Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Speaking at the conservative "How To Take Back America" conference in St. Louis Missouri on September 26, Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks said conservatives "need to realize" President Obama is "an enemy of humanity" who has "no place in any station of government."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

nogov4me

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Can there be any more hypocrisy?

Someone should tell Mr. Franks to wipe the foam off his mouth before he gives a speech.

I can't really bring myself to give a shit what this guy or people like him are saying about Obama. Maybe it's because if (and when) these things were being said about another president, you would have probably been right there saying them.

No, I don't think there can be any more hypocrisy, Pirate.

I'm no fan of the President, but are you people fucking kidding me? An enemy of humanity? Why don't you drop all the pretense and start the civil war already? assholes.

"I'm no fan of the President, but are you people fucking kidding me? An enemy of humanity? Why don't you drop all the pretense and start the civil war already? assholes."

That's the problem, isn't it. We have to defend this guy because of the insanity of the right, despite the fact that he doesn't represent the left.

This is just so outrageous. These people are my fellow Americans, my brothers and sisters. I just don't get it.

"Criminal George Bush: terrorist, mass murderer, war criminal, traitor."

Left can be insane as well. There lies the hypocrisy...on both sides.

Oh, Pirate, those things said of Bush were, however, true.

Sincerely,
The Left

If my representative told me Obama was 'an enemy of humanity' I would probably laugh at him. He would never say that.

I wish these assholes would knock it off. I used to be able to say off the wall shit that was ridiculous on this blog, (like I wonder if the Obamas fling poo at each other in the Whitehouse) and now I can't because I just sound like them. Fuckin sucks. Its taking all the fun out of blogging.

"those things said of Bush were, however, true."

Let us know when Obama invades and occupies a country that poses no risk.

#7 You see, I told you so. The left cannot help themselves.

This "conference" is a hate filled call to arms for the nutcase rednecks in the republican party. The Secret Service should arrest everyone and throw them in Guantanamo.

#12 Have to wait for your hero to turn all of the real terrorists loose first. Shouldn't have to wait too long though.

"real" terrorists are the ones that are convicted of terrorism.

If republicans continue with this type of behavior displaying such hatred for their fellow Americans using fear to garner votes and proving such a lack of common sense, I don't forsee myself voting for one of them any time soon.

Discuss the issues, come up with a better plan for fixing the problems in this country but what they are doing now does nothing but show their weakness, even though they think they are showing strength.

Taking back America??? From fellow Americans??

Apparently you democrats are looked at as enemies.

Pathetic.

I said this before, that if the republican party does not stop their nonsense, stop trying to demonize their opponents and get back to the basics their party was founded on....they will not be a voice for this country.

Grow up for Heavens sake and start acting like adilts rather than children throwing a temper tantrum becaise they didn't get their way!!

Apparently you democrats are looked at as enemies.

----

Newsflash: Both parties view each other as enemies.

That's silly. Some of my best friends are members of different parties - or at least vote for them. When the discourse in the public square is reduced to name-calling (and this is pretty vile - seriously, the President is an "enemy of humanity?) no one is served.

I'm going to disagree with you Pirate.

I've not heard democrats call republicans unAmerican or have meetings to "Take Back America" as if this country was held hostage by terrorists.

Being opponets is one thing. The things republicans have been saying the past several years is sad and disgusting.

Let us know when Obama invades and occupies a country that poses no risk.

The continuation of the policies he opposed during his campaign for the Presidency doesn't count, huh?

I've not heard democrats call republicans unAmerican...

Lisa, please. Do you skip bOoB's posts? He does it almost daily. And he also shouts that the right hates America almost every day.

And I can give you more examples if you want. bOoB is the first who came to mind.

"The continuation of the policies he opposed during his campaign for the Presidency doesn't count, huh?"

The difference between choosing a war and being handed one doesn't count, huh?

The difference between choosing a war and being handed one doesn't count, huh?

My how the standards change. Palin was dragged through the mud on this blog because of Alaska's policy of making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits even though that policy had been in place for over 20 years. She was "handed" that law.

But Obama gets a pass for not fixing things he was "handed".

I hate double standards.

"My how the standards change. Palin was dragged through the mud on this blog because of Alaska's policy of making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits even though that policy had been in place for over 20 years. She was "handed" that law.

But Obama gets a pass for not fixing things he was "handed".

I hate double standards.

Posted by goatman"


Does substance matter? If yes, would you agree that changing AK's rape kit policy is quite a bit easier than resolving the war Bush started in the Middle East? Or solving the nationwide fiscal crisis?

Lisa,

Perhaps you should read this...

www.cbsnews.com

"I hate double standards...."

What rape kit did Obama make the victim pay for?

"Palin was dragged through the mud on this blog because of Alaska's policy of making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits even though that policy had been in place for over 20 years. She was "handed" that law. But Obama gets a pass for not fixing things he was "handed". I hate double standards."

Unless you can find a post where I specifically bashed Palin regarding the rape kit, you're a jerk.

"Alaska's policy of making rape victims pay..."

If memory serves, it was municipal policy, and Palin was mayor.

Does substance matter? If yes, would you agree that changing AK's rape kit policy is quite a bit easier than resolving the war Bush started in the Middle East? Or solving the nationwide fiscal crisis?

I was wondering who was going to be the first with the expected "But, but, but this is different" excuse.

