Key Democrats Turn on Kerry/Obama and OPEN THREAD

This thread is open for whatever topics participants wish to discuss. Also, from FoxNews:

Secretary of State John Kerry is under fire for his blunt speech taking aim at the Israeli government — with criticism coming from not only congressional Republicans, but also from members of his own party.

The defiant secretary of state used the speech Wednesday to defend the decision by the Obama administration to abstain on a U.N. Security Council resolution calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem a violation of international law. The abstention allowed the measure to pass Friday – enraging the Israelis and drawing a strong rebuke from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

That abstention was opposed by a number of Democratic lawmakers, including incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY., as well as Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Chris Coons, D-Del., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

In his speech defending the abstention, Kerry rebuked what he called the “settler agenda,” which he claimed is hurting prospects for peace.

“Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect,” Kerry said. He called the current government the “most right-wing” in Israel’s history and claimed its agenda is “driven by the most extreme elements.”

[…]

However, Kerry’s words were also criticized by senior members of his own party, with Schumer accusing him of emboldening extremism.

“While Secretary Kerry mentioned Gaza in his speech, he seems to have forgotten the history of the settlements in Gaza, where the Israeli government forced settlers to withdraw from all settlements and the Palestinians responded by sending rockets into Israel,” Schumer said.

“While he may not have intended it, I fear Secretary Kerry, in his speech and action at the [United Nations], has emboldened extremists on both sides.”

Some high-profile Democrats, such as House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., backed Kerry. Pelosi called Kerry’s speech “a reaffirmation of America’s commitment to a secure, Jewish and democratic Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.”

But Rep. Eliot Engel, D-NY., accused Kerry on beating up on Israel while laying off the Palestinians.

“The two state solution is the only way to get peace but what Secretary Kerry did was just beat up on Israel in a disproportionate way [and] sort of gloss over the terrorism that the Palestinians have used throughout these years,” Engel, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Fox and Friends Thursday.

Engel also said he would be prepared to work with President-elect Trump on strengthening the U.S. relationship with Israel in the future.

“I think support for Israel in Congress is bipartisan and should remain bipartisan and if President Trump is working with us on Israel, I’m perfectly happy to work with the President of the United States,” he said.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners December 23, 2016
  • Brett Buck

    These guys are more than a little slow on the uptake. This has been going on for years – just about everything Obama and Clinton/Kerry said about middle-east policy has taken Israel as the bad guy, and supported the terrorists.

    • Retired military

      Yep. They talk about Israel like they talk about the US.

      • Brett Buck

        They preach tolerance, but define themselves by the people they hate.

        • Hank_M

          I’ve never seen it put better.
          I’m going to use that sentence in the future.

  • Retired military

    Palestinians don’t want peace. When people realize it then the whole situation becomes clear.

    • I figured once Arafat was gone, the Palestinian people would have a chance for peace. But they’ve never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, so to speak.

      And shit like what Kerry and Obama have done doesn’t help.

      • pennywit

        That chance was Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the only Palestinian politician who seemed interested in building a Palestinian state (as opposed to tearing down Israel). He got kicked out of office for his trouble.

      • Brett Buck

        For the most part, it’s working out well from their perspective. Others have pointed this out for years, but every time peace or a solution is at hand, they come up with another pre-condition that cannot be met. It has worked in the sense that they gain concessions, but then never have to live up to their obligations. They just nudge their way along, playing the long game.

        They could have peace tomorrow if they just admitted the right of Israel to exist (and that “right of return” therefore doesn’t exist).

        They could also have peace and their own homeland tomorrow if one of their supposed “brothers” just carved out a country out of their abundant free space. Oddly. however, that never seems to happen. The rest of the Arab world uses the palestinians like the democrats use minorities, keep them continuously aggrieved, never really work towards a solution, so that their plight can be used for political purposes.

        If the palestinian issue were resolved, the rest of the Arab world would have no plausible excuse for their hatred of the Jews aside from religious fanaticism, and that doesn’t make for a good story in the Western world.

  • Scalia

    Just in, according to Reuters:

    The United States expelled 35 Russian diplomats and closed two Russian compounds in New York and Maryland in response to a campaign of harassment against American diplomats in Moscow, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.

    The move against the diplomats from the Russian embassy in Washington and consulate in San Francisco is part of a series of actions announced on Thursday to punish Russia for a campaign of intimidation of American diplomats in Moscow and interference in the U.S. election.

    The Obama administration was also announcing on Thursday a series of retaliatory measures against Russia for hacking into U.S. political institutions and individuals and leaking information to help President-elect Donald Trump and other Republican candidates, two U.S. officials said.

    Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20, has called for better relations with Russia. It was not clear if he will be able to immediately overturn the measures announced on Thursday.

    The Russian diplomats would have 72 hours to leave the United States, the official said. Access to the two compounds, which are used by Russian officials for intelligence gathering, will be denied to all Russian officials as of noon on Friday, the senior U.S. official added.

    • Brett Buck

      While I am 100% certain that the Russians attempt to dabble in *every* election, everywhere (just as I presume we do), Obama and Co. are taking the scapegoat game to a new level. They can do whatever they want with more-or-less no consequence aside from scorching the earth. I think it is perfectly clear at this point that the sources of the leaks were the justifiably disgruntled Bernie supporters in the DNC. But of course, the truth doesn’t matter as far as the current administration is concerned.

    • Hank_M

      Barry seems pretty tough when he won’t have to bear the consequences of his actions.

      Don’t think there’s ever been a President who’s thrown a tantrum just before leaving.

      ps. Barack, Jimmy says thanks…..again.

  • Scalia

    MSNBC’s Harwood blames white fear for electoral losses.

    Given that Trump flipped six states that voted for Obama, I’d say that Harwood’s head is buried in the sand. However, I hope he and those like him keep believing that. It’ll make the next elections easier.

    • It’s not sand he’s burried his head in. He’s in need of a plexiglass navel.

  • Scalia

    Reacting to the deaths of Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds, Charlie Sheen prays that God will kill Trump:
    https://twitter.com/charliesheen/status/814303837225762816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    • pennywit

      #tigersblood #winning

      • Brett Buck

        #drugaddledasshole?

    • Walter_Cronanty

      I’ll be holding my breath for the SJWs to condemn that tweet like they did Steve Martin’s tweet about Carrie Fisher.

    • Paul Hooson

      That’s so wrong and disgusting. But, Charlie has no moral compass, so we should expect as much from him. He never fails to deliver the outrageous.

  • Scalia

    North Carolina’s strong 2016 economy looks to continue in 2017:

    N.C. State University economist Michael Walden predicts that the state will pull further ahead of the rest of the country in the coming year.

