Obama Haters

[Bruce551]

The Big Hate

June 12, 2009

OP-ED COLUMNIST

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Back in April, there was a huge fuss over an internal report by the Department of Homeland Security warning that current conditions resemble those in the early 1990s ? a time marked by an upsurge of right-wing extremism that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an attempt to ?segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration? and label them as terrorists.

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn?t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven?t directly incited violence, despite Bill O?Reilly?s declarations that ?some? called Dr. Tiller ?Tiller the Baby Killer,? that he had ?blood on his hands,? and that he was a ?guy operating a death mill.?

But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.

Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News?s new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news ? and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration?s ?totalitarian? agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).

But let?s not neglect the print news media. In the Bush years, The Washington Times became an important media player because it was widely regarded as the Bush administration?s house organ.

Earlier this week, the newspaper saw fit to run an opinion piece declaring that President Obama ?not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,? and that in any case he has ?aligned himself? with the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

And then there?s Rush Limbaugh. His rants today aren?t very different from his rants in 1993. But he occupies a different position in the scheme of things. Remember, during the Bush years Mr. Limbaugh became very much a political insider.

Indeed, according to a recent Gallup survey, 10 percent of Republicans now consider him the ?main person who speaks for the Republican Party today,? putting him in a three-way tie with **** Cheney and Newt Gingrich.

So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories ? suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped ?to get people to respond to government orders? ? that?s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe.

It?s not surprising, then, that politicians are doing the same thing. The R.N.C. says that ?the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals.? And when Jon Voight, the actor, told the audience at a Republican fund-raiser this week that the president is a ?false prophet? and that ?we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression,? Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, thanked him, saying that he ?really enjoyed? the remarks.

Credit where credit is due. Some figures in the conservative media have refused to go along with the big hate ? people like Fox?s Shepard Smith and Catherine Herridge, who debunked the attacks on that Homeland Security report two months ago. But this doesn?t change the broad picture, which is that supposedly respectable news organizations and political figures are giving aid and comfort to dangerous extremism.

What will the consequences be? Nobody knows, of course, although the analysts at Homeland Security fretted that things may turn out even worse than in the 1990s ? that thanks, in part, to the election of an African-American president, ?the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.?

And that?s a threat to take seriously. Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.

I pray for President Obama safety. And BTW, Rush Limbaugh, **** Cheney, and Newt Gingrich eat **** and die motherf*ckers.

:x

[vbroker]

WELCOME BACK, CARTER

June 10, 2009

Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Nothing better to do than cut & paste NYT hard left liberal "pundits?" Bar girl friends starting to bore you? Or is that CHALLENGE your "intellectualism?" Oh wait.........methinks number 72 is trying to catch your attention....

Stupid bastard doesn't even know to post this crap under the "Politics and Social Issues" heading.....

[beej]

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

oooooih here we ******* go again, ol mighty Sepember the ******* 11th, how it gets whipped out at any chance it gets like a cock at the sight of a web cam.

Seemed like the world was a safer place when those darn Liberals were in control.

[Mister Moobs]

Coulter is a mad woman.

The removal of Mossadegh was a mistake. It led directly to the rise of Khomeini and Carter's shame.

Lots of other stupidity in that C-rant.

9-11 was an important event in American culture and life. Get used to it, beej.

[vbroker]

Seemed like the world was a safer place when those darn Liberals were in control.

Yeah; it did "seem" that way, didn't it? Look a little deeper; things aren't always what they seem.

Coulter is a mad woman.

She's no worse and a lot better looking than Krugman....and the OP.

The removal of Mossadegh was a mistake. It led directly to the rise of Khomeini and Carter's shame.

OK...if you say so. I don't come to this forum to look at some busted, elderly clown's cut and paste skills and his Neanderthal, high school level, ad hominem attacks on people who've made far more of themselves in life. I'd rather read about something he's intimately familiar with and maybe......just maybe.....can organize his thoughts around.....his bar girl exploits. The blue moon awaits.......