Unless you can find a post where I specifically bashed Palin regarding the rape kit, you're a jerk.

I speaking in generalities, danny. Chill

"I speaking in generalities, danny. Chill"

You quoted me directly. Fuck you.

"While mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin fired the existing sheriff who did not make victims pay for rape kits. She then appointed the sheriff who required rape victims, or their insurance companies if they had health insurance, to pay for their rape kits. It was not until the State of Alaska stepped in and passed a bill that forced Wasilla to pay for rape kits that Palin and her sheriff stopped charging rape victims. Alaska was in danger of losing federal funding because the U.S.A. passed a law that required that rape kits be paid for by the public. Palin and her sheriff had been violating federal law."

wiki.answers.com

If memory serves, it was municipal policy, and Palin was mayor.

If memory serves it was something she was handed.

Thanks for the deflections in defense of y'all's messiah, all you ObamaMamas.

You'll have until at least 2012 to keep saying, "But he was handed this by Bush." I'll bet it'll be pretty tiresome by then, though.

"If memory serves it was something she was handed..."

I refer you to DANFORTH.

"But he was handed this by Bush..."

A very big part of me wants Obama to simply leave both Afghanistan and Iraq.

That would solve your complaint handily. Want that?

"But, but, but this is different" excuse.
#28 | Posted by goatman

How is it not different, goat?

I refer you to DANFORTH.

If you don't have the balls to say "Fucky you" to me directly it is pretty hollow, zed. The phrase is pretty meaningless to me anyway as I've always seen it as a pathetic last resort gasp by someone without the wit to come up with a better retort.

"If you don't have the balls to say "Fucky you" to me directly it is pretty hollow, zed."

I think he meant #31.

Hey, GOATMAN---Fuck you---Hey, look---Balls. Who would have thought?

Of course he meant #31. Getting progressively more difficult to have fun around here.

Pirate:

Thank you. I stand corrected on that. However, you don't see a difference between what Pelosi was saying and being called UnAmerican because we have spoke out against Bush?

Let's look at republican behaviors and comments for the past several years shall we?

Those who questioned Bush... were called UnAmerican.

Those who spoke out against the war in Iraq...were called UnAmerican.

Those who spoke out against certain aspects of the wiretapping....were called unAmerican.

Those who disagreed with Bush were said to be siding with the terrorists. Remember if you are not for us you are against us?? Republicans took that as if you are not for Bush, you side with the enemy.

Now....

Those who do not support Obama....are called "True Patriots.

Now.....

Republicans want to "take back America" as if it is occupied by the taliban.

I don't care for Pelosi but in all honesty I repiblicans have been acting like thugs.

Calling a spade a spade is one thing, but that's not what republicans did to those who disagreed with Bush.

How is it not different, goat?

The power wielded in their particular office vis-a-vis their respective charges is the same

IOW, the president has as much power over a nation of 300,000,000 as a mayor has over a town of 10,000

The difference between choosing a war and being handed one doesn't count, huh?

#21 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2009-09-29 07:50 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Good question. Too bad Nixon's dead, we coulda asked him.

Hey, GOATMAN---Fuck you---Hey, look---Balls.

That's better, but still . . .

I'm sure you read the rest of my post.

I always read your posts, GOATMAN. I don't mistake you for witless and I encourage you to return the favor.

Hey, look---Balls. Who would have thought?

#38 | Posted by Zed

Tough question. This will take time.

"Too bad Nixon's dead, we coulda asked him."

I'd certainly agree, Nixon was handed a war.

Now, the fact he accepted the same terms four years too late, or he and Kissinger negotiated for "plausible deniability"....

"Who would have thought...?"

Only those who might intentionally thought having been provided some future opportunity.

Lisa,

I'm not defending Republicans. Both sides are doing it and crying foul when the other does it. That's the hypocrisy in politics that I see.

The core of the parties hate each other. Each view the other as the worst thing for America.

Good question. Too bad Nixon's dead, we coulda asked him.

Good point. And Nixon, unlike Obama ended the war he was handed.

I'll save you Obama apologists some embarassment of your predictible reply that he has not had enough time. Nixon started bringing down troop levels as soon as he came into office. Troop levels in Iraq have not come down yet.

wiki.answers.com

"I always read your posts, GOATMAN. I don't mistake you for witless"

Now there's your first mistake.

"Nixon, unlike Obama ended the war he was handed"

Four years after he was offered the same terms he accepted. That's considered a FAIL in negotiation, especially considering the lives lost and ruined.

I don't mistake you for witless and I encourage you to return the favor.

Trust me, zed, I do. But you have to admit that "fuck you" isn't exactly a rational retort.

"wiki.answers.com"

That's a yearly summation. Apples and oranges, until next January 20th.

The left are nothing more than members in good standing of the Hypocrat party

"you have to admit that "fuck you" isn't exactly a rational retort."

You have to admit quoting someone directly and then pretending the answer was general when called on it is pretty gutless.

i think that true republicans have it the worst. they would really like smaller government and more local control. don't really like what is happening under obama. Yet, at the same time, their own party has the same big government mentality while using smaller government as a selling point they don't really believe. at least the dems are up front about it.

as for the "enemy of humanity" - it's just more shrill bullshit that we get from the fringes on both sides.

That's Results 1 - 21 of about 7,960,000 (0.03 seconds a quick list...hypocrits....

