“A**holes”: Turns out Lois Lerner’s not a fan of conservative talk radio or its listeners

posted at 12:01 pm on July 30, 2014 by Allahpundit

I’m as surprised as you are. Who could have guessed that someone who “joked” about working for OFA might not like grassroots righties?

There’s an important lesson to be learned here, my friends. When you’re arranging for your hard drive to be “scratched,” make sure it’s scratched deeply enough that stuff like this can’t be recovered.

as

No wonder she wanted to take a closer look at tea-party nonprofits. They’re run by terrorists ‘n stuff.

Actually, I like this e-mail from the same batch almost as much as the one above. Damned “hoi paloi,” always mucking things up by demanding equality:

hp

She really is the perfect symbol for federal bureaucracy. Exit quotation from Becket Adams, paraphrasing the Lois Lerner view of reality: “Wow, these right-wing lunatics sure are paranoid, huh? Anyway, how close are we to turning the IRS into a weapon?”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Stop pretending that military definitions are used by terrorists. Or most people in the US for that matter.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 6:04 PM

I never pretended that, and you’re certainly not using the terms the way most people would use them. Most people would use the terms correctly. Your part of a minority that uses these terms incorrectly.

Notice the second example I gave wasn’t a military operation. The operations were comparable. I hope you learned something today.

corkie on July 30, 2014 at 6:07 PM

But it takes two to tango. Trotsky and the other thread-derailing trolls here can’t be succussful unless they are indulged.
Please, let’s all ignore the trolls, and stop letting them take over threads like this.

non-nonpartisan on July 30, 2014 at 5:51 PM

On what grounds do you accuse me of derailing the thread? I brought up the 9/11 attacks only in passing as an example to show that domestic terrorism from the right is a more serious concern than Islamic terrorism.

That’s directly applicable to Lerner’s point in her email.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Talk to Delmonte. He split that hair.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM

No Jimbo, and it is SOP for you.

You enter debate, generally saying something that is either an opinion stated as fact or an asinine observation that is incredibly wrong.

You get your head handed to you because you really can’t offer cogent or valid arguments. You start digging a hole (or holes) and keep going.

In an effort to save yourself, you grab onto a nit or a hair to split. You get that nit, split that hair…but the other 99% of your argument remains at the bottom of the hole. But to you, it’s a victory because the nit was one and the hair was split. The rest of the debate – immaterial.

When asked for substantiation, you use sources that no academic / teacher would ever accept as a valid source. You read those sources only far enough to fit your point. You then ignore how the rest of the source disproves your point.

When you can’t go back to the nit or split hair, you move the goalposts or try to change the subject. Others have to answer your questions, but you don’t return the courtesy because that digs the hole deeper. Oh, and you lie. A lot.

Pretty much SOP for an ideology driven troll. You need to up your game. But I don’t think you’re used to being challenged for what you say / present.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

…was one won…

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

FIFM / PIMF – and curse you auto-correct.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Talk to Delmonte. He split that hair.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM

No, he didn’t split “that” hair. He split a bigger hair. In response, you split a smaller hair. LOL!!!

corkie on July 30, 2014 at 6:11 PM

He gave Trotsky an M minus.

Judge_Dredd on July 30, 2014 at 5:58 PM

I thought that was a ‘Marxism -‘ or Marxist minus.

But then I might be over thinking it to take my mind off this am’s chemo…

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 6:14 PM

On what grounds do you accuse me of derailing the thread? I brought up the 9/11 attacks only in passing as an example to show that domestic terrorism from the right is a more serious concern than Islamic terrorism.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Thanks for such a priceless comment. You admit that you gave 9/11 as a reason to defend Lois Lerner’s claim that domestic terrorism from the right should be considered a bigger concern that Islamic terrorism.

I don’t know when I’ll stop LOL’ing at that. This is going into my Hot Air files.

corkie on July 30, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

You accurately characterize jim56′s comments in this thread.

corkie on July 30, 2014 at 6:18 PM

I brought up the 9/11 attacks only in passing as an example to show that domestic terrorism from the right is a more serious concern than Islamic terrorism.

That’s directly applicable to Lerner’s point in her email.

Trots on July 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

But you still haven’t proven to us that terrorism from the right is a bigger threat than Islamic terrorism.

