OT For Scottie

[MiNe 109]

Who said this?:

"Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have
worn this nation's uniform during wartime," wrote xxxx. "To continue to
use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military
veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of
Islam."

BTW, CNN reports the DHS right-wing assessment was initiated by the Bush
administration.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Apr 17, 8:39*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > Who said this?:
> >
> > "Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have
> > worn this nation's uniform during wartime," wrote xxxx. "To continue to
> > use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military
> > veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of
> > Islam."
>
> That was [Napolitano]'s absurd retraction issued to veterans.

Wrong.

> It's absurd on three levels....first is her hollow "to continue" as if
> her smear of vets was widely done before ...it wasn't.
> Next is the implication that Osama bin Laden is somehow as unique in
> Islam as Timothy McVeigh was among military veterans. That's just
> ludicrous
> and veterans should be offended.

Millions of Muslims feel otherwise. McVeigh thought he was acting on
behalf of a movement.

> Finally, any retraction just days after standing behind her report is
> suspect.

Yes, highly suspect.

> If she was too stupid to see how bad she f'd up right off the bat when
> it hit the fan, she's too stupid to be head of DHS. It's one thing
> for her position to be embroiled in controversy, but controversy of
> her own making over something as useless as that lame report is not
> forgiveable.

How is it her fault a report initiated by the previous administration
identified a politically-unpopular risk? Should such risks be ignored
for the sake of appeasing the right wing?

> > BTW, CNN reports the DHS right-wing assessment was initiated by the Bush
> > administration.
>
> I already pointed that out.

Good on you, because when I first mentioned it, you couldn't imagine the
Bush administration would do such a thing.

> But the release and therefore vetting of
> the final content before release was [Napolitano]'s responsibility.

Wasn't the report leaked? How could there be any 'final vetting'?

> She stood
> behind her work for a day or two until she somebody read her the
> footnotes. Then she starts trying the lame apology route. I don't
> think that sort of apology is going to make anyone feel better.

I think she stands by the report. She regrets the tender feelings of war
vet supporters.

The statement was by American Legion National Commander David Rehbein,
who "said he was pleased with Napolitano's apology," according to Fox
News.

<vvvhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/16/napolitano-ap
ologizes-offending-veterans-dhs-eyes-rightwing-extremism/>

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 18, 6:39*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:

> I think she stands by the report. She regrets the tender feelings of war
> vet supporters.

Isn't that funny? 2pid never served, but he's all in a dither about
this alleged 'smear'. And he feels like he knows what should "offend"
veterans. LOL!

I wonder what 2pid would say if I told him there were drug-users in
uniform.

<insert "Yes, Shhhhhhtard, but now that you've retired there aren't"
or similar blather from 2pid here>

LoL.

> The statement was by American Legion National Commander David Rehbein,
> who "said he was pleased with Napolitano's apology," according to Fox
> News.

Sorry, dude, but 2pid proclaimed it was from "Napo".

You loose. ;-)

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> Who said this?:
>
> "Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have
> worn this nation's uniform during wartime," wrote xxxx. "To continue to
> use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military
> veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of
> Islam."

Bill O'Reilly?

> BTW, CNN reports the DHS right-wing assessment was initiated by the Bush
> administration.

I don't know what that means. Should I?

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Apr 18, 6:39*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> > I think she stands by the report. She regrets the tender feelings of war
> > vet supporters.
>
> Isn't that funny? 2pid never served, but he's all in a dither about
> this alleged 'smear'. And he feels like he knows what should "offend"
> veterans. LOL!
>
> I wonder what 2pid would say if I told him there were drug-users in
> uniform.

Remembering how he beat the right-wing drum on the Beauchamp affair, I
think he'd say it wasn't possible.

> <insert "Yes, Shhhhhhtard, but now that you've retired there aren't"
> or similar blather from 2pid here>
>
> LoL.
>
> > The statement was by American Legion National Commander David Rehbein,
> > who "said he was pleased with Napolitano's apology," according to Fox
> > News.
>
> Sorry, dude, but 2pid proclaimed it was from "Napo".
>
> You loose. ;-)

Maybe he meant Napoleon from Animal Farm.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > Who said this?:
> >
> > "Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have
> > worn this nation's uniform during wartime," wrote xxxx. "To continue to
> > use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military
> > veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of
> > Islam."
>
> Bill O'Reilly?
>
> > BTW, CNN reports the DHS right-wing assessment was initiated by the Bush
> > administration.
>
> I don't know what that means. Should I?

