DHS draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat

[jgarden]

DHS draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat

This President dismisses anything that doesn't support his political agenda as just another attempt by "The Deep State" to undermine his Administration!

Most government employees think of themselves as professionals - they may not like this President, but having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution they are not intent on undermining the nation and take no satisfaction when the Trump Administration takes on the characteristics of a failed state, lurching from one crisis to the next!

 

[7djengo7]

No lying here, doofus.

Yeah, you're lying, doofus.

Sure you did, right after you'd edited it.

No, I didn't, you lying doofus.

Unfortunately for you, I'd already quoted you

How is it unfortunate for me that you'd already quoted what I had written? That's right: it's not.

and you tried to make out that there was no such mistake

False. You're lying, again. I did no such thing, you lying drunk.

I must have been drunk, just like a little troll.

True: you're obviously, perpetually drunk, just like a little troll, you drunk little troll.

Normally, it would be no big deal

LOL

You just, once again, demonstrated how pathetic you are by telling me that you consider my typo, my superfluous 'which', to be a big deal to you.

because everyone makes typos but you, being insufferably pompous on the score, made it fair game.

Are you trying to say that I have been trying to defend the typo I made? What stupidity from you! Obviously, from the fact that I edited my post in order to remove the typo I made, it should be clear that I've never had the slightest intention to defend the typo I made. If I thought it could/should be defended, then obviously, in the very least, I wouldn't be calling it a typo, and I would never have edited it out of my post.

Of course you can edit your own posts, nobody was suggesting otherwise.

You did not merely suggest that one can't edit one's own posts after they've been quoted, you flat out stated that one can't, you lying, drunk clown. Here's you flat out stating it:

posts can't be re-edited once actually quoted

1. I posted my post.
2. You quoted from my post.
3. I edited my post.

So, again, what you just flat out stated is glaringly false.

What you can't do is edit somebody else's.

Thanks for the info, Sherlock. But, who asked for it? I, for one, did not ask, and would not have asked for it, since the fact that I can't edit somebody else's post, or their quotation of my post within their post, has been perfectly obvious to me at least for as long as I've been posting on TOL.

As to your earlier rubbish, only a dipstick would contend that anna is a white supremacist or that her or I consider our lives of greater value than babies of any skin colour.

If you fools really don't consider your lives of greater value than the lives of black babies, then why do you advocate for the murder of black babies?

Yeah, you obviously consider your lives to be of greater value than the lives of black babies, you white supremacist advocate for the murder of black babies, which is why you will never answer the questions I've repeatedly asked you:

Say their names, you white supremacist. Say the names of the black babies for whose murder you and your fellow Nazi leftards, like annabenedetti, advocate.

Are you superior to the black babies for whose murder you advocate? Yes or No?

Do you deserve to live more than do the black babies for whose murder you advocate? Yes or No?

Frankly, you are one weirdo and then some and frankly, I've got better things to do than bandy words about with someone who behaves like he has the IQ and maturity of a corned beef hash.

:e4e:

L:e4e:L

It's hilarious that the only time you can ever be frank with me is when you're trying to convey just how much you hate my guts.

 

[7djengo7]

As to your earlier rubbish, only a dipstick would contend that anna is a white supremacist or that her or I consider our lives of greater value than babies [the ending of whose lives we shamelessly advocate]

Obviously, no rationally-thinking person is ever going to take you seriously while you pretend (like you do, here) that you do not consider your life to be of greater value than the lives of babies, the ending of whose lives you shamelessly advocate.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah, you're lying, doofus.



No, I didn't, you lying doofus.



How is it unfortunate for me that you'd already quoted what I had written? That's right: it's not.



False. You're lying, again. I did no such thing, you lying drunk.



True: you're obviously, perpetually drunk, just like a little troll, you drunk little troll.

Sure ya did, acting like a silly brat (as you're doing here) isn't gonna help.

LOL

You just, once again, demonstrated how pathetic you are by telling me that you consider my typo, my superfluous 'which', to be a big deal to you.

Normally, it would be but when some pompous clot does it, it is kinda funny to point it out.

Are you trying to say that I have been trying to defend the typo I made? What stupidity from you! Obviously, from the fact that I edited my post in order to remove the typo I made, it should be clear that I've never had the slightest intention to defend the typo I made. If I thought it could/should be defended, then obviously, in the very least, I wouldn't be calling it a typo, and I would never have edited it out of my post.

No, just that you tried to pretend it didn't happen. Your following post to me (post#67) said this:

"What "double use of the word 'which'"? You should quit drinking alcohol."

Of course you'd edited your post by this point after I'd flagged your mistake.

You did not merely suggest that one can't edit one's own posts after they've been quoted, you flat out stated that one can't, you lying, drunk clown. Here's you flat out stating it:

1. I posted my post.
2. You quoted from my post.
3. I edited my post.

So, again, what you just flat out stated is glaringly false.

Wow, smarting again? Of course you can edit your post, multiple times, just not one that's been quoted by someone else.

Thanks for the info, Sherlock. But, who asked for it? I, for one, did not ask, and would not have asked for it, since the fact that I can't edit somebody else's post, or their quotation of my post within their post, has been perfectly obvious to me at least for as long as I've been posting on TOL.

You're welcome doofus.

If you fools really don't consider your lives of greater value than the lives of black babies, then why do you advocate for the murder of black babies?

Yeah, you obviously consider your lives to be of greater value than the lives of black babies, you white supremacist advocate for the murder of black babies, which is why you will never answer the questions I've repeatedly asked you:

We don't.

That was simple. All this is just you being a dope or worse..

L:e4e:L

It's hilarious that the only time you can ever be frank with me is when you're trying to convey just how much you hate my guts.

Um, hardly. You're not worth anything like that investment. As it stands, you're just a kid with a lot of growing up to do or an adult with an embarrassing lack of brains and maturity.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Obviously, no rationally-thinking person is ever going to take you seriously while you pretend (like you do, here) that you do not consider your life to be of greater value than the lives of babies, the ending of whose lives you shamelessly advocate.

Quote me doing that.

 

[7djengo7]

Sure ya did, acting like [me] (as you're doing here) isn't gonna help.

No, I didn't, you lying, silly brat. Which, of course, is why you haven't quoted, and can't quote me as having done so. And, contrary to what you just said, I'm not acting like you.

No, just that you tried to pretend it didn't happen. Your following post to me (post#67) said this:

What "double use of the word 'which'"? You should quit drinking alcohol.

That's what I said, indeed, and nowhere in that, nor anywhere else, have I ever pretended, or tried to pretend, that I did not make the superfluous-'which' typo that I made. You really should quit drinking alcohol!

Of course you'd edited your post by this point after I'd flagged your mistake.

It's funny how, before, you said that my post could not have been edited after you had quoted from it:

posts can't be re-edited once actually quoted

, and, of course, as you and I both know well, it was stupid of you to say such a patently false thing as that, seeing as I did edit my post after you had actually quoted from it.

Wow, smarting again?

No. Why would I be smarting? You're obviously far from being sharp enough to even scratch me.

Of course you can edit your post, multiple times, just not one that's been quoted by someone else.

It's almost unbelievable how poor a thinker you are! You seriously can't even distinguish between my post and your quotation of it--you can't distinguish between my post, on the one hand, and something that is contained in your post, on the other hand!? I did edit my post--my very post that had been quoted by you--and after it had been quoted by you. Of course you can edit your post, multiple times, even one that's been quoted by someone else.

Everything that is contained in your post, #66, is

• something that is not my post.
• something that I cannot edit.

Why can you not distinguish between my post, #65, on the one hand, and something that is contained in your post, #66 (e.g., your quotation from my post, #65), on the other hand? Your quotation from my post is not my post; your quotation from my post is a different thing than my post--a thing distinct from my post. Seriously, how hard is that??

So, yeah, when you say "Of course you can edit your post, multiple times, just not one that's been quoted by someone else," you necessarily, further show yourself to be the shallow, careless, unobservant boob that you have been all along, by displaying your inability to distinguish between a post, on the one hand, and a quotation from it, on the other hand.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, I didn't, you lying, silly brat. Which, of course, is why you haven't quoted, and can't quote me as having done so. And, contrary to what you just said, I'm not acting like you.