Lots of other stupidity in that C-rant.

Then go critique it....in your own words.

[Oo.Cloud.oO]

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

oooooih here we f*cking go again, ol mighty Sepember the f*cking 11th, how it gets whipped out at any chance it gets like a cock at the sight of a web cam.

Seemed like the world was a safer place when those darn Liberals were in control.

i highly doubt semptember 11 had ANY fuckin thing to do with muslims FIRST OFF

second off

yea i think its used as a MAJOR excuse to proceed with a agenda no one WANT to see

i cant remember the last time i heard the world MUSLIM or Terrorist in usa before then

oh wait

bush senior

[eagle]

Obamas turned into a car salesman ........

[PJack]

WELCOME BACK, CARTER

June 10, 2009

Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Nothing better to do than cut & paste NYT hard left liberal "pundits?" Bar girl friends starting to bore you? Or is that CHALLENGE your "intellectualism?" Oh wait.........methinks number 72 is trying to catch your attention....

Stupid bastard doesn't even know to post this crap under the "Politics and Social Issues" heading.....

Coulter is a lunatic. To say it is accurate to blam muslims (by her implication all muslims) as responsible for 9 11 is like blaming the Christins for lynching blacks when it is more accurate to say it was the KKK.

She makes a fair point about Mossadegh but it was such a minor part of the speech it is not worth much. Aside from that Obama is taking a better, different approach than the one that was not working. Give him and his teams a chance to see what they can accomplish in a few years. To many myopic Americans who are spoon fed reality through American media it is difficult to understand how different some cultures are. Different approaches are required. Not everything will be fixed by hard rhetoric and bombs.

[eagle]

Pjack wrote:

Not everything will be fixed by hard rhetoric and bombs.

They talk tough but Repos were in charge during 911-911-911. Its amazingly hypocritical for repos to say Obama is making the US less safe when they were asleep at the wheel on 911. Its all smoke and mirrors for the media to send out to the masses. Coulter is selling books.

[Mister Moobs]

Vbroker,

for the most part I agree with your politics. Moreso than the loonie lefties on here. Coulter, though, re-writes history and leaves out important parts. For instance, the reason why the Iranian oil pipelines shut down after Mossadegh nationalized them is that the Brits sabotaged them and pulled out all of their engineers.

The Anglo-Persian Oil company was ripping Iran off. They were giving them something like 10% of oil revenues. And they cooked the books and never allowed access to the financials to the Iranians. The Shah was their stooge and then he became our stooge. He was not much better a human being than Saddam Hussein.

Lots of inaccuracies in Coulters article. Artfully placed so that the average person (that knows nothing about history) will believe her little rant. I agree with Coulter a bit. But she should use real history.

Our plot to take out Mossadegh was misguided. We didn't remove him because we thought he was a nationalist. We removed him because JF Dulles was a fervent anti-communist and Churchill and Eden convinced Dulles and Ike that Mossodegh was a communist. And he wasn't. He was a nationalist.

Truman refused to go along with their ploy when they came to him. Truman, instead, attempted to talk the Brits into playing fairly with the Iranians. Specificallly in crafting a deal more along the lines of the Saudi/American oil deal.

But the Brits in the paternal "we know what's best for the natives" and "we will steal all of their natural resources and give them pennies for it if we damn well please" mentality would have not part of brokering a fair deal.

Coulter is wrong in this instance.

Next, she'll say that we were right all along in Vietnam. lol

The rest of the Coulter rant is too silly to bother with...

Have a nice day.

Emperor Obama has it all under control now anyway. I hear he's going to change his name to Valentinian III after his hero of Roman Empire fame.

P.S. Before anyone gets too happy or sad about that, you might want to research it. lol

[Mister Moobs]

Seemed like the world was a safer place when those darn Liberals were in control.

Yeah; it did "seem" that way, didn't it? Look a little deeper; things aren't always what they seem.

Coulter is a mad woman.