When you do so maybe we’ll stop laughing at you.

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 6:19 PM

But you still haven’t proven to us that terrorism from the right is a bigger threat than Islamic terrorism.

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 6:19 PM

He thinks that 9/11 proves that terrorism from the right is a bigger threat than Islamic terrorism. Is this guy a crazy idiot, or did we just get him to write something stupid by twisting him into some pretzel?

corkie on July 30, 2014 at 6:27 PM

A-holes? I think Lois Lerner would look well in orange with matching leg and wrist braces. Or, better yet: “kiss yor white arse goodbye, cracka’ c’nt, yose gonna’ be my cell slut.” Why can’t it be on Pay-Per-View?

MaiDee on July 30, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Lois needs a new career.

Working at Leavenworth.

Turning big rocks into small rocks for 8 hours a day.

It would do her a world of good.

ajacksonian on July 30, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Talk to Delmonte. He split that hair.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM

To be fair he’s prolly under the weather today. He gave Trotsky an M minus. You, Jamesbo, have no excuse.

Judge_Dredd on July 30, 2014 at 5:58 PM

I gave trots the M grade because he’s a Grouch Marx fan. Nothing more.

Let’s recap: I first correctly asserted that Bush inherited the 9/11 attacks from his Democrat predecessor. jimbo56 assigned me a F- for stating fact.

By doing so, jimbo56 implied that my suggesting that the previous Democrat pResident could have possibly allowed the attacks to be conceived and planned on his watch was blasphemous and false.

This is a standard knee-jerk reaction from the Clinton Cultists. Don’t believe me? A Google search using the 5 words “Bush inherited 9/11 attacks” will yield you 17,800,000 results.

And 99% of those results from the first 25 pages I checked all say that the claim Bush inherited those attacks was FALSE.

One result even referred to the idea of Bush having inherited the attacks to be “psycho talk”.

Denial-it’s not just a river in Egypt!

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 6:31 PM

I brought up the 9/11 attacks only in passing as an example to show that domestic terrorism from the right is a more serious concern than Islamic terrorism.

That’s directly applicable to Lerner’s point in her email.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

.
See, that’s crazy… the last domestic terrorists that took multiple American lives on a political basis were McVeigh and Nichols who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Bldg. in Oklahoma City, OK in 1995, killing 168 and injuring hundreds. Islamic terrorists killed thousands and injured thousands more on 9-11, 2001. Your assertions are downright wrong, if not criminal when it comes to casting aspersions on conservatives. We have been highly self-controlled and restrained.
.
Your ilk, however.. Sandy Hook, 26 dead there and multiple other assaults which your type of flunkie tries to pin on “the right wing” … oh, and remember Nidal Malik Hasan? Tell me who he is. You are just a lying asshole. Count the attempted murder of a sitting HR Representative in your list, too.

ExpressoBold on July 30, 2014 at 6:32 PM

I brought up the 9/11 attacks only in passing as an example to show that domestic terrorism from the right is a more serious concern than Islamic terrorism.

That’s directly applicable to Lerner’s point in her email.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

.
See, that’s crazy… the last domestic terrorists that took multiple American lives on a political basis were McVeigh and Nichols who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Bldg. in Oklahoma City, OK in 1995, killing 168 and injuring hundreds. Islamic terrorists killed thousands and injured thousands more on 9-11, 2001. Your assertions are downright wrong, if not criminal when it comes to casting aspersions on conservatives. We have been highly self-controlled and restrained.
.
Your ilk, however.. Sandy Hook, 26 dead there and multiple other assaults which your type of flunkie tries to pin on “the right wing” … oh, and remember Nidal Malik Hasan? Tell me who he is. You are just a lying azzhole (modified for stupid HA filters). Count the attempted murder of a sitting HR Representative in your list, too.

ExpressoBold on July 30, 2014 at 6:34 PM

corkie on July 30, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Stop pretending that military definitions are used by terrorists. Or most people in the US for that matter.

jimbo56 on July 30, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Ever read the English translation of the al Qaeda Training Manual?

Hint: It is full of military definitions and terminology.

An excerpt from Page 8:

The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates,
Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy.

But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.