    To be precise, North Carolina’s urban centers – with plenty of high-tech jobs and advanced degrees and population growth – will outperform the national average. In an annual forecast issued Tuesday, Walden said he expects the unemployment rates in the Triangle and Asheville to fall below 4 percent next year, breaking a barrier not seen since well before the 2008 recession.

    In 2016, North Carolina performed above the national average in key economic measures, such as gross domestic product, labor force expansion, payroll jobs and inflation-adjusted wages. And Walden said the growth will be even faster in 2017. The main reason: population growth. Walden said U.S. Census forecasts show North Carolina’s population increasing 30 percent faster than the national population next year.

    Walden predicts the state will add more than 100,000 jobs in 2017 – with the most jobs being added on the high and low ends of the pay scale.

    The economic wild card in the coming year will be the economic policies of the Trump Administration. Business leaders expect a pro-business push to cut taxes, reduce regulations and investment in public infrastructure. But economic nationalism could have harmful consequences, Walden notes. For example, limiting foreign imports and promoting domestic production could result in other countries retaliating by means of tariffs or lawsuits to cut their purchases of U.S. goods.

    Walden said North Carolina could see huge benefits if Trump makes good on his promise to boost military spending and promote domestic energy production. Such policies could stimulate economic activity related to military personnel and installations, which would disproportionately benefit North Carolina, home to Ft. Bragg, the largest military base in the world, as well as other military bases.

    Offshore oil drilling could create 17,000 permanent jobs, Walden estimates, as the largest quantity of undersea oil deposits along the eastern seaboard are off the coast of North Carolina. However, the energy-related job gains could offset existing jobs in tourism and fishing, Walden noted.

  • yetanotherjohn

    Gee. If only America would elect someone who wouldn’t assume terrorist states (e.g. Iran) or terrorist wanna-be states (e.g. Palestinians) were’t the good guys and the one stable democracy in the region (e.g. Israel), wasn’t the bad guys. Oh right, we have, but January 20th just hasn’t gotten here yet.

    It turns put this actually had a purpose. Obama would play bad cop, yell at Israel and then Hillary would play good cop and convince Israel to commit suicide by two state solution where one state wants to wipe out the other state. A funny thing happened on the way to liberal dominance … Trump. No one in the Obama administration was smart enough to recognize that things have changed since Trump was elected.

    So now the Obama administration lies about what happened, liberals like Schumer and Debbie who need Jewish votes to get elected ‘tsk tsk’ and pretend they care, and democrats who can buy a clue what the election means try to get on the other side of the equation (e.g. Manchin).

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-the-us-came-to-abstain-on-a-un-resolution-condemning-israeli-settlements/2016/12/28/fed102ee-cd38-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.3276a612cbd6

  • Scalia

    U.S. excluded from Syrian peace agreement:

    BEIRUT, Lebanon — Russia, Iran and Turkey met in Moscow on Tuesday to work toward a political accord to end Syria’s nearly six-year war, leaving the United States on the sidelines as the countries sought to drive the conflict in ways that serve their interests.

    Secretary of State John Kerry was not invited. Nor was the United Nations consulted.

    With pro-government forces having made critical gains on the ground, the new alignment and the absence of any Western powers at the table all but guarantee that President Bashar al-Assad will continue to rule Syria under any resulting agreement, despite President Obama’s declaration more than five years ago that Mr. Assad had lost legitimacy and had to be removed.

    Mr. Obama’s reluctance to back that demand with more involvement as the war escalated leaves Washington with little leverage on a geopolitical crisis as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to take office.

    • pennywit

      IMO, President Obama’s biggest weakness was negotiation, whether with Congress or with foreign powers. The president always made it clear that he was automatically taking certain things off the table and wouldn’t use them, at all. Every time he did that, he hamstrung his ability to force the other side in a negotiation to concede to him.

      • Hank_M

        Never thought I’d see the words “Obama” and negotiation” in the same sentence. Kinda like the words “Clinton” and “Honesty”.

      • jim_m

        0bama didn’t need to negotiate. Remember, when asked to negotiate with the GOP his response was “I won”. No one of his level has ever behaved as such an outright asshole.

      • Retired military

        He didn’t even try to negotiate.

      • Scalia

        Obama goes low while Putin goes high:

        We regard the recent unfriendly steps taken by the outgoing US administration as provocative and aimed at further weakening the Russia-US relationship. This runs contrary to the fundamental interests of both the Russian and American people. Considering the global security responsibilities of Russia and the United States, this is also damaging to international relations as a whole.

        As it proceeds from international practice, Russia has reasons to respond in kind. Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.

        The diplomats who are returning to Russia will spend the New Year’s holidays with their families and friends. We will not create any problems for US diplomats. We will not expel anyone. We will not prevent their families and children from using their traditional leisure sites during the New Year’s holidays. Moreover, I invite all children of US diplomats accredited in Russia to the New Year and Christmas children’s parties in the Kremlin.

        It is regrettable that the Obama Administration is ending its term in this manner. Nevertheless, I offer my New Year greetings to President Obama and his family.

        My season’s greetings also to President-elect Donald Trump and the American people.

        I wish all of you happiness and prosperity.

        • pennywit

          A very fine piece of manipulation by President Putin. I honestly admire it.

          • pennywit

            I hope our incoming president is similarly clever.

    • jim_m

      WHy would you include a government that betrays every ally it has?

      Oh, and Russia has already gone on record saying that as soon as Trump is sworn in they will be inviting the US to join in the peace talks.

      0bama is the biggest threat to world peace in 70+ years

      • Vagabond661

        Kinda of ironic considering who won the Nobel Peace Prize

        • jim_m

          It was an affirmative action prize. They also gave one of those pieces of crap to Arafat, the world’s first professional terrorist.

          The one thing that 0bama and Arafat have in common: They are both rabid anti-Semites.

    • Jwb10001

      This is how you “lead from behind”

  • pennywit

    It’s a bit late for Obama or Kerry to offer a vision for Mideast peace. Considering the longer-term implications, on this issue I think that Obama should yield to the incoming Trump administration.

    And I can’t believe I just said that.

    • yetanotherjohn

      Its worse than that. Imagine your ideal solution for mideast peace. Doesn’t matter what it is, just fix it firmly in your mind. Now imagine Israel asking for US guarantees in exchange for whatever you are asking them to do for your ideal peace solution.
      Now imagine Israel actually trusting the US for those guarantees. Poof. Your ideal peace solution just went up in smoke.
      It would be hard enough to get someone to agree to a third party to be their guarantor, but how could they trust someone who has already proven that a few votes changing here or there and you could elect someone who has such a naive view of world diplomacy they would happily stab you in the back if reality impinged on their fantasy.
      No more gullible an enemy, no more fickle friend. That is Obama’s “Smart Diplomacy” legacy.