She's no worse and a lot better looking than Krugman....and the OP.

The removal of Mossadegh was a mistake. It led directly to the rise of Khomeini and Carter's shame.

OK...if you say so. I don't come to this forum to look at some busted, elderly clown's cut and paste skills and his Neanderthal, high school level, ad hominem attacks on people who've made far more of themselves in life. I'd rather read about something he's intimately familiar with and maybe......just maybe.....can organize his thoughts around.....his bar girl exploits. The blue moon awaits.......

Lots of other stupidity in that C-rant.

Then go critique it....in your own words.

The world seemed a safer place in the years that Attila was gathering the Hun tribes as well. Relatively safety and Rome ignored all the signs.

Just as we do now.

[eagle]

JackD wrote:

The world seemed a safer place in the years that Attila was gathering the Hun tribes as well. Relatively safety and Rome ignored all the signs.

Just as we do now.

You really think that islam is ready to rise up behind fanatics. I think the majority of people in all religions are far to busy surviving or living their lives to jump on the wagon of Zealots. The only people really believing the zealots are zealots. Problem they might be ,they aren't modern Attilas. Media hype don't make it so.

[vbroker]

They talk tough...

And you talk (smoke) stupid. So what else is new?

but Repos were in charge during 911-911-911. Its amazingly hypocritical for repos to say Obama is making the US less safe when they were asleep at the wheel on 911.

Hence my point. Sheer stupidity. Almost laughable if Panama Red weren't involved.

You really think......

No..............you really DON'T think. That much is clear.

Vbroker,

for the most part I agree with your politics. Moreso than the loonie lefties on here.

They're less than just "loonie lefties." They're just plain dumb.

Coulter, though, re-writes history and leaves out important parts. For instance.......

The reason I posted the Coulter article was NOT to engage a detailed back and forth on the Mossdegh minutiae; or anything else about her article. The point was to rebuke the imbecile OP's tendency to cut and paste his momentary favorite professional left wing lunatic BECAUSE HE'S UNABLE TO RATIONALIZE HIS OWN THOUGHT PROCESS AND PUT FORTH AN ARGUMENT. In other words, he's so incapable he needs another moron to make his own sick argument for him.

So what does dumbass (and others here) do next? He goes on a verbal expletive rampage singling out highly successful people after he's lived out his freak show fantasy provided to him courtesy Paul Krugman. "Eat sh*t and die," he says. The funny thing is, IT IS HE WHO IS EATING THE SH*T AND WASTING AWAY WHILE THOSE HE IMPUGNS PROSPER.

I thought I'd make that clear.

Have a nice day.

Back @ ya.

[eagle]

They talk tough...

And you talk (smoke) stupid. So what else is new?

but Repos were in charge during 911-911-911. Its amazingly hypocritical for repos to say Obama is making the US less safe when they were asleep at the wheel on 911.

Hence my point. Sheer stupidity. Almost laughable if Panama Red weren't involved.

You really think......

No..............you really DON'T think. That much is clear.

Vbroker,

for the most part I agree with your politics. Moreso than the loonie lefties on here.

They're less than just "loonie lefties." They're just plain dumb.

Coulter, though, re-writes history and leaves out important parts. For instance.......

The reason I posted the Coulter article was NOT to engage a detailed back and forth on the Mossdegh minutiae; or anything else about her article. The point was to rebuke the imbecile OP's tendency to cut and paste his momentary favorite professional left wing lunatic BECAUSE HE'S UNABLE TO RATIONALIZE HIS OWN THOUGHT PROCESS AND PUT FORTH AN ARGUMENT. In other words, he's so incapable he needs another moron to make his own sick argument for him.

So what does dumbass (and others here) do next? He goes on a verbal expletive rampage singling out highly successful people after he's lived out his freak show fantasy provided to him courtesy Paul Krugman. "Eat sh*t and die," he says. The funny thing is, IT IS HE WHO IS EATING THE SH*T AND WASTING AWAY WHILE THOSE HE IMPUGNS PROSPER.