That same training manual also goes into extensive detail telling AQ members how to behave after they have been captured. Prime among those instructions? Don’t divulge your real name, and claim that you were tortured.

You really need a shovel for each hand. Thanks for the entertainment!

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Impeachable offense!

sadsushi on July 30, 2014 at 6:45 PM

A view into the life work of an evil woman. Thanks AP.

FireBlogger on July 30, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Let’s recap: I first correctly asserted that Bush inherited the 9/11 attacks from his Democrat predecessor. jimbo56 assigned me a F- for stating fact.

By doing so, jimbo56 implied that my suggesting that the previous Democrat pResident could have possibly allowed the attacks to be conceived and planned on his watch was blasphemous and false.

This is a standard knee-jerk reaction from the Clinton Cultists. Don’t believe me? A Google search using the 5 words “Bush inherited 9/11 attacks” will yield you 17,800,000 results.

And 99% of those results from the first 25 pages I checked all say that the claim Bush inherited those attacks was FALSE.

One result even referred to the idea of Bush having inherited the attacks to be “psycho talk”.

Denial-it’s not just a river in Egypt!

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 6:31 PM

You are still wrong. He didn’t “inherit” the attacks. In the English language, you generally don’t “inherit” anything until you receive the item. He did inherit the plans being made for the attacks.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/inherit

You’re just trying to evade your embarrassingly incorrect comments that Bin Laden hated Clinton and for that reason wanted to attack the US when Clinton was in office.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Ever read the English translation of the al Qaeda Training Manual?

Hint: It is full of military definitions and terminology.

An excerpt from Page 8:

The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates,
Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy.

But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.

That same training manual also goes into extensive detail telling AQ members how to behave after they have been captured. Prime among those instructions? Don’t divulge your real name, and claim that you were tortured.

You really need a shovel for each hand. Thanks for the entertainment!

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 6:45 PM

So, you are really comparing something that mentions bullets, Cannons, machine guns (once apparently) and assassination (not in our manuals) with this: LOL

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/atp3_20x98.pdf

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:11 PM

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Why’d he hate Clinton so much? Oh right! All that womanizing is against the muslim faith!

Judge_Dredd on July 30, 2014 at 7:14 PM

I brought up the 9/11 attacks only in passing as an example to show that domestic terrorism from the right is a more serious concern than Islamic terrorism.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

You brought up Islamic terrorist as an example of how domestic terrorism is a serious concern.

You and Alanis Morisette would get on famously.

The Schaef on July 30, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Everyone is getting way off topic with their insistence on quibbling over the details over who planned 9/11, which particular conservatives were in power, when the attack was “initiated” vs “planned”, and all of these other distractions from the larger point: whatever the subjective motivations of the personalities involved, the objective nature of the 9/11 attacks was that they constituted a victory for reaction over progress -for capital over labor. This gives the event a fundamentally a right-wing character.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Okay. Let’s get back on topic…

None of the right wingers here have offered any serious counter argument to Lerner’s observation that domestic terrorism is a far bigger threat than that posed by Islamic militants.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Please list all of the 21st Century threats that have been made by “the far right.”

I’ll wait.

bigmacdaddy on July 30, 2014 at 1:36 PM

No serious scholar believes that the government had nothing to do with the attacks.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Then please…name one.

The sundial’s already running.

bigmacdaddy on July 30, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Odd. It almost seems like you’re avoiding the question(s).

bigmacdaddy on July 30, 2014 at 8:23 PM

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:11 PM

ROFLMAO

jimbo you’ve confirmed you’re a freaking moron throughout this thread. You really should stop digging you stupid POS.

HumpBot Salvation on July 30, 2014 at 8:28 PM

You’re just trying to evade your embarrassingly incorrect comments that Bin Laden hated Clinton and for that reason wanted to attack the US when Clinton was in office.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

When were the first attacks on the WTC?
When were the Khobar towers attacked?
When were the US embassies in Africa attacked?
When was the USS Cole attacked.

Oh yeah, when Clinton was in office.

Oh and btw, it has already been well documented that many of the terrorist who attacked on 9/11 were in the US since the mid 90′s where they planned and then initiated the training they were pursuing to attack the US while Clinton was in office. They delayed because several members did not complete their training and could not get into the US until Sprin 2001.