The quote above is from a protest letter from a representative of the
American Legion to the Department of Homeland Security head concerning
the recently aired report on potential terror threats from right-wing
extremists.

Scott blamed DHS Secretary Napolitano despite the fact that the report
was initiated and possibly compiled in part by the Bush administration.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 19, 10:56*am, ScottW2 > wrote:

> *LoL. *Napo regrets sssshtard. * Better put that in a report and
> distribute it to federal, state, and local law enforcement.

"Napo regrets sssshtard."

Even your trolls are stupid. Is there anything about you that isn't?

Just curious.

BTW, your upholstery, imbecile. LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Apr 18, 4:39*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Apr 17, 8:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > Who said this?:
> >
> > > > "Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have
> > > > worn this nation's uniform during wartime," wrote xxxx. "To continue to
> > > > use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military
> > > > veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of
> > > > Islam."
> >
> > > *That was [Napolitano]'s absurd retraction issued to veterans.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> I see it was Rehbeins comment, not [Napolitano]'s.
> >
> > > It's absurd on three levels....first is her hollow "to continue" as if
> > > her smear of vets was widely done before ...it wasn't.
> > > Next is the implication that Osama bin Laden is somehow as unique in
> > > Islam as Timothy McVeigh was among military veterans. *That's just
> > > ludicrous
> > > and veterans should be offended.
> >
> > Millions of Muslims feel otherwise.
>
> Muslims aren't that stupid. Now you're offending muslims with
> ridiculous assetions.

Millions of Muslims don't follow OBL or approve of his actions.

> > McVeigh thought he was acting on
> > behalf of a movement.
>
> Does that make it a movement or just prove he was nuts?

There actually are right-wing extremists, yes. His fantasy, following
the plot of a novel, was to strike the first blow in a revolution.

> > > Finally, any retraction just days after standing behind her report is
> > > suspect.
> >
> > Yes, highly suspect.
> >
> > > If she was too stupid to see how bad she f'd up right off the bat when
> > > it hit the fan, she's too stupid to be head of DHS. *It's one thing
> > > for her position to be embroiled in controversy, but controversy of
> > > her own making over something as useless as that lame report is not
> > > forgiveable.
> >
> > How is it her fault a report initiated by the previous administration
> > identified a politically-unpopular risk?
>
> She vetted the report..or should have, before it's release.

Presumably, and she stands behind it but might have reworded that
footnote in order to avoid a right-wing hissy-fit.

> > Should such risks be ignored
> > for the sake of appeasing the right wing?
>
> Did you read the report? It's pure postulation.
> No evidence, no data, no actionable intel.
> Sending it out to law enforcement organizations was just a huge
> waste of everyone's time. Creating such a stupid lame report
> was a huge waste of tax dollars.
>
> >
> > > > BTW, CNN reports the DHS right-wing assessment was initiated by the Bush
> > > > administration.
> >
> > > *I already pointed that out.
> >
> > Good on you, because when I first mentioned it, you couldn't imagine the
> > Bush administration would do such a thing.
>
> LoL. You claimed it was largely responsible for the content or some
> such
> unsubstantiated BS claim. Napo released it..if she thought it was BS
> she should have killed it.

The content should be roughly the same no matter who initiated it.

You said you couldn't imagine the Bush administration would investigate
the affect of a minority-member president.

> > > But the release and therefore vetting of
> > > the final content before release was [Napolitano]'s responsibility. *
> >
> > Wasn't the report leaked? How could there be any 'final vetting'?
>
> Wake up.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/napolitano.apology/?iref=mpstoryview
>
> "The report, which was prepared in coordination with the FBI, was
> published last week. It was distributed to federal, state and local
> law enforcement officials. Mainstream media outlets picked up the
> story after it was reported by conservative bloggers."

Many reports included the word 'leaked'. Perhaps some commentators saw
something in the way the wingnuts took it up so quickly.

> > > She stood
> > > behind her work for a day or two until she somebody read her the
> > > footnotes. * Then she starts trying the lame apology route. *I don't
> > > think that sort of apology is going to make anyone feel better.
> >
> > I think she stands by the report. She regrets the tender feelings of war
> > vet supporters.
>
> LoL. [Napolitano] regrets sssshtard. Better put that in a report and
> distribute it to federal, state, and local law enforcement.

How is it vets can't be right-wing extremists coming home from Iraq when
it is known that some were right-wing extremists when they entered the
service?