I thought I'd make that clear.

Have a nice day.

Back @ ya.

I bet you listen to Rush Limbaugh with a bar of soap. YOu can call me stupid but your posts tell your story. Your as asleep at the wheel as the repos were on 911........

[eagle]

eagle wrote:

but Repos were in charge during 911-911-911. Its amazingly hypocritical for repos to say Obama is making the US less safe when they were asleep at the wheel on 911.

vbroke wrote:

Hence my point. Sheer stupidity. Almost laughable if Panama Red weren't involved.

Maybe Rush can tell you what to think here. You and yours are so desperate to sound legitimate and he is the best you can do. Back to your hog trough now.

:roll:

[eagle]

Rush Limbaugh Coulter Cheney served by Hannity and O'really Guess we're stuck with Obama for awhile

oooh don't forget Palin

and Newt. mmmm powerteam coming out of all that

[eagle]

vbroke wrote:

hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

You keep repeating that over and over again. Smart guy like you can make people believe it :roll:

[eagle]

Bruce551 wrote:

And BTW, Rush Limbaugh, d*ck Cheney, and Newt Gingrich eat sh*t and die motherf*ckers.

The more they talk the more obvious how desperate they are. The are drowning in their own BS looking like belligerent fools in the wake of Obamas cool.

[PJack]

They talk tough...

And you talk (smoke) stupid. So what else is new?

but Repos were in charge during 911-911-911. Its amazingly hypocritical for repos to say Obama is making the US less safe when they were asleep at the wheel on 911.

Hence my point. Sheer stupidity. Almost laughable if Panama Red weren't involved.

You really think......

No..............you really DON'T think. That much is clear.

Vbroker,

for the most part I agree with your politics. Moreso than the loonie lefties on here.

They're less than just "loonie lefties." They're just plain dumb.

Coulter, though, re-writes history and leaves out important parts. For instance.......

The reason I posted the Coulter article was NOT to engage a detailed back and forth on the Mossdegh minutiae; or anything else about her article. The point was to rebuke the imbecile OP's tendency to cut and paste his momentary favorite professional left wing lunatic BECAUSE HE'S UNABLE TO RATIONALIZE HIS OWN THOUGHT PROCESS AND PUT FORTH AN ARGUMENT. In other words, he's so incapable he needs another moron to make his own sick argument for him.

So what does dumbass (and others here) do next? He goes on a verbal expletive rampage singling out highly successful people after he's lived out his freak show fantasy provided to him courtesy Paul Krugman. "Eat sh*t and die," he says. The funny thing is, IT IS HE WHO IS EATING THE SH*T AND WASTING AWAY WHILE THOSE HE IMPUGNS PROSPER.

I thought I'd make that clear.

Have a nice day.

Back @ ya.

choosing Ann Coulter to post for any reason says interesting things about you, the successful person making the most of his life and thought.

it says you are a nutcase.

[eagle]

Pjack wrote:

choosing Ann Coulter to post for any reason says interesting things about you, the successful person making the most of his life and thought.

it says you are a nutcase.

touche'

vbroke spewed:

"Eat sh*t and die," he says. The funny thing is, IT IS HE WHO IS EATING THE SH*T AND WASTING AWAY WHILE THOSE HE IMPUGNS PROSPER.

Hog trough mentality :shock: :roll:

[Mister Moobs]

JackD wrote:

The world seemed a safer place in the years that Attila was gathering the Hun tribes as well. Relatively safety and Rome ignored all the signs.

Just as we do now.

You really think that islam is ready to rise up behind fanatics. I think the majority of people in all religions are far to busy surviving or living their lives to jump on the wagon of Zealots. The only people really believing the zealots are zealots. Problem they might be ,they aren't modern Attilas. Media hype don't make it so.

The Muslims who believe that Islam will one day rule the ******* world are but the front show.