You really are ignorant.

HumpBot Salvation on July 30, 2014 at 8:44 PM

I have called her much worse.Then again,I am not in a position to financially ruin ,nor imprison people for whom I actually work.She should be sharing a cell with Holder and Obama all awaiting the hangman’s noose for treason.

redware on July 30, 2014 at 8:53 PM

You’re just trying to evade your embarrassingly incorrect comments that Bin Laden hated Clinton and for that reason wanted to attack the US when Clinton was in office.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

You are entirely correct as usual. Now sir, what was Sandy Berger doing smuggling shit out of the Natl. Archives and why was the 911 commission packed so as to push ANY responsibility away from the Clinton admin.?

arnold ziffel on July 30, 2014 at 8:57 PM

You are still wrong. He didn’t “inherit” the attacks. In the English language, you generally don’t “inherit” anything until you receive the item. He did inherit the plans being made for the attacks.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

The operation was already underway. He inherited the operation. Your wishing it weren’t so isn’t going to change that fact.

You are still wrong. He didn’t “inherit” the attacks. In the English language, you generally don’t “inherit” anything until you receive the item. He did inherit the plans being made for the attacks.

corkie on July 30, 2014 at 9:15 PM

you are really comparing something that mentions bullets, Cannons, machine guns (once apparently) and assassination (not in our manuals) with this: LOL

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:11 PM

The manual you linked doesn’t negate Del Dolemonte’s point at all. You’re completely clueless about all forms of operations. LOL!

corkie on July 30, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 6:31 PM

You are still wrong. He didn’t “inherit” the attacks. In the English language, you generally don’t “inherit” anything until you receive the item. He did inherit the plans being made for the attacks.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/inherit

You’re just trying to evade your embarrassingly incorrect comments that Bin Laden hated Clinton and for that reason wanted to attack the US when Clinton was in office.

jimbo56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Breathtaking.

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 6:45 PM

So, you are really comparing something that mentions bullets, Cannons, machine guns (once apparently) and assassination (not in our manuals) with this: LOL

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/atp3_20x98.pdf

jimbo56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:11 PM

I’m not the one who claimed they never used military terms, you were. Moving the goalposts again only makes us howl at you even more.

Harvard, eh? You’re Adam Wheeler, right?

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Ignoramus bliss-ninny.

Woody

woodcdi on July 30, 2014 at 10:18 PM

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 6:31 PM

You are still wrong. He didn’t “inherit” the attacks. In the English language, you generally don’t “inherit” anything until you receive the item.

jimbo56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

He received the item. Using your own “logic”, that means he did inherit the attacks.

Keep it up. Hugely entertaining!

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 10:27 PM

you are really comparing something that mentions bullets, Cannons, machine guns (once apparently) and assassination (not in our manuals) with this: LOL

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:11 PM

The manual you linked doesn’t negate Del Dolemonte’s point at all. You’re completely clueless about all forms of operations. LOL!

corkie on July 30, 2014 at 9:30 PM

The entire translated AQ training manual I cited is over 175 pages long.

What I quoted was in the first 10 pages.

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 10:29 PM

I

’m not the one who claimed they never used military terms, you were. Moving the goalposts again only makes us howl at you even more.

Harvard, eh? You’re Adam Wheeler, right?

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Stop pretending that military definitions are used by terrorists. Or most people in the US for that matter.

jimbo56 on July 30, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Ever read the English translation of the al Qaeda Training Manual?

Hint: It is full of military definitions and terminology.
..
Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 6:45 PM

No. You’re the one who claimed they did use military definitions. If you think bullets and guns are military definitions, then almost all the hunters in the US are in the military.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Why is it every liberal is guilty of one thing……..projection?

Tater Salad on July 30, 2014 at 11:24 PM

Why is it every liberal is guilty of one thing……..projection?

Tater Salad on July 30, 2014 at 11:24 PM

Put yourself in an illiberal’s shoes. It will then make perfect sense to you. =)

non-nonpartisan on July 30, 2014 at 11:29 PM

I loved to watch episodes of Columbo. He would pick his suspect out then go prove means motive and opportunity. Im no know Columbo but i think we have all three to prove a crime was committed.

jaywemm on July 31, 2014 at 12:24 AM

“A-holes?” Ok Lois, See you next Tuesday.

