[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

....

"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

Gosh, that sounds just like what I said. Now why is it that former
military people always agree with me and not 2pid?

Of course, I am a member of the VFW and the American Legion. 2pid
can't even get on most military bases because he never served while
there are only a small handful that I cannot get on.

2pid are a imbecile. LoL.

[[email protected]]

On 19 Apr, 13:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.


Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano


...

"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

the potential threat would include retired liberal mid level artillery
officers like you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 19, 1:57*pm, wrote:
On 19 Apr, 13:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

*Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano





...

"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

the potential threat would include retired liberal mid level artillery
officers like you.

You haven't read the report, have you.

Like 2pid you are braying without knowing what you are braying about.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 19, 1:57*pm, wrote:
On 19 Apr, 13:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

*Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano

Let's get into semantics!

OK, fine. It is NOT disagreeing with her either.

The point is, Clyde, that this ex-military head of a large
organization of combat veterans is NOT offended at what he recognizes
as a necessary and correct approach to considering security threats.

As I said in another post it's pretty clear that you and 2pid are only
reacting to the right-wing jingoistic take on the report. You know,
the one more concerned with political points than security issues.

I'll wager that neither of you has reviewed the actual document.

[Jenn[_2_]]

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

As I said in another post it's pretty clear that you and 2pid are only
reacting to the right-wing jingoistic take on the report. You know,
the one more concerned with political points than security issues.

The right has really gone weird in the media. Friday I heard a host on
Fox Radio make a big deal, for a whole hour, that when you play "Yes we
can" backwards, it supposedly says, "Thank you Satan". This is a host
on Fox. lol

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

The right has really gone weird in the media. Friday I heard a host on
Fox Radio make a big deal, for a whole hour, that when you play "Yes we
can" backwards, it supposedly says, "Thank you Satan". This is a host
on Fox. lol

Don't you realize Satan is EEEEVIL? You must be one of his earthly demons.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 19, 2:34*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

As I said in another post it's pretty clear that you and 2pid are only
reacting to the right-wing jingoistic take on the report. You know,
the one more concerned with political points than security issues.

The right has really gone weird in the media. *Friday I heard a host on
Fox Radio make a big deal, for a whole hour, that when you play "Yes we
can" backwards, it supposedly says, "Thank you Satan". *This is a host
on Fox. *lol

I used to listen to right-wing radio once in a while. They've truly
gone off the deep end since Obama won. I can't waste my time any
more.

On the bright side, it appears the further off to the right they go
the more marginalized they're becoming:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/St...filiation.aspx

[[email protected]]

On 19 Apr, 15:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:57*pm, wrote:





On 19 Apr, 13:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

*Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano

...

"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

the potential threat would include retired liberal mid level artillery
officers like you.

You haven't read the report, have you.

Like 2pid you are braying without knowing what you are braying about.-

I read the comments that YOU posted
I saw the comments Napolitano made on camera
I commented on the fact that the comments were fine,
but that is not the same as waht Napolitano said on camera.
It is entirely possible that her on camera comments misrepresented the
report,
if so, I would not be the least bit surprised.

[MiNe 109]

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

On Apr 19, 1:57*pm, wrote:

snip

*Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano

Let's get into semantics!

OK, fine. It is NOT disagreeing with her either.

The point is, Clyde, that this ex-military head of a large
organization of combat veterans is NOT offended at what he recognizes
as a necessary and correct approach to considering security threats.

As I said in another post it's pretty clear that you and 2pid are only
reacting to the right-wing jingoistic take on the report. You know,
the one more concerned with political points than security issues.

I'll wager that neither of you has reviewed the actual document.

It's widely linked and extremely short.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

On 19 Apr, 15:10, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:57*pm, wrote:





On 19 Apr, 13:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

*Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano

Let's get into semantics!

OK, fine. It is NOT disagreeing with her either.

The point is, Clyde, that this ex-military head of a large
organization of combat veterans is NOT offended at what he recognizes
as a necessary and correct approach to considering security threats.

As I said in another post it's pretty clear that you and 2pid are only
reacting to the right-wing jingoistic take on the report. You know,
the one more concerned with political points than security issues.