Do you really think that there are no countries out there or leaders of countries with designs on regional hegemony. Do you really think that there are no Stalins or Hitlers out there. Waiting their chance to move.

Do you really think that all the world is a rainbow.

That said, the Muzzie fanatics are much like the Huns under Attila. They gather their forces and strike at weakness.

The Muslim masses are illiterate and easily swayed. Look at the reactions to the Mohammad pics and other similar instances around the globe.

Imagine an empire of Islam with Nuclear technology that stretches from Iran to Pakistan and down through Syria. One with Nuclear capacity. One with an apocalyptic outlook.

Seems an unimaginable scenario.

You think them incapable. And for now, you are correct. The future is not static. The status quo of today will not remain tomorrow.

But believe as you will.

Hitler and the Third Reich seemed an unimaginable scenario in 1920.

The Soviet Union seemed an unimaginable scenario in in 1940.

The fall of Rome was once the nightmares of ranting loons.

China once thought that the Mongolians were a disparate group of inhospitable tribes incapable of anything more than their nomadic lives of hunting gathering and banditry.

We close our eyes. We think their are no enemies. We grow fat and weak. We lose our martial ardor. We ignore our weaknesses.

We fall.

No empire. No power. Nothing lasts forever.

This too shall pass.

I say it comes after those of us speaking here and now are 100 years gone. But one great cataclysm. Say a nuclear strike on Israel by Iranian nukes launched from Hezbollah controlled Lebanon and the world turns upside down.

So let Iran have her Nukes.

North Korea gets her Nukes.

Japan decides that they will revise their Constitution. They build an offensive military. They grow their own Nuclear garden. China grows fearful. Mistakes are made. Misunderstandings happen. Events unfold in the chaos.

No one knows the future. But it would be better to rattle those sabers now to forestall madness. Especially when it is madmen reaching for the swords of doom and destruction.

Perhaps, Iran and NK only want Nukes for prestige. Perhaps they want Nukes as a first strike in a bigger plan.

We don't know.

Cause and effect.

It was the assassination of a Serbian Prince that threw the world into war in the early 1900s.

What small thing will set off the next great war.

And being human, we will have a next great war. Peaceniks, the appeasement crowd, the gullible and those like them will ensure that much.

[Mister Moobs]

choosing Ann Coulter to post for any reason says interesting things about you, the successful person making the most of his life and thought.

it says you are a nutcase.

Closing your mind to things make one dull.

Coulter, though she more often than not spews venom in a manner that turns people off, makes valid points. Her points would hit home with a larger crowd if she would tone down and not use a highly partisan revisionist slant in her writings.

[Bruce551]

I don't think the Obama administration is under any illusions with regard to the USA's foreign policy in the Mid-East. In Afghanistan, the goal is to first secure people's safety, second to improve living conditions in villages, with electricity, running water, health centers, communications, schools, improve rural farming, and micro-finance for small businesses. People who have an education are less likely to join radical extremist groups. Most people no matter who they are want a better life for themselves and their kids.

It's uneducated people who have nothing to lose, they are ones that join the extremist groups.

[Mister Moobs]

In Afghanistan, the goal is to first insure people's safety, second to improve living conditions in villages, with electricity, running water, health centers, communications, schools, improve rural farming, and micro-finance for small businesses. People who have an education are less likely to join radical extremist groups. Most people no matter who they are want a better life for themselves and their kids.

It's uneducated people who have nothing to lose, they are ones that join the extremist groups.

On this we are in agreement. I don't know if Obama and his folks are keyed in on this as much as the world would like to think.

[Stramash]

choosing Ann Coulter to post for any reason says interesting things about you, the successful person making the most of his life and thought.

it says you are a nutcase.

Closing your mind to things make one dull.

Coulter, though she more often than not spews venom in a manner that turns people off, makes valid points. Her points would hit home with a larger crowd if she would tone down and not use a highly partisan revisionist slant in her writings.

funnily enough, I once heard someone debate that same argument about an Austrian painter called Adolf...

:wink: