Artful Dodger: "They play with dolphins, spear fish, and poop a lot in the sea."

Uhhhmm, so how much is "a lot"?

Artful Dodger: "That web page is part of the hoax."

That explains the image of a DOJ badge. The DOJ seal made sense, but not the badge. Even so, not enough of an overkill to make me believe it couldn't be legit.

If it showed Jack Webb holding the badge, THAT would be overkill.

rod03801: I think it's safe to assume a mermaid terrorist cell was discovered. Seizing the domain name is just the first step. They'll need to follow through by physically going in to seize the mermaids themselves. This isn't as easy as it sounds, because them mermaids is slippery and hard to hold onto. They'll also need to clean up any water that gets sloshed onto the floor, after the mermaids are dragged out of their tanks and put under arrest.

Our tax dollars at work. I don't know about you, but I feel a lot safer knowing our government is doing all that it can to keep those mermaids from... from, uh...

what do mermaids do?

Artful Dodger: I clicked on that Mermaid site, and you know what I got?

I got a message saying: This domain name has been seized by DOJ-Homeland Security Investigations, pursuant to a seizure warrent issued by a United States Distric Court under the authority of blah blah blah blah yadda yadda blah.

(V): Okay. Well, in that case it's probably best that you don't know... where it comes from.

(V): Really? I was trying to follow yours... so I guess this means we are both walking around in the same circle, and following each others footprints.

By the way, thanks for not answering that last question. I'd appreciate it if you just sat on it and didn't say anything about that. Mums the word, okay?

(V): [ I was stating a fact of life....]

"That liberals don't think..."

If you say so.


"Fascinating... Your mind is completely free, unless those damn liberals take away that liberty..."

Fascinating you think liberals could do that.

"Isn't that stereotyping?
Stereotypes don't live in my mind!!"

I see... so when you are stereotyping conservatives it's not coming from your mind. Fascinating! So where pray tell does that come from?

Never mind, you don't need to answer that... I just now realised where it comes from.

(V): "He didn't give them, he just showed them they already had it in them."

He gave the tin man a clock (a ticker) the scarecrow a diploma and the lion a medal of honor for courage. So yes, he did give them the secular equivalents of a heart and brains and courage.

Secular humanists haven't learned anything from watching the Wizard of Oz, because they act like you don't have a brain unless you go to college and get a degree. No degree, no brains.

(V): [ "Liberals don't think in my mind. They think in their own minds."

Your mind is wrong then, as everyone thinks... or, everyone 'is' and sees their thoughts. Depending on your philosophical standing!! ]

I was stating a fact of life.... unless you believe there are hosts of liberals who've taken up residence in your mind, and are doing all their thinking in there. I don't rent out space in my mind to liberals OR conservatives.

(V): "Is this the way all Liberals think in your mind.."

I know what you meant, but it was an odd question. So I answered in much the same way you've been answering my questions.

The straight answer to your question is, I don't sit around imagining what liberals do or how they think. Over the years I've watched how they form committees for drafting bills, letting a few republicans onto those committees (to make it appear non partisan) and then ignoring their input. They'll load bills with outrageous pork (like money for studies to prove men are no different than women) and MAYBE throw in a few budget cuts. Maybe. But the so called budget "cuts" are a joke. They aren't actual cuts, but are freezes on increases. If the budget stays the same and the projected increases are not included, THAT is what they will call a budget cut.

No one needs to be a so called 'Washington insider' to see which way the wind is blowing. And you don't need to only read or listen to Fox news to get this information. You can get enough of it from main stream media sources to see what's happening. When Bush senior said no more new taxes, the left eventually convinced him to go along with a small increase. After that they claimed he lied, and they laughed at him for going along with THEM. I'll wager you went along with the choir on that one, and were singing that song too. Am I wrong?

(V): "You said he was a mystic...."

Nope, still can't find it. I didn't say he was a mystic. If you had asked me about it, I would have told you the guy appeared to regard himself as a mystic. That doesn't mean he was... I didn't believe anything he was saying OR implying about himself. If you told me (or implied) you were a mystic, I wouldn't believe that either.

