fiscal year.
A flip-flop? Petty politics? or giving them their due without a separate resolution?
"pay tribute" to the military and the intelligence community in lieu of a resolution expressly honoring the mission that took out bin Laden.
Politics aside, I think that's better than the original plan. This is much more inclusive of the efforts of a lot more people.
But what about Flint picking on Jill because she's a chick?
Oh that's right, that never happened, that was just made up.
And the reporters hunts begin.... just like I predicted.
http://www.newsleader.com/article/20110516/NEWS01/105160302/Spotting-SEAL-do-they-really-hangouts-
You needn't worry mercy. They have
LOTS of cover. Besides, your story concludes that good seals are probably at home. I sincerely doubt any crew that could pluck a man from his home in an armed walled compound would have any trouble defending his own castle.
They're gonna be fine.
I agree about their homes.... but not about the guys going out for a beer or two in the specific local pubs listed in this very article. Or the moms taking their kids to soccer practice at the local rec center.
Reporters are as bad if not worse than lawyers. I think they are worse, actually. Reporters only take, a lawyer only takes 1/3.
Imagine that.....
Gates, Mullen appeal for end to disclosures of Osama bin Laden raid details
The defense secretary and the head of the Joint Chiefs argue that the information could compromise future missions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gates-mullen-appeal-for-end-to-disclosures-of-osama-bin-laden-raid-details/2011/05/18/AF3jsk6G_allComments.html?ctab=all_&#commentsI've considered that using ST6 may have stemmed from the politics of having an Adm. as CJCS. Now I'm considering that they were used for the high profile event to keep the paparazzi away from Δ.
I've considered that using ST6 may have stemmed from the politics of having an Adm. as CJCS. Now I'm considering that they were used for the high profile event to keep the paparazzi away from [strike]Δ[/strike] OH LOOK--A pony!.
Fify.
Do you need a translation?
He thinks we should have sent in
Chuck Norris.Hijacked by lesbian tourists?
How did I miss that movie?
But what about Flint picking on Jill because she's a chick?
Oh that's right, that never happened, that was just made up.
I was so shocked, I didn't even give her the vicious slamming she deserved for the "I'm Leaving" hysterics. Well, if you're reading this, Jill, let me take the opportunity to invite you NOT to come back. I hope you have left the entire internet, unplugged your computer, and thrown it out the window.
Do you need a translation?
No sir.
I am trying to draw attention away.[COLOR="White"] from Delta.[/COLOR]
That's what you were suggesting, I thought.
So far, without looking, I've stumbled across what SEAL unit, where they're based, and the name of the dog. I think it's all unnecessary information to be made public... unless they're baiting a trap.;)
He thinks we should have sent in Chuck Norris.
It goes to the gist of [post=731172]a question glatt posed[/post] a couple weeks ago. With Defense budget cuts looming, was a mission capable unit from one branch of service thrust into the limelight for leverage by a CJCS who's from that branch? Did the operational considerations of a mission capable unit from another branch of service preclude putting it into the limelight? Perhaps it simply boiled down to what the best way was to compartmentalize the operation.
So far, without looking, I've stumbled across what SEAL unit, where they're based, and the name of the dog. I think it's all unnecessary information to be made public... unless they're baiting a trap.;)
Valerie Plame?
Ten years, thousands of lives, billions (trillions?) of dollars but in the end they did find Osama.
In his house.
So far, without looking, I've stumbled across what SEAL unit, where they're based, and the name of the dog. I think it's all unnecessary information to be made public... unless they're baiting a trap.;)
Has Bruce been seen since he posted this? :eyebrow:
Ten years, thousands of lives, billions (trillions?) of dollars but in the end they did find Osama.
In his house.
:p:
Ten years, thousands of lives, billions (trillions?) of dollars but in the end they did find Osama.
In his house.
Yep, ironically it was the waterboardings, etc. that allowed us to find that house.
It's always the last place you look.