    • It’s not about being a bit late, it’s about trying to destroy international relations possibilities for the next administration.

      If they couldn’t make the peace process in the ME work, they’ll be damned if they’ll leave anything salvageable for the next administration. So I’m expecting more crap – Obama’s a petty, spiteful man and he can still FUBAR a lot before he leaves.

    • Scalia

      With literally just a few short weeks to go in his presidency, how is one to rationally interpret these events? From a liberal perspective, how would one spin this?

      • pennywit

        Hell if I know.

        • Scalia

          The questions are really rhetorical. I think the answers are obvious.

        • Brucehenry

          As a much younger person than most of the commentariat here, you wouldn’t necessarily be aware that other presidents have allowed UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel to pass, not just once but many many times.

          But these other guys know better.

          http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/if-obama-treated-israel-like-reagan-did-he-d-be-impeached-1.400542

          I wonder what made them so outraged now, while they weren’t outraged then?

        • As a much younger person than most of the commentariat here, you…

          …need to be advised that Brucehenry is an old fool who grew old without ever gaining a scintilla of wisdom.

          • Brucehenry

            So read the Haaretz link, dipshit, and then explain to this old fool why you don’t remember Reagan as the man who condemned Israel for destroying the Osirak reactor. The man who sold high-tech weaponry to Saudi Arabia despite pleas from Menachem Begin not to do so. The man who embargoed the sale of F-16s to Israel. The man who publicly and officially called many times for the settlements to be frozen.

            And tell me what your reaction would have been to the announcement that Obama was doing any of these things.

          • I was not corresponding with you, fool. Your input is neither welcome nor useful.

          • Brucehenry

            So you have no answer. Got it.

          • No, I decline to engage due to the proclivities that Scalia and Jim document below.

    • jim_m

      This was a petty and spiteful act from a small bigot, who wants the same
      ends as the palestinians: The destruction of the Jewish state and the
      death of every Jew in Israel.

      The whole purpose of this was to try to guarantee that Israel would be destroyed because it sets them up for an endless series of punitive actions for the UN.

      0bama was doing his best to make that happen, he hates Israel and hates Netanyahu. How big of a hypocrite must leftists be that they support 0bama when he sends his campaign team to Israel to try to help Netanyahu’s opponents defeat him in the election, and yet still be outraged at the fake story that Russia intervened in our election here?

      This is a petty an personal hissy fit from someone who will go down as the biggest failure as a statesman since Neville Chamberlain.

      • Brett Buck

        Chamberlin was a bumbler with good intentions. Obama is malignant.

        • jim_m

          Chamberlain believed he was serving the nation. 0bama believes the nation should serve him.

  • pennywit

    See, this is why we should have elected Gary Johnson. He’d bring in Abbas, and Putin, and Netanyahu, and Assad, and everyone else. There’d be an all-night meeting in the White House. Lots of smoke coming out of the Oval Office. Then at the end, everybody emerge, they’d be friends, and there’d be an agreement for peace in the Middle East. And an equitable division of Chee-tos and other snack foods.

    • jim_m

      Johnson would have been nearly as incompetent as 0bama, with the only benefit being that he lacked the epic ego that 0bama has.

    • Vagabond661

      Didn’t he think Aleppo was Groucho’s brother?

      • pennywit

        That’s the beauty of hemp-powered diplomacy. After a couple days with the “peace pipe,” Bashar al-Assad won’t know what Aleppo is, either.

  • Vagabond661

    23 days…..and counting.

  • Brucehenry

    Geez y’all need to read more widely instead of flocking to the same sources where you all say the same shit you’ve been telling each other for years.

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/there-will-never-be-israel-palestinian-peace-settlement
    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/john-kerry-is-right-about-middle-east-peace-but-it-hardly-matters-at-this-point/

    Yes the second link references the first one.

    • jim_m

      0bama and Kerry just guaranteed the death of any 2-state settlement as this has only emboldened the palis to commit more atrocities. Of course that was the whole point and why you and execrable people like you on the left support it.

    • Vagabond661

      How long has the country Palestine been in existance?

      • Brucehenry

        How long has “South Sudan” been in existence? How about Bangladesh? Iraq? Nigeria? Indonesia? Belarus?

        Nation-states are a modern construct. Over a hundred of them have come into existence in the last 100 years. Some have a long historical basis. Some are the by-products of colonialism.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    One sentence in Kerry’s speech re: the UN resolution and the US’s refusal to veto same encapsulates and bookends Obama’s entire political career: “I am compelled to respond today that the United States did, in fact, vote in accordance with our values,….”

    Of course, that statement is a lie. The US did not vote on the UN resolution. When called upon to vote, the US “abstained.”

    Just as his profession of belief “that marriage is a union between a man and a woman” was a lie , just as his statement that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, was a lie, so was John Kerry’s statement that our “vote” was in “accordance with our values.”

    What these lies have in common is that they were made solely for the sake of political expediency. Indeed, if the UN resolution was “in keeping with our values,” why didn’t we vote in favor of the resolution?

    Instead, Obama did what he did when he began his political career as a lowly State Senator in Illinois, voting “present” 129 times – refusing to take a stand – all the time hoping that his duplicity will somehow hide his ignominy.

    • jim_m

      One has to have values in order to vote according to them. Unless, of course, you value anti-Semitism, which is not what America values but is certainly what the coastal elites that vote for 0bama and Kerry believe in.

      I would also argue that 0bama is not as duplicitous as he is cowardly. He refused to stand for what he believed in for 7 years, 11 months. Only now that his Presidency has been completely repudiated is he now standing like a petulant child and being honest about who and what he is.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        You make a good point – how about he’s duplicitous and cowardly? One thing for sure, he’s an Alinskyite to the core.

        Had Alinsky been Muslim, we would call it taqiyya.

  • Paul Hooson

    I certainly applaud my fellow Jews for voicing their opposition to this abstention rather than veto vote. We need to stand by Israel as our friend regardless. – But, the expansion of settlements has now moved Mahmoud Abbas to a position that he is willing to return to the peace talks if there is a freeze on new settlement building, so perhaps this has been smart politics on behalf of Netanyahu.

    John Kerry is part Jewish, but has been disappointing to me with his support of the Iran nuclear deal, which is no good deal at all, and his support of this abstention vote in the U.N.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      “John Kerry is part Jewish,…” As far as I know, Noam Chomsky is fully Jewish. How’s that working out for you?