Kenosha Kid on July 31, 2014 at 1:56 AM

Del Dolemonte on July 30, 2014 at 6:45 PM

No. You’re the one who claimed they did use military definitions. If you think bullets and guns are military definitions, then almost all the hunters in the US are in the military.

jimbo56 on July 30, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Recycled manure is still manure. Thanks, my tomato plants need some!

1. In the planning for the 9/11 attacks they used military words to ID some of their targets. One of them was the Pentagon.

2. That target was a military target. In fact, it was arguably the most important military target on the planet.

3. The captured and later translated al Qaeda training manual was a textbook on how to wage war. Only on your 5-ringed world is that not a military description.

4. I now have the link (from PBS, hardly a Far-Right source) that cites the exact military words used in said translated al Qaeda training manual. They lead off the very first lesson.

PBS Frontline

FIRST LESSON

Principles of Military Organization:

Military Organization has three main principles without which it cannot be established.

Military Organization commander and advisory council

The soldiers (individual members)

A clearly defined strategy

Military Organization Requirements:

The Military Organization dictates a number of requirements to assist it in confrontation and endurance. These are:

Forged documents and counterfeit currency

Apartments and hiding places

Communication means

Transportation means

Information

Arms and ammunition

Transport

Next Lesson

Missions Required of the Military Organization:

The main mission for which the Military Organization is responsible is:

The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime. Other missions consist of the following:

Gathering information about the enemy, the land, the installations, and the neighbors.

Kidnaping enemy personnel, documents, secrets, and arms.

Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists.

Freeing the brothers who are captured by the enemy.

Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.

Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin; not a vital target.

Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital economic centers.

Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the cities.

You’re dismissed.

Z-

Del Dolemonte on July 31, 2014 at 1:59 AM

More from the al Qaeda Training Manual, proving their double standards on what is and what is not torture:

Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages: Religious scholars have permitted beating. They use a tradition explained in Imam Mosallem’s manuscript, who quotes Thabit Ibn Ans that Allah’s prophet – Allah bless and keep him – sought counsel when he was informed about Abou Soufian’s arrival. Abou Bakr and Omar spoke, yet he [the prophet] did not listen. Saad Ibn Ibada said, “Do you want us, O Allah’s prophet, who controls my life? If you order us to subdue the camel we would do it, or beat and follow them to Al-Ghimad lakes (5-day trip beyond Mecca), we would do it, too. “The prophet – Allah bless and keep him – called on the people, who then descended on Badr. They were met by Kureish camels carrying water. Among their takers was a young black [slave] man belonging to the Al-Hajjaj clan. They took him [as hostage]. The companions of the prophet – Allah bless and keep him – started asking him about Abou Sofian and his companions. He first said, “I know nothing about Abou Soufian but I know about Abou Jahl, Atba, Sheiba, and Omaya Ibn Khalaf. “But when they beat him he said, “O yes, I will tell you. This is the news of Abou Soufian…”

Meanwhile, the prophet – Allah bless and keep him -, who was praying, started to depart saying, “Strike him if he tells you the truth and release him if he lies.” Then he said, “That is the death of someone [the hostage].” He said that in the presence of his companions and while moving his hand on the ground.

In this tradition, we find permission to interrogate the hostage for the purpose of obtaining information. It is permitted to strike the nonbeliever who has no covenant until he reveals the news, information, and secrets of his people.

The religious scholars have also permitted the killing of a hostage if he insists on withholding information from Moslems. They permitted his killing so that he would not inform his people of what he learned about the Muslim condition, number, and secrets. In the Honein attack, after one of the spies learned about the Muslims kindness and weakness then fled, the prophet – Allah bless and keep him – permitted [shedding] his blood and said, “Find and kill him.” Salma Ibn Al-Akwaa followed, caught, and killed him.

Del Dolemonte on July 31, 2014 at 2:28 AM

No. You’re the one who claimed they did use military definitions. If you think bullets and guns are military definitions, then almost all the hunters in the US are in the military.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 10:59 PM

What the heck is this supposed to mean? Stop digging yourself deeper into a hole. The Al Qaeda’s attack operation was initiated during Clinton’s term. Deal with it instead of trying to argue about the meaning of the word operation.

corkie on July 31, 2014 at 2:57 AM

Funny in all the reports about Lerner and the IRS not much is mentioned of the shenanigans she did at the FEC by attempting to block conservatives from running for political office and even more interesting was her assistant was the same one at the FEC who’s hard drive miraculously went poof around the same time Lerner and gang’s did at the IRS.