In the paper this morning was an article about a dude ranch where you get to go through the "same" training a SEAL goes through. Run by a former SEAL. Pictures showed a bunch of portly men sitting down.
Yep, ironically it was the waterboardings, etc. that allowed us to find that house.
Except that NO confirmed data has been reported that supports that assertion, and MANY statements have been made by THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE that indicate that waterboarding and other forms of enhanced interrogation had NOTHING to do with the operation.
Except that NO confirmed data has been reported that supports that assertion, and MANY statements have been made by THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE that indicate that waterboarding and other forms of enhanced interrogation had NOTHING to do with the operation.
Right.
The evidence is much more compelling that it was the result of putting more CIA assets in the field in Afghanistan and Pakistan several years ago and then NSA's intercept of e-mails and phone calls, based on what those assets found or heard.
And almost all reputable primary-source accounts not from Republican candidates for office state unequivocally that not only was "enhanced interrogation" not a significant factor, and not only did tortured prisoners actually give misleading and utterly unhelpful testimony, but in fact all the prisoner-derived intel helpful to the case was either accidentally gained (that is to say, the prisoner let slip information without intending to let it slip) or given by detainees NOT subject to "enhanced" techniques or torture.
I'm not entirely willing to say that I don't think there is a time or a place for the more "mild" forms of torture - of course if one wants to make WHAT IF THE TERRORIST KNOWS WHERE THE BOMB IS AND ITS THE ONLY WAY arguments, then i grudgingly support SOME forms of "enhanced interrogation" - but I also firmly believe that in almost all cases, intelligence gained through torture is dubious at best, and even more so, that rule of law should be supreme.
If the US is to honestly act on "enhanced interrogation" techniques regarded under the Geneva Convention as torture, then I believe that the US should disengage itself from the Geneva Convention and any other international treaties that ban the actions taken.
They discovered the nickname of Bin Laden's body guard/primary courier at Guantanamo. It was a long complicated investigation from there.
Ten years, thousands of lives, billions (trillions?) of dollars but in the end they did find Osama.
In his house.
It wasn't really him. It was a look alike surrounded by whores.
They discovered the nickname of Bin Laden's body guard/primary courier at Guantanamo. It was a long complicated investigation from there.
I don't think anyody is denying that the prisoners at Guantanemo were the source of intelligence. It's whether that intelligence was the result of enhanced or standard interrogation techniques that is being questioned. From the reports I have read it would appear that the information was the result of standard techniques.
Looks like the birthers are deathers now?
Looks like the birthers are deathers now?
I may be being totally dense, but I don't get this:p
They wanted proof that Obama was born
now they want proof that Osama has died
They wanted proof that Obama was born
now they want proof that Osama has died
One out of three conservative Republicans still believe Obama is a Muslim.
@ Griff: ahh thanks. yes that makes sense.
One out of three conservative Republicans still believe Obama is a Muslim.
Seriously? That's pretty frightening.
@ Griff: ahh thanks. yes that makes sense.
Seriously? That's pretty frightening.
A Pew poll from last year. The number is probably higher today, given how Obama evidently "butt fucked" :eek: Israel in his recent speech, according to those same Republican conservatives.
[INDENT]
http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Growing-Number-of-Americans-Say-Obama-is-a-Muslim.aspx[/INDENT]
Those who dont like him or trust him accept what they want to believe, particularly when it is indirectly reinforced by the talking heads and even Republican members of Congress.
I'm not sure if that's amusing or scary. It only lists Christians and "unaffiliated", are there any polls on the opinions of Muslims?
I'm not sure if that's amusing or scary. It only lists Christians and "unaffiliated", are there any polls on the opinions of Muslims?
Or Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, Shintoists, Pagans, Athiests, Jainists, etc.?
The actual poll question was:
Now, thinking about Barack Obama’s religious beliefs… Do you happen to know what Barack Obama’s religion is? Is he Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, or something else?
That is frightening. Then again,
Among Democrats, for instance, 46% say Obama is a Christian, down from 55% in March 2009.