    • jim_m

      So? Is your point that because someone has certain genetics that they are somehow supposed to think a certain way?

      Go read the Old Testament and see how often God is disappointed with the Jewish people. You will find that Kerry is not alone in being a disappointment.

      • Paul Hooson

        I think that John Kerry and the Obama Administration had a misguided sense of paternalism in dealing with Israel, somehow thinking they better knew what was in Israel’s interest than the government of Israel somehow did.

        • Scalia

          Does your ignorance know no bound?

          Psa 103:8 The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
          Psa 103:9 He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.
          Psa 103:10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
          Psa 103:11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
          Psa 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
          Psa 103:13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.
          Psa 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

          There is a world of difference between human frailty and deliberately rebelling against God. I’ve given you this example before, but you’ve typically forgotten it: When you hire a typist, you know in advance that your typist will make mistakes. A human being cannot avoid making typos, but you expect h/er to be as accurate as possible. On the other hand, if s/he deliberately made errors, especially to make you look bad, you have no choice but to fire h/er.

          It’s one thing for you to live like a pig. It’s another altogether for you to malign both God and His word in your disgusting attempt to justify your rebellion.

          • Paul Hooson

            It is so good to have a long-suffering God like this, because humans have to be heart-breaking to this God with their shortcomings as well as open rebellions.

          • Scalia

            Now you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can’t keep track of your own argument, let alone mine.

            By the way, there’s a flip side:

            Num 16:29 If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the LORD hath not sent me.
            Num 16:30 But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.
            Num 16:31 And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them:
            Num 16:32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.
            Num 16:33 They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.
            Num 16:34 And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also.
            Num 16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

            Yes, God is merciful, and none of us can stand before Him without it, but deliberate rebellion should never pawned off as simple human frailty.

          • Apparently not.

        • jim_m

          Paul, Kerry is not a Jew and Jewish tradition declares it so.

          Kerry’s paternal grandparents were Jewish and converted to Catholicism Kerry himself was raised Catholic. Since Jewish identity passes through the maternal line and not the paternal, Kerry is not a Jew by either ancestry or by practice and upbringing.

          I don’t know who put it in your tiny mind that Kerry was a Jew but the fact is that he is not, his family has repudiated that faith and there has never been any sign of that changing.

  • jim_m

    We see 0bama now as the complete unvarnished truth of who he is: A childish fool, utterly convinced in his complete superiority over all others and unwilling to accept that he has been played the fool by foreign leaders and totally embarrassed at home, leaving a legacy of failure unrivaled in American history.

    And yes I am including in my consideration things like Little Big Horn, The Bay of Pigs, Somalia and the Blackhawk down episode, Vietnam, The ending of WWI and Wilson’s abrogation of his responsibility allowing the asinine and one sided Treaty of Versailles that lead directly to the rise of Adolf Hitler. The last is telling as I expect that 0bama’s clueless and feckless foreign policy will lead to a major war costing millions of lives (it is already costing that in the ME in case you haven’t noticed).

  • jim_m

    Face it. 0bama’s actions are those of a lunatic, who is convinced that everyone secretly agrees with him and is utterly convinced that if he just commits one outrageous act of violence and hate that everyone will follow him in a rush to release their previously suppressed ideals. Famous people who have fallen for their own hype are Dylan Roof and Timothy McVeigh.

  • Walter_Cronanty
    • jim_m
      • Brucehenry

        “American strategists have for decades signed on to work in Israeli political campaigns, with Democrats usually aligned with the Labor Party and Republicans often backing Mr Netanyahu’s Likud Party. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT MR. OBAMA OR ANY OF HIS SENIOR AIDES HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVE by his former top campaign official, who never worked at the White House, to join the effort to defeat Mr. Netanyahu.”

        All-Caps are mine. That’s a paragraph from the article Jim linked to.

        Jim is funniest when he posts links that don’t demonstrate his point, and/or that flatly contradict it.

    • Scalia

      Yep. Israel said a couple of days ago that they have proof of White House collusion. This could erupt into a raging political inferno. A fitting end to one of the worst presidents to disgrace our land.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        I read that Netanyahu was not going to release those documents until after Trump was inaugurated. What will Trump do?
        On the one hand, I would like to see him focus on the economy [tax reform and erasing a lot of regulations] and not get sidetracked. On the other hand, it would be tremendously entertaining to see him tee off on Obama with documents showing him to have been lying yet again.
        Off Topic – What happened to the Lions in the second half? I watched the first half and was impressed [except right before half-time]. Then I went to bed. I was surprised at the final score.
        If you beat Green Bay, you’re in, correct?

  • Walter_Cronanty

    I can’t see Trump being involved in “just an incidental manner” in anything involving the Obama administration, if for no other reason than the knee-jerk, hate-filled reaction of the left.

    Interesting article. Maybe Donald can keep Theresa from going “wobbly:”

    “Britain scolded U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for describing the Israeli government as the most right-wing in Israeli history, a move that aligns Prime Minister Theresa May more closely with President-elect Donald Trump.”
    Go Lions.

    • Brucehenry

      Britain has a veto in the Security Council and could have vetoed the resolution or abstained. It did neither, it voted FOR the resolution condemning the settlements. May is trying to have it both ways.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        As you consistently supported Obama, you should have no problem with May’s action.

        • Brucehenry

          Well yes despite the wingnit orthodoxy here, I think the settlements are a hindrance to peace, so yes, the resolution was a good idea, and I think that the US should have done as UK did — not abstain but vote for the resolution. My problem with May is her seeming two-facedness.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            May realizes who can now say “I won.” Given Obama’s treatment of GB, I don’t think she’ll mind pissing on him as he goes out the door.

          • jim_m

            It looks like there are a lot of world leaders that will be pissing on 0bama as he heads for the exit. That’s a measure of the contempt he holds all others in being returned to him.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Payback’s a bitch.

          • jim_m

            Funny how the antisemitic left can always say that “the settlements are a hindrance to peace” but can never find the ability to say that “palestinian terrorism is a hindrance to peace” or that “palestinian refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist is a hindrance to peace” or that “palestinian statements calling for the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews is a hindrance to peace”.

            Actually, it isn’t that funny, because you seem to have complete agreement with your allies.