I'll wager that neither of you has reviewed the actual document.-

It is based upon Napolitanos comments made on camera, as shown
I have actually seen on both CNN and Fox News.
I am talking about her pronouncement.
Maybe the report is ok, and
Napolitano misre[presented it, it
would not surprise me in the least.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 19, 6:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

*So was it representative of shows like Larsen, Medved, Hewitt or
Limbaugh? * *I've never heard such a topic discussed on any of their
shows. *I would think their shows are much more representative of the
right wing talk radio yet they do nothing like this....yet you painted
them
all with a brush created in your mind by one silly program. Why?

Becuase the right is filled with ninnies like you, 2pid. Just chock-
full of ninnies. LoL.

Who hosted the program that brain damaged you so completely?

Is this another example of your "excellent" writing, 2pid? LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless yaps in frustration.

It was funny. *Good humor to drive by.

So was it representative of shows like Larsen,
Medved, Hewitt or
Limbaugh?

Scooter, I'm going to step in because Mistress Jenn is too kind to tell
you the truth.

You have no taste. You have no discernment, no intellectual prowess, no
concept of language, and absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever.

You don't need Mistress to tell you what's "representative" of what. In
addition to your other virtues, you've proven yourself truth-proof many
times before.



--

"I prefer substantive discussion over continuous expressions of unjustified outrage."
Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, March 24, 2009

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 19, 6:07*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

As I said, you haven't read the reprt, have you.

It almost seems like you're trying to take the fun out of Sacky's game.

It sure took Clyde a lot of words to say "No, I haven't read the
report."

I think that's what he meant. But if he was going through all of these
verbal contortions for some other reason I would not be the least bit
surprised.

I've frequently suspected that Sacky acts dumber than he actually is in
order to dilute the derision directed at Witlessmongrel.

Quit trashing the conservatives. Smearing them like this accomplishes
nothing.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Apr 19, 4:14*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW2 wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:34*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

As I said in another post it's pretty clear that you and 2pid are only
reacting to the right-wing jingoistic take on the report. You know,
the one more concerned with political points than security issues.

The right has really gone weird in the media. *Friday I heard a host on
Fox Radio make a big deal, for a whole hour, that when you play "Yes we
can" backwards, it supposedly says, "Thank you Satan". *This is a host
on Fox. *lol

*You listen to one strange radio program and decide that is
representative of the "right....in the media".

No, I listened to a Fox Radio program and decided that it was an example
of the right-wing media.

an example that you extended to the entire right.

No, my opinion on the right-wing MEDIA is based several examples.


I read your posts, should I decide all music teachers are as gullible
as you are?




A better question is why did you listen to that silliness for a whole
hour?

It was funny. *Good humor to drive by.

So was it representative of shows like Larsen, Medved, Hewitt or
Limbaugh?

I don't get Medved here, but the others are acting wacky as well. I
haven't heard the present example on those shows though.

I've never heard such a topic discussed on any of their
shows. I would think their shows are much more representative of the
right wing talk radio yet they do nothing like this....yet you painted
them
all with a brush created in your mind by one silly program. Why?

See above.

Who hosted the program that brain damaged you so completely?

John Gibson

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Apr 19, 4:47*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Witless yaps in frustration.



It was funny. *Good humor to drive by.

* * * * * * * *So was it representative of * * shows like Larsen,
Medved, Hewitt or
Limbaugh?

Scooter, I'm going to step in because Mistress Jenn is too kind to tell
you the truth.

You have no taste. You have no discernment, no intellectual prowess, no
concept of language, and absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever.

You don't need Mistress to tell you what's "representative" of what.

Of course I don't need her. I already know her representations are BS
and the product of a weak mind that resorts to silly stereotypes as
she
does.

"ridicule is without substance"

[[email protected]]

On 19 Apr, 15:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:57*pm, wrote:





On 19 Apr, 13:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

*Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano

...

"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

the potential threat would include retired liberal mid level artillery
officers like you.

You haven't read the report, have you.

Like 2pid you are braying without knowing what you are braying about.- Ascunde citatul -


The topic was Napolitano's public remarks
the report is not the topic

[[email protected]]

On 19 Apr, 15:10, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:57*pm, wrote:





On 19 Apr, 13:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

*Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano

Let's get into semantics!

OK, fine. It is NOT disagreeing with her either.

The point is, Clyde, that this ex-military head of a large
organization of combat veterans is NOT offended at what he recognizes
as a necessary and correct approach to considering security threats.

As I said in another post it's pretty clear that you and 2pid are only
reacting to the right-wing jingoistic take on the report. You know,
the one more concerned with political points than security issues.

I'll wager that neither of you has reviewed the actual document.-

I am not talking about the report, nor about
any take on the report. I don't read right wing blogs, or
any political blogs for that matter.
I am talking about Napolitano's on camer remarks.
I found then offensive

[[email protected]]

On 19 Apr, 17:27, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:22*pm, wrote:





On 19 Apr, 15:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:57*pm, wrote:

On 19 Apr, 13:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

*Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano

...

"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

the potential threat would include retired liberal mid level artillery
officers like you.

You haven't read the report, have you.

Like 2pid you are braying without knowing what you are braying about.-

I read the comments that YOU posted
I saw the comments Napolitano made on camera
I commented on the fact that the comments were fine,
but that is not the same as waht Napolitano said on camera.
It is entirely possible that her on camera comments misrepresented the
report,
if so, I would not be the least bit surprised.

As I said, you haven't read the reprt, have you.-

the topic is solely Napolitano's offensive public remarks

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 19, 6:51*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Apr 19, 2:24*pm, wrote:





On 19 Apr, 15:10, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:57*pm, wrote:

On 19 Apr, 13:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

*Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano

Let's get into semantics!

OK, fine. It is NOT disagreeing with her either.

The point is, Clyde, that this ex-military head of a large
organization of combat veterans is NOT offended at what he recognizes
as a necessary and correct approach to considering security threats.

Another BS characterization.
He said, "he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States. "

I take no issue with the documents purpose. I do take issue
with the complete failure in carrying out the purpose.
The assessment is pure fiction.



As I said in another post it's pretty clear that you and 2pid are only
reacting to the right-wing jingoistic take on the report. You know,
the one more concerned with political points than security issues.

I'll wager that neither of you has reviewed the actual document.-

It is based upon Napolitanos comments made on camera, as shown
I have actually seen on both CNN and Fox News.
I am talking about her pronouncement.
Maybe the report is ok, and
Napolitano misre[presented it, it
would not surprise me in the least.-

Here's a critical review.http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/dieckmann/090419

Since when is a right-winf rant a "critical review"?

LMAO! God you're dumb.

Here, 2pid, from your own cite (as usual):

"Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit
new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and
appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack
planning."

"This also shows the ignorance and liberal biased attitude, or should
we call it "brainwashing" of the author. Conservatives know this is
utter nonsense but the Kool-aid drinking left doesn't know that. They
have been told for years that Republicans and conservatives are
racists and most liberals believe it, including Barack Obama."

Now just for a moment inject Bratzi into this. Have you noticed his
recent increased output regarding Obama?No, I suppose to you Bratzi's
views are not extreme, but mainstream. I don't suppose you can wrap
your tiny little 'brain' around how this could be, and likely is,
being used as a recruitment tool. Ditto right-wing gun owners buying
weapons and ammo out of fear that Obama will take them away.

You are so staggeringly stupid that it's breathtaking.

Here's the crap report.

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/vi...mismreport.pdf

The whole thing can be summed up by the opening sentence.

"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning
acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on
their fears about
several emergent issues."

Yes, 2pid, that's exactly the summary. And then it lists the issues
and the groups that may be at risk, just like a report of this type
should.

Duh.

Operative word...may....no data, no intel...a bunch of unsubstantiated
postulations.

You 'obviously' and 'clearly' do not understand how things work, 2pid.

Remember when I taught you how the military plans? I suppose not. You
seem to have an exceedingly short attention span.

What you do, 2pid, is look at potential threats and where they might
be coming from. Just like this report did.

This report is not a warning of an impending imminent attack ("The DHS/
Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information
that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of
violence") but is warning that the current political and economic
conditions could lead to a rise in extremist recruitment in some
segments ("but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by
playing on their fears about several emergent issues.")