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 19, 6:32*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2:20*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:

> > Presumably, and she stands behind it but might have reworded that
> > footnote in order to avoid a right-wing hissy-fit.
>
> *How about to avoid offending veterans?

But veterans are not offended, 2pid.

The people who are offended are mainly cowardly nonveterans such as
yourself.

> Thanks for showing what a dumb spineless hack Napo is.

Your stupidity is staggering sometimes.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Apr 19, 2:20*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Apr 18, 4:39*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 17, 8:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > Who said this?:
> >
> > > > > > "Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > worn this nation's uniform during wartime," wrote xxxx. "To
> > > > > > continue to
> > > > > > use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled
> > > > > > military
> > > > > > veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > Islam."
> >
> > > > > *That was [Napolitano]'s absurd retraction issued to veterans.
> >
> > > > Wrong.
> >
> > > *I see it was Rehbeins comment, not [Napolitano]'s.
> >
> > > > > It's absurd on three levels....first is her hollow "to continue" as
> > > > > if
> > > > > her smear of vets was widely done before ...it wasn't.
> > > > > Next is the implication that Osama bin Laden is somehow as unique in
> > > > > Islam as Timothy McVeigh was among military veterans. *That's just
> > > > > ludicrous
> > > > > and veterans should be offended.
> >
> > > > Millions of Muslims feel otherwise.
> >
> > > *Muslims aren't that stupid. *Now you're offending muslims with
> > > ridiculous assetions.
> >
> > Millions of Muslims don't follow OBL or approve of his actions.
>
> I think we need that number in billions not millions.

There are only 1.5B Muslims, so that's a tall order.

> http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=13263
>
> "Support for Bin Laden has also fallen, although it remains high in
> some countries. In Nigeria, 60% say they support the head of Al Qaeda,
> and in Indonesia and Pakistan about one third of Muslims say they do.
> But previously, these were respectively 60% and almost 50%."
>
> Those numbers clearly show muslim support for bin Laden is
> significant,
> while McVeigh has none.

That 'support' includes as a bunch of hot air and your source shows a
decline.

No one has argued McVeigh was a leader.

> > > > McVeigh thought he was acting on
> > > > behalf of a movement.
> >
> > > *Does that make it a movement or just prove he was nuts?
> >
> > There actually are right-wing extremists, yes.
>
> Was that a yes/no question? This is clearly going to come down
> to how one defines an extremist. You think your governor is
> an extremist so it doesn't surprise anyone that you think that America
> is crawling with 'em.

SPLS.

> > His fantasy, following
> > the plot of a novel, was to strike the first blow in a revolution.
>
> A fantasy that didn't come true. Where was the movement?
> Oh yeah...another fantasy.

There are right wing extremists, plus a significant number of
suggestible people capable of committing atrocities incited by hearing
wingnuts, AM radio hosts and the like telling them Obama's coming for
their guns.

> > > > > Finally, any retraction just days after standing behind her report is
> > > > > suspect.
> >
> > > > Yes, highly suspect.
> >
> > > > > If she was too stupid to see how bad she f'd up right off the bat
> > > > > when
> > > > > it hit the fan, she's too stupid to be head of DHS. *It's one thing
> > > > > for her position to be embroiled in controversy, but controversy of
> > > > > her own making over something as useless as that lame report is not
> > > > > forgiveable.
> >
> > > > How is it her fault a report initiated by the previous administration
> > > > identified a politically-unpopular risk?
> >
> > > *She vetted the report..or should have, before it's release.
> >
> > Presumably, and she stands behind it but might have reworded that
> > footnote in order to avoid a right-wing hissy-fit.
>
> How about to avoid offending veterans?
> Thanks for showing what a dumb spineless hack [Napolitano] is.

Yes, the security of the nation should be set aside to spare the
feelings of hardened battle veterans.

> > > > *Should such risks be ignored
> > > > for the sake of appeasing the right wing?
> >
> > > *Did you read the report? *It's pure postulation.
> > > No evidence, no data, no actionable intel.
> > > *Sending it out to law enforcement organizations was just a huge
> > > waste of everyone's time. Creating such a stupid lame report
> > > was a huge waste of tax dollars.
> >
> > > > > > BTW, CNN reports the DHS right-wing assessment was initiated by the
> > > > > > Bush
> > > > > > administration.
> >
> > > > > *I already pointed that out.
> >
> > > > Good on you, because when I first mentioned it, you couldn't imagine
> > > > the
> > > > Bush administration would do such a thing.
> >
> > > *LoL. * You claimed it was largely responsible for the content or some
> > > such
> > > unsubstantiated BS claim. *Napo released it..if she thought it was BS
> > > she should have killed it.
> >
> > The content should be roughly the same no matter who initiated it.
>
> The content should be useful information...not a bunch of
> postulating
> garbage that is pretty much a distraction from our what our overseas
> contingency operations are trying to prevent.