Pirate:

I'm not trying to defend democrats. To be honest, I have found them weak, spineless and undeserving to be leaders in this country.

I just don't find it hypocritical to call a spade a spade.

That is what I believe Pelosi was doing.

The reasons she used that word are far different than the reasons the republicans have used it the past several years.

That's a yearly summation. Apples and oranges, until next January 20th.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-29 08:34 PM | Reply | Flag: has his fingers crossed and is muttering "please, god"

"has his fingers crossed and is muttering "please, god""

You're right...but for the troops, not for me. Nice deflection, though.

So I listened to this yahoo and his complaint is that Obama sent money overseas to countries to pay for abortions.

He claims that it is unbelievable that Obama does not see the face of God in little ones.

So he does the hyperbole saying that Obama is an enemy of humanity on that basis. On the basis that Obama is pro abortion and sends taxpayer dollars to other countries to kill babies over there.


And then the left does their hyperbole---from the article--


"The reason why this is so troubling is that we've heard this kind of rhetoric before. It's the same sort of language that has fueled right-wing terrorism against abortion clinics for years. And now it's coming from a member of the United States Congress, directed towards the President of the United States of America."


-----

Now to give one hyperbole for another doesn't move the conversation. At least not in a meaningful way.

Folks on the extremes just ratch it up to the next level. Screaming, yelling, and more hyperbole..

The difference between choosing a war and being handed one doesn't count, huh?

When you have it in your power to stop it and choose not to, for whatever reason?

No, the difference doesn't count.

George Bush started two wars. One was pointless and against a country that never attacked us. The other had resources taken away from it to fight the pointless war.

He gets full credit for getting us from then to January 20, 2009. After that, he's no longer the president and no longer responsible for policy.

That falls on obama. Obama ran on a platform of ending the war in Iraq and focusing more attention on Afghanistan. Let me know when it actually happens.

"That's the problem, isn't it. We have to defend this guy because of the insanity of the right, despite the fact that he doesn't represent the left."

It worked for Clinton, nullifidian. Bush II found it most useful as well, only he used the conservatives to defend him. It seems this kind of negative psychology has become an instituted part of politics.

"Enemy of Humanity"?

WTF?!

Have the right totally lost it by this point?

Oh yeah, and THIS...

That's the problem, isn't it. We have to defend this guy because of the insanity of the right, despite the fact that he doesn't represent the left.

And the ironic part?

The main accusations from the right are about wot an "extreme lefty" he is.

Madness.

The 49/51% Solution (TM) continues apace.

Be Well.

"Someone should tell Mr. Franks to wipe the foam off his mouth before he gives a speech."

That's not foam false profit, that's....oh wait. I was thinking of another congressman with a similar name. Never mind.

Enemy of humanity?

Christians.
Jews.
Muslims.
Govcorpco.

All have caused more human suffering than all the combined disasters of this planet.

You are right about govcorpco, gitmboy, but I fail to see how these religions were responsible for Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Napoleon, the American Civil War, the American Revolution, the Opium Wars, Viet Nam, the Boer War and a few dozen other major conflicts caused by....well, unrestrained secularism to be frank.

World War I, the Franco-Prussian War, the Russian Revolution and subsequent Civil War.......Korea.......

The Crusades.
The Inquisition
Various Terrorist attacks from Islamic fundamentalists
Jonestown
Alfred P Murrah Federal Building

The Murrah Building religiously inspired? C'mon. And our side of the Crusades was a defensive response to regain lost territory more than to evangelize. I am proud of the Crusades!
So you have listed a few hundred thousand maybe in casualties compared to how many millions in the conflicts I cited?
Care to back up the statement about more people being killed for religious reasons than the combined disasters of history?

Calling Obama (or any president of the U.S.) an enemy of humanity is not a new occurance in American politics. And is really just another political football. It will continue to occur because neither side will relent. Which is fine - it's politics. Just as long as neither side tries to claim that it occupies a higher moral ground.

The problems start mounting when people start believing such crap. That is something civilization and increased knowledge and awareness are supposed to eliminate. Yet it seems the opposite is occurring. Which leads me to dismiss with contempt any statement which indicates that we are "better" than other nations. Our institutions our inherent intentions may be, but our people obviously aren't.

Care to back up the statement about more people being killed for religious reasons than the combined disasters of history?

I don't need to back it up. I didn't make it. Although, I don't disagree.

The Murrah Building religiously inspired?

Uh. yeah.

www.adl.org

He and members of the gang were all reportedly at Elohim City in northern Arkansas at a time shortly before the attack. McVeigh's presence was verified by an Arkansas speeding ticket issued at the time, while the others' visit to the compound was discovered as part of the bank robbery investigations.

So you have listed a few hundred thousand maybe in casualties compared to how many millions in the conflicts I cited?

I listed the major ones in response to your postings. The number of crimes against people that have been done in the name of god are too numerous to list on one page.

"more people being killed for religious reasons than the combined disasters of history?"

The combined totals of people killed during WWI and WWII alone stands favorably against the number of people killed in all other wars in recorded history. Neither war was fought for religious reasons. When wars like Alexander the Great's, Ghenghis Khan's, Napoleon's, the Roman Empires, etc. are added in, the "dead because of religious reasons" line is easily shown to be an myth.

"The combined totals of people killed during WWI and WWII alone stands favorably against the number of people killed in all other wars in recorded history."