What a ****ing moron. LoL.

Duh.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

2pid wrote:

You search out the nutters who cater to the loonies who
can't comprehend meaningful fact based discourse

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 19, 7:30*pm, wrote:
On 19 Apr, 17:27, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:22*pm, wrote:

On 19 Apr, 15:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:57*pm, wrote:

On 19 Apr, 13:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

*Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano

...

"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

the potential threat would include retired liberal mid level artillery
officers like you.

You haven't read the report, have you.

Like 2pid you are braying without knowing what you are braying about.-

I read the comments that YOU posted
I saw the comments Napolitano made on camera
I commented on the fact that the comments were fine,
but that is not the same as waht Napolitano said on camera.
It is entirely possible that her on camera comments misrepresented the
report,
if so, I would not be the least bit surprised.

As I said, you haven't read the reprt, have you.-

the topic is solely Napolitano's offensive public remarks

Which remarks offended you specifically?

Anyway, no, it isn't. Your buddy 2pid (who never served) is still
reall REALLY mad over the 'smearing' and 'trashing' of US veterans.

You don't like what Napolitano said. Fine.

But that is in no way the "sole" topic here.

I find the jingoism and politics revolting:

"Hegseth, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, said the report
represents a "gross misunderstanding and oversimplification" of the
country's service members. He did not call for Napolitano's ouster,
but said he would accept her resignation."

....

"If anything, veterans have an allegiance to this country greater than
the average citizen," he said. "Veterans have learned where their
allegiances lie and are less prone to extremism. Something's wrong
with the editing process or [DHS officials] just don't understand
veterans. The report demonstrates a true lack of understanding of who
veterans are."

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, also criticized the
report, saying its portrayal of veterans was "offensive and
unacceptable."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...ing-extremism/

So on the one hand, saying that some vets might be targeted to
recruitment is an "oversimplification". Yet saying that "veterans have
an allegiance to this country greater than the average citizen" is not
an "oversimplification". Perhaps we should allow any US vet to skip
TSA security at airports.

I have a friend who was in command of a training battery. He was a VMI
grad and a real patriot.I trust his word. He told me he had a group
come in on a buddy system where groups of friends are guaranteed to go
through training together. It turns out they were gang members who
were after US Army training on automatic weapons, explosives, etc.
After they got the training they wanted they all went AWOL.

It is safe to assume that not all members of the US military look at
all things in the same way. It is safe to assume that not all members
of the military are of the same intelligence level or socioeconomic
backgrounds.

I find this to be just another example of Rovian republican politics.
I hope the conservatives can pull their collective heads out of their
collective asses long enough to quit trying to "swiftboat" public
servants who are just doing their jobs, and from what I can see, doing
them well.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 19, 7:27*pm, wrote:
On 19 Apr, 15:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:57*pm, wrote:

On 19 Apr, 13:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
They also agree with me. But they don't agree with 2pid even though
2pid feels that he's qualified (LoL) to tell veteran's what should
"offend" them:

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2009- The leader of the nation's largest
combat veterans' organization said a leaked government document that
mentions disgruntled military veterans as potential security threats
should have been worded differently, but he takes no issue with the
document's purpose: to assess possible threats to the safety and
security of the United States.

"A government that does not assess internal and external security
threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility," said
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the 2.2 million-member
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

*Fine.
But that is NOT agreeing with Naploitano

...

"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

the potential threat would include retired liberal mid level artillery
officers like you.

You haven't read the report, have you.

Like 2pid you are braying without knowing what you are braying about.- Ascunde citatul -

The topic was Napolitano's public remarks
the report is not the topic

Better tell 2pid. This is from his initial post:

***************************************
So the DHS report is a waste of everyones time except letting us know
what they really think and who is really dangerous.

""Rightwing extremism," the report defines in a footnote on Page 2,
goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to "those
that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor
of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority
entirely."

Napo....your definition of extremism is extreme. But you should
probable put shhhtard under surveillance, just to be safe.
Definitely
a radical imbalanced veteran....well radical and imbalanced for sure.
************************************************** **

That kind of looks like a criticism of the report and not any
"comments".