The report is about domestic threats, so, no.

> > You said you couldn't imagine the Bush administration would investigate
> > the affect of a minority-member president.
>
> Exactly. I think that piece of content must have been inserted post
> bush.

Initiated and partially performed by Bush administration. It would be
irresponsible were they not to include that content.

> > > > > But the release and therefore vetting of
> > > > > the final content before release was [Napolitano]'s responsibility. *
> >
> > > > Wasn't the report leaked? How could there be any 'final vetting'?
> >
> > > Wake up.
> >
> > >http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/napolitano.apology/?iref=mpsto...
> >
> > > "The report, which was prepared in coordination with the FBI, was
> > > published last week. It was distributed to federal, state and local
> > > law enforcement officials. Mainstream media outlets picked up the
> > > story after it was reported by conservative bloggers."
> >
> > Many reports included the word 'leaked'. Perhaps some commentators saw
> > something in the way the wingnuts took it up so quickly.
>
> It was taken up quickly because of its outrageous content.

Typical hissy-fit.

> > > > > She stood
> > > > > behind her work for a day or two until she somebody read her the
> > > > > footnotes. * Then she starts trying the lame apology route. *I don't
> > > > > think that sort of apology is going to make anyone feel better.
> >
> > > > I think she stands by the report. She regrets the tender feelings of
> > > > war
> > > > vet supporters.
> >
> > > *LoL. [Napolitano] regrets sssshtard. * Better put that in a report and
> > > distribute it to federal, state, and local law enforcement.
> >
> > How is it vets can't be right-wing extremists coming home from Iraq when
> > it is known that some were right-wing extremists when they entered the
> > service?
>
> Do you think vets are more prone to right-wing extremism than any
> other segment of the population? If not, then that segment of the
> report does nothing to assist law enforcement in preventing right wing
> extremist terrorism which hasn't been all that common to start with.

I wonder where the Hell's Angels got their start.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > Do you think vets are more prone to right-wing extremism than any
> > other segment of the population? If not, then that segment of the
> > report does nothing to assist law enforcement in preventing right wing
> > extremist terrorism which hasn't been all that common to start with.
>
> I wonder where the Hell's Angels got their start.

Wasn't it from watching James Dean movies?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 19, 10:54*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 7:48*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Apr 19, 2:20*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 18, 4:39*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:

> > > > > > Millions of Muslims feel otherwise.
>
> > > > > *Muslims aren't that stupid. *Now you're offending muslims with
> > > > > ridiculous assetions.
>
> > > > Millions of Muslims don't follow OBL or approve of his actions.
>
> > > I think we need that number in billions not millions.
>
> > There are only 1.5B Muslims, so that's a tall order.
>
> *One billion opposed leaves 500 million potential suicide
> bombers.

No, it doesn't. Do you know why?

> > > Those numbers clearly show muslim support for bin Laden is
> > > significant,
> > > while McVeigh has none.

Side issue with no bearing.

> > That 'support' includes as a bunch of hot air and your source shows a
> > decline.
>
> * Even after a substantial decline, the numbers remain far too high
> to be comparable to McVeighs support which was nil.

So McVeigh was a "lone wolf". DHS is right then, imbecile.

> > No one has argued McVeigh was a leader.
>
> * The comparison remains ludicrous.

Have there been any other areas the report discussed, such as people
who are afraid of their weapons being taken away?

"Poplawski's friends at the scene described him as a young man who
thought the Obama administration would ban guns."

http://kdka.com/local/officers.shot.Stanton.2.975820.html

Uh-oh! DHS was right!

> > There are right wing extremists,
>
> *and left wing extremists and centrist extremists.
> After the Napo report...anybody can be an extremist.

No, 2pid. As usual you're too stupid to actually understand what was
said. Let's put this in military terms:

"The report proves that DHS is doing its job, and that's to protect
America and Americans," said Gardner, a Vietnam veteran of the U.S.
Marine Corps from Round Rock, Texas.