Of course it does. Vastly larger and concentrated urban populations combined with 20th century killing technology does tend to push up the totals. Obviously you can kill a lot more with a machine gun than a sword. Whether those wars were bloodier than previous religious wars in relation to the size of the population is another question.

"Whether those wars were bloodier than previous religious wars in relation to the size of the population is another question."

That's a different issue than the usual "more killed in wars because of religion". For your issue, start counting the wars of Alexander the Great's, Ghenghis Khan's, Napoleon's, the Roman Empires, etc. Still no comparison.

The entire "blame religion" bit doesn't stand up to scrutiny in any circustances. Even most wars fought for "explicitly" religious reasons, like the various late Middle Age wars, were really fought for personal or economic reasons. The Huguenots (sorry, too lazy to check spelling) for instance, were killed because of their wealth way more than because of their religion. The proof is that they existed, though in conflict - until the French king needed money.

"That's a different issue than the usual "more killed in wars because of religion". "

What about colonial conquests by Christians? Do those deaths count? If Columbus executed injuns who wouldn't convert to Christianity does that count?

"The entire "blame religion" bit doesn't stand up to scrutiny in any circustances. "

It's just one cause of conflict, to be sure. A fairly big one, though.

"GOP Congressman: Obama 'An Enemy of Humanity'"


Dang! It's getting rough out there for an honest Socialist to come in and try and take over!! JEEZ!

I've not heard democrats call republicans unAmerican or have meetings to "Take Back America" as if this country was held hostage by terrorists.

#18 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-09-29 07:43 PM

Are you shitting me? The left were counting down the days until Bush left office and they could "Take Back America." You're just ignoring it because that makes you more comfortable voting for Democrats.

PIRATE.....The difference is the GWB is a Fucking War criminal

It's just one cause of conflict, to be sure. A fairly big one, though.

----

Like that can be quantified?

The American public is not buying this shit, and it is turning more people away from the Republican party. Republicans need the rational members like Romney and Jindal to step forward and call these morons out if they want to save their party, because if anything serious happens (i.e. assassination attempt, bombing etc) and it is traced back to some looney repub, then they are through.

Obama was handed two wars, but since he is escalating Afghan war instead of doing the responsible thing and pulling out, he owns that one. Assuming he follows through with the Bush withdrawal timetable on Iraq, and his campaign promise to leave a "residual force" in Iraq, he'll own the fact that we aren't really leaving that country, either.

"What about colonial conquests by Christians? Do those deaths count? If Columbus executed injuns who wouldn't convert to Christianity does that count?"

Count them up. See if the numbers come close. I'll bet you they're not even in the same planet.


Just twenty-one years after Columbus's first landing in the Caribbean, the vastly populous island that the explorer had re-named Hispaniola was effectively desolate; nearly 8,000,000 people-those Columbus chose to call Indians-had been killed by violence, disease, and despair. It took a little longer, about the span of a single human generation, but what happened on Hispaniola was the equivalent of more than fifty Hiroshimas. And Hispaniola was only the beginning.
Within no more than a handful of generations following their first encounters with Europeans, the vast majority of the Western Hemisphere's native peoples had been exterminated. The pace and magnitude of their obliteration varied from place to place and from time to time, but for years now historical demographers have been uncovering, in region upon region, post-Columbian depopulation rates of between 90 and 98 percent with such regularity that an overall decline of 95 percent has become a working rule of thumb. What this means is that, on average, for every twenty natives alive at the moment of European contact-when the lands of the Americas teemed with numerous tens of millions of people-only one stood in their place when the bloodbath was over.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com

"but what happened on Hispaniola was the equivalent of more than fifty Hiroshimas. And Hispaniola was only the beginning."

Its Barney Frank that has the foam on his mouth and that ain't foam. The man is right, obama can do nothing right but please the bastards in the unions and the crack heads and crack whores in ACORN. He could have at least furnished the kids that are singing big ears praise, some cute little brown shirts and some colorful swastika arm bands. He should also put them on his own daughters as an example to the others kids in America.

"Assuming he follows through with the Bush withdrawal timetable on Iraq,"

Haha, pretty funny considering Bush waited until after Obama campaigned on a specific plan to leave Iraq before he enacted that exact plan. Obama also said, during the campaign, that he would send more troops to Afghanistan because that is the country from which we were attacked and which will become a staging ground for the same terrorists if we just walk away.

#18 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-09-29 07:43 PM

Pelosi and others have called the teabaggers evil and unAmerican. Granted some of them are fucking stupid/crazy, but they aren't evil or unAmerican. They are just expressing their differences.

Will "Trent Franks" new book make it to press before "Sarah Palins". He'll have to work hard because Sarah cut her memoirs book from 800 pages to 400 pages and up'd the release date by (3) months that how bad she wants the cash.

"SHOW ME THE MONEY BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY MONEY IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS"

These fucking money grubbing Republicans never quit and all of them are becoming keenly aware that the path to riches comes by acting like an asshole and speaking like an asshole.

Joe the Plumber, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Joe Wilson, Anne Coultier, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and now this ass-fucking-hole.


Ignorant fucking low life jackasses.... That what the entire Republican party has become.

Haha, pretty funny considering Bush waited until after Obama campaigned on a specific plan to leave Iraq before he enacted that exact plan.

