Republicans in US House Demand Boston Bombing Be Politicized

[KevinWestern]

Dante did NOT point "to some obscure article in ALTERNET (ie not a major new source) stating that the Texan was..." What Dante did do was start an OP with the most un-obscure News Source Reuters Congressional committee calls hearing on Boston bombings | Reuters

...linked with a full explanation of why the asshole is an asshole by linking to a Wikipedia page containing the Controversy surrounding the Right Wing Texan Asshole

You really should not pull out your squirt gun during a knife fight

"In August 2011 AlterNet reported that McCaul, along with John Culberson and Ted Poe were attempting to remove the right of deceased soldiers families to choose which prayers, if any, were to be read at a soldiers funeral.[4][5] The three politicians were said to be attempting to impose Christian ceremonies on the military funerals of everybody who has served in the military, regardless of whether or not the deceased was Christian and with or without the consent of the family of the deceased. The three politicians stated their demands were a response to Veterans Affairs (VA) banning Christian prayers at military funerals, however, VA state this claim is "blatantly false" as VA respects a families "rights to pray however they choose at our national cemeteries".[4][5]"[/I]




Dante ----

Do you realize that this is an OBSCURE lawsuit involving a group of volunteers at a single VA Cemetery (plaintiffs) who argued that they wanted Christian verbiage (I have no idea how much) in all ceremonies. This was a private suit that I think the Congressmen merely COMMENTED on. It was kind of silly and I believe the suit lost. That's what happens; people have opinions/grievances, they file suit, and if it's silly they lose.

So, please - Dante - explain to me how this paired with a benevolent article about a committee investigating our DHS procedures after a terrorist attack is supposed to amount to a "point".

I mean are you upset a Christian Congressman spoke his opinion on an obscure, local court case? I'd be more concerned if you linked to an article where this guy manipulated legislation, or was showing him participating in illegal activity. But a single comment on a private court case? Really? So let me get this straight, he spoke his opinion one time in 2011, and now he's not qualified to be part of a Congressional Committee (ignoring all of his other achievements/accomplishments).

LOL

This is your 'knife fight"?

Man, you're making this too easy for me. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just pointing out that your OP was not very strong.

.

 

[Antares]

Dainty has no integrity at all, he is abjectly partisan and is not adverse to just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

Dante did NOT point "to some obscure article in ALTERNET (ie not a major new source) stating that the Texan was..." What Dante did do was start an OP with the most un-obscure News Source Reuters Congressional committee calls hearing on Boston bombings | Reuters

...linked with a full explanation of why the asshole is an asshole by linking to a Wikipedia page containing the Controversy surrounding the Right Wing Texan Asshole

You really should not pull out your squirt gun during a knife fight

"In August 2011 AlterNet reported that McCaul, along with John Culberson and Ted Poe were attempting to remove the right of deceased soldiers families to choose which prayers, if any, were to be read at a soldiers funeral.[4][5] The three politicians were said to be attempting to impose Christian ceremonies on the military funerals of everybody who has served in the military, regardless of whether or not the deceased was Christian and with or without the consent of the family of the deceased. The three politicians stated their demands were a response to Veterans Affairs (VA) banning Christian prayers at military funerals, however, VA state this claim is "blatantly false" as VA respects a families "rights to pray however they choose at our national cemeteries".[4][5]"[/I]




Dante ----

Do you realize that this is an OBSCURE lawsuit involving a group of volunteers at a single VA Cemetery (plaintiffs) who argued that they wanted Christian verbiage (I have no idea how much) in all ceremonies. This was a private suit that I think the Congressmen merely COMMENTED on. It was kind of silly and I believe the suit lost. That's what happens; people have opinions/grievances, they file suit, and if it's silly they lose.

So, please - Dante - explain to me how this paired with a benevolent article about a committee investigating our DHS procedures after a terrorist attack is supposed to amount to a "point".

Are you against a Christian Congressman making a comment at an obscure court case?

I'd be more concerned if you linked to an article where this guy manipulated legislation, or was showing him to participate in illegal activity.

But a single comment on a private court case?

LOL. This is your 'knife fight"?

Man, you're making this too easy for me.


.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right Wing Republicans don't care about victims of terrorism as much as they do about tax cuts for billionaires. Need proof?