I am, however, fully aware of 2pid's various communications
shortcomings so it's very possible that he meant something entirely
different than what he said. LoL.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Apr 19, 5:02*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW2 wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:14*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:34*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

As I said in another post it's pretty clear that you and 2pid are
only
reacting to the right-wing jingoistic take on the report. You
know,
the one more concerned with political points than security
issues.

The right has really gone weird in the media. *Friday I heard a
host on
Fox Radio make a big deal, for a whole hour, that when you play
"Yes we
can" backwards, it supposedly says, "Thank you Satan". *This is a
host
on Fox. *lol

*You listen to one strange radio program and decide that is
representative of the "right....in the media".

No, I listened to a Fox Radio program and decided that it was an
example
of the right-wing media.

*an example that you extended to the entire right.

No, my opinion on the right-wing MEDIA is based several examples.

Name them. I don't think you actually listen to serious conservative
talk radio. You search out the nutters who cater to the loonies who
can't comprehend meaningful fact based discourse because it
fullfulls your notion of the right.
Crap like that exists on both the left and right.
But they are representative of nothing but a desire for ratings in a
marketplace full of options.
Do you also think Jamie really hates Miley Cyrus?

Limbaugh, Hannity, Gibson, Savage, to name a few.





*I read your posts, should I decide all music teachers are as gullible
as you are?

A better question is why did you listen to that silliness for a whole
hour?

It was funny. *Good humor to drive by.

*So was it representative of shows like Larsen, Medved, Hewitt or
Limbaugh?

I don't get Medved here, but the others are acting wacky as well. *I
haven't heard the present example on those shows though.

So you have no real basis for your claim.

As I stated, my claim is supported by hearing statements of several of
the RW media.



* *I've never heard such a topic discussed on any of their
shows. *I would think their shows are much more representative of the
right wing talk radio yet they do nothing like this....yet you painted
them
all with a brush created in your mind by one silly program. Why?

See above.

Above is Jenn saying she has no real basis for her statement, but
it
makes her feel good about herself anyway.
Sort of like shhhtard feels better about his godless existence by
denigrating
Jenn's faith.

As I stated, my claim is supported by hearing statements of several of
the RW media.


Who hosted the program that brain damaged you so completely?

John Gibson

A newb...he's only been on the air since January in his timeslot and
only
on Fox Radio since Sept of 08.

I see he did a stint on MSNBC so his struggles with lunacy can be
explained
by that.

lol Prior to Fox Radio, he had a show on Fox TV.

Tell you what, Scott. If you're game, I'll keep a little diary of
quotes from this week and list them next Monday. Of course, you might
simply claim that the quotes are just "hyperbole".

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

Who hosted the program that brain damaged you so completely?

John Gibson

A newb...he's only been on the air since January in his timeslot and
only
on Fox Radio since Sept of 08.

I see he did a stint on MSNBC so his struggles with lunacy can be
explained
by that.

lol Prior to Fox Radio, he had a show on Fox TV.

Looks like you know more about right-wing media than Scott does! Gibson
has been with Fox since 2000. I remember him as a Sacramento feature
reporter on tv a loooong time ago.

Tell you what, Scott. If you're game, I'll keep a little diary of
quotes from this week and list them next Monday. Of course, you might
simply claim that the quotes are just "hyperbole".

Or "out of context". Scott prefers his maps at 1:1 scale.

Just picked up the new Corigliano on Naxos. Can't wait to hear it!

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

Who hosted the program that brain damaged you so completely?

John Gibson

A newb...he's only been on the air since January in his timeslot and
only
on Fox Radio since Sept of 08.

I see he did a stint on MSNBC so his struggles with lunacy can be
explained
by that.

lol Prior to Fox Radio, he had a show on Fox TV.

Looks like you know more about right-wing media than Scott does! Gibson
has been with Fox since 2000. I remember him as a Sacramento feature
reporter on tv a loooong time ago.

Tell you what, Scott. If you're game, I'll keep a little diary of
quotes from this week and list them next Monday. Of course, you might
simply claim that the quotes are just "hyperbole".

Or "out of context". Scott prefers his maps at 1:1 scale.

Just picked up the new Corigliano on Naxos. Can't wait to hear it!

Stephen

They Dylan or the Circus Maximus? Have fun!

[[email protected]]

On Apr 20, 1:01*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
Just cuz [Savage ] says liberalism is a mental disorder
doesn't make him rightwing.

And some say you don't have a sense of humor, ScottW!
That's hilarious. You'll be saying that Rush Limbaugh
represents mainstream thought next :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

Just picked up the new Corigliano on Naxos. Can't wait to hear it!

They Dylan or the Circus Maximus? Have fun!

Circus.

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Apr 20, 8:55*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW2 wrote:
On Apr 19, 5:02*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:14*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:34*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article

m,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

As I said in another post it's pretty clear that you and 2pid
are
only
reacting to the right-wing jingoistic take on the report. You
know,
the one more concerned with political points than security
issues.

The right has really gone weird in the media. *Friday I heard a
host on
Fox Radio make a big deal, for a whole hour, that when you play
"Yes we
can" backwards, it supposedly says, "Thank you Satan". *This is
a
host
on Fox. *lol

*You listen to one strange radio program and decide that is
representative of the "right....in the media".

No, I listened to a Fox Radio program and decided that it was an
example
of the right-wing media.

*an example that you extended to the entire right.

No, my opinion on the right-wing MEDIA is based several examples.

*Name them. *I don't think you actually listen to serious conservative
talk radio. *You search out the nutters who cater to the loonies who
can't comprehend meaningful fact based discourse because it
fullfulls your notion of the right.
Crap like that exists on both the left and right.
But they are representative of nothing but a desire for ratings in a
marketplace full of options.
Do you also think Jamie really hates Miley Cyrus?

Limbaugh,


Below you said you had no current example for Limbaugh.
Under scrutiny, the story morphs.
Anyway, name one thing Limbaugh has said that is comparable to
spending an hour on
Yes, we can in reverse.

Incorrect. Where did I say that?


Hannity, Gibson, Savage, to name a few.

If you catch Savage off his prozac who knows what he'll say.
But he's indendent and doesn't even consider himself rightwing.

Except that he is.

Just cuz he says liberalism is a mental disorder doesn't make him
rightwing.

lol Look at his views.




*I read your posts, should I decide all music teachers are as
gullible
as you are?

A better question is why did you listen to that silliness for a
whole
hour?

It was funny. *Good humor to drive by.

*So was it representative of shows like Larsen, Medved, Hewitt or
Limbaugh?

I don't get Medved here, but the others are acting wacky as well. *I
haven't heard the present example on those shows though.

So you have no real basis for your claim.

As I stated, my claim is supported by hearing statements of several of
the RW media.

Your claim is supported by another claim. Nothing more.

Lord, having discussion with you is difficult. Sometimes I forget why I
give up. Let's try one more time: I stated that the RW media has
gotten wacky. I didn't say that they all said something like the Yes We
Can thing, or anything like it. The stupid Yes We Can backwards thing
was an EXAMPLE.




* *I've never heard such a topic discussed on any of their
shows. *I would think their shows are much more representative of the
right wing talk radio yet they do nothing like this....yet you
painted
them
all with a brush created in your mind by one silly program. Why?

See above.

* *Above is Jenn saying she has no real basis for her statement, but
it
makes her feel good about herself anyway.
Sort of like shhhtard feels better about his godless existence by
denigrating
Jenn's faith.

As I stated, my claim is supported by hearing statements of several of
the RW media.

No facts. Just Jenn hearing things...again.

You know what, never mind. Yes, I'm hearing things. See ya.




Who hosted the program that brain damaged you so completely?

John Gibson

A newb...he's only been on the air since January in his timeslot and
only
on Fox Radio since Sept of 08.

I see he did a stint on MSNBC so his struggles with lunacy can be
explained
by that.

lol *Prior to Fox Radio, he had a show on Fox TV.

Which isn't close to the same as radio.
The better radio programs provide some depth.
Most TV shows allocate 2 minutes to a topic and then move on
fearing most listeners are bored. Sunday morning is slightly better
but none delve in to the depth that Hugh Hewitt does on occasion,
giving guests a full hour.