That's what I said, indeed, and nowhere in that, nor anywhere else, have I ever pretended, or tried to pretend, that I did not make the superfluous-'which' typo that I made. You really should quit drinking alcohol!



It's funny how, before, you said that my post could not have been edited after you had quoted from it:



, and, of course, as you and I both know well, it was stupid of you to say such a patently false thing as that, seeing as I did edit my post after you had actually quoted from it.



No. Why would I be smarting? You're obviously far from being sharp enough to even scratch me.



It's almost unbelievable how poor a thinker you are! You seriously can't even distinguish between my post and your quotation of it--you can't distinguish between my post, on the one hand, and something that is contained in your post, on the other hand!? I did edit my post--my very post that had been quoted by you--and after it had been quoted by you. Of course you can edit your post, multiple times, even one that's been quoted by someone else.

Everything that is contained in your post, #66, is

• something that is not my post.
• something that I cannot edit.

Why can you not distinguish between my post, #65, on the one hand, and something that is contained in your post, #66 (e.g., your quotation from my post, #65), on the other hand? Your quotation from my post is not my post; your quotation from my post is a different thing than my post--a thing distinct from my post. Seriously, how hard is that??

So, yeah, when you say "Of course you can edit your post, multiple times, just not one that's been quoted by someone else," you necessarily, further show yourself to be the shallow, careless, unobservant boob that you have been all along, by displaying your inability to distinguish between a post, on the one hand, and a quotation from it, on the other hand.

Sure you did, hence your silly little comment in the following post as if it had never happened. Still, coming from some wingnut who lies about anna and I advocating the killing of black babies, I'm not in the least surprised.

 

[7djengo7]

Sure you did[n't]

Thanks! I know. That's what I've been saying!

hence your silly little comment in the following post as if it had never happened.

LOL @ u and your pink elephants, Dumbo!

You're "seeing things", for I have never made any comment, in any post, pretending, or trying to pretend that I had not made the double-'which' typo that I had made. That's why you need to lie about me, saying I did something I never did.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Thanks! I know. That's what I've been saying!



LOL @ u and your pink elephants, Dumbo!

You're "seeing things", for I have never made any comment, in any post, pretending, or trying to pretend that I had not made the double-'which' typo that I had made. That's why you need to lie about me, saying I did something I never did.

Sure you did, now you're quote mining and that's a dead give away. Speaking of Dumbo, got a quote of me saying that I advocate the killing of black babies yet? You seem to be running from that for some reason.

I wonder why that is?

 

[ok doser]

... I advocate the killing of black babies ...

bad artie!

 

[Arthur Brain]

bad artie!

Ah, the second half of Dumb & Dumber's arrived...

:yawn:

 

[7djengo7]

Sure you did

No, I didn't, you desperate liar--which, again, is why you've not been able to quote me doing so--and why you're obsessed with repeating your lie, over, and over, and over....

I'll just keep affirming the truth that I did not, as often as you continue to repeat your lie by saying that I did.

And, don't think I have not observed your loud silence regarding my calling you out for your glaring stupidity of not being able to distinguish my post from your quotation of my post.

Why can you not tell the difference between my post and your quotation of it?

got a quote of me saying that I advocate the killing of black babies yet?

Every further post that you address to me, following this post, in which you fail to answer the following question with "Yes!", is a quote of you saying that you advocate the killing of black babies.

Do you, Arthur Brain, oppose all abortion--all deliberate killing of black babies in utero--no matter what the motive, no matter what the circumstances--as being wholly evil, morally wrong, a sin against God and against mankind? Yes or No?

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, I didn't, you desperate liar--which, again, is why you've not been able to quote me doing so--and why you're obsessed with repeating your lie, over, and over, and over....

I'll just keep affirming the truth that I did not, as often as you continue to repeat your lie by saying that I did.