[youtube]Knqpgj0x7xY[/youtube]

Jon Kyl | Skeptical | 9/11 First Responders Bill | Mediaite

Kyl On 9/11 First Responders Bill: 'Why Would They Need $6 Billion?' | ThinkProgress

Kyl Denies Health Care For 9/11 Rescue Workers Because He Doesn't Want To 'Hurry' | ThinkProgress

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dainty has no integrity at all, he is abjectly partisan and is not adverse to just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

project much?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just after Obama politicized it.

...

You should ask yourself "why bother getting up in the morning?"

Why do you even post at all? You should ask yourself, "why bother telling the truth? Oh...yeah, it doesn't suit me."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dainty has no integrity at all, he is abjectly partisan and is not adverse to just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

project much?

Thing is, he's right, Dante.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

\
" McCaul, along with John Culberson and Ted Poe were attempting to remove the right of deceased soldiers families to..."
VA state this claim is "blatantly false" as VA respects a families "rights to pray however they choose at our national cemeteries"

 

[TemplarKormac]

Right Wing Republicans don't care about victims of terrorism as much as they do about tax cuts for billionaires. Need proof?

[youtube]Knqpgj0x7xY[/youtube]

Jon Kyl | Skeptical | 9/11 First Responders Bill | Mediaite

Kyl On 9/11 First Responders Bill: 'Why Would They Need $6 Billion?' | ThinkProgress

Kyl Denies Health Care For 9/11 Rescue Workers Because He Doesn't Want To 'Hurry' | ThinkProgress

Wait.. aren't you politicizing it? You're just as bad as Lakhota.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right Wing BallBoy TemplarKormac joins in without refuting anything?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right Wing Republicans don't care about victims of terrorism as much as they do about tax cuts for billionaires. Need proof?

[youtube]Knqpgj0x7xY[/youtube]

Jon Kyl | Skeptical | 9/11 First Responders Bill | Mediaite

Kyl On 9/11 First Responders Bill: 'Why Would They Need $6 Billion?' | ThinkProgress

Kyl Denies Health Care For 9/11 Rescue Workers Because He Doesn't Want To 'Hurry' | ThinkProgress

Wait.. aren't you politicizing it? You're just as bad as Lakhota.

can't refute or argue?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In December 2010, Media Matters for America released a leaked October 2009 e-mail between Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon and the network's senior producers, which seemed to issue directives slanting Fox News' coverage of President Barack Obama's health care reform efforts. In the e-mail, Sammon instructed producers to not use the phrase "public option" when discussing a key measure of President Obama's reform bill, and instead use the terms "government option" or "government-run health insurance", noting negative connotations; Sammon also suggested that the qualifier "so-called" be said before any proper mention of the public option. Another e-mail by Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente accepted Sammon's conditions. Critics claimed that Sammon took advice from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared on Hannity shortly before the e-mail was written and made the same suggestions in identifying the public option. Critics also noticed that reporters and panelists on Special Report with Bret Baier used the term "public option" before the e-mail was sent, but used the term "government option" immediately afterwards. Sammon, in an interview with Howard Kurtz for The Daily Beast, defended the directive and denied he was trying to skew Fox News' coverage.[73]

Later that month, Media Matters released an e-mail by Sammon from December 2009, in which he pressured Fox News reporters to include the views of climate change skeptics in light of the Climategate controversy.

can't expect people who live in a bubble to realize this kind of shit just isn't acceptable

 

[KevinWestern]

...

\
" McCaul, along with John Culberson and Ted Poe were attempting to remove the right of deceased soldiers families to..."
VA state this claim is "blatantly false" as VA respects a families "rights to pray however they choose at our national cemeteries"

...

\
" McCaul, along with John Culberson and Ted Poe were attempting to remove the right of deceased soldiers families to..."
VA state this claim is "blatantly false" as VA respects a families "rights to pray however they choose at our national cemeteries"

That’s it? A repost? No original thought or insight into the words I said?

Let me restate.

The Congressmen were merely commenting (yes, commenting) on an obscure lawsuit involving a single VA cemetery. The lawsuit lost and that was the end of it. This is what people do in their localities; some places are more Christian than others.