But hey nothing to see here…absolutely nothing at all…

terlizzi99 on July 31, 2014 at 3:35 AM

No. The attack was partially planned before W was in the WH. It was initiated on 9/11.
 
jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 3:56 PM

 
No, the operation that concluded on 9/11 was initiated during Clinton’s term.
 
corkie on July 30, 2014 at 4:08 PM

 

BS. It could have been stopped or changed at any time up until 9/11.

By your definition, anything I do today was initiated by my parents 60 years ago.
 
jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 4:28 PM

 

So we’re all clear, you’re going on record as saying

- current conditions in Iraq and Libya,

- the GM ignition switch deaths and mass recalls (GM has recalled more vehicles than they sold since Obama took over, btw),

- the part-time worker economy,

- the Benghazi deaths,

- the lazy employment numbers,

- the rapes/child smuggling/gangs border crisis,

- the Veterans Administration deaths,

- etc.

are all Obama’s responsibility?
 
rogerb on July 30, 2014 at 5:50 PM

 
No.
 
jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM

 
Gosh, how surprising.
 
So you’re saying the VA deaths, ISIS/Iraq/Libya, the rapes and child smuggling on the border, Obama’s/GM’s deaths and stunningly massive recall
 

GM Recalls Outnumber Six Years of Sales
 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2014/07/gm-recalls-outnumber-six-years-of-sales/

 

etc. up there couldn’t have been stopped or changed at any time up until the actual event, then?

rogerb on July 31, 2014 at 8:13 AM

LOL, don’t go away mad, jimbo56, just go away.

Del Dolemonte on July 31, 2014 at 9:27 AM

The logic, it hurts.

Kenosha Kid on July 31, 2014 at 9:57 AM

On what grounds do you accuse me of derailing the thread? I brought up the 9/11 attacks only in passing as an example to show that domestic terrorism from the right is a more serious concern than Islamic terrorism.

That’s directly applicable to Lerner’s point in her email.

Trotsky on July 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

And the value of total crap being applicable to Lerner’s email is?

First of all, George Bush could have personally pushed the plunger on both towers and building 7. It doesn’t matter, because there aren’t a bunch of “right wing a——-” calling up Rush Limbaugh saying we ought to be like Bush and blow up some more buildings to scare over-hearers of “right wing radio”. Even, if Bush’s administration did it, it’s not the type of “terrorism” on right wing radio, and thus count not be the type that Lerner was talking about.

Also the President and Congress issuing a Declaration of War and marshaling the countries military resources into an invasion of another country, right or wrong, is not “right wing crazies gathering ammo” and threatening insurrections. It’s order not disorder.

It’s a completely different “point”. If Lerner had a single point, your “points” have nothing to do with hers. People who fret about “right wing terrorism” have nothing besides over-heateed rhetoric to point to. Words.

On one hand you would promote a disagreement with stated American federal government policy in resisting the wars. On the other hand you back Lerner in worrying about people who disagree with stated American federal government policy.

Have I got that right?

Axeman on July 31, 2014 at 10:31 AM

It’s been 2 year since 2012, in what way has Lerner’s dexterphobia proven valid?

The media has shown that it’s not even a case of “crying wolf”. They believe that violence is going to come from the right, and every shooting spree they feel the thrill of some sort of vindication when they find some thin thread that the killer was a rightist. And they publish whatever it is that “links” the shooter to the right.

But in almost all cases, the killer turns out to be a lefty-ish social misfit who’s exercised about something or other (could even be “dangerous wingers”) or a Muslim.

That resembles a neurosis, not a valid assessment of real risks.

Axeman on July 31, 2014 at 10:43 AM

So, Trotsky is a “Truther”? Is that what I gather from his analogy?
Oh, and what is the difference, psychologically speaking, from being a “birther” and a “truther”? … Just axing (and ain’t hatin).

mel23059 on July 31, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4