- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,032
- Reaction score
- 19,492
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
1. Ok, so you are backing off your statement that she said specifically "that right wing extremists are the biggest threat to national security." I'm glad to see that, even though you're not actually admitting that you lied.
2. A single report does not indicate what you are suggesting.
3. Just because it focused on illegal immigration, or anything else, again, you can't take that as evidence that she thinks it's a number one priority. You seem to be arguing that instead of reporting on trends, we should stick our head in the sand so you won't be offended. I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to now be offended. And in reality, you shouldn't be offended. The same way that a peaceful Muslim shouldn't be offended if the United States government releases a report saying that a certain group of Muslims may be planning attacks.
4. It's driving evidence was not shootings in Pittsburg. It was based off of other studies previously done showing that radical groups were looking to recruit veterans and are playing off of fears.
Extremist Report Draws Criticism; Prompts Apology - NYTimes.com
You're being offended by factual information. That's your problem.
5.It's only obvious to you where her fears lie. I think it's pure speculation on your part to take one report that's purpose was just to inform police on possible signs to look for and to twist that into her starting a war against anybody that is right wing.
No, I'm not backing off my claim.
jmotivator said:Napolitano took a political hit for comments early in her tenure that right wing extremists are the biggest threat to national security.
Oh please...
It was Ricin....but whatever...it fits the conspiricy theory.
But I assure the percentages are stilted HEAVILY in one direction.
My bad. I was split between this conversation and the long dead useless sarin buried in sand and found in Iraq in 2004. Thanks for getting me back on topic.
Oh please...
Funny coincidence that you would say that. I work with a few techs that are on permanent disability due to nerve damage because of that long dead useless sarin. I also personally know guys hit with mustard agent that had been in the ground since WWI and will most likely have to be medically discharge. The stuff may not be as potent but hardly dead.
I had just read that they (Iraqi's) buried it in the desert in plastic bags that were leaking. I definitely wouldn't eat it with my cheerios but the context of that discussion was WMD's or not. Sorry about your buddies getting mixed up with it. That's rough.
Great news. Bring the bastard to justice.
Why I of course I do :lol: .....and I think a couple of others had in up in a couple of the other threads too with their links. Although I am sure you could have looked it for yourself with the WSJ.
Five More Explosive Devices Found in Boston
PermalinkCloseFacebookTwitterExpand/Collapse
In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon explosions, counterterrorism officials have found what they believe to be five additional, undetonated explosive devices around the Boston area, according to two people briefed on the rapidly-moving investigation.
In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon explosions, counterterrorism officials have found what they believe to be five additional, undetonated explosive devices around the Boston area, according to two people briefed on the rapidly-moving investigation.
The devices — which are in addition to the two that exploded near the finish line of the marathon — were discovered over the course of a frantic inspection of suspicious packages, many of them abandoned as pedestrians, runners, and others scrambled away from crowded public streets. Each had been rendered inoperative or was in the process of being rendered inoperative, the officials said.
But the officials also sounded a note of caution, saying they are moving quickly and each device they believe is a bomb has not been fully dissected or analyzed.....snip~
Five More Explosive Devices Found in Boston - Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com
5. Five additional incendiary devices found. Reported by: the Wall Street Journal, which initially said that counterterrorism officials had found five unexploded devices around the Boston area—separate from the two detonated bombs. The New York Times reported three unexploded devices, including one at the corner of St. James and Trinity Streets, and another outside the city in Newton. But the Journal walked back its report quickly and Newton police rebutted the bomb report. On Tuesday, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick confirmed that "two and only two explosive devices were found yesterday," although many packages were investigated. "There were no unexploded explosive devices found." Both articles have since been updated.
False alarm. News jumped the gun... again.
Anyone else see this?
Chaos as Boston courthouse is evacuated amid false report suspect was detained | PIX 11
I hate the media, I really do. All logic goes out the window, and the only thing that matters is scooping the next guy with sources that unverified.
Palin once used a pressure cooker... just sayin'.
What about how selective they are? Kim Il Un is probably screaming threats at the top of his lungs right now but we won't hear anything as the media can't multitask very well. Not saying that is a bad thing but just saying.
Meh...they dont want to be 'right'...they just want to be 'first'.I'm just not inclined to knee-jerk blame "the media." These are folks doing their best to feed the insatiable beast of insta-info.
Pretty shakey. Sounds like BS to me since no one else is reporting this. This rumor has been rebuked.
6 False Things You Heard About the Boston Bombing | Mother Jones
I wouldn't care if Sounds like BS to you.....the WSJ reported it.....looks like it was debunked as you say.....4 hrs later.
Four hours after the report yes it was debunked. You on the other hand felt the need to post it as fact 2 days after the blast because somehow it was tied to the right wing fishwrap WSJ. . It had long since been shown to be BS. As to you caring what I think, that wasn't the point. Do us all a favor, when you post articles, post links. You have a bad habit of not doing so. Hard to refute when there is no source.
Not quite I have been in on this from the beginning and it was you that came in a day and a half later asking for a link. Acting like some New Sources didn't say such. Then it was you that couldn't look up the WSJ yourself.....so lets not confuse those facts as to when you jumped into the mix and got all confused as to what was being said out there. Hence your 4 hr delay. :roll:
I at least threw up the new source and the link you asked for. So save that BS about links. Also if the link is in the thread and I copy and paste from that link. Then its sniped from the same link everybody else has. All know I have know problem throwing up links.....you threw up Mother Jones. What a joke. Next time try coming with something else your left slanted BS. I noticed that Jones Didn't want to Debunk the Police Chief or Huff-Po.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?