And, don't think I have not observed your loud silence regarding my calling you out for your glaring stupidity of not being able to distinguish my post from your quotation of my post.

Why can you not tell the difference between my post and your quotation of it?



Every further post that you address to me, following this post, in which you fail to answer the following question with "Yes!", is a quote of you saying that you advocate the killing of black babies.

Do you, Arthur Brain, oppose all abortion--all deliberate killing of black babies in utero--no matter what the motive, no matter what the circumstances--as being wholly evil, morally wrong, a sin against God and against mankind? Yes or No?

Sure ya did, as pointed out. Get over it.

Sorry kid, doesn't work that way. Nobody has to jump through your hoops. You made an unsupportable accusation and the onus is on you to provide any quote of mine where I've said I support the killing of black babies. Get to it and good luck cos you're gonna need it.

Don't bother repeating the same garbage, just find a post where I have hinted in any way, never mind supported any such thing.

 

[7djengo7]

Here's my post, #92:

Every further post that you address to me, following this post, in which you fail to answer the following question with "Yes!", is a quote of you saying that you advocate the killing of black babies.

Do you, Arthur Brain, oppose all abortion--all deliberate killing of black babies in utero--no matter what the motive, no matter what the circumstances--as being wholly evil, morally wrong, a sin against God and against mankind? Yes or No?

Here's your post, #93, which is a reaction to my post, #92:

<NO ANSWER>

Your posted refusal, here, to answer "Yes!" to the question I asked you is a quote of you advocating the killing of black babies. By refusing to answer "Yes!" to the question I asked you, you are advocating the killing of black babies.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Here's my post, #92:


Here's your post, #93, which is a reaction to my post, #92:



Your posted refusal, here, to answer "Yes!" to the question I asked you is a quote of you advocating the killing of black babies. By refusing to answer "Yes!" to the question I asked you, you are advocating the killing of black babies.

Silly kid, no it isn't. You made an accusation which you couldn't support. You lied about myself and anna as neither of us advocate any such thing, nor are on record for doing so. We're not white supremacists either as you also lied about and wouldn't be able to find a quote of ours endorsing such.

You lied, deliberately so. Else find any post of ours where we advocate any such thing. Go on, find one.

 

[quip]

Do you, Arthur Brain, oppose all abortion--all deliberate killing of black babies in utero--no matter what the motive, no matter what the circumstances--as being wholly evil, morally wrong, a sin against God and against mankind? Yes or No?

Spoken like a man who would let 100 innocent babies die in a lab fire!?
I wouldn't attempt treading the high-road if I were you.

 

[ok doser]

Spoken like a man who would let 100 innocent babies die in a lab fire!?

link?

 

[quip]

link?

Glad you dropped by.....you too, choose to kill 100 cute little babies. You evil morons!!!

 

[ok doser]

... you too, choose to kill 100 cute little babies.

nope

guess again

 

[ok doser]

DHS draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat

White supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the United States, according to a draft report from the Department of Homeland Security.

Two later draft versions of the same document — all of which were reviewed by POLITICO — describe the threat from white supremacists in slightly different language. But all three drafts describe the threat from white supremacists as the deadliest domestic terror threat facing the U.S., listed above the immediate danger from foreign terrorist groups.

. .. .

John Cohen, who oversaw DHS’s counterterrorism portfolio from 2011 to 2014, said the drafts’ conclusion isn’t surprising.

“This draft document seems to be consistent with earlier intelligence reports from DHS, the FBI, and other law enforcement sources: that the most significant terror-related threat facing the US today comes from violent extremists who are motivated by white supremacy and other far-right ideological causes,” he said.

. . . .

None of the drafts POLITICO reviewed referred to a threat from Antifa, the loose cohort of militant left-leaning agitators who senior Trump administration officials have described as domestic terrorists.

The earliest draft has the strongest language on the threat from white supremacists, in an introductory section labeled “Key Takeaways.”

“Lone offenders and small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social, ideological, and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the United States,” the draft reads. “Among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists – who increasingly are networking with likeminded persons abroad – will pose the most persistent and lethal threat.”

Dajore Wilson, murdered by white supremacists