Tell you what, Scott. *If you're game, I'll keep a little diary of
quotes from this week and list them next Monday. *Of course, you might
simply claim that the *quotes are just "hyperbole"


5 Minutes of Rachel Madmaz on MSNBC would cover a years worth
of your diary.
And you'll never catch up after the drunkard Randi Rhodes.
So exactly what is the point to your diary?

But go ahead and keep your diary. But you should be aware.
There hasn't been a clean unbiased source of news...ever. If you
can't apply a rational filter to that slop, you're doomed.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

You know what, never mind. Yes, I'm hearing things. See ya.

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the
culture."

-Local pastor Ray Mummert on the Dover Intelligent Design trial.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 20, 2:32*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Apr 20, 11:52*am, Jenn wrote:

*Hannity, Gibson, Savage, to name a few.

*If you catch Savage off his prozac who knows what he'll say.
*But he's indendent and doesn't even consider himself rightwing.

Except that he is.

* IYO. *If someone doesn't want to be stereotyped a certain way,
I'll defer to their view as knowing themselves far better than you or
I ever can.

Let's see how Savage looks upon himself:

Explosive conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage continues
to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic
solutions. The 10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week
can't be wrong! Turn on WOR in New York, KNEW in San Francisco, WKRO
in Boston, or hundreds of other stations nationwide.

Savage is harder hitting than other conservatives. Wilder than Bill,
funnier than Ann, Michael Savage is a media icon who is unafraid to
take on the establishment. He pulls many of his life experiences,
including that of father, son, husband, brother, ice cream factory
worker, busboy, lifeguard, writer, and scientist, into his commentary.

Savage coined the terms "Compassionate Conservative" and "Islamo-
Fascist," which have been hijacked by Republican speechwriters and
spread like wildfire.

http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/?pageId=10

What a ****ing moron. 2pid, just give it up. You're too stupid to
understand how stupid you are.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 20, 2:20*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Apr 20, 10:21*am, wrote:

On Apr 20, 1:01*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

Just cuz [Savage ] says liberalism is a mental disorder
doesn't make him rightwing.

And some say you don't have a sense of humor, ScottW!
That's hilarious. You'll be saying that Rush Limbaugh
represents mainstream thought next :-)

*I know this concept will challenge your comprehension...
but being on the right has little to do with attacking the left.
The reverse sadly, is not true.

You're right, JA: 2pid obviously and clearly has a sense of humor.

I, for one, am shocked.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 20, 1:52*pm, Jenn wrote:

*ScottW2 wrote:

*No facts. Just Jenn hearing things...again.

You know what, never mind. *Yes, I'm hearing things. *See ya. *

Look, 2pid! You've 'won' again!

LoL. You've again successfully vanquished someone who's smarter than
you are.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Apr 20, 10:21*am, wrote:
On Apr 20, 1:01*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

Just cuz [Savage ] says liberalism is a mental disorder
doesn't make him rightwing.

And some say you don't have a sense of humor, ScottW!
That's hilarious. You'll be saying that Rush Limbaugh
represents mainstream thought next :-)

I know this concept will challenge your comprehension...

"Reality is, ridiculers have nothing to offer but ridicule."
Scott, 4/15

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 20, 6:57*pm, Jenn wrote:
*ScottW2 wrote:
On Apr 20, 10:21*am, wrote:

And some say you don't have a sense of humor, ScottW!
That's hilarious. You'll be saying that Rush Limbaugh
represents mainstream thought next :-)

*I know this concept will challenge your comprehension...

"Reality is, ridiculers have nothing to offer but ridicule."
Scott, 4/15

Your getting the hang of it Jenn and this show's you're lack of
integrity.

Your a left wing liberal union loving America trashing looser.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Apr 20, 12:02*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,

*Jenn wrote:
You know what, never mind. *Yes, I'm hearing things. *See ya. *

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the
culture."

-Local pastor Ray Mummert on the Dover Intelligent Design trial.

You should read LGF on intelligent design and the DHS report.

LGF is reportedly showing signs of sanity by differentiating its views
from those of extremists. Good show!

If they are comparing the two things you mentioned, I'll pass.

Stephen