The Congressmen wasn’t pushing for legislation, the Congressmen wasn’t even a plaintiff in the lawsuit. He merely commented on an obscure local lawsuit. How does this tiny moment of opinion sharing back in 2011, on a local lawsuit, in any way correlate to whether or not he will do an ethical job in the committee?

AGAIN:

Has he been convicted of fraudulent activity? Is he known to be unethical when it comes to his job at Congress? You’ve provided us with NOTHING.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

In December 2010, Media Matters for America released a leaked October 2009 e-mail between Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon and the network's senior producers, which seemed to issue directives slanting Fox News' coverage of President Barack Obama's health care reform efforts. In the e-mail, Sammon instructed producers to not use the phrase "public option" when discussing a key measure of President Obama's reform bill, and instead use the terms "government option" or "government-run health insurance", noting negative connotations; Sammon also suggested that the qualifier "so-called" be said before any proper mention of the public option. Another e-mail by Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente accepted Sammon's conditions. Critics claimed that Sammon took advice from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared on Hannity shortly before the e-mail was written and made the same suggestions in identifying the public option. Critics also noticed that reporters and panelists on Special Report with Bret Baier used the term "public option" before the e-mail was sent, but used the term "government option" immediately afterwards. Sammon, in an interview with Howard Kurtz for The Daily Beast, defended the directive and denied he was trying to skew Fox News' coverage.[73]

Later that month, Media Matters released an e-mail by Sammon from December 2009, in which he pressured Fox News reporters to include the views of climate change skeptics in light of the Climategate controversy.

can't expect people who live in a bubble to realize this kind of shit just isn't acceptable

Speaking of living in a bubble, are we going to also talk about how President Obama made no objection to huge, corporate pharmaceutical companies being allowed to draft giant swaths of the healthcare bill (conflict of interests, anyone?).

Are we also going to talk about how the Democrats held numerous secretive meetings regarding the Healthcare bill to the point that C-SPAN – a well-respected, non-partisan organization – had to call them out on it?

What were you saying about that bubble again?


.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Right Wing BallBoy TemplarKormac joins in without refuting anything?

There's nothing to refute. You cite a comedian as a source of news. Idiot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Right Wing Republicans don't care about victims of terrorism as much as they do about tax cuts for billionaires. Need proof?

[youtube]Knqpgj0x7xY[/youtube]

Jon Kyl | Skeptical | 9/11 First Responders Bill | Mediaite

Kyl On 9/11 First Responders Bill: 'Why Would They Need $6 Billion?' | ThinkProgress

Kyl Denies Health Care For 9/11 Rescue Workers Because He Doesn't Want To 'Hurry' | ThinkProgress

Wait.. aren't you politicizing it? You're just as bad as Lakhota.

can't refute or argue?

Jon Stewart? Didn't I just kick ClosedCaption's butt for this nonsense? No, I don't argue satire. Comedy isn't journalism. If you can't get that through your thick liberal skull, you need help, badly. And two of your links are from Think Progress, so what makes you think I will even take you seriously enough to attempt an argument in the first place?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Republicans in US House Demand Boston Bombing Be Politicized

Yes, we know.

We see examples of it in this very forum.

It’s both pathetic and reprehensible.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

\
" McCaul, along with John Culberson and Ted Poe were attempting to remove the right of deceased soldiers families to..."
VA state this claim is "blatantly false" as VA respects a families "rights to pray however they choose at our national cemeteries"

...

\
" McCaul, along with John Culberson and Ted Poe were attempting to remove the right of deceased soldiers families to..."
VA state this claim is "blatantly false" as VA respects a families "rights to pray however they choose at our national cemeteries"

That’s it? A repost? No original thought or insight into the words I said?

Let me restate.

The Congressmen were merely commenting (yes, commenting) on an obscure lawsuit involving a single VA cemetery. The lawsuit lost and that was the end of it. This is what people do in their localities; some places are more Christian than others.

The Congressmen wasn’t pushing for legislation, the Congressmen wasn’t even a plaintiff in the lawsuit. He merely commented on an obscure local lawsuit. How does this tiny moment of opinion sharing back in 2011, on a local lawsuit, in any way correlate to whether or not he will do an ethical job in the committee?

AGAIN:

Has he been convicted of fraudulent activity? Is he known to be unethical when it comes to his job at Congress? You’ve provided us with NOTHING.

"Ultimately the investigation will assess how our efforts have evolved to meet the dynamic terrorist threat of foreign-inspired attacks on our soil, and what changes may be necessary to protect the homeland," Committee Chairman Michael McCaul said in a statement. Congressional committee calls hearing on Boston bombings | Reuters

Controversy

In August 2011 AlterNet reported that McCaul, along with John Culberson and Ted Poe were attempting to remove the right of deceased soldiers families to choose which prayers, if any, were to be read at a soldiers funeral.[4][5] The three politicians were said to be attempting to impose Christian ceremonies on the military funerals of everybody who has served in the military, regardless of whether or not the deceased was Christian and with or without the consent of the family of the deceased. The three politicians stated their demands were a response to Veterans Affairs (VA) banning Christian prayers at military funerals, however, VA state this claim is "blatantly false" as VA respects a families "rights to pray however they choose at our national cemeteries". Michael McCaul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proven to be an asshole: see above links. Why would anyone believe what
This Right Wing Piece of Shit, Michael Thomas McCaul, Sr says in link #1 when link #2 shows his lack of credibility and integrity?

An asshole does not have to be arrested and charged and convicted to be proven an asshole.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In December 2010, Media Matters for America released a leaked October 2009 e-mail between Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon and the network's senior producers, which seemed to issue directives slanting Fox News' coverage of President Barack Obama's health care reform efforts. In the e-mail, Sammon instructed producers to not use the phrase "public option" when discussing a key measure of President Obama's reform bill, and instead use the terms "government option" or "government-run health insurance", noting negative connotations; Sammon also suggested that the qualifier "so-called" be said before any proper mention of the public option. Another e-mail by Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente accepted Sammon's conditions. Critics claimed that Sammon took advice from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared on Hannity shortly before the e-mail was written and made the same suggestions in identifying the public option. Critics also noticed that reporters and panelists on Special Report with Bret Baier used the term "public option" before the e-mail was sent, but used the term "government option" immediately afterwards. Sammon, in an interview with Howard Kurtz for The Daily Beast, defended the directive and denied he was trying to skew Fox News' coverage.[73]

Later that month, Media Matters released an e-mail by Sammon from December 2009, in which he pressured Fox News reporters to include the views of climate change skeptics in light of the Climategate controversy.

can't expect people who live in a bubble to realize this kind of shit just isn't acceptable

Speaking of living in a bubble, are we going to also talk about how President Obama made no objection to huge, corporate pharmaceutical companies being allowed to draft giant swaths of the healthcare bill (conflict of interests, anyone?).

Are we also going to talk about how the Democrats held numerous secretive meetings regarding the Healthcare bill to the point that C-SPAN – a well-respected, non-partisan organization – had to call them out on it?

What were you saying about that bubble again?

Nope, because that has been spoken to before, by the left, some liberals, some conservatives and progressives who distrust Big Pharma. You'd know these facts if you stepped outside of the Right Wing World Bubble. and btw:

It is how legislation is written. There is NO conflict of interest although there may be an appearance of one to people as ignorant and foolish as you. Drafts are drafts. Congress gets to rewrite and debate bills in conference.

Secretive meetings that everyone knew about? Meetings behind closed doors? Maybe, but secret?

You are as shrill as the far left

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right Wing BallBoy TemplarKormac joins in without refuting anything?

There's nothing to refute. You cite a comedian as a source of news. Idiot.

Actually, the source cited in the OP is Reuters. Any comedic source linked to is about commentary and not news. Just thought you maybe want to be brought up on the context of things.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wait.. aren't you politicizing it? You're just as bad as Lakhota.

can't refute or argue?

Jon Stewart? Didn't I just kick ClosedCaption's butt for this nonsense? No, I don't argue satire. Comedy isn't journalism. If you can't get that through your thick liberal skull, you need help, badly. And two of your links are from Think Progress, so what makes you think I will even take you seriously enough to attempt an argument in the first place?

If you can't refute political satire and commentary, how the fuck would you know what journalism is?

Dante doesn't watch Jon Stewart. The source video is from a web search. Try refuting the content and not the source

Oh yeah, you can't


sorry