        • Brucehenry

          Also, having read the foaming at the mouth by Jim and others about how Obama supposedly took UNPRECEDENTED action by failing to veto any and every UN resolution critical of Israel’s policies, including the settlement policy, imagine my amusement when I Googled this up in about 10 seconds:

          https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/12/26/whats-new-and-whats-not-in-the-u-n-resolution-on-israeli-settlements/

          http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/opinion/international/israels-unsung-protector-obama.html?_r=0

          https://theintercept.com/2016/12/30/barack-obama-wasnt-nearly-as-tough-on-israel-as-republican-presidents/

          Up until this resolution, Obama was the ONLY president since the creation of the state of Israel NOT to allow a resolution critical of Israel to pass in the Security Council. But typically for wingnuts, the reaction here is over the top, called “anti-Semitic” and all kinds of other nonsense.

          • Scalia

            OK, I’ll bite. Who said it was unprecedented?

          • Brucehenry

            Perhaps the word itself was not used, but “radical change in policy” is kind of synonymous. And the SHOCK, SHOCK I SAY that this resolution was allowed to pass implies it.

            And the jumping up and down about the “betrayal of our ally” and “anti-semitism” seems rather hyperbolic when compared to the conservative reaction to the 21 UNSC resolutions critical of Israel passed during the Reagan administration. I don’t recall any hue and cry about Reagan’s actions being a “radical change” in policy (or being anti-semitic, either) when he called Begin and told him in no uncertain terms that Israel would not be getting American F-16s because he disapproved of Israeli actions.

            And when Reagan visited and laid a wreath at the graves of Nazi SS soldiers, were conservatives the ones who were outraged? Can you POSSIBLY IMAGINE what Talk Radio would say if Obama laid a wreath at the graves of Waffen-SS?

          • Scalia

            Nobody here said “radical change in policy.” The only other times that phrase occurs is once more in your post and a Washington Post quote provided by Walter after you posted your “unprecedented” charge.

          • Brucehenry

            Fine Scalia nobody said the word “unprecedented.” But you are all still pretending that a UN SC resolution critical of Israel not being vetoed by the US is such a shocking occurrence, the implication is that it must never have happened before — only it HAS, many times, and the presidency in which it happened the greatest number of times was that of St Ronaldus Magnus.

            That’s my point.

            So unless you’d like to defend the position that it’s OK for a conservative Republican to condemn Israel for destroying the Osirak reactor, which Israel justifiably viewed as an existential threat (and subsequently to embargo the sale of F-16s to Israel in retaliation), while it simultaneously is NOT okay for a liberal Democrat to abstain from a vote critical of Israel’s “settlements” policy, I suggest you revert to your oft-stated policy of not engaging in debate with a despicable low-life scum like me.

          • Scalia

            So, contrary to your charges, nobody said that the administration’s abstention at the UN was unprecedented, and nobody said that this was a radical change in policy. That means you either lied or you’re incapable of comprehending what you read.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes you literal-minded blockhead, ignore the fact that the tenor of the comments here and elsewhere on the Wingnut Web implies (as I said) that an action like this has never before been taken, that this failure to veto is SO VERY SHOCKING, that you yourself asked “from a liberal perspective, how would one spin this?” as if it were without precedent, as if it were an inexplicable occurrence, and focus LIKE A LASER on the technicality that no one on this comment thread used those specific words.

            And use that to renew your ridiculous charge that I am a “liar.” Only to the most blockheaded of literal-minded blockheads, but sure whatever.

          • jim_m

            The charge that you are a liar is not ridiculous as you say, it is accurate and you have been caught multiple times making misrepresentations and falsehoods here. And while once you were man enough to own up to it when you were caught, you no longer do so.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh you mean like you did on this thread when I demonstrated that your link didn’t prove that “Obama sent his campaign staff” to Israel to try to defeat Netanyahu?

            Please.

          • jim_m

            See my response above to your lies that they weren’t involved.

          • Scalia

            You wrote,

            Also, having read the foaming at the mouth by Jim and others about how Obama supposedly took UNPRECEDENTED action by failing to veto any and every UN resolution critical of Israel’s policies, including the settlement policy, imagine my amusement when I Googled this up in about 10 seconds…

            And,

            Perhaps the word itself was not used, but “radical change in policy” is kind of synonymous.

            You stated that those here alleged that the administrations abstention was unprecedented. That was a false allegation. When asked about it, you doubled down and insisted that a “radical change in policy” is synonymous. Thus, when given the opportunity, you lied again (or you’re too senile to post here).

          • Brucehenry

            And Jim has stated that Obama “sent his campaign staff” to defeat Netanyahu. He didn’t, of course, but those of us who have been reading Jim’s comments for years know that he commonly uses hyperbolic language to make his points, many of which — SHOCKER — are not technically true!

            But you have nothing to say about that, of course, because “lying” on your side is fine, it’s just “lying” as a liberal that’s unforgivable.

            But whatever, Scalia, I really don’t care what you think. I’m just happy you haven’t deleted it, thanks for that.

          • Scalia

            Dodge all you want, but you made a charge—twice—in this thread about this thread’s participants. That charge is false and can only be explained by either your reading comprehension or your dishonesty. The fact that you keep trying to deflect demonstrates the latter. It’s possible that you initially got the wrong impression from what you read and concluded that we thought it was unprecedented, but when called on it, you doubled down. Given that, the only rational conclusion is that you’re a liar.

          • Brucehenry

            Like I said, think what you want. When I see you calling out others for doing similar things I’ll worry about whether or not I am being strictly truthful.

            But in all this back and forth I notice no one — not you, not Jim, not Rodney G Graves, fuckstick par excellence, nor anyone else here — has bothered to answer the question: Why was it OK and patriotic and supportive of Reagan to condemn and punish Israel for the Osirak reactor bombing (and TWENTY OTHER TIMES TOO), but betrayal and shocking and anti-semitic of Obama to abstain from another toothless resolution critical of Israeli “settlements” policy?

          • Scalia

            When I see you calling out others for doing similar things I’ll worry about whether or not I am being strictly truthful.

            In other words, you don’t care that you lied because Scalia didn’t call Jim out on it. That’s like saying I won’t care about my robbing banks until Bruce condemns Jim for doing it. You’re sick.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah sure just like it. I may be sick but you’re a weasel. Do you condemn “liars” or do you not?

            Or is it mere hyperbole on the one hand but blackhearted lies on the other? What IS your rationale for favoritism as a “moderator”?

          • jim_m

            Now you are lying, accusing me that I was telling a falsehood about obama supporting the campaign against Netanyahu.

          • Brucehenry

            The falsehood was you saying that “Obama sent” the guy to Israel when your link explicitly stated that there was no evidence to indicate that was the case.

          • jim_m

            Fine. “Sent” as in obama gave him a direct order, which is the way you are taking it, is not something that can be proven. However, he went and went to an agency that obama was giving $350,000 to defeat Netanyahu with.