#88 | Posted by danni at 2009-09-30 05:07 PM

I'm sure the Bush administration took Obama's opinion into account when crafting it's Iraq policy. All the other Democrats had been trying to convince Bush for years, but to no avail. One flowery speech from Obama later, and the Bush admin just had to follow suit. (please)

Obama also said, during the campaign, that he would send more troops to Afghanistan because that is the country from which we were attacked and which will become a staging ground for the same terrorists if we just walk away.

#88 | Posted by danni at 2009-09-30 05:07 PM

Afghanistan is a staging ground for terrorists now. Funny how when Bush was president, occupations created more terrorists, now they don't. Just out of curiosity, what do we hope to gain by staying there?

Why don't you drop all the pretense and start the civil war already? assholes.

#4 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

I'm ready for a BLUE USA and a RED USA

She was "handed" that law.

But Obama gets a pass for not fixing things he was "handed".

I hate double standards.

#22 | Posted by goatman

absurd of course. Get real. You are the one with the double standards.

You are talking apples and oranges.

And challenging a law you are handed IS worlds from apart from reversing course in a War in full swing that you are handed(which, BTW, Obama HAS done!)

Did you not notice that it is Obama's policy and INTENTION to withdraw our Troops as rapidly as possible from Iraq? Did you notice that he is not trying to start more Wars but to end them? Did you not notice that Obama is trying to close Gitmo and end the Constitutional nightmare that Bush created? Did you not notice that Obama has declared that it is the policy and LAW of America to NOT TORTURE instead of trying to defend and justify torture and making it our policy?

See that is why you are clearly NOT nonpartisan my little Goatfucker. Obama clearly intends to end the War in Iraq and reverse the course of many of Bush's insane policies. Sarah had no intention of reversing that law and in fact enforced it when it came down to it even when her predecessor did not.

So you see there IS a big difference and it all comes down to intentions doesn't it?

Obama intends to make Changes even if it is the intention of your fellow Rethugs to stop him. That does not make him a threat to humanity...in fact it makes him just the opposite. Are you people taking your strategies from the George Orwell book 1984. You Rethugs OBVIOUSLY are using the strategy called blackwhite- The ability to accept whatever "truth" the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be. Orwell described it as "...loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this. It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary."


Can there be any more hypocrisy?

-------------

If these fuckers were airplane pilots they would also be flat earthers.

We have to defend this guy because of the insanity of the right, despite the fact that he doesn't represent the left.

#5 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-09-29 05:55 PM

A modern day Goldwater could run and the "left" would still defend whoever has the "D" after their name.

"If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly," he said. "That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."

any outrage over that statement?

reversing course in a War in full swing that you are handed(which, BTW, Obama HAS done!)

#93 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-09-30 05:20 PM

How has Obama reversed course (lol) in either war he was handed?

Only null would consider death from disease an execution.

Columbus: Let's kill us some injuns
Columbus' minios: But we only have so much ammo
Columbus: Spread a disease, then

#96 | Posted by semtex111 at 2009-09-30 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag

Just as crazy as this republican moonbat. I can't believe that someone allowed that moron to bring those posters on the house floor. What a fucking moron.

#93 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-09-30 05:20 PM | Reply | Flag: defends the double standard -- as long as it is in favor of the Messiah

#100 | Posted by goatman at 2009-09-30 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:Proves he is a mindless partisan hack by referring to the President as the messiah


"but what happened on Hispaniola was the equivalent of more than fifty Hiroshimas. And Hispaniola was only the beginning."


#86 | Posted by nullifidian


Is your real name Ward Churchhill?

Hey, taxman -- did your panties get in a wad the 8 years Bush was called "chimp"?

No?

Get over the Messiah thing then. After all, Messiah's are far higher on the food chain than chimps.

#85 | Posted by nullifidian

Yet they died because of deceases brought by the Spanish (and others), not because of their religion. Don't conflate the two.

It has to be getting colder and more lonely out there on the Right.

Too bad. Fact is, haters are now the minority in this country, so just point and laugh.


#100 | Posted by goatman at 2009-09-30 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:Proves he is a mindless partisan hack by referring to the President as the messiah

#101 | Posted by taxman

Tax, I don't think you need to be a partisan to notice that Obama is worshipped as a savior.

Afghanistan is a staging ground for terrorists now. Funny how when Bush was president, occupations created more terrorists, now they don't. Just out of curiosity, what do we hope to gain by staying there?

#91 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Of course, the difference being that Iraq BECAME the staging and training ground for more terrorists AFTER we attacked. (not that Saddam was a good guy) Afghanistan was already under the control of the Taliban who where harboring Osama Bin Laden who apparently DID attack America. And so we went in to get him...or so we were told. AS you may have noticed Obama is now carefully considering his options in Afghanistan. And they are not easy options. I believe the INTENTION was to overthrow the Taliban and al-Qaeda and eliminate them and Osama Bin laden and stabilize the country and hand it back to the people. Of course, since we did not send in the proper resources to actually accomplish this in the last administration (they were diverted to Iraq to find those allusive WMDs) Obama has to now decide if that is even possible now. Especially with Pakistanis allowing them safe haven in the tribal border areas.


It has to be getting colder and more lonely out there on the Right.


Too bad. Fact is, haters are now the minority in this country, so just point and laugh.

#105 | Posted by Manypaths


What does this mean?