Clear?


"Is this the way all Liberals think in your mind.."

Liberals don't think in my mind. They think in their own minds.

"even the ones who serve in the armed forces?"

They think in their own minds too. Why would liberals in the armed forces be any different?


By the way, the Wizard of Oz gave Dorothy's three friends a heart and brains and courage.
He didn't demand payment for it.

(V): [ "Cowardice, and lack of common sense and integrity is to blame."

Like I said, cutting down on funding is dumb. ]


I'm still waiting to hear how passing any bill would have given Obama the common sense to heed warnings and the courage to act, or the integrity to take responsibility. Where can you go to buy those things?

(V): Марија имаше малку јагне, тоа е руно беше бела како снег. И секаде онаму каде што Марија јагнето беше сигурен да се оди.

(V): Προειδοποιήσεις αγνοήθηκαν, η δράση δεν έγινε δεκτή, και στη συνέχεια μια ιστορία κάλυψης ήταν εποίησαν για να φαίνεται σαν τίποτα δεν θα μπορούσε να είχε γίνει γι 'αυτό.

(V): "Oh... You said he was a mystic...."

No, I didn't say that.


"N' no-one thought "lets separate the two items and still approve the funds for defence"?"

Two items? Okay, I'll walk you through this. It's a common ploy used by liberals. What they will do is to put one thing you approve of among several things you don't. They don't actually expect you to vote for the entire bill, they expect you to vote against it. Then they will come back to claim you voted down the one thing you do approve of. See how that works?

They COULD have drafted a bill with only the items everyone can agree to, but why would they want to do that? Their purpose was to come back later to claim republicans voted down increasing funds for security. If republicans voted for the bill then sure, that part of the bill goes through, but then so does all of the unnecessary spending. For liberals it's a win/win situation. Either they get everything they want, or they get to come back to claim republicans aren't sincere about security. Pretty sneaky, huh?

It's also sneaky of them to suggest the security problem was only about money. It wasn't about money... it was about ignoring warnings, being afraid to act when the attack was happening, and then acting like scared little children instead of taking responsibility for the screw up.

Oh by the way, did I happen to mention anything about Benghazi? Did you know warnings were ignored, nothing was done when the embassy was under attack, and then a cover story was concocted to make it look as though nothing could have been done? Did I mention any of that? It may have slipped my mind as we were talking about other things.

(V): "Sorry, it was a mystic church."

Okay, NOW I know who you're talking about. He didn't belong to any church. He was a dope smoking lone wolf self proclaimed genius. You could find one of those on almost any street corner during the '70s, You've heard about the '60s and '70s, haven't you?

"Because the Republicans were voting against more funds."

No, they were voting against other things in the bill. Just because it might have been in the bill doesn't mean they approved of everthing in the bill. So now you think I'M dumb, eh?

It doesn't matter anyway, because lack of money wasn't the problem. The problem was warnings were ignored, nothing was done when the attack came, and then we were expected to believe a youtube video was to blame. Lack of money was not the problem. Cowardice, and lack of common sense and integrity is to blame. You can't BUY courage or common sense or integrity... either you've got it or you don't.

(V): "The Church bloke..."

I remember a long time ago when my wife was interested in a particular church. I got into a disagreement with the pastor of that church, but it wasn't a liberal church and the disagreement was resolved. I don't remember talking about that, but it's possible I may have mentioned it. Is that what you're talking about?

Or are you talking about a bloke here (at this message board) "...who knew better than me"?

(V): "I wasn't."

So if not liberals, then who told republicans "...the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places"? Other republicans?

If republicans aren't to blame for the screw up in Benghazi, then what exactly is your point? And why would anyone be telling republicans we need to bolster defenses? Don't you think they (whoever "they" are) should be telling this to the people who have been undercutting defenses in such places? Who do you think is running the show in Washington? President Romney?


"What bloke?"

[ The Church bloke... how you got to hate liberal churches...???? ]

You must be thinking of someone else. I don't know about "liberal churches" or about some bloke who said he knew better than me.