          • Scalia

            It wasn’t hyperbole when you doubled down after being called on it. That’s why no sane person would want to debate you. You know good and well you thought we had said that the abstention was unprecedented. Instead of having the integrity to simply say that you had misread the posts, you insisted that what we said was “synonymous” with “unprecedented.” When shown that that too is false, you claimed I was being overly technical and that you were using “hyperbole.” You’re the lying weasel here.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I addressed no comment to you until you addressed one to me. As I have said, you are welcome not to respond to my comments since I am so dishonest and/or senile.

            But you still can’t or won’t refute my point about the double standard you Obama-haters use.

          • Scalia

            I have no interest in trying to rationally debate any topic with you. Like I’ve told you repeatedly, I have no respect for liars, so it’s pointless to try to debate you. I don’t mind debating pennywit—and we’ve had some intense debates in time past—because he’s been honest with me.

            To pennywit: If you’d like to discuss the topic that Bruce broached, I’d be glad to discuss it with you.

          • Brucehenry

            Believe me, the lack of respect is mutual. When I want to discuss matters with a garden variety wingnut with delusions of gravitas and an inflated sense of his own intellectual superiority I prefer Jim. He at least lacks the power of “moderation” and so must defend what he writes.

          • jim_m

            I back my stuff up with links which you dismiss without addressing the content. You dismiss a Senate report because you don’t like the link I use. You are dishonest and have no integrity whatsoever.

          • Scalia

            What I posted were numerous news articles for topics of discussion on an open thread, and I consistently defend my views here both with lead posts and in the comments section. You just can’t stop lying, can you?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes you consistently defend your views here until you get really angry (or you find yourself unable to defend them) and then you declare that the “topic is closed” or that “you’re done here” and delete any further argument.

            So I prefer Jim.

          • jim_m

            I find your characterization of Scalia to be completely inaccurate. He is far more patient of you than you deserve and you lie scurrilously about him and his arguments.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL of course you do!

            But whatever, forget Scalia and how offensive I am, what about Reagan’s TWENTY ONE UNSC resolutions critical of Israeli policy he failed to veto? What about how he called the Osirak bombing, that Israel justifiably saw as necessary to defend it’s very existence, a “tragedy”? What about the NINE resolutions critical of Israel that passed during the Bush 41 administration or the six that passed while his son was president?

            Why were these resolutions OK? Why weren’t the failure to veto these resolutions examples of anti-semitism and evidence that Bush, Bush I, and Reagan wished to see the “deaths of every Jew in the Middle East” as you so charmingly put it?

          • jim_m

            Post links to each and every resolution and I will be able to address them. Somehow I doubt that they are as offensive as this last one.

          • Brucehenry

            What is your Google broken? I posted links that contained within them the links you seek.

          • Brucehenry

            But just in case your Google IS broken, here’s one handy link that definitely contains them all:

            https://sethfrantzman.com/2016/12/24/abstaining-from-history-heres-all-the-un-resolutions-on-israel-the-us-abstained-on/

          • Ayup.

          • Scalia

            I couldn’t care less who you prefer because I don’t debate liars.

            Anyway, so as not to disappoint you, this has gone on long enough. You’re a demonstrable liar, and you’ve have plenty of opportunities to deflect (and to apologize, but I don’t anticipate that happening). So, continue your dialog with Jim, but no more posts along this line with me.

          • PNG him and be done.

          • That has been evident for years.

          • Rich chewey schadenfreude. Ignoring him and refusing to engage drives him around the bend. You should try it.

          • Scalia

            You know, in spite of my antipathy toward him, I hold out the hope that he will one day change his ways. I was deliberately polite in my initial posts to see if he would be honest when his “inaccuracies” were pointed out. True to form, he went to weaseling and lying right away. It must suck to be him.

          • While all things are possible, that would be a very low probability outcome…

          • jim_m

            Fuck off Bruce. You are still wrong that obama wasn’t working to oust Netanyahu

            The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.

            Some $350,000 was sent to OneVoice, ostensibly to support the group’s efforts to back Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement negotiations. But OneVoice used the money to build a voter database, train activists and hire a political consulting firm with ties to President Obama’s campaign — all of which set the stage for an anti-Netanyahu campaign, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a bipartisan staff report.

            In one stunning finding, the subcommittee said OneVoice even told the State Department’s top diplomat in Jerusalem of its plans in an email

            Get that? A bipartisan staff report said that obama was funding the effort to get Netanyahu out. Oh, and the obama admin excuse? That they were incompetent and didn’t know they were funding it. That’s pure bulshit and you know it but you will defend that bullshit claim no matter how f-ing stupid it makes you look.

          • Brucehenry

            Separate from your claim using the NYT link, and also suspect as it is a Washington Times story, a rag so partisan the people at FOX are like “gee, really?”

          • jim_m

            So your claim is that the paper made up out of whole cloth a Senate Subcommittee report?

            That is a staggeringly huge lie. Even from someone as dishonest as you.

          • Brucehenry

            No my claim is that the “Times” takes a story about a critical report from a Congressional committee that, though “bipartisan,” is still controlled by Republicans, and puts the worst spin it can on it. That is the modus operandi of this outfit, as you know.

          • jim_m

            Here is the same report from the WaPo. Now apologize for calling it untrue.

            If you can’t acknowledge that obama funded the campaign against Netanyahu then perhaps you need to take a break from this board.

          • Scalia

            He should also wipe the drool off his chin.

          • Full time job, that.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes it’s funny how the Times left out McCaskill’s defense of the administration (yet referred to the report as “bipartisan”)but the Post saw fit to mention it, even in an opinion piece critical of Obama.

            And perhaps since we are talking about what “you need” to do or what “I need” to do, maybe “you need” to brush up on your own reading skills, since neither account makes the broad claim that “Obama funded the campaign against Netanyahu.”

          • jim_m

            Funny how the WaPo left out the fact that OneVoice emailed the State Department to tell them how they intended to use the money – a direct proof that the administration knew about their actions.

            Yes, they clearly say that the money was used to fund campaign activities against Netanyahu. That is in both articles The fact that the specific phrase is not used may be proof to lying asshats like yourself but no one is fooled by your argument. You may think it quite clever, but only a drooling idiot would think so. More proof of your failure to progress past the 6th grade.

          • Brucehenry

            I am prohibited from pointing out that “drooling idiots” often insist that specific phrases are all that matter, sometimes.

          • jim_m

            Non responsive.

          • Brucehenry

            Don’t you hate that?