Can you give any examples of this happening? I think you may be delusional because the true conservative movement is gaining momentum.

Of course, the difference being that Iraq BECAME the staging and training ground for more terrorists AFTER we attacked. (not that Saddam was a good guy) Afghanistan was already under the control of the Taliban who where harboring Osama Bin Laden who apparently DID attack America. And so we went in to get him...or so we were told. AS you may have noticed Obama is now carefully considering his options in Afghanistan. And they are not easy options. I believe the INTENTION was to overthrow the Taliban and al-Qaeda and eliminate them and Osama Bin laden and stabilize the country and hand it back to the people. Of course, since we did not send in the proper resources to actually accomplish this in the last administration (they were diverted to Iraq to find those allusive WMDs) Obama has to now decide if that is even possible now. Especially with Pakistanis allowing them safe haven in the tribal border areas.

#107 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-09-30 05:34 PM

You don't have to tell me that GW fucked up Afghan. Now, it's an unwinnable mess because of it. Yet, Obama escalates. Let me know when he expresses any interest in a plan that involves leaving sometime in the near future, and I'll believe he's weighing different options other than to increase or not to increase troop levels.

Too bad. Fact is, haters are now the minority in this country, so just point and laugh.

And a hater is what? Someone who disagrees with the messiah's policies?

How has Obama reversed course (lol) in either war he was handed?

#97 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

War is funny to you?
Well, like I said and like what should by now be very clear to all of us if you listen to Obama and not the "black_is_white" rantings of the Teabagger party.

Obama clearly "intends" to end the conflict in Iraq and withdraw our troops from Iraq as rapidly as reasonable. That is a complete reversal of the "stay the course" policy of Bush don't you agree?

As for Afghanistan that is much more difficult. There are no easy answers. I am sure he is considering his options...all of which are now bad due the the fact that the previous administration did not not commit the resources needed to do the job. So now things there are much worse than they should be. So it is not so much a matter of reversing policy there as just finally getting the job done. Whatever it takes.

"Lisa, please. Do you skip bOoB's posts? He does it almost daily. And he also shouts that the right hates America almost every day.

#20 | Posted by goatman"


I thought Bob was a Canadian? No?

"The power wielded in their particular office vis-a-vis their respective charges is the same

IOW, the president has as much power over a nation of 300,000,000 as a mayor has over a town of 10,000

#41 | Posted by goatman"


That is a ridiculous comparison. The POTUS can declare war, have individual citizens arrested and held without access to legal representation, send nuclear warheads around the world, etc. Your relative comparison is just dumb, Goatman.

"And a hater is what?"

Always difficult to define because haters rarely state that they hate. So they have to be judged by their actions. Like if someone is judged differently than the typical situation, ya gotta start suspecting. When someone starts using extreme descriptions, especially equating with evil when the situation is very open to interpretation, ya gotta do more than suspect.

In the case of political or international issues, someone who gives another no reasonable chance - be it to explain their position or to enact their policies, is someone ya gotta suspect. Provided that position, again, is open to interpretation. And, if their statements continue increasing in virulence, ya gotta believe.

Nicolas Sarkozy was furious with Barack Obama for his adolescent warbling about a world without nuclear weapons at a meeting Mr. Obama chaired of the United Nations Security Council last Thursday (9/24).

"We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth," President Obama said.

What infuriated President Sarkozy was that at the time Mr. Obama said those words, Mr. Obama knew the mullahs in Iran had a secret nuclear weapons development site, and he didn't call them on it.

President Obama dreams of a world without weapons...but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite," Mr. Sarkozy said.

"Iran since 2005 has flouted five Security Council resolutions," Mr. Sarkozy said. "North Korea has been defying Council resolutions since 1993."

"What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?" he asked rhetorically. "More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map."

And a hater is what? Someone who disagrees with the messiah's policies?

#110 | Posted by goatman

No, but people who use words like Messiah and 'Enemy of humanity' are haters.

Disagree all you want, put try to not let your hate come though so easily, hater.

"No, but people who use words like Messiah and 'Enemy of humanity' are haters."

Wrong. People who use the word "Messiah" are nonpartisans like GoatbOob.

Wrong. People who use the word "Messiah" are nonpartisans like GoatbOob.

I've seen many partisans use that word too, nully. Wrong again. (doesn't it get tiring?)

No, but people who use words like Messiah and 'Enemy of humanity' are haters.

So I guess all the people who called Bush "chimpy" are haters, too -- in fact, I'd say they more hateful since most everyone would agree that "chimp" is far more derogatory than "messiah".

Looks like they come from both sides, but one side is more hateful.

Disagree all you want, put try to not let your hate come though so easily, hater.

I'm not a hater. I have to struggle to think of a person I actually hate. In fact, I'm not sure I can.

Why you call me a hater, I don't know, except that you get to define the word. And your definition of a hater is someone who calls Obama "messiah".

Well my definition of a hater is someone who calls himself "manypaths". LOL

The POTUS can declare war, have individual citizens arrested and held without access to legal representation, send nuclear warheads around the world, etc.

My point exactly. Someone with that much power has the power to end a war as well as start one. Obama has that power, yet he has done nothing to end the war he was handed.

Thanks for the vailidation, m'boor.

I thought Bob was a Canadian? No?

I thought he said he lived in Ohio.

You're probably right. You engage Bob; I don't.