Lemon Lime: "amabassor"?

And the ambassadors life could have been spared as well. I don't know who the amabassor is... was he there?

(V): "Like that bloke said you were.. the one who said he knew better than you."

What bloke?


By the way, there is a big difference between a reaction and a response. Inanimate objects react, they don't respond. A response implies thought. Inanimate objects don't think, they react. This doesn't mean a response CAN'T be a reaction, so do as you will.... I'm not telling you what to do or how to do it.

And it IS dumb to try pinning the Benghazi tragedy and cover up on republicans. Republicans weren't the ones ignoring the warnings and coming up with a lame cover story afterwards. If republicans were being told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places, they were being told this by people who were concerned about budget cuts. So where do you see liberals worrying over cuts to the military? I'd like to see that too.

If the liberal leadership actually gave a rats derriere about security, the Benghazi attack would have come and gone without the amabassor being there, as well as the others who were with him.

(V): "So you are behaving the same, just switched parties??"

Look at your other question again. You asked, "Btw... Is this how you reacted to the Watergate scandal?"

The answer to that question was in the question... I was reacting. Think about it.

No no, don't react... just think about it.

(V): "Btw... Is this how you reacted to the Watergate scandal?"

I was a liberal Democrat during the Watergate scandal, so how do you think I reacted? If nothing had changed since then I might still be saying dumb things like "...the republicans were told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places."

(V): Do you know who Woodward is?

He said he wasn't ready to compare Benghazi to Watergate, not yet... then a few minutes later he began drawing parallels between the two. He's even called what Obama is doing "Nixonian".

So why would he say he is not ready to compare the two, and then almost immediately begin drawing comparisons? Well, because he said he wasn't ready yet... a few minutes later he WAS ready. LOL

Woodward isn't stupid. He had been called and threatened by one of Obamas goons, er, I mean advisors, and was told to back off. Not in so many words mind you, but like I said before Woodward is no fool. When he said he's not ready to compare Benghazi to Watergate (not yet) what he was doing was giving himself plausible deniability.

Say what? Plausible deniability? We see politicians doing that all the time, but it's a little scary to see a private citizen doing that... because why would any private citizen NEED to do that?

hmmmmm?

(V): "Clear?"

It's clear you haven't been paying attention. "Your start" was only one part of my summarisation of what left leaning pundits were saying about Benghazi. I then substituted the words 'Watergate' and 'Republicans' for 'Benghazi' and 'Democrats', to illustrate how absurd it would have been if Republicans had talked about Watergate (back when it happened) the way Democrats are now talking about Benghazi.

Did you not get that? But more to the point, are you getting any of THIS?

It's not my opinion the president wasn't involved. It's my opinion he was involved, and had others in his administration go along with a lame cover up story.... about what happened in BENGHAZI.

This is about Benghazi, remember? Warnings were ignored, action was not taken, and then a cover story was concocted to make it appear as though nothing could have been done about it.

Bob Woodward was not reminiscing, nor was he day dreaming about past events when he compared Benghazi to Watergate. Bob Woodward is not some old fool who only lives in the past... he was talking about CURRENT events.

You are free to focus exclusively on Watergate if that pleases you, but I wasn't talking about Watergate. I was talking about BENGHAZI.

(V): Compare "...historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened..." with "The historians say.... he did know!!"

Your conclusion doesn't match up with the opening statement. Nevertheless, it's clear historians are reluctant to admit Nixon probably knew nothing about it until afterwards. I doubt it was Nixons idea to break into someones room. I believe he made the mistake of trying to "fix things" afterwards, so it wouldn't become public knowledge.

And now compare Nixons lack of transparency to how Obama has faithfully kept his promise to be transparent... even though he's been trying hard as hell not to be seen. LOL Someone needs to tell him that "transparency" doesn't mean "invisibility". But who knows, maybe that IS what he meant...

Anything I do will be transparent to you. Ha ha, that's right... you can't catch me if you can't see me!

