****hole Immigrants

[yuna628 9,690]

56 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

How can you deny someone said it, if you did not here it. Same thing So why is no one else in the room saying they heard it 

NB, they aren't denying it was said. They are having a political 'misremembering reinterpretation'. It's kind of akin to Bill's ''it depends on what is, is''. Or repeated periods of individuals who get up before congress and say ''I do not recall''. Purdue and Cotton initially stated that they didn't recall what was said. But there were many members in the room that heard what was said, and remembered it. Word traveled very fast. After the atypical political rest period of 24-48hrs, aka ''circle the wagon and figure out how to get oneself out of this mess by intriguing wordplay'' - Purdue denies that word was said, but will not say what was said, in favor of just selecting the term - strong language was used. Okay. Why did he say that? Because they decided that perhaps the word used was one swear in favor of another swear. Holes and houses. Cotton on the other hand, still says he doesn't recall, or that he perhaps recalls a different word, and merely that Durbin is mistranslating the intent behind the words. SHS says strong language was used. When the DHS sec was asked today, she again had a selective memory problem, of not recalling what the President had said exactly when it came to a single word only, but recalled enough to know that strong language was used, and that Lindsey had repeated that language in shock and disgust back to the President. In fact she recalled 99% of everything that was stated in the room, except a mysterious gap in the President's choice of swear. She's fooling no one here. Lindsey has not denied the events that happened, if anything he and Durbin have doubled down on them. Durbin isn't afraid to describe the language used, but Lindsey is, because he has to tow the line or else. This is placing him in a difficult spot, one that people have noticed is increasingly making him uncomfortable. I have suspicions about what that might be, but it's speculative. Words, as I've said before, mean things. The term he used was offensive - but it is the greater context of the conversation that is far worse. And no one in that room has denied whatsoever the context of the conversation at large. Keep in mind that there have been many republicans that have condemned the words spoken by the President - Paul Ryan included. Do you think for a second that they would do so, if they flat out knew it was untrue? I also have it on good authority, that after the statements were made, he phoned several individuals well known to republican circles - and admitted what was said.

 

How can you deny someone said it, if they did not hear it? Easy. They heard it, or they have terrible selective memories, and the majority of men in the room need hearing assistance. It's politics. A bunch of scared little supposedly grown men, too afraid to not be a yes man.

Edited January 16, 2018 by yuna628

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

40 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

NB, they aren't denying it was said. They are having a political 'misremembering reinterpretation'. It's kind of akin to Bill's ''it depends on what is, is''. Or repeated periods of individuals who get up before congress and say ''I do not recall''. Purdue and Cotton initially stated that they didn't recall what was said. But there were many members in the room that heard what was said, and remembered it. Word traveled very fast. After the atypical political rest period of 24-48hrs, aka ''circle the wagon and figure out how to get oneself out of this mess by intriguing wordplay'' - Purdue denies that word was said, but will not say what was said, in favor of just selecting the term - strong language was used. Okay. Why did he say that? Because they decided that perhaps the word used was one swear in favor of another swear. Holes and houses. Cotton on the other hand, still says he doesn't recall, or that he perhaps recalls a different word, and merely that Durbin is mistranslating the intent behind the words. SHS says strong language was used. When the DHS sec was asked today, she again had a selective memory problem, of not recalling what the President had said exactly when it came to a single word only, but recalled enough to know that strong language was used, and that Lindsey had repeated that language in shock and disgust back to the President. In fact she recalled 99% of everything that was stated in the room, except a mysterious gap in the President's choice of swear. She's fooling no one here. Lindsey has not denied the events that happened, if anything he and Durbin have doubled down on them. Durbin isn't afraid to describe the language used, but Lindsey is, because he has to tow the line or else. This is placing him in a difficult spot, one that people have noticed is increasingly making him uncomfortable. I have suspicions about what that might be, but it's speculative. Words, as I've said before, mean things. The term he used was offensive - but it is the greater context of the conversation that is far worse. And no one in that room has denied whatsoever the context of the conversation at large. Keep in mind that there have been many republicans that have condemned the words spoken by the President - Paul Ryan included. Do you think for a second that they would do so, if they flat out knew it was untrue? I also have it on good authority, that after the statements were made, he phoned several individuals well known to republican circles - and admitted what was said.

 

How can you deny someone said it, if they did not hear it? Easy. They heard it, or they have terrible selective memories, and the majority of men in the room need hearing assistance. It's politics. A bunch of scared little supposedly grown men, too afraid to not be a yes man.

So everyone but Durbin is lying . Gotcha 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

10 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So everyone but Durbin is lying . Gotcha 

And Graham, Graham must be lying by extension

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

16 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

And Graham, Graham must be lying by extension

Graham never said he said that exact word. News media adding the spin 

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Graham never said he said that exact word. News media adding the spin 

Well I don't think news media has actually claimed that.

 

Some other Senator (I believe another Republican) who wasn't there has said that Graham told him that Durbins claim was "essentially accurate" or something.

 

As far as I know, news media has reported it appropriately. Graham hasn't refuted that statement. I think the only statement from him has been that in about how he already told Trump how he feels or something.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

6 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

How can you deny someone said it, if you did not here it. Same thing So why is no one else in the room saying they heard it 

Sorry which dems in the room are silent?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

 

[Dashinka 24,695]

10 hours ago, bcking said:

Well I don't think news media has actually claimed that.

 

Some other Senator (I believe another Republican) who wasn't there has said that Graham told him that Durbins claim was "essentially accurate" or something.

 

As far as I know, news media has reported it appropriately. Graham hasn't refuted that statement. I think the only statement from him has been that in about how he already told Trump how he feels or something.

Doesn't Durbin have a long history of saying things that are questionable for political reasons?