Only half of the D's think he is Christian. WTF?
A lot of democrats don't care about the "christian/non-christian" thing. Only 7% said muslim. The other large percentage was don't know, which would translate for me "don't care."
So, NOT saying he's christian does not equal "he's muslim."
Or something.
There are two different types of 'don't know'.
Q1. Does Infinite Monkey have any children?
A. I don't know, we've never spoke about it and I haven't heard, I have no way of knowing.
Q2. Is Barack Obama a Muslim?
A. I don't know, he says he's a Christian but he looks like one of 'em Muslims to me.
They discovered the nickname of Bin Laden's body guard/primary courier at Guantanamo. It was a long complicated investigation from there.
Well a number of high ranking officials said the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques played a part in finding Bin Laden, among them were Leon Panetta, CIA Chief, who stated on NBC's Brian Williams that the intell obtained via enhanced interrogations helped the agency find Bin Laden. Jose Rodriguez also stated for Time Magazine that such techniques made the operation possible. He ran the CIA counterterrorism center from 2002 - 2005. So I guess they lied.:rolleyes:
There are two different types of 'don't know'.
Q1. Does Infinite Monkey have any children?
A. I don't know, we've never spoke about it and I haven't heard, I have no way of knowing.
Q2. Is Barack Obama a Muslim?
A. I don't know, he says he's a Christian but he looks like one of 'em Muslims to me.
I think Colbert did a bit like that. Something to the effect:
I don't know that Sarah Palin suckles ligers at her breast.
I don't know that Karl Rove suck big donkey dicks.
:unsure:
This is getting good!
Well a number of high ranking officials said the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques played a part in finding Bin Laden, among them were Leon Panetta, CIA Chief, who stated on NBC's Brian Williams that the intell obtained via enhanced interrogations helped the agency find Bin Laden.
You can spin his statement pretty much any way you want. He doesn't say the water boarding helped. He said it happened.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: I'd like to ask you about the sourcing on the intel that ultimately led to this successful attack. Can you confirm that it was as a result of waterboarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after bin Laden?
LEON PANETTA: You know Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information, and that was true here. We had a multiple source -- a multiple series of sources -- that provided information with regards to this situation. Clearly, some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees. But we also had information from other sources as well. So, it's a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got.
WILLIAMS: Turned around the other way, are you denying that waterboarding was in part among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?
PANETTA: No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question.
WILLIAMS: So, finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques -- which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years -- that includes waterboarding?
PANETTA: That's correct.
You can spin his statement pretty much any way you want. He doesn't say the water boarding helped. He said it happened.
No, he was purposefully vague. He never confirmed nor denied that it was specifically waterboarding that was what got the confessions. He said Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. That can be a whole list of things. He said those techniques contributed to the capture. Nothing more, nothing less. And you can spin it anyway you want, actionable information was gathered, albeit, delayed, that lead to the eventual killing of OBL.
The truth is that we don't know for sure one way or the other.
The only thing we can be sure of is that anyone who automatically believes what the politicians and military people involved say is an utter fool.
The truth is that we don't know for sure one way or the other.
And that should be the end of it, and people who respect the profession should STFU and leave it alone. Stop asking questions and move about with the same level of Freedom you had a little while ago. Obama had very little to do with this mission, other than giving the ok. Does any swinging dick here think for one minute that Clinton or Bush 1 or Bush 2 or Kennedy for that matter would not have given the same go ahead given the current situation???? No. Every single one of them would have done the same thing. And that is why Obama had little to nothing to do with the event. The curry goes to those in the arena who have been on the hunt since day one, long before Obama came on the scene. Obama pushed the button, but 99% of those before him would have done the same thing, and that makes his action irrelevant. I give him much less credit than those in the field, who set the stage before him who did the work and get none of the glory. As it should be....
Just don't try to get re-elected on the event or I and many others will crucify you for your attempts to exploit the event that you had very little to do with....