I didn't validate your point, Goatie, I blew a hole in it. It does not surprise me that you fail to see that.

Haha, pretty funny considering Bush waited until after Obama campaigned on a specific plan to leave Iraq before he enacted that exact plan. Obama also said, during the campaign, that he would send more troops to Afghanistan because that is the country from which we were attacked and which will become a staging ground for the same terrorists if we just walk away.

#88 | Posted by danni


Funny how Obama was the head of the committee on Afghanistan while in the Seante and didn't hold one hearing.

I didn't validate your point, Goatie, I blew a hole in it.

Hardly, unless you maintain the president doesn't have the power to stop the war.

US Senate

"Funny how Obama was the head of the committee on Afghanistan while in the Senate and didn't hold one hearing."

Don't forget Joe now. He was the Chair. All that Foreign Policy experience has come in handy so far. NK, Iran, Russia... Can't wait for the next episode of the Obama Amateur Hour.

And our side of the Crusades was a defensive response to regain lost territory more than to evangelize. I am proud of the Crusades!

Children's Crusade too?

"Hardly, unless you maintain the president doesn't have the power to stop the war.

#126 | Posted by goatman"


My point went to this statement, "IOW, the president has as much power over a nation of 300,000,000 as a mayor has over a town of 10,000," and whether it is a valid point. I maintain that it is not.

Obama clearly "intends" to end the conflict in Iraq and withdraw our troops from Iraq as rapidly as reasonable. That is a complete reversal of the "stay the course" policy of Bush don't you agree?

Another laugher by donner and danni no less...

If I remember right, Obama drafted legislation for the immediate withdrawl of the troops, was against the surge and said it wouldn't work, wanted to end training Iraqi soldiers.

He was right though, it was a complete reversal of Bush. The problem was Bush finally got it right and Obama was wrong.

If Obama is a "enemy of humanity" what does that make Bush? Enemy of the Universe?

So Obama inherited the war the same way Dukakis inherited prison furloughs?

And from a Republican predecessor too!

"My point went to this statement, "IOW, the president has as much power over a nation of 300,000,000 as a mayor has over a town of 10,000," and whether it is a valid point. I maintain that it is not."

Looks like you got suckered into one of GoatbOob's games, Monte. Shameful. Obviously there's no comparison. Only an idiot or a troll would claim otherwise.

#134 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-09-30 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag: *sniff* (_*_)

"I'm not a hater. I have to struggle to think of a person I actually hate. In fact, I'm not sure I can."

All your mother and I want you to do is try, Goatman.

Eeeeeew! You think Goatman has a mother? Cloven hoof or paw?

Same crap, different day. Nov 2010 will bring in a New Contract for America.

I have a question for you all. Have any of you been outside of your city, state, and this country?

Just curious!

You have to visit other counties to really enjoy the freedoms we have here.

"Nov 2010 will bring in a New Contract for America."

Gee, and maybe it will be as successful as the first one: of the eight main provisions, exactly ZERO became law.

"2010 will bring a new contract for America...."

It will be an interesting test of all that "anger" said to exist towards Obama. My idea? It will also test anger towards the Republican Party, an entity that the passage two years will not have erased the stain of lunacy and bad faith.

Obama clearly "intends" to end the conflict in Iraq and withdraw our troops from Iraq as rapidly as reasonable. That is a complete reversal of the "stay the course" policy of Bush don't you agree?
#111 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-09-30 05:49 PM
Obama is following the status of forces agreement set in place by the previous admin. He hasn't changed anything. He can be praised for opposing the war from the start, contributing to debate that may have lead to the SOFA withdrawal terms, but he hasn't changed the course in Iraq as CinC.

As for Afghanistan that is much more difficult. There are no easy answers. I am sure he is considering his options...all of which are now bad due the the fact that the previous administration did not not commit the resources needed to do the job. So now things there are much worse than they should be. So it is not so much a matter of reversing policy there as just finally getting the job done. Whatever it takes.
#111 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-09-30 05:49 PM
You're starting to sound like the republicans did, defending the Iraq War, with no defined goal or end in site.

What does getting the job done mean? Do you think we're going to have any more success using our military to turn that nation into a peaceful, pro-USA one than we did in Iraq?

*note to future presidents: militaries are for blowing shit up, not community organizing

The real enemy of mankind:

Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s and now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet.

The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

In a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

Excerpted from Matt Taibbi @ Rolling Stone

Someone should keep a list of all these maniacs.
They may have blood on their hands one day.
I hope not, but one of them may incite another.

from the top...

Can there be any more hypocrisy?

#1 | Posted by Pirate at 2009-09-29 05:17 PM

Nope Pirate. I think the Republicans have
a lock on Hypocrisy for the foreseeable future...

lol...conservatives calling for a coup de'tat on the President. From a Party calling the President of the United States everything from a communist, no wait a socialist, no wait a fascist, no wait a Muslim, no wait a combination of all of the above,
no, no, wait, to the Antichrist!!---they are a Party to talk about being an enemy to humanity...

from the Party of "No", from the Party of "NO ideas", from the Party of "not on my watch", from the Party of "Hate Mongering is our Motto", from the Party of "Obstructionism at All Costs"--- they've got some serious Nerve to say they would be better leaders...

America flush the Rethuglican Party down the deepest toilet you can find! They are worthless.
They are a sap and a drain upon discourse, logic, and rational thought in this country...

