Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Justice Department says Justice Department did no wrong in targeting payday lenders and gun shops. Well that’s good to know.
Next time the IRS calls me about my tax returns, I’ll tell them I’ve carefully investigated myself and found no problem at all. I’m sure that’ll clear it right up.
Joe Doakes
Government never lies to protect government…
I expect the EPA will investigate itself for that mess in the Animas River, figure out that they did nothing wrong, then hunt down every descendant of anyone who ever owned a share of the mine and fine them each $1,000,000.00
Maybe if Peter the Beloved Puma of the Southwest drinks from the Animas river and dies we’ll have a reason to make some popcorn and watch the show.
Nope, never does. Certainly didn’t lie about mobile chemical weapons labs in Iraq. Neither Cheney nor Rumsfeld lied about knowing where the chemical sites were (“north, south, east and west of Baghdad).
Yep. They never lie, and it’s only liberals who engage in any form of tyranny. Sure am glad Tom Delay didn’t make people meet in closets, that President Bush didn’t say if you weren’t with him you were essentially against him.
You sure are smart, Mergie, and so observant too.
So, when Alberto Gonzalez concluded that the legal opinion of his attorney on torture was “A OK”, was that a case of conservative truth?
Yeah, thought so.
Quizzically yours,
Charmed
So many memes that are wrong…….
THoPC ( who writes like a wannabe professor of chemistry at the U) did you know that Woodrow Wilson wasn’t completely honest, nor was FDR, Kennedy and LBJ both wildly miscast facts the American people should have known,Clinton brought the Ozark mafia to the WH and turned the executive branch into an ongoing criminal enterprise and you’re stuck on Bush?
OK, so if there is nothing wrong with what they did, obviously the program (a) continues and (b) they are being free and open with how it works, right?
Looks like I’m 0 for 2.
Hitllary never used her secret e-mail server to communicate classified information…
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article30714762.html
She only had a private server for convenience (NOT skullduggery), and has turned everything over, too.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-panel-tears-into-condescending-hillary-clinton-over-email-scandal/
Can you move your head over and cram this comment in where the Sun doesn’t shine for me, Head?
Thankssomuch.
Head,
So?
I mean, you cite unrelated and deeply arguable lefty chanting points in a post abouto an utterly unrelated issue to do…what?
I’m gonna suggest taking Logic 101, and knocking off the highballs before 10AM.
Most dreaded phrase in common language: “We are from the government and we are here to help.” What could go wrong?
Remember the other Boston Marathon bomber, who mysteriously died while in federal custody? The Justice Department cleared itself of that, too. Wow, those guys are amazing!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-agents-faultless.html?_r=0
“Head of Prince Charming” (artlessly removed by ISIS I am sure) also would do well to look up the definition of “lie”. Many liberals appear to be unaware of this, but merely being wrong does not constitute a lie.
This is fortunate for those on the left, since they of course make a life out of being wrong. We conservatives can say they are wrong without impugning them morally. (that comes when the left supports Planned Infanticide, of course)
” . . . that President Bush didn’t say if you weren’t with him you were essentially against him.”
This is the other PB, the moron. His bullshit about Bush saying if you weren’t with him, you were against him is an obsession of PB’s. The first time he used the misquote I carefully explained that Bush’s statement was about the US, not Bush personally, and it was directed at nations, not people. I helpfully included a link to a video recording of the press event where Bush spoke along with a link to a CNN story describing the event: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/
You cannot be sane and come to the conclusion that Bush said if you weren’t with him, you were against him. PB didn’t include a link because, I suppose, at some level he realizes that he has gone mad.
Speaking of truly fun stuff where the government, instead of investigating itself and concluding it did no wrong, you have actions where the government prevents investigations of it’s friends (or even itself). Ironic that it’s a Republican Rep from Mountain Lake.
http://www.startribune.com/rep-rod-hamilton-introduced-an-ag-gag-bill-before-secret-videos-of-alleged-animal-abuse-at-christensen-farms/321670141/
Oh, and for those of you who think Bush didn’t say that you’re either with us or against us, here’s your quote.