...Just don't try to get re-elected on the event or I and many others will crucify you for your attempts to exploit the event that you had very little to do with....
You're gonna crucify Obama or just more Mercenary Madness? :eek:
You're gonna crucify Obama or just more Mercenary Madness?
You coward Reflux. Come on dude own up.
ANYone but Obama in 2012. Shit, I could elect Micky Mouse and this mofo could do a better job than this asshole.
You coward Reflux. Come on dude own up.
You're delusional and obsessed with a relationship that only exists in your mind. Kinda scary but still amusing.
You're delusional and obsessed with a relationship that only exists in your mind. Kinda scary but still amusing.
I agree, anyone who can continue to support this asshole of a President is completely delusional. Great entertainment if I may say so.... carry on.
Well a number of high ranking officials said the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques played a part in finding Bin Laden, among them were Leon Panetta, CIA Chief, who stated on NBC's Brian Williams that the intell obtained via enhanced interrogations helped the agency find Bin Laden. Jose Rodriguez also stated for Time Magazine that such techniques made the operation possible. He ran the CIA counterterrorism center from 2002 - 2005. So I guess they lied.:rolleyes:
Perps justifying their actions, no surprise there.
And that should be the end of it, and people who respect the profession should STFU and leave it alone.
I respect what junkyard dogs do, but keep them on a short leash, because specialists believe their mission takes precedence and the end justifies the means.
Obama had very little to do with this mission, other than giving the ok.
According to Yon's dispatches he was more than a little involved for months, questioning and re-questioning to make sure they had all their ducks in a row... covered all contingencies. I wouldn't expect him to swim the Atlantic with a Bowie knife in his teeth.
I give him much less credit than those in the field, who set the stage before him who did the work and get none of the glory. As it should be....
Well duh, that's what he said.
Just don't try to get re-elected on the event or I and many others will crucify you for your attempts to exploit the event that you had very little to do with....
You'll do jack shit, except piss & moan, spew hate, and vote against him, just like before.:p:
Well put, but I don't really see the value in engaging with tehmurk no learning will take place.
There are two different types of 'don't know'.
Q1. Does Infinite Monkey have any children?
A. I don't know, we've never spoke about it and I haven't heard, I have no way of knowing.
Q2. Is Barack Obama a Muslim?
A. I don't know, he says he's a Christian but he looks like one of 'em Muslims to me.
For a while we were getting "push polls" where the questioner would call and ask something like "Upon learning that Infinite Monkey has fifteen restraining orders out against her for internet stalking would that make you more or less likely to nominate her to be a mod who would then have access to your IP?"
Of course you aren't saying this is true, but you've planted the seed in people's mind, and for a lot of my fellow country persons, the elevator doesn't quite make it to the top floor...
14. Great investigation techniques, wannabes.
Uh, yeah. Listen, Infi there's something I forgot to tell you...
Well put, but I don't really see the value in engaging with tehmurk no learning will take place.
For the lurkers, please think of the lurkers.;)
You'll do jack shit, except piss & moan, spew hate, and vote against him, just like before.:p:
I'll give you that much, oh and I will help crucify him if he tries to use it to get re-elected. :thumb: :D
Obama is out in 2012.
And replaced by who? Ron Paul? Tim Pawlenty? Michelle Bachmann?
:lol2:
C'mon - Merc is a Santorum supporter (pun intended)
I don't practice Rick Santorum
Though I got some on my ball
If I had a million Weiners, well
Rick would chop them all
If Huckabee quit the Republican race, why the fuck is he calling me 3 or 4 times a week?
I would <NOT> vote for a single one of those fucks. Include Obama in that list.
I would vote for a single one of those fucks. Include Obama in that list.
Please clarify this statement, mercy. I don't understand. Thanks.
Thanks for pointing out my missing bit. Cheers.
who would you vote for as POTUS?
Haven't seen anyone enter the field, or even dance around entering the field that I would vote for.