I would like to nominate GaG and CDL for the position of NSA to POTUS Trump to replace John Bolton who was either fired or who voluntarily resigned, depending on whether you want to believe Trump or Bolton. (Trump said he fired Bolton on the evening of Sep 9 but, on the morning of Sep 10, the WH announced that Bolton would be at various White House meetings that day. Say what? The fired guy is even chairing meetings? Bolton said he submitted his resignation of his own accord on the morning of Sep 10. Who ya gonna believe? You know who I believe.)  
.
Serving as NSA to Trump would give GaG or CDL a close-up view of Trump and the actual operation of the White House. They could then report back to us here on TER about their ACTUAL experiences and observations and any changes in their opinion of Trump from such behind-the-scenes interactions.  (I would also be happy to serve as NSA but there is no one to nominate me.)
.
Some might argue that neither GaG nor CDL has the correct background or experience in National Security or Intelligence to serve as NSA. Qualifications are not important to Trump, as long as you dress up and look the part. Or, if you make a big enough donation or big enough endorsement of Trump and his stable genius-ness, you also qualify.
.
It wouldn't matter if they get fired or quit after 10-20 days. No one would be surprised.  
.
(I'd also like them to bring TER issues to the table and point out how relaxing parochial views of P4P and consensual adult arrangements would make National Security MORE secure by removing the threat of "exposure" or "disgrace" from engaging with Providers from agents.  They would now be able to perform their jobs AND enjoy their time off for R&R and not have to worry about puritanical consequences.

So they certainly would fit into Trump's "we only hire the best" pledge. But I can guarantee serving under Trump wouldn't change their opinion of Trump in the least.
Wu would say he always knew Trump was dumb and nasty but loves his thuggish behavior. Then he'd kick a puppy, just to prove he's tougher than Corey Lewandowski.
cdl would claim that Trump is brilliant and is just "talking in code" to preserve his base. Then he'd say he's even done a poll that proves he's right. With two Hispanic maids.
rofl

Puppies don't need tenderizing, unlike baby cows (veal) that needs to be pounded before being cooked, Kind of like cooking old jews like BFSF and Bernie. Can you even imagine how much "tenderizing" it would take to make either of those two crusty old jews into an edible meal?

for National Security Advisor, but do you even own a gun.  My own feeling is that a guy with that title should own some guns, so I would agree that GaG and I are qualified.  Bolton's problem was that he talked like a hawkish war-monger, but I never heard him say he served in the military or owned any guns.  He lacked cred as a result.  (Not to mention the fact that if his nerdy haircut and dopey moustache were black, he would look like Hitler).

Which is what I'd expect from someone from a race that eats puppies.

I honestly don't mind when you try to "insult" me by stating that I am "almost" as smart as one of the country's leading brain surgeons.

Yes, he is. And outside of the operating room he's dumber than a box of rocks. But just to be nice, I'll stipulate that you, Wu, are as SMART as a box of rocks. Which still makes you dumber than fatgirl.
As for the part about eating puppies, I see you've folded on that one.

Ben Carson is not the most articulate man in the world, but we aren't talking about "gift of gab" we are talking about intelligence, something that you seem to know very little about.

You didn't fall back on the facts. In fact, I already agreed he was probably a pretty good brain surgeon. But Carson's problem isn't simply a lack of the "gift of gab." He's woefully ignorant on virtually every issue he's publicly commented on and expressed opinions that are simply STUPID. Being good in a narrow field doesn't make you smart. For example, I know someone in the oil business who's one of the stupidest people around.
Carson said "Joseph built the Pyramids to store grain." WTF does THAT have to do with the "gift of gab?"
And many more.
But leave it to WU to oversimplify an issue.
As for Jewish food, you have clearly never had good smoked salmon or a corned beef on rye. Poor, stupid Wu.

Not all Jew food is nasty, but you guys do have some of the nastiest dishes on the planet.  

I wouldn't eat that shit, nor would I eat Stuffed Derma. Jews may make SOME really bad food. But at least they don't cook dogs. They leave that to Chinks. Along with their laundry to wash.

Round, firm, fully packed ...  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqZQUhBBHw

But I'll bet even mrfisher knows that Frankie wasn't Jewish, he was of Slovenian background.  And that's polka music he was playing, not Yiddish music. While Kischka IS a Yiddish word, like many such words it is also the same in many East European languages.
"Kishka
Kishka or kishke refers to various types of sausage or stuffed intestine with a filling made from a combination of meat and meal, often a grain. The dish is popular across Eastern Europe as well as with immigrant communities from those areas. It is also eaten by Ashkenazi Jews who prepare their version according to kashrut dietary laws. The name itself is Slavic in origin, and literally means "gut" or "intestine."

If you simply told me its a Jewish sausage named Krishka, I would try it, but when you way it translates as "gut" o "intestine", its a little too vivid for me.  I did find the geographical info interesting.  

Also, are you aware almost all authentic sausage uses parts of the intestine as casing? Just another of the MANY things you seem to know nothing about.
PS: I've never eaten any. But Boudin is good.

Leave it to Jake to FINALLY be right about something and that something is "sausage" That's a subject I would have more expected LTM to be an expert in. lol

the "r" so that Hindus might think it was something divine they should try.  Lol

you sound?  Let me make two historical points that you should be aware of before you disarm the civilian population . . . .

The turkey was de-boned, stuffed with Boudin and smoked in a Green Egg. It was the best Turkey ever.

-- Modified on 9/16/2019 1:24:59 PM

You gave Maddy Ohare the password to your account, didn't you??? lmao

First of all, let's go back to your earlier post in which you made the ludicrous statement that a National Security Advisor should own some guns. Which has NOTHING to do with what a NSA actually does. Do you even know what the job description of a NSA IS? Clearly not. I haven't got the time or inclination to educate you but please google it and get back to the class.
As for totalitarian governments disarming their population, while that's literally true NONE of the populations of those countries had very many weapons. So they were no real threat anyway.
As for the Japanese planning to invade the US, they never could have actually done it. They never came close to invading Hawaii. All they could do was a one-day, hit-and-run attack that succeeded only to an extent (don't get me started, as I consider Pearl Harbor to have been a strategic defeat for Japan). They never had a Chinaman's chance (no apologies to Wu) of mounting a serious invasion of mainland US. The best they could manage was lobbing a few shells from a sub and sending a few incendiary balloons. If the Japanese High Command actually believed what you say, all it proves is how incredibly stupid they were. But it certainly does NOT prove our Second Amendment rights kept them from invading.  Other realities did.
Oh, and the fact that the US built artillery emplacements on the West Coast, while true, is also meaningless in terms of a credible invasion. There were similar emplacements on the East Coast, too. And also no chance of Hitler crossing the Atlantic. Hell, he couldn't even get across the English Channel. The Germans didn't have a navy remotely as capable as the Japanese but we STILL built big coastal artillery emplacements all the way to Maine.
Gawd, you're dumb.

-- Modified on 9/17/2019 9:01:00 PM

about owning guns to be a NSA seriously???   Bwahahahahahahahaha   If you're that stupid, you should never lecture me again about sense of humor or sarcasm.  Geez.  

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." - Isoroku Yamamoto

Just not the part about "I was only joking about the NSA owning a gun." That's the old "Just kidding" cop-out weasels use when they get busted.
As for the rest, there is actually merit in what you say about the US having to prepare against any threat and your England and Midway examples, because they could have gone either way. That said, even if the Japanese had won at Midway it's more than a bit of a stretch to say they could have successfully invaded Hawaii, let alone the West Coast of the US.  But I suppose being prepared anyway was prudent.  But not quite the same for Hitler taking England and using its assets to invade the US.  My point about the German navy being unable to cross the English Channel is correct.  Also, even if they did, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the Royal Navy would simply have turned over its ships to Hitler. Look at what they did to the French fleet in Algeria when it refused to surrender to them after the fall of France.  Also bear in mind the RN had the then-recent example of what Germany's High Seas Fleet did in 1919.  Rather than turn their surrendered fleet over to the allies as reparations, the sailors simply scuttled it in Scapa Flow, sinking 52 of their own ships. And even if they turned the RN over to Hitler, unless he could have dragooned British sailors to fight for Germany, where would he have gotten the sailors to man the ships? Thus, while your speculation is mildly interesting, it really has no substance in reality. Just like most of the arguments you make here.
And talk about pompous, not to mention condescending. You really take the cake with this one.   You also might consider that pompous, know-it-all bloviations on a fuck board" fits YOUR shoe quite precisely.

Its well-settled that Germany conscripted people to work from their occupied territories, sometimes in civil servant positions and sometimes in the Military.  Austrian, Polish and French military were often used as local policemen, freeing up German soldiers to fight for the Third Reich.  There obviously would have been a resistance in the UK, but many people would have happily served the Germans once they were defeated and their government surrendered.  Under those circumstances, non-cooperation would be considered treason, a capital offense during wartime.  The brutality of the Germans with their subjugated countries is legendary, with summary executions the norm just for talking back or hesitating to carry out an order.  I don't think we can dismiss the idea that German could have used England's captured navy against the US.  So will disagree with your analysis in that respect.

Obviously, the answer is yes. Germany would NEVER have captured Britain's fleet even if it overwhelmed England. Because, now listen carefully, Britain's fleet FLOATS! And when it does it MOVES AROUND! So the fleet, which was many times bigger and more powerful than Germany's, would simply have sailed for the US and other parts of the British Empire. And, get THIS! The crews would have sailed with them! Just imagine. This is no fantasy, as the ships and crews of French, Dutch, Polish, Italian and other captured countries did exactly that. So no one would have needed to be dragooned into warships that would have sailed away.
Gosh, you're dumb.
Now please try and find a SINGLE credible expert or article that says the Germans would have captured the British fleet under ANY scenario except Hitler being assisted by Martians.

From Wiki:
"Disputed[edit]
I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.
Statement made after the attack on Pearl Harbor by Yamamoto as portrayed in the film Tora! Tora! Tora!, this is one of the most quoted remarks attributed to him. Though it is thought that it summarizes his sentiments well, a definite source for this quote has never been provided. William Safire wrote that there is no printed evidence to support this quote. Safire's Political Dictionary, page 666. For more information see the Wikipedia article "Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote".

WRONG too.
"Misattributed[edit]
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to source Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009), which cites source Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians", writing "I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it."

Yes. Yamamoto was against attacking the US from the beginning but he was loyal to the Emperor. Yamamoto devised the plan to attack Pearl Harbor.  

to Yamamoto were hearsay from other Japanese officers serving with him who shared them after the war.  Historians say many of them are likely to be true because of his nature and the amount of time he spent in his youth going to school and traveling around the US, but as you say, there is no documented evidence.   He had great respect for the US and its people and was against going to war with us in the first place, but once that decision was made by his superiors, he did his duty to the best of his ability.