President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
Piggishly yours,
The Prince.
Peevish did not include the entire quote, because it would have shown how incredibly dense he is:
“Over time it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.”
Merggie, I made the mistake of reading your response.. Gasp! Shame on me, SHAME!
But, to answer your question, what does it all mean, and I sure do like your ad hominem of “outside of it being left chanting points” or whatever useless name calling drivel you want to use rather than deal with it, here’s what it means.
It means that no one side of the political aisle owns propriety and honestly, there’s a whole lot of mud on the Republican Party for being far too cozy with business, with being happy to use police state tactics and the like. it means pretending that it’s only one side so that you can name call is myopic and childish, which while it may sell books, isn’t the truth. Further, it means when you are clearly happy to essentially engage in hyper-focus on only one party’s misdeeds, you are neither a voice of truth nor to be trusted as reflecting a fair position. In short, Merg, it means you have a log in your eye, one so big you can’t see the larger picture, namely, that the government is a tool of the powerful. The powerful use the government to get things they want and they use the courts, the police, the enforcement agencies, to cover it and protect it, and the irony is, you, Merggie, you defend those very same powerful people with the same mouth that complains about the excesses of only one batch of them quite simply because you clearly are hoping for a payday from one of those powerful people (such as a lucrative talk-radio gig). So, you’re a water-boy for them, a bootlicker for them, complaining about excess while you give them cover. Your the tool complaining about people using tools.
So, do you get it now?
Candidly yours (but not as Charming as I should be),
The Prince.
Looks as if the Head just handed his own head to himself with the correct quote. As the prince in “Into the Woods” said, “I was raised to be charming, not sincere.”
Blue, you’re kinda short-sighted, huh? So, do you seriously think that a message like that will not be misconstrued by a whole lot of folks? When people criticized Bush after that, many on the right, including your good buddie Merggie, implied they were traitors. People like Ann Coulter called them traitors. So, seriously Blue, do you think words like Bush’s don’t have the meaning they so very clearly were meant to have? Dissent, following 9-11, was squelched. I was called by people with more sophistication than Merg, a traitor for failing to fall in line with the war drum-beat. So, yeah, Prussian, I’m pretty sure the message was intended to be exactly what it was, namely, fall in line or shut up, because if you object, we’re going to say you want to coddle terrorists. And that’s exactly what happened. Were you alive then? It seems like you must not have been.
Nah, Night, I knew the quote. I also know what it was meant to convey. If you fellas want to focus on syntax, be my guest, but the period after 9/11 was very much one of intimidation. People were loathe to say anything lest they be branded as siding with terrorists. Which is exactly what Bush said, either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists. People can say he ONLY meant countries, but that wasn’t what was said afterward by his foot-soldiers and it wasn’t what was executed on by the political machinery. So, tell yourself your little stories if you like, that you aren’t bad people who called people traitors when they said they thought Bush was going to far and that he was justifying his war with BS. That’s great stuff that is. I certainly don’t recall anyone calling Hilary Clinton out for “waffling” on supporting the war resolution and saying she was “weak on terror.” No, no, you’re entirely right, that didn’t happen.
Remembering you all very fondly,
The Prince.
“So, do you seriously think that a message like that will not be misconstrued by a whole lot of folks?”
Not anyone with more than two neurons to rub together, peev. Say, you must be one of them “low information voters” the Dems depend on to win elections.
You can tell its peev because it quickly descends into ridiculousness. I believe peev thinks Hillary voted against the Iraq War resolution. It’s hard to tell what war he is prattling on about. Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya?
“I was called by people with more sophistication than Merg, a traitor for failing to fall in line with the war drum-beat.”
I’m sure that wasn’t the first time, nor without justification.