          • Ignore him and watch him froth…

          • I keep having to remind you that this is his modus operandi…

          • Walter_Cronanty

            The Washington Post disagrees, calling Obama’s actions a “radical change in policy:” “PRESIDENT OBAMA’S decision to abstain on a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements reverses decades of practice by both Democratic and Republican presidents. The United States vetoed past resolutions on the grounds that they unreasonably singled out Jewish communities in occupied territories as an obstacle to Middle East peace, and that U.N. action was more likely to impede than advance negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

            The measure, approved 14 to 0 by the Security Council Friday, is subject to the same criticism: It will encourage Palestinians to pursue more international sanctions against Israel rather than seriously consider the concessions necessary for statehood, and it will give a boost to the international boycott and divestment movement against the Jewish state, which has become a rallying cause for anti-Zionists. At the same time, it will almost certainly not stop Israeli construction in the West Bank, much less in East Jerusalem, where Jewish housing was also deemed by the resolution to be “a flagrant violation under international law.”

            By abstaining, the administration did not explicitly support that position, which has not been U.S. policy since the Carter administration. …[S]ettlements do not explain the administration’s repeated failures to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas proved unwilling to negotiate seriously even during the settlement freeze, and it refused to accept a framework for negotiations painstakingly drawn up by Secretary of State John F. Kerry in 2014. In past negotiations, both sides have acknowledged that any deal will involve the annexation by Israel of settlements near its borders, where most of the current construction takes place — something the U.N. resolution, which was pressed by the Palestinians, did not acknowledge or take into account.”

            See, also, Wall Street Journal: “The failure to back Israel at the UN “defines this president’s extraordinary ability to transform matters of public policy into personal pique at adversaries,” the paper noted. “And it defines the reality of the international left’s implacable opposition to the Israeli state.”

            The approved resolution, the Wall Street Journal went on to say, will “live on as Barack Obama’s cat’s paw, offering support in every European capital, international institution and US university campus to bully Israel with the Boycott,”

          • Brucehenry

            It’s fine, in this new, Trumpian, post-facts world, for the Washington Post to disagree, but it is wrong on the facts. SIX resolutions critical of Israeli policies, including the settlement policy and the policy of hunting down and assassinating terrorism suspects in foreign countries, were passed during the Bush (43) administration. NINE similar resolutions were passed during Bush (41)’s term. And a whopping TWENTY ONE during the term of St Ronaldus Magnus, including one that condemned Israel’s destruction of the Osirak reactor, which Israel’s government saw as an existential threat to its existence.

            https://theintercept.com/2016/12/30/barack-obama-wasnt-nearly-as-tough-on-israel-as-republican-presidents/

            Up until this resolution, NOT A SINGLE RESOLUTION critical of Israeli policy had passed during the eight years of Obama’s presidency. Yet wingnuts here and elsewhere are jumping up and down about “anti-semitism” and “betrayal of our ally” and yada yada.

            I have to smile grimly at WaPo’s suggestion that the Palestinians must “seriously consider the concessions necessary for statehood.” So they must allow continued building of Israeli “settlements” for an extended period while negotiations continue, all the while knowing that these settlements change the “facts on the ground,” the “practical realities” which will make a contiguous Palestine impossible. Oh, okay.

            And if the Wall Street Journal thinks personal pique as a matter of US foreign policy is a bad thing, I’ll bet they are really dreading the Trump administration — just kidding, they’ll find a way to rationalize that man-child’s idiot pronouncements I’m sure.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You can “smile grimly” at WaPo’s suggestions all you want, but it’s clear that the Palestinians are not interested in a negotiated peace – especially when their major sponsor Iran is now king of the Middle East. They has their chance at peace and sat with their thumbs up their ass: “The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas proved unwilling to negotiate seriously even during the settlement freeze, and it refused to accept a framework for negotiations painstakingly drawn up by Secretary of State John F. Kerry in 2014.”

          • Brucehenry

            “Proved unwilling to negotiate seriously” is a subjective opinion, but I will grant that Palestinians are at least as stubborn as Israelis are. Perhaps even more so.

            Again with the orthodoxy — “they had their chance at peace.” Well, yeah but peace on what terms? The Israelis had their chance too and “proved unwilling” to return to the 1967 borders. What’s that you say? Returning to the 1967 borders is unreasonable? Oh, okay, but allowing 600,000 Israelis to “settle” on formerly Arab land IS perfectly reasonable?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            The Arabs started the 67 war and got their asses handed to ’em. I’ve got no sympathy, especially when they glorify, and fund terrorism. Sorry, my give-a-damn is on empty when it comes to those barbarians. Billions of dollars of international aid for decades, and all they’ve got to show for it are Iranian supplied arms and rockets.
            They are being used as proxies in the never ending attempt to wipe Israel off the map, and they wallow and revel in their victimhood, sending their children off to be suicide bombers, all based on a belief system that does not allow for compromise.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Ha! I’m so used to posting off-topic comments, I forgot.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Why Ds are on a losing streak, reason #1,748:

    “As the Obama era mercifully comes to a close, a painting that depicts police officers as pigs with guns pointed at black people is gracing a wall in the nation’s capital.

    The untitled painting, by a senior at a Catholic high school in St. Louis, was chosen on behalf of Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO) as part of the United States Congressional Art Competition. The student’s artwork won first place in Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, so it’s now being displayed in a tunnel between the U.S. Capitol building and Longworth House Office Building.”

  • Walter_Cronanty

    A nice summary of Obama’s eight interminably long years as President: “By just about everyone’s reckoning, the so-called signature achievements of the Obama years are the enactment of Obamacare and the Iran nuclear deal. They have a lot in common. Both are ruinous and both were built on an edifice of bald-faced lies. President Obama is the lyin’king and these are the lyin’ years.”

  • Walter_Cronanty

    While we celebrate Hillary’s career ending loss and marvel at Obama’s increasingly petulant and classless exit from the White House, we shouldn’t overlook the chance to dance in the streets with horse-face John Kerry’s long and shameful presence on the US political scene coming to an end. As stated by Jim Geraghty:
    “Trashing Israel on the way out the door is the perfect capstone to an ignoble career. John Kerry ends his long career in politics the same way he began it: disgracefully.”

    • Scalia

      Walter, the link doesn’t appear to be working.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Try now – don’t know what happened. My computer seems to be having a rough night, tonight. Russians, NSA, or just a lot a traffic on New Year’s Eve?

        • Scalia

          Yes, it’s working now. If the Lions lose tomorrow, I’ll just blame Putin!

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Hacked the Lion’s server, sent the playbook to the Packers. Jim Caldwwell is still waiting for his $5,000,000 payoff from the Nigerian prince [I stole that from Iowahawk].