But Lemon Lime, that doesn't make sense... if no one was there to defend the ambassador, how could ANY of those terrorists been killed?

(V): There were ground troops nearby who could have gone in, but they were told to stand down too. Anyone who could have helped was told to do nothing. It could have been resolved in a few hours. With ground troops present and jets flying overhead, I'll wager many of those terrorists would have scattered and ran away to avoid being killed... so we could have spared the lives of some of them as well. See? The lives of some of those killers could have been spared.

The president is commander and chief of the military. No one in the military outranks him. The commander and chief has worked faithfully to undercut the military and make it less effective. And when the time came for him to make a decision, he worked tirelessly to sit on his hands and do nothing, and he told the military to do likewise.

This is no longer speculation...we now know this was not a spontaneous event set off by a youtube video, and warnings were repeatedly ignored. It happened on 9/11 of last year, the anniversary of the 9/11 we all know about, and only a few months to go before Obamas re-election.

But Lemon Lime, the president did not have enough time to do ANYTHING! By the time he put focus groups together and set up town hall meetings it would all be over and the damage done... so there's nothing he could have done about it, it all happened WAY too fast!

(V): It almost appears his top advisors are running the show and Obama is only the front man. So if this completely blows up in Obamas face, who do you think he might throw under the bus next?


Don't worry about Hillary, because throwing her under the bus would be highly problematic... it's hard to say which would get the worst of it, Hillary or the bus.

(V): "The historians say.... he did know!!"

And I'm sure that's what Bob Woodward was saying as well. So what is he saying now? He was given a call by one of Obamas minions and 'advised' to back off talking about the presidents involvement in the cover up. We already know that Obama will investigate members of the press who don't get with the program and say only nice things about him... if this isn't true, then why are we hearing reporters say "...Obama was unapologetic about investigating members of the press?

One notable difference between Benghazi and Watergate is that Obama was in the loop from the beginning. Another difference is no one was killed because of Watergate. Military operatives who could have intervened were told to stand down. Only the president has the authority to tell the military to stand down.... so who do you think might have told the military to stand down?

One higher up in the military who was trying to help Obama cover his butt said it would take about 20 hours to put any operation together to help rescue the ambassador. That's nonsense... maybe during WWII it could take that long, but not today. It takes about 15 minutes to get pilots into the air and they can be given instructions onroute. And those instructions can be modified as conditions on the ground change.

Presumption of hubris is presumptuous hubris.

- Sir Lemon Lime

Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

- Dr. Seuss

By the way, there is no point in directly confronting the president about Benghazi. Judging from many of his past responses to hardball questions, the answers you get might sound something like this:


Cover your nose and mouth when you sneeze. Then wash your hands and disinfect the room with bug spray. Wait three days, then come back and set your house on fire.

Point one: Watergate was not the fault of the president nor anyone in his administration.

Point two: The cover up of Watergate was not the fault of the president nor anyone in his administration.

Point three: Democrats are to blame for calling them on it, and insisting there be an investigation.

Therefore: Democrats are to blame for the Watergate investigation, and for keeping that story in the headlines.

Here's a good example of what I've been talking about. The Benghazi story. If you go back through the posts to the time it happened, you can find me saying this story will not go away.

Recently, I heard a political pundit (figuratively) stratching her head and wondering why this story won't go away. She was sitting with a group of like minded pundits, and they spelled it out for her. I'll summarize...

Point one: the goof up in Benghazi was not the fault of the president nor anyone in his administration.

Point two: covering up the goof up in Benghazi was not the fault of the president nor anyone in his administration.

Point three: Republicans are to blame for calling them on it, and insisting there be an investigation.

So, the 'obvious' conclusion is: Republicans are to blame for keeping this story in the headlines.


This is how they operate. Anything they do that blows up in their face will not be their fault, and can be pinned on the Republicans. They have so little regard for the intelligence and integrity of their own constituency they think they can get away with anything. And why is that? Because, they often do...

that's why...

(V): I have no problem with government that represents and serves the people, and can be held accountable for its actions.

I don't trust political entities that work to serve only themselves, and will avoid accountability to the people. Political entities like this hold everyone else accountable, but not themselves. And, I don't trust lone wolf individuals who want to avoid their own responsibility by holding themselves unaccountable.

................Understand?

(V): "the freeman movement in Canada seems to be gaining respect from some Canadian policemen"

(V): "................Understand?"

Uh huh. So what does it mean when someone declares he will ONLY abide by and honor common law? How is that different... or is it a meaningless proclamation?

In other words, what law is he trying to avoid being held accountable for?

Oh come on... the tickets are free. It's a free ride!

ROTFLMAO!!

Hey, I have free tickets for anyone wanting to ride on the Obama bus. Who wants a free ticket?

I was flipping through channels on TV, and caught the tail end of a news story. This was less than an hour ago...

Obama is standing on a stage in front of a microphone, and judging from the look on his face his audience is less than happy with him. I tuned in just in time to hear a reporter say something about a scandal, and then she finished with "... and the president was unapologetic about investigating members of the press."


Members of the press? Seriously? The people who helped get him on the bus, and then helped him stay on the bus... and now he's throwing THEM under the bus?

(V): Okay, NOW I get it... I think.

It doesn't matter what the lawgivers and rule makers say, you can elect to ignore any law you don't like if it doesn't specifically fall under the heading of "common law". It's either that, or you agree with the purists who have decided they will only honor common law.

That's it, isn't it. It has to be. That's the only thing that makes sense...


Awww crap, and there's the rub... it makes sense!!

(V): Okay, I get it now... this is one of YOUR rules. Right? Like the one that says you may not talk to feminists if you're not a feminist?

Is that it? Please... I don't want to call in a team of lawyers! Don't you know how expensive that can be?

Just tell me!!!

(V): "Maybe we should have Bieber busted for smoking weed in the UK for being such an annoying idiot..."

Spoken like a true liberal.

"But that would break his common law right, even though it's illegal."

I see. His common law right is illegal... or did you mean it's illegal to break his common law right? No, that can't be it... that would be like saying it's against the law to break the law. I need my lawyer to help me with this... but then he might need to call in his lawyer to help him.

Q: How many lawyers does it take to untangle this mess?

A: None. It can't be done.

(V): Iamon lyme: "Is it?"

"... Please, I need to know!! ;P"


No V, it's not a scandal. The president is only saying it was wrong to target conservatives because they got caught doing it. After all, what's wrong with politically motivated witch hunts? Everyone does it, right? There... feel better now? Good.

(V): "Well if they have nothing to hide... what's the problem...."

And if liberals have nothing to explain, then why is it a scandal? If they've done nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about.

(V): I'll give you a hint. This most recent scandal involves the IRS targeting conservatives and conservative groups, such as the Tea Party.

Remember Joe the Plumber? He embarrassed the president by asking him a question, and so one of Obamas minions investigated him. Of course, the president always disavows any knowledge of what these people are doing... you know, like the message sent to the Mission Impossible Team, and then the tape disintegrates into smoke so there is no evidence of it.

But Obama's mission impossible team keeps screwing up. They're always leaving evidence behind, and Obama is not very convincing when he say he don't know nuthin'...

Nope, I just the prez folks, I don't know nuthin' bout no shenanigans... hell, I don't even know what a shenanigan IS!!

Yobama is starting to sound like Joe the Vice President.

(V): "... Think about it!!"

About what? You mean about that laundry list of "everyone does it" you just now posted? Have liberals have been backed into a corner AGAIN? What did they do this time? I can't keep up with all of their shenanigans... it's like every other day it's some new thing.

By the way, seeing as how you've mentioned the Tea Party, I haven't heard a peep out of you about the left wing establishment's most recent scandal. Nothing to say about that?

If you have no goofy relatives, it doesn't mean your relatives don't, uh... have goofy relatives.

I always face West whenever I fart, so as to not interfere with the earths natural air flow, but yesterday something in the South caught my eye and...

Well, anyway... my apologies to all the people of the great state of Washington. It won't happen again.