"The report should have been worded differently, but it made no
blanket accusation that every soldier was capable of being a traitor
like Benedict Arnold, or every veteran could be a lone wolf, homegrown
terrorist like Timothy McVeigh. It was just an assessment about
possibilities that could take place,” said Gardner.

"That's how successful military campaigns are waged, and that's
exactly how our nation must be protected. You try to plan for every
possible wildcard scenario, and then you adjust your plans
accordingly."

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=4992

> > plus a significant number of
> > suggestible people capable of committing atrocities incited by hearing
> > wingnuts, AM radio hosts and the like telling them Obama's coming for
> > their guns.
>
> * Yes...let's surrender our right to free speech else we risk inciting
> a
> nutter to commit a crime.
> *You need to shut up now about your governor or some psycho leftist
> like shhtard just might wack 'em.

So now we have a threat to free speech now? You keep getting kookier
and kookier. LMAO!

BTW, 2pid, I think that only you, Bratzi and Clyde consider me a
"leftist". It seems that about everybody else can see me for the
centrist that I am. And it seems that you're the only one 'smart'
enough to consider me some kind of danger. LoL.

> > > *How about to avoid offending veterans?
> > > *Thanks for showing what a dumb spineless hack [Napolitano] is.
>
> > Yes, the security of the nation should be set aside to spare the
> > feelings of hardened battle veterans.
>
> *If that report helped improve the security of the nation, we're in
> big
> trouble.

Identifying potential threats is always helpful, 2pid.

> > > * The content should be useful information...not a bunch of
> > > postulating
> > > garbage that is pretty much a distraction from our what our overseas
> > > contingency operations are trying to prevent.
>
> > The report is about domestic threats, so, no.
>
> * No it isn't. It's pure speculation with little basis in fact.

It's about potential possibilities, 2pid. Aren't you the one who used
to say things like "You just can't see the possibilities"?

Well here you go, 2pid. A report full of potential and possibility and
you cannot see it. LoL.

> > > > You said you couldn't imagine the Bush administration would investigate
> > > > the affect of a minority-member president.
>
> > > Exactly. *I think that piece of content must have been inserted post
> > > bush.
>
> > Initiated and partially performed by Bush administration.
>
> All you can say is initiated. You have no idea what content was
> created under Bush. We do know the entire report was released by
> Napo.

You have the dumbest abbreviations for people in gov't. LoL.

> > *It would be
> > irresponsible were they not to include that content.
>
> Yeah..it was so useful.
> *Based on Napo's logic...anyone who saw the movie
> Taxi Driver should be put on a watch list.

Are you really this dumb? Really?

> > Typical hissy-fit.
>
> * *You're just upset that Napo has made the Obama administration look
> like idiots are running the show...oops...in DHS they are.

Now here is some typical 2pid blather.

It's good that he prefers reasonable discourse to anger-filled rants.
LoL.

> > > *Do you think vets are more prone to right-wing extremism than any
> > > other segment of the population?
>
> *Can't answer this important question?
> *Let me help. *The answer is No.

I have a differing POV.

> Therefore Napo's wacked out warning about vets is a distraction from
> higher probability threats.

Since your premise is wrong it necessarily follows that your
conclusion is wrong as well.

Christ you're stupid.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > Do you think vets are more prone to right-wing extremism than any
> > > other segment of the population? If not, then that segment of the
> > > report does nothing to assist law enforcement in preventing right wing
> > > extremist terrorism which hasn't been all that common to start with.
> >
> > I wonder where the Hell's Angels got their start.
>
> Wasn't it from watching James Dean movies?

Those just fanned the flames.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Apr 19, 7:48*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Apr 19, 2:20*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 18, 4:39*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 17, 8:39*pm, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Who said this?:
> >
> > > > > > > > "Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans
> > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > worn this nation's uniform during wartime," wrote xxxx. "To
> > > > > > > > continue to
> > > > > > > > use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled
> > > > > > > > military
> > > > > > > > veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole
> > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Islam."
> >
> > > > > > > *That was [Napolitano]'s absurd retraction issued to veterans.
> >
> > > > > > Wrong.
> >
> > > > > *I see it was Rehbeins comment, not [Napolitano]'s.
> >
> > > > > > > It's absurd on three levels....first is her hollow "to continue"
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > her smear of vets was widely done before ...it wasn't.
> > > > > > > Next is the implication that Osama bin Laden is somehow as unique
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > Islam as Timothy McVeigh was among military veterans. *That's
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > ludicrous
> > > > > > > and veterans should be offended.
> >
> > > > > > Millions of Muslims feel otherwise.
> >
> > > > > *Muslims aren't that stupid. *Now you're offending muslims with
> > > > > ridiculous assetions.
> >
> > > > Millions of Muslims don't follow OBL or approve of his actions.
> >
> > > I think we need that number in billions not millions.
> >
> > There are only 1.5B Muslims, so that's a tall order.
>
> One billion opposed leaves 500 million potential suicide
> bombers.