#145 | Posted by earthmuse at 2009-10-01 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag: worthless cunt

#146 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2009-10-01 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag: got struck in the only nerve he has left

The real enemies of humanity? Well, off the top of my head:

Huns
Tatars
Mongols
Nazis
Several popes
Several Republicans
Etc.

herm

"Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks said conservatives "need to realize" President Obama is "an enemy of humanity" who has "no place in any station of government."

What a fucking moron. Especially after Bush was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq.

"real" terrorists are the ones that are convicted of terrorism.

#14 | POSTED BY FALSE_PROFIT AT 2009-09-29 07:25 PM | REPLY | FLAG:


Pffft

Real terrorists.

REAL terrorists dont leave enough bits to fill a sandwitch bag.

Sincerely
-Hamas-

Trent Franks the only man in politics with enough
guts to stand up tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and defend Americans from such tierany as the ignorant so-called president we have now dismanteling our constitution, our nation, our people, our rights of free speech, and bringing our nation down to third world status. Yes he never proved he is elgible under the constitution to ever leagally run for president with a legitimate live birth certificate, and has paid millions of our tax money to keep it under wraps. That one fact alone proves how dishonest he really is. He has a forked tounge and the truth is far from his lips.
Bush was an angel compared to him.
A complete idiot couldn't give away or waste money the way obama has and he's only been in office about 9 months, just wait till election time rolls around again and see how many jobs are needed for Americans to survive the crisis he has put our nation in...
Trent Franks if you are reading this, don't you ever apologize for your statements not one iota, if truth was ever told you surly told it, don't let these BS's ever persuade you to redact one word you said, the only man with the guts to stand up and tell the truth the way it truly is...

"and defend Americans from such tierany as the ignorant so-called president"

You cannot make this shit up.

I am proud of the Crusades!

Picture that... an unabashed Christian Supremacist likes the Crusades. Would anyone expect less out of a dickless fundamentalist fuckstain?

"Criminal George Bush: terrorist, mass murderer, war criminal, traitor."

Left can be insane as well. There lies the hypocrisy...on both sides.
#7 | Posted by Pirate at 2009-09-29 06:08 PM

I don't recall any Representative claiming those things about BushCo, so, post your evidence. We've all seen plenty of bullshit from Republican representatives saying very obscene things ranging from racism and fundamentalism all the way to the lewd and sexually graphic. I'm pretty certain we outgun you 1000 to 1.

Conyers came close Red, but never crossed that line. Between the Teabaggers and the Town meetings, the right has really taken what they think the left did to Bush and so overshadowed it with their own that it is now beyond comparison.

Conyers came close Red, but never crossed that line. Between the Teabaggers and the Town meetings, the right has really taken what they think the left did to Bush and so overshadowed it with their own that it is now beyond comparison.
#155 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-02 04:57 PM

The rtards are entirely wrong on every topic. Pick ANYTHING - they are WRONG. ALWAYS. They're a disgusting parody. Thus, they can always find a home in "Gods house".

I condemn the left for acting like Republicans quite often here since Obama won, but that is only because I expected more from them. The right are meeting up to exactly how little I expected from them.

I condemn the left for acting like Republicans quite often here since Obama won, but that is only because I expected more from them. The right are meeting up to exactly how little I expected from them.
#157 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-02 05:09 PM

Were you absent for the last eight years?! Why believe, trust or even pretend Republicans have good intentions?

Maybe I'm wrong - can you let me know which Republicans you admire or "believe in"?

Red,
Read my post again, slowly if you must.

The right are meeting up to exactly how little I expected from them.


When I say I expected so little from them, does that sound like belief or admiration to you?

Red,
Read my post again, slowly if you must.
The right are meeting up to exactly how little I expected from them.
When I say I expected so little from them, does that sound like belief or admiration to you?
#159 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-02 06:10 PM

Hey, sorry dude. I'm just curious who would be best in a cage match versus Biden. Cheney might not even be able to catch Kuncinich since he's rather slight and quick - probably all that tea he totals. I wouldn't mind losing Biden - if I remember correctly he was one of those Democrats who met with Chalabi.

I wonder if the Defense Intelligence Agency still pay the Iraqi National Council $340,000/monthly for "intelligence"? The DIA and it's Pentagon parent needs to be investigated, but that's great reason to suddenly quit.. Riiiight George Tenet?

Enemy of humanity?!?!?!

I really don't know where to start.

I dont particularly like a lot about Obama but he sure as hell isn't an enemy of humanity.

THis is the kind of rhetoric that cost Republicans their chairs. They damn well know but they're too egotistical to stfu and make something great happen.

Good luck with the midterm assholes

I don't feel he is the enemy of humanity. He most assertively is the enemy of personal freedoms, as athe re most of Politicians in Washington. I don't know who said it but, "A country big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything away." I don't know if the quote is verbatim. Thing is most of us are stomping on the ants while the elephants are shitting on us.

#152 | posted by DANFORTH
"And defend Americans from such tierany as the ignorant so-called president"

You cannot make this shit up.

Answer
Don't have to make shit up against the illegitimate
obamanation, He is a living example for himself, anyone can't see through his facade has to be dense, blind, and brainwashed.

"Don't have to make shit up "

Of course you don't. Any time you call someone "ignorant" in the same post you can't spell tyranny correctly, it speaks for itself.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable