(V): And the beat goes on. There is so much corruption and denial. Makes one's head spin!

Btw.. if you happen to (and it was funny) watch last nights "Question Time" ...

DO NOT play the "answer the question" (tm) drinking game. So many times were questions unanswered or having to be repeated you will not last the first 30 minutes!!

The 'blame game' option is not advised.

Today (and yesterday ) starring on "Question time" and other news programs, papers and bloggs...

... How the NHS watchdog tried to cover up it's own failings regarding the investigation of unusually high baby death figures at a hospital... names have been named and shamed. Heads have gone.

... How banks were able to use the "Murder on the Orient Express" defence and claim they did not know they were laundering money for Mexican drug cartels.

.... therefore no-one can be held criminally responsible even though deaths have resulted.

What about the heads of the depts? Some VP's??

A new law will be introduced to cover such defences.

Golly!!

Our government says it's ok. We are not being spied upon by them, and they've managed to get an agreement by the UK's Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies to sign up to a tax evasion clampdown.

That's Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Anguilla, Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

But the proposed register of companies, revealing the true owners, may not go ahead. Let alone be available to the public for scrutiny, so we get to know who are the cheaters.

..........well.. confirmable proof. Most are already known, certain groups of citizens in the UK take the time to note who's who!!

N' now it looks like the UK's GCHQ used the USA's abuse of the Patriot act to spy on US citizens to illegally spy on UK citizens. The UK government tried to get the power to collect all our web browsing data but couldn't get it through Parliament. The Liberal democrats would not vote for it killing the idea.

... It seems the Data Protection act means didly squat. But I knew that anyway...

... It's only an 'act' :)

Artful Dodger: On "Question time" last night that was mentioned. More talk was on the latest batch of "cash for questions".. paid lobbying to you. Yet another sting operation was carried out by the Sunday Times and BBC with hidden cameras.

All broadcast on "Panorama" last night.

Funny, you'd thought after the last time it was done our "Lords" and MP's would be more careful about being caught with their heads well and truly in the trough.

(V): The US is falling apart. What next from Washington?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

"The US Center for Constitutional Rights said it appeared to be "the broadest surveillance order to ever have been issued"."

funny.

Iamon lyme: well gold fish swimming in an aquarium always have poop coming out their butts. Mermaids too ill bet. They are related biologically. Sort of

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.

Iamon lyme: In the Animal Planet presentation they are an ugly creature. And they don't do much. They play with dolphins, spear fish, and poop a lot in the sea.

Iamon lyme: That web page is part of the hoax.

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?

Iamon lyme: Terrorist mermaids?

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.

What a farce. So obvious too. So why are so many people actually believing that mermaids are real?

This site was recommended by the Mermaid show: http://believeinmermaids.com/



People at work won't shut up about it. They are believers and I told them they were not thinking clearly.

Anyone else see that stupid program?

Iamon lyme: In your mind?? lol ;P

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

Iamon lyme: It's ok... I've adopted the standard of not answering as laid out in "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister". Also with contributions from 'Prime Ministers question time' and Saturday and Sunday politics shows where saying nothing is the norm...

.. also, it seems to be the standard here.

It'd be nice if that changed... a Common principle.

(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?

Iamon lyme: Hey..... I'm just following your logic dude. lol

(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.

Iamon lyme: That liberals don't think... Or just in your mind they don't.

... Conservatives don't think in your mind also...

Fascinating... Your mind is completely free, unless those damn liberals take away that liberty or the conservatives make it smaller.

"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 humans don't think in my mind. Neither do feminists.

"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."

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

*whistles*

(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.

Iamon lyme: Yes... but it's hardly a good example of 'mysticism', and the original telling of the event made it look like you met him in some 'mystic Christian' church lol

"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."

He didn't give them, he just showed them they already had it in them. In some respects an analogy of someone who's confused about how to interpret their emotions and feelings correctly and of the over coming of the likes of panic attacks and other fear/flight driven feelings.

"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!!

"No one needs to be a so called 'Washington insider' to see which way the wind is blowing."

Your a tornado conspirator? Obama caused it in your mind???

(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.

"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."

Is this the way all Liberals think in your mind.. even the ones who serve in the armed forces?

"No, I didn't say that."

"I assume you are asking me where did I learn about mysticism. My first encounter with mysticism is experience with it. When I started believing in God I went to various churches and meeting places. I wasn't aware of how many different denominations and cults there were claiming to be Christ centered, or included Christ in their philosophy. One time I talked to someone who started off claiming to have an IQ of 170. That should have been my first clue that something wasn't right with him. He told me the Bible was one of five books (representing five major religions) he reads, because they all (collectively) represented what he believed."

....your words... Maybe you could clarify.

(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.

Iamon lyme: Oh... You said he was a mystic.... you didna say he was a 60/70's hippie!! lol

"No, they were voting against other things in the bill."

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

"So now you think I'M dumb, eh?"

Noooooo I think what you are telling me happened regarding cuts to the defence of embassy's is dumb. $530 million in cuts in two years in a world where a certain war etiquette such as existed in the cold war no longer exists.. is dumb.

"and then we were expected to believe a youtube video was to blame."

No... you say you are. The rest of the demo was based on the video I believe.

"Cowardice, and lack of common sense and integrity is to blame."

Like I said, cutting down on funding is dumb.

(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.

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

I think it was the body within the US gov looking out for security of embassy's etc... At the time of the last budget setting for the likes.

Individual names.. I can't remember.. Maybe it was Mr E J Fudd??

"If republicans aren't to blame for the screw up in Benghazi, then what exactly is your point?"

Point!

"And why would anyone be telling republicans we need to bolster defenses?"

Because the Republicans were voting against more funds.

"I may have mentioned it. Is that what you're talking about?"

Yep.

"One time I talked to someone who started off claiming to have an IQ of 170. That should have been my first clue that something wasn't right with him. He told me the Bible was one of five books (representing five major religions) he reads, because they all (collectively) represented what he believed. I told Mr IQ of 170 it didn't make sense for him to include the Bible in that group, and explained why. And all he needed to do to see if this was true or not was to read what his Bible says about it. Mr IQ of 170 didn't like that, not one bit... because I was right. My average bowling score at that time was well over 200, so take THAT Mr IQ of 170!"

Sorry, it was a mystic church.

Politics (Iamon lyme, 2013-01-08 21:25:07)

(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.

Iamon lyme: I wasn't.

" So where do you see liberals worrying over cuts to the military?"

I'm not looking for them to be worrying. I'd be worried if the USA does a turn around on finally accepting it cannot afford to be at war as much as it has been since the 1950's. Or more killings like that which happened yesterday in the UK.

"What bloke?"

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

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.

Iamon lyme: Don't need to. You'll just say I'm being dumb again.

Like that bloke said you were.. the one who said he knew better than you.

Think about it, don't react though. ;P

(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.

Iamon lyme: I don't know. I wasn't there. It's like with talk on how a UK minister had a mistress.. The French perspective was "he wouldn't be trusted if he didn't have one".

"I might still be saying dumb things like "...the republicans were told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places.""

So you are behaving the same, just switched parties??

... I woulda changed the way I was behaving if I was supposed to be different!

(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."

Iamon lyme: I know. I didn't need you to tell me that!! ;P

"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."

Yeah I know, the republicans were told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places.

Can I concentrate on that? Is it ok??

Btw... Is this how you reacted to the Watergate scandal?

(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.

Iamon lyme: My start was....

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

.... your words. I then quoted two articles that state that Nixon was probably not part of the espionage. But, he tried to cover it up.

Hence my conclusion "The historians say.... he did know!!" .. debunking your claim he wasn't involved in the cover up.

Clear?