Oh, dear. I was hoping Shhh! had just made up your quotes.

> > >http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=13263
> >
> > > "Support for Bin Laden has also fallen, although it remains high in
> > > some countries. In Nigeria, 60% say they support the head of Al Qaeda,
> > > and in Indonesia and Pakistan about one third of Muslims say they do.
> > > But previously, these were respectively 60% and almost 50%."
> >
> > > Those numbers clearly show muslim support for bin Laden is
> > > significant,
> > > while McVeigh has none.
> >
> > That 'support' includes as a bunch of hot air and your source shows a
> > decline.
>
> Even after a substantial decline, the numbers remain far too high
> to be comparable to McVeighs support which was nil.

No one was comparing support.

> > No one has argued McVeigh was a leader.
>
> The comparison remains ludicrous.

Both are exceptional. It is wrong to consider them both typical.

> > > > > > McVeigh thought he was acting on
> > > > > > behalf of a movement.
> >
> > > > > *Does that make it a movement or just prove he was nuts?
> >
> > > > There actually are right-wing extremists, yes.
> >
> > > *Was that a yes/no question? *This is clearly going to come down
> > > to how one defines an extremist. *You think your governor is
> > > an extremist so it doesn't surprise anyone that you think that America
> > > is crawling with 'em.
> >
> > SPLS.
> >
> > > > His fantasy, following
> > > > the plot of a novel, was to strike the first blow in a revolution.
> >
> > > *A fantasy that didn't come true. *Where was the movement?
> > > Oh yeah...another fantasy.
> >
> > There are right wing extremists,
>
> and left wing extremists and centrist extremists.

Uh, no.

> After the[Napolitano] report...anybody can be an extremist.

You're having trouble differentiating ordinary wingnuts from the really
scary extremists, otherwise you wouldn't be taking this so personally.

> > plus a significant number of
> > suggestible people capable of committing atrocities incited by hearing
> > wingnuts, AM radio hosts and the like telling them Obama's coming for
> > their guns.
>
> Yes...let's surrender our right to free speech else we risk inciting
> a
> nutter to commit a crime.
> You need to shut up now about your governor or some psycho leftist
> like shhtard just might wack 'em.

Why are the prominent nutters all wingers? Is it because Democrats don't
tell their followers they are part of an armed revolution against an
illegitimate government that wants to take their guns?

> > > > > > > Finally, any retraction just days after standing behind her
> > > > > > > report is
> > > > > > > suspect.
> >
> > > > > > Yes, highly suspect.
> >
> > > > > > > If she was too stupid to see how bad she f'd up right off the bat
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > it hit the fan, she's too stupid to be head of DHS. *It's one
> > > > > > > thing
> > > > > > > for her position to be embroiled in controversy, but controversy
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > her own making over something as useless as that lame report is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > forgiveable.
> >
> > > > > > How is it her fault a report initiated by the previous
> > > > > > administration
> > > > > > identified a politically-unpopular risk?
> >
> > > > > *She vetted the report..or should have, before it's release.
> >
> > > > Presumably, and she stands behind it but might have reworded that
> > > > footnote in order to avoid a right-wing hissy-fit.
> >
> > > *How about to avoid offending veterans?
> > > *Thanks for showing what a dumb spineless hack [Napolitano] is.
> >
> > Yes, the security of the nation should be set aside to spare the
> > feelings of hardened battle veterans.
>
> If that report helped improve the security of the nation, we're in
> big
> trouble.

That's silly on the face of it.

> > > > > > *Should such risks be ignored
> > > > > > for the sake of appeasing the right wing?
> >
> > > > > *Did you read the report? *It's pure postulation.
> > > > > No evidence, no data, no actionable intel.
> > > > > *Sending it out to law enforcement organizations was just a huge
> > > > > waste of everyone's time. Creating such a stupid lame report
> > > > > was a huge waste of tax dollars.
> >
> > > > > > > > BTW, CNN reports the DHS right-wing assessment was initiated by
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Bush
> > > > > > > > administration.
> >
> > > > > > > *I already pointed that out.
> >
> > > > > > Good on you, because when I first mentioned it, you couldn't
> > > > > > imagine
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Bush administration would do such a thing.
> >
> > > > > *LoL. * You claimed it was largely responsible for the content or
> > > > > some
> > > > > such
> > > > > unsubstantiated BS claim. *Napo released it..if she thought it was BS
> > > > > she should have killed it.
> >
> > > > The content should be roughly the same no matter who initiated it.
> >
> > > * The content should be useful information...not a bunch of
> > > postulating
> > > garbage that is pretty much a distraction from our what our overseas
> > > contingency operations are trying to prevent.
> >
> > The report is about domestic threats, so, no.
>
> No it isn't. It's pure speculation with little basis in fact.

You aren't privy to the background behind the report.

> > > > You said you couldn't imagine the Bush administration would investigate
> > > > the affect of a minority-member president.
> >
> > > Exactly. *I think that piece of content must have been inserted post
> > > bush.
> >
> > Initiated and partially performed by Bush administration.
>
> All you can say is initiated. You have no idea what content was
> created under Bush. We do know the entire report was released by
> [Napolitano].

The entire DHS didn't turn over on inauguration day.

> > It would be
> > irresponsible were they not to include that content.
>
> Yeah..it was so useful.
> Based on [Napolitano]'s logic...anyone who saw the movie
> Taxi Driver should be put on a watch list.

How many times have you seen it?

> > > > > > > But the release and therefore vetting of
> > > > > > > the final content before release was [Napolitano]'s
> > > > > > > responsibility. *
> >
> > > > > > Wasn't the report leaked? How could there be any 'final vetting'?
> >
> > > > > Wake up.
> >
> > > > >http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/napolitano.apology/?iref=mpsto..
> > > > >.
> >
> > > > > "The report, which was prepared in coordination with the FBI, was
> > > > > published last week. It was distributed to federal, state and local
> > > > > law enforcement officials. Mainstream media outlets picked up the
> > > > > story after it was reported by conservative bloggers."
> >
> > > > Many reports included the word 'leaked'. Perhaps some commentators saw
> > > > something in the way the wingnuts took it up so quickly.
> >
> > > *It was taken up quickly because of its outrageous content.
> >
> > Typical hissy-fit.
>
> You're just upset that [Napolitano] has made the Obama administration look
> like idiots are running the show...oops...in DHS they are.

I know the previous administration was hard on you.

> > > > > > > She stood
> > > > > > > behind her work for a day or two until she somebody read her the
> > > > > > > footnotes. * Then she starts trying the lame apology route. *I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > think that sort of apology is going to make anyone feel better.
> >
> > > > > > I think she stands by the report. She regrets the tender feelings
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > war
> > > > > > vet supporters.
> >
> > > > > *LoL. [Napolitano] regrets sssshtard. * Better put that in a report
> > > > > and
> > > > > distribute it to federal, state, and local law enforcement.
> >
> > > > How is it vets can't be right-wing extremists coming home from Iraq
> > > > when
> > > > it is known that some were right-wing extremists when they entered the
> > > > service?
> >
> > > *Do you think vets are more prone to right-wing extremism than any
> > > other segment of the population?
>
> Can't answer this important question?

Weren't you just arguing Shhh! couldn't be in the military because he
was too liberal?

> Let me help. The answer is No.

Do you have a government report that supports that view?

> Therefore [Napolitano]'s wacked out warning about vets is a distraction from
> higher probability threats.

Following that line of reasoning, the right-wing hissy-fit is an even
more dangerous distraction. If the complainers were real patriots,
they'd shut up and let her do her job uninterrupted.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > > I wonder where the Hell's Angels got their start.
> >
> > Wasn't it from watching James Dean movies?
>
> Those just fanned the flames.

Scottie knows better. Scottie know's that naughty, rebellious, teenaged
proto-criminals shoulda been drafted & killed in 'nam. Your a coward like
Shhhhhhutup who was not in the Army.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 20, 12:21*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 7:48*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > *ScottW2 > wrote:

> > *One billion opposed leaves 500 million potential suicide
> > bombers.
>
> Oh, dear. I was hoping Shhh! had just made up your quotes.

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

> > > > *Do you think vets are more prone to right-wing extremism than any
> > > > other segment of the population?
>
> > *Can't answer this important question?
>
> Weren't you just arguing Shhh! couldn't be in the military because he
> was too liberal?

A question that 2pid will no doubt ignore.

The answer is, of course, "yes".

I wonder if 2pid has ever seen "Full Metal Jacket". He seems to be on
a movie kick today.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Apr 20, 12:21*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Apr 19, 7:48*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > *One billion opposed leaves 500 million potential suicide
> > > bombers.
> >
> > Oh, dear. I was hoping Shhh! had just made up your quotes.
>
> Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
>
> > > > > *Do you think vets are more prone to right-wing extremism than any
> > > > > other segment of the population?
> >
> > > *Can't answer this important question?
> >
> > Weren't you just arguing Shhh! couldn't be in the military because he
> > was too liberal?
>
> A question that 2pid will no doubt ignore.
>
> The answer is, of course, "yes".
>
> I wonder if 2pid has ever seen "Full Metal Jacket". He seems to be on
> a movie kick today.

Probably not. A "steers and queers" reference went over like a lead
balloon a while back.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 20, 9:24*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 12:21*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > On Apr 19, 7:48*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > *One billion opposed leaves 500 million potential suicide
> > > > bombers.
>
> > > Oh, dear. I was hoping Shhh! had just made up your quotes.
>
> > Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
>
> > > > > > *Do you think vets are more prone to right-wing extremism than any
> > > > > > other segment of the population?
>
> > > > *Can't answer this important question?
>
> > > Weren't you just arguing Shhh! couldn't be in the military because he
> > > was too liberal?
>
> > A question that 2pid will no doubt ignore.
>
> > The answer is, of course, "yes".
>
> > I wonder if 2pid has ever seen "Full Metal Jacket". He seems to be on
> > a movie kick today.
>
> Probably not. A "steers and queers" reference went over like a lead
> balloon a while back.

He probably thought you were making a reference to "An Officer and a
Gentleman".

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Apr 20, 9:24*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 20, 12:21*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 19, 7:48*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> >
> > > > > *One billion opposed leaves 500 million potential suicide
> > > > > bombers.
> >
> > > > Oh, dear. I was hoping Shhh! had just made up your quotes.
> >
> > > Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
> >
> > > > > > > *Do you think vets are more prone to right-wing extremism than any
> > > > > > > other segment of the population?
> >
> > > > > *Can't answer this important question?
> >
> > > > Weren't you just arguing Shhh! couldn't be in the military because he
> > > > was too liberal?
> >
> > > A question that 2pid will no doubt ignore.
> >
> > > The answer is, of course, "yes".
> >
> > > I wonder if 2pid has ever seen "Full Metal Jacket". He seems to be on
> > > a movie kick today.
> >
> > Probably not. A "steers and queers" reference went over like a lead
> > balloon a while back.
>
> He probably thought you were making a reference to "An Officer and a
> Gentleman".

Understandable. Is one Texas and the other Oklahoma?

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 20, 9:51*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 9:24*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 20, 12:21*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 19, 7:48*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > *One billion opposed leaves 500 million potential suicide
> > > > > > bombers.
>
> > > > > Oh, dear. I was hoping Shhh! had just made up your quotes.
>
> > > > Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
>
> > > > > > > > *Do you think vets are more prone to right-wing extremism than any
> > > > > > > > other segment of the population?
>
> > > > > > *Can't answer this important question?
>
> > > > > Weren't you just arguing Shhh! couldn't be in the military because he
> > > > > was too liberal?
>
> > > > A question that 2pid will no doubt ignore.
>
> > > > The answer is, of course, "yes".
>
> > > > I wonder if 2pid has ever seen "Full Metal Jacket". He seems to be on
> > > > a movie kick today.
>
> > > Probably not. A "steers and queers" reference went over like a lead
> > > balloon a while back.
>
> > He probably thought you were making a reference to "An Officer and a
> > Gentleman".
>
> Understandable. Is one Texas and the other Oklahoma?

I didn't think of that. That fully explains 2pid's confusion.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> > > > > I wonder if 2pid has ever seen "Full Metal Jacket". He seems to be on
> > > > > a movie kick today.
> >
> > > > Probably not. A "steers and queers" reference went over like a lead
> > > > balloon a while back.
> >
> > > He probably thought you were making a reference to "An Officer and a
> > > Gentleman".
> >
> > Understandable. Is one Texas and the other Oklahoma?
>
> I didn't think of that. That fully explains 2pid's confusion.

Lol!

Stephen