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

There is nothing wrong to say that some countries are ****holes, it's just the truth.

People living in those countries are just victims of corrupt regimes/politicians/societies.

There is no reason to get offended.

Let's be a bit more pragmatic.

No one would ever choose to live in those countries, that's why there are so many immigrants from there.

Edited January 17, 2018 by TBoneTX
language

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Doesn't Durbin have a long history of saying things that are questionable for political reasons?

No

[yuna628 9,690]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Doesn't Durbin have a long history of saying things that are questionable for political reasons?

No. Not really. Somehow an incident in 2013 suddenly becomes translated to ''a long history''. The incident in question was a meeting with Obama and then Speaker Boehner, with others in the room. Durbin casually mentioned on facebook, about comments made to Obama. Durbin was not in the room at the time, mind you. It was Harry Reid that told him it was said, because some staffers told him it was said (it was actually the WH Deputy CoS). Boehner immediately denied without any question or muddied waters that he made such a statement personally (but it was never him that said it anyway), the WH denied that such statement was made and confirmed that with all parties in the room. Afterwards the WH dialed back it's initial denial, instead calling it a misunderstanding based upon a ''miscommunication'' in the physical readout/minutes to Senate Democrats. The individual who was claimed to make the statement was Pete Sessions.

 

Whether the statement was ever truly made was never proven. However Durbin was telling the truth for his part, because it was, according to the WH, on the physical readout - which Reid read aloud to Senators at the time, relaying the story to his fellow Senators in great detail even. Was it really said? We don't know. Was the WH telling the truth? We don't know. Was Harry Reid having an intentional senior moment while reading a paper? We don't know. But we do know that Durbin and others in the room at the time of the readout, understood that's what it said.

[Dashinka 24,695]

53 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

No

Really?

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/01/the-not-so-honorable-#######-durbin.php

[Dashinka 24,695]

6 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

No. Not really. Somehow an incident in 2013 suddenly becomes translated to ''a long history''. The incident in question was a meeting with Obama and then Speaker Boehner, with others in the room. Durbin casually mentioned on facebook, about comments made to Obama. Durbin was not in the room at the time, mind you. It was Harry Reid that told him it was said, because some staffers told him it was said (it was actually the WH Deputy CoS). Boehner immediately denied without any question or muddied waters that he made such a statement personally (but it was never him that said it anyway), the WH denied that such statement was made and confirmed that with all parties in the room. Afterwards the WH dialed back it's initial denial, instead calling it a misunderstanding based upon a ''miscommunication'' in the physical readout/minutes to Senate Democrats. The individual who was claimed to make the statement was Pete Sessions.

 

Whether the statement was ever truly made was never proven. However Durbin was telling the truth for his part, because it was, according to the WH, on the physical readout - which Reid read aloud to Senators at the time, relaying the story to his fellow Senators in great detail even. Was it really said? We don't know. Was the WH telling the truth? We don't know. Was Harry Reid having an intentional senior moment while reading a paper? We don't know. But we do know that Durbin and others in the room at the time of the readout, understood that's what it said.

I think it is more to do then with just one incident in 2013, but whatever.  The simple fact is that Durbin is a political opportunist much like just about every politician in Washington.  He is certainly willing to lie for political reasons, and after Trump rejected his "bipartisan" immigration bill proposal that did nothing relative to protecting the border, I wouldn't be surprised that he is making the comment up which seems to have more backing than he has.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Dashinka 24,695]

1 hour ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

There is nothing wrong to say that some countries are shitholes, it's just the truth.

People living in those countries are just victims of corrupt regimes/politicians/societies.

There is no reason to get offended.

Let's be a bit more pragmatic.

No one would ever choose to live in those countries, that's why there are so many immigrants from there.

Here is what the State Department says one should do if one has plans to travel to North Korea.

 

 

Do not travel to North Korea due to the serious risk of arrest and long-term detention of U.S. nationals.

• Individuals cannot use a U.S. passport to travel to, in, or through North Korea without a special validation from the Department of State.
• Special validations are granted only in very limited circumstances. More information on how to apply for the special validation is available here. 

The U.S. government is unable to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens in North Korea as it does not have diplomatic or consular relations with North Korea. Sweden serves as the protecting power for the United States in North Korea, providing limited emergency services. The North Korean government routinely delays or denies Swedish officials access to detained U.S. citizens. 

Due to risks to civil aviation operating within or in the vicinity of North Korea, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and/or a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR). For more information U.S. citizens should consult the Federal Aviation Administration’s Prohibitions, Restrictions and Notices.

Read the Safety and Security section on the country information page.

If you receive a special validation to travel to North Korea:

• Draft a will and designate appropriate insurance beneficiaries and/or power of attorney.
• Discuss a plan with loved ones regarding care/custody of children, pets, property, belongings, non-liquid assets (collections, artwork, etc.), funeral wishes, etc.
• Visit our website for Travel to High-Risk Areas. 
• Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive Alerts and make it easier to locate you in an emergency.
• Follow the Department of State on Facebook and Twitter.
• U.S. citizens who travel abroad should always have a contingency plan for emergency situations. Review the Traveler’s Checklist.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/KoreaDemocraticPeoplesRepublicof.html

[yuna628 9,690]

25 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think it is more to do then with just one incident in 2013, but whatever.  The simple fact is that Durbin is a political opportunist much like just about every politician in Washington.  He is certainly willing to lie for political reasons, and after Trump rejected his "bipartisan" immigration bill proposal that did nothing relative to protecting the border, I wouldn't be surprised that he is making the comment up which seems to have more backing than he has.

He's not making it up. Quite certain of that. You don't think that Cotton and Purdue are also political opportunists? And that Trump himself isn't either?