          • Scalia

            Sad to see the Browns throw away the win today. First and goal at the two and they throw passes. What’s up with that?? They had just scored a touchdown on a five-yard run, but when they’re given first and goal on the two, they throw passes and lose yards. It must be more than frustrating to be a Browns’ fan. I really feel for ya, man.

            Maybe we can cry together after the Lions lose tonight.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yes, we got beat by the Steelers’ JV. We turned the ball over 3 times in the red zone, inside the 3 yard line. RGIII had an interception at the goal line [attempted from about the 18], cornerback Briean Boddy-Calhoun [yes, he got beat for the game winning touchdown] picked off a pass and as he leapt into the end zone for a touchdown, the ball came out, rolled into the end zone and was recovered by a Steeler for a touch back, and, Crowell fumbled on about the 2 or 3 on a dive play, again recovered by a Steeler.
            The play calling was atrocious. First and goal from the 2 in OT with 3 passes, losing yards on the one completion, is a fitting end to this offensive offense.
            It would be somewhat comforting to think they tanked the game in order to get the first pick in the draft. But after watching the entire game, I think the Browns played as hard and as well as the could, bless their hearts.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Well, I see Aaron Rogers is back to being Aaron Rogers. Stafford looked pretty good, but not good enough.
            You made the playoffs and your prize is playing the Seahawks in Seattle, correct?

          • Scalia

            Yeah, Seattle next week. I really wish at this point they didn’t make it. It’s rather disgusting to go into the playoffs riding a three-game losing streak.

            Rodgers was fabulous last night. One of the best quarterbacks ever.

  • pennywit

    Here’s the kind of chicanery that turns liberals into conservatives.

    • Scalia

      Man, what a mess.

      • pennywit

        Although the process does explain, somewhat, why a landlord went straight for the litigation threat on me a couple years back rather than talk to me first.

      • pennywit

        It is a mess. I’ve generally avoided landlord-tenant court. Too many shady people on both sides of the lease contract.

      • pennywit

        PS. DO NOT TIE tomorrow. Do not tie.

        • Scalia

          Trust me; there won’t be a tie. The Lions will definitely find a way to lose.

          • pennywit

            This almost reminds me of the joke about the Imperial stormtrooper who fought a Starfleet redshirt.

          • Scalia

            I’ve not heard that one. I’m all ears.

          • pennywit

            The stormtrooper fires a volley of shots. Not a single one of them hits. The Starfleet redshirt dies anyway.

          • Scalia

            Forgive me, but though it sounds funny, I don’t get the point of the joke.

  • pennywit

    Unlike the stormtrooper’s blaster shots …

    • Scalia

      I was trying to figure out how lightning works; then it struck me.

      • pennywit

        Well, you know, it strikes once in Briggs Stadium on December 29, 1957, and then you wait … and wait … and wait … for it to strike again.

        • Scalia

          Well, the Lions went to the NFL championship four times in the 50s and won three of them. It’s hard to believe that they were one of the NFL’s top teams.

          • pennywit

            I know, and I’m teasing you a little bit. Parity-obsession has made the NFL kind of weird. You have Bill Belichick, who remains at the top thanks to his ongoing deal with infernal powers. You also have a couple teams that are generally just a little below championship caliber. And you’ve got a few teams that are perennially at the bottom (i.e., the Cleveland Browns, and a couple other teams).

            But there’s this huge mess of mostly mediocre teams in the middle — teams that are up and down from one year to the next. The Skins and the Lions are both in that group, IMO.

          • Scalia

            Yes. It’s not Like the Lions are bottom dwellers all the time. They’ve gone to the playoffs several times over the past 30-some years, but IMO, they’ve not had a truly solid team since 1970. The Redskins, OTOH, have had several stellar teams in that stretch.

          • pennywit

            I don’t think we’ve seen a solid Skins team since Joe Gibbs retired the first time. There have been flashes of potential here and there, but very little consistency from one year to the next.

          • Scalia

            Anyway, I’m signing off for the night. I hope you and your family have a very Happy New Year!

          • pennywit

            Hope your new year went well, too.

            At my end … the Skins choked. Big time. All they had to do was beat the Giants. Not an easy task, but not an impossible task, either. Oh, but no. Time to choke!!

            The Skins offense, statistically, is one of the best Skins offenses ever. But it can’t score touchdowns when needed.

            I don’t think Kirk Cousins is going to get walking papers, but I also don’t think he has a very strong hand when it comes to negotiating salary this offseason.

          • Scalia

            I was hoping the Skins would pull it off. I really think they’re just a couple of tweaks away from having a very solid team.

          • pennywit

            I don’t see the team breaking out of mediocrity until the 2018 season at the earliest. Your Lions are in the playoffs, though.

          • Scalia

            As I told Walter, it would have been better if they were sent packing after the loss to Green Bay. Stumbling into the playoffs with a three-game losing streak is downright embarrassing.

  • magic1114

    The brave Democraps; they wait for Obola’s last 2 weeks in office to speak up. Sissies!

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Since it’s an open thread…..In addition to Turkey, the Religion of Pieces wished Nigeria a Happy New Year:

    “One person was seriously injured when a suicide bomber aged around 10 blew herself up in a New Year’s Eve attack in the northeastern Nigerian city of Maiduguri, witnesses and aid workers told AFP Sunday.

    The girl approached a crowd buying noodles from a food vendor in the Customs area of the city around 9:30 pm on Saturday and detonated her explosives, they said.

    Although no one has claimed responsibility the attack bore the hallmark of Boko Haram Islamists who are notorious for using suicide bombers, mostly women and young girls, in attacking civilian targets.”

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Ethnic Cleansing for Peace

    Netanyahu’s video is great.

    • Scalia

      As usual, Netanyahu hits the nail on the head.

    • Scalia

      Eugene Kontorovich writes a good legal analysis of the settler issue and Netanyahu’s use of the term “ethnic cleansing.”

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Not only a good legal analysis, but the fact that Jordan had kicked out Jews from the disputed area 19 years earlier and that the “settlers” are only “settlers” because of earlier race/religion/ethnicity based expulsion puts the issue in a different perspective.

    • Scalia

      Also, copying YouTube’s URL will allow direct play within your post:
      https://youtu.be/XCjsFFwJ0DA

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Do you put the copied URL in the box with the text, or in the smaller rectangular box below with the little icon that I don’t recognize and have no idea what it’s for?
        I’ve put pictures/videos in before, but it’s hit and miss because I can’t remember where to put the URL – getting old is a bitch.

        • Scalia

          Yes, paste the URL in your text box and the video will automatically deploy.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Thanks, again, for the techno advice.