And little wonder by people of vast sophistication, given Peeve’s house is surrounded by world renowned celebrities from all fields of human endeavor; wouldn’t surprise me to learn he was bitch slapped by Patton himself.
Leftists hate America, and work tirelessly to strip away everything that our predecessors worked to create and died to protect. They do it for different reasons, some out of a hatred inculcated into them in the government schools, some out of simple stupidity, others out of a lust for power and money, but those are the facts.
I like to roll it all up into a nice bundle by observing they are, for the most part, reprobate slobs.
“If you fellas want to focus on syntax, be my guest…”
Is he saying he has a differing definition of what the meaning of “is”, is?
Bwaaahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa! You beautiful, perfect slob!
“I was called by people with more sophistication than Merg, a traitor for failing to fall in line with the war drum-beat.”
Another one of your utterly sophisticated neighbors who is an expert in their field but can not be identified?
And since I never referred to anyone as a traitor that didn’t, y’know, actively give aid and comfort to an enemy in wartime, I’m wondering how sophisticated these people are.
You’re raving.
“No, no, you’re entirely right, that didn’t happen.”
OK. So what if it did?
What DOES it have to do with the subject of this post – the Obama Administration using the IRS to silence conservative speech?
Why do you hate freedom?
Peev,
So, do you get it now?
You flatter yourself by believing that you write anything worthwhile that I haven’t “gotten” for decades.
Neither party owns propriety? Duuuuuhhhhh. Seriously?
Being a conservative in a city full of liberals, pointing out the left’s offenses is a target-rich environment. You can feel free to try it from the other side.
Now, Peev? I think you and your partner DG would benefit greatly from reading, absorbing, and incorporating the lessons from this highly educational website in your writing and debate.
Because it’s groaningly obvious neither of you has ever taken Logic 101.
That’s a sincere recommendation.
Dear A**-wipe (I know, you said Head, but your example was so empowering that I took one word out of context and interpreted Head to mean Toilet which is where people wipe their a** so . . . .)
It’s people like you what cause unrest.
.
You know, it strikes me that those who described Hilliary Clinton as “weak on terror” have been proven correct. It was on her watch, after all, that Libya and Egypt got taken by the Islamists and ISIS became a reality, and on her watch, Afghanistan got handed back to the Taliban.
Sorry, Peev. Facts are a bitch sometimes.
Peev Boy’s description of the events leading to the Iraq War are surprisingly similar to some arguments Dog Gone has made on other topics. There is just so much wrongness there you have to go back to the beginning and show how an error in reasoning was compounded with errors of fact resulting in explosive logorrhoea.
-Hillary Clinton is not a person who is easily intimidated.
-Hillary was elected Senator from NY with zero experience as an elected politician, as a favor to her husband. It is hard to hold Republicans responsible for the Democrats electing inexperienced politicians who lack the wisdom required of her office.
-Hillary’s floor speech on her “yes” vote for the Iraq War Resolution is online. She certainly does not sound “intimidated.” She seemed to think it was important to get it on the record that her husband’s administration had been warning the world about Saddam’s WMDs since ’98.
-Even if Hillary had been intimidated and felt the Iraq War Resolutuion was a bad idea, she should have voted “no”, or resigned. That was what she was sent to the senate to do, wasn’t it?
-It is unthinkable that a Republican politician would be excused by his constituency for a bad vote by claiming that he or she was “intimidated.”
-The Democrats have worked very hard to shield Hillary from responsibility for her self-admitted fuck-up on the Iraq War Resolution. Obama made her secretary of state, and it is possible they will elect her president in 2016. Republicans won’t put Hillary in office.
Blue
Hillary was “intimidated” by the white male patriarchy – this is a standard feminist fallback – DG has had this happen to her too.
Kel, if there was a real white male patriarchy Hillary wouldn’t have been a senator or a SoS. Instead she would have spent her life as most wives of rich, powerful men have — managing her servants and Bill’s mistresses.