Thursday, August 26, 2010

What I heard in Saudi Arabia this weekend........

Here's a conversation overheard in a mosque near Taif, Saudi Arabia:

"Mohammed, guess what, the NYC Imam is saying that Americans really do love us and it's only that scum rightwing that doesn't! He said they're going to build a mosque celebrating Islam in New York City (ya, of COURSE it's the place that we celebrate 911..don't interrupt me, you poor excuse for a camel's cousin!) and some rightwing dopes were against it, but the government and their media is convincing everyone that objection to the mosque is hateful bigotry and that Republic
ans are all hateful (remember that Bush who freed Iraqis from our brother Saddam was a Republican).....
Man, the Imam is playing them like a fine violin! He knows their Constitution very well while their own president's going against it in so many ways! He even got Obama to pay $16,000 fo
r his trip while he apologizes to us about American hatred .... I mean, where the hell does it say in the Constitution of America that Americans should pay to build bridges between them and us! See what I MEAN? This guy is just plain GREAT! AND he's even got them to agree to paying for getting islamic sites back in shape around the world....Can you IMAGINE what any Arab country would do if Americans asked us to refurbish rubbles of churches? Churches in rubble is our goal! HAHA HAHA!! This thing's all part of the Imam's joyful story; he says America's left are such weenies that they'll do ANYTHING to help muslims now...look, muslims killed THEM and they're apologizing to US and doing great things for us, WHAT A COUNTRY! Ya, ya, ya.........it's true, believe me...!!. Heck, what's not to believe> ...America's turned into a country which gives its enemies dates for when they're leaving a war! IMAGINE?"

Sorry I didn't get it all......they started whispering after they noticed me listening....this is a rough translation because my Arabic is VERY rusty, but I gave it a try. Plus, it was a long trip from Taif and I'm tired. See what I do for my blogger buddies? :-)

Z

51 comments:

beamish said...

I guess now would a bad time to tell you the title of Obama's (likely ghost written) book "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming The American Dream" translated for the Indonesian eye is "Menerjang Harapan: Dari Jakarta Menuju Gedung Putih" or "Assault Hope: From Jakarta to the White House."

1 in 4 or 5 Americans may believe Obama is a Muslim, but an even greater percentage of Muslims all around the world believe the same thing.

Jihad. From Jakarta to the White House.

Hear the muezzin wail out the azan. The most beautiful sound Obama ever heard.

Obama is America's first Muslim President.

soapster said...

"Obama is America's first Muslim President."

And this would matter because....

Those who preach the virtues of the Constitution and a return to its fundamental principles would do well to pick it up and read it every once in a while. If they did they'd know that Article II Section I Clause V which sets forth the requirements for the executive office makes no religious requirement.

Such is a point that those who'd been opposed to Romney en leau of his Mormonism should understand as well as anyone who believes Obama to be a Muslim.

Chuck said...

It's almost surrealistic Z.

Soapster, the US Constitution, wisely, does not mention religion as a requirement. I'm not sure what your point is though. I don't think anyone here has called it unconstitutional for him to be a Muslim, just not desirable.

Since you do bring up Article II Section I though, it does also include this little tidbit

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Maybe we aren't the only ones who need a refresher course.

Anonymous said...

The Mormons aren't out for the destruction of our civilization, but the Muslims are. Big difference.

By the way, it's 'lieu', not 'leau'.

Silvrlady

soapster said...

"By the way, it's 'lieu', not 'leau'.

Silvrlady"


Shouldn't that be Silverlady instead of Silvrlady? ;-)

You must be quite gifted being able to type while wielding such an oversized brush.

And Chuck, it is indeed a travesty to be subjected to a perpetual obliteration of the Constitution but can you really blame the guy? The stage had been set for quite some time and it seems very few Americans are concerned. In fact in some instances they promulgate it.

Brooke said...

Z, you didn't have to go all the way to Taif at your own great personal risk to get this conversation. You could have gone to almost any mosque right here on a Friday to get it!

Z said...

Soapster....when we meet a muslim who denounces the Koran's teachings and swears on the koran not to push for Sharia Law..cool!
OOps, but they can lie with their hand on the Koran, can't the...as the Koran says, IF they feel their lie promotes Islam.

Do you really think anybody in America would object to a muslim leader simply because he's muslim? WOW.
The comparison with Romney is laughable, sadly...who would care if it was Romney versus a muslim we were 1000% sure was pro America and her Constitution??

Beamish, that title IS like some of the writings of the Imam; when read in Arabic, it's totally different but the American media's either too lazy or too politically correct to tell us that..."can't hurt the IMAM, after all!"

Brooke..Blech. you're right. Darn it.

Chuck said...

Yes, I do blame him and exactly which stage was set for him to piss all over the Constitution?

Anonymous said...

No, it's 'Silvrlady' because that's my eBay 'name', as another member already had the 'e'. I do know how to spell, & if in doubt I look it up.

Silvrlady

soapster said...

"Do you really think anybody in America would object to a muslim leader simply because he's muslim? WOW."

Wow? Clearly you've been missing out on much of the rhetorical hyperbole making the rounds.

Further, the comparison with Romney is spot on. One need only run a simple Google search on Romney/ Mormomism problem to bring up a whole mash of articles from reputable sources which illustrates my point that the majority of Americans care less about Constitutionality (re: any religious litmus test) and much more about satisfying their own insecurities.

Z said...

Soapster, yes "WOW" and you missed my point. it's not the faith, in either Romney or any Muslim, it's how they push it; Romney never has. Yes, there are Christians who question his being president as a Mormon, but there are millions who do not. YOu check that out.
My statement about a mormon president stands.
You seem so eager to criticize and jump to the worst conclusions about Americans, especially Conservatives, for their beliefs, it always kind of stuns me.

cube said...

I don't care if our president has an extraterrestrial or even an extragalactic background as long as his or her fealty lies with the USA. I don't get that vibe with Obama or the FW.

soapster said...

"...exactly which stage was set for him to piss all over the Constitution?"


Well let's see...how far back shall I go??

How about Truman's committment (without congressional authorization or consultation) of American naval and air forces to aid South Korea following the June 25, 1950 aggression from the North? Funny thing as at the time Truman invoked the UN charter resolution as his defense. This practice continued in Vietnam, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

All this while flouting the Constitution's Supremacy Clause as well as vesting the declaration of war solely with Congress.

soapster said...

"You seem so eager to criticize and jump to the worst conclusions about Americans, especially Conservatives, for their beliefs, it always kind of stuns me."

No, actually what I am ever so eager to criticize are those band of "conservatives" who haven't any moral or ideological compass which guides their thought process. They are an inconsistent bunch drawing their conclusions haphazzardly by routinely placing feeling above logic and reason and principle.

My criticisms of them are far less deletarious to the cause of liberty or conservatism than is their wavering, portside drifting, and general acceptance of watered down liberal/progressive policy.

Z said...

cube, well said.

Soapster...you're not wrong, necessarily, but you sure are overestimating this country and the indoctrination of our children.
Sadly, (VERY SADLY), even weak Conservatism will probably only even stand a chance for another 10 more years MAX, then the good stalwarts will have died out (I think the far left puppet masters miscalculated on presenting the health care bill in particular)...so, we have to compromise to get even CLOSE to what we want.

soapster said...

"...as long as his or her fealty lies with the USA. I don't get that vibe with Obama or the FW."

If by "vibe" you mean feeling then I'd recommend that you suspend that feelind and just look at the facts about Obama. The Neo-Cons at FOX News and the like want to portray Obama as weak on matters of national security and protecting the US. I will concede that he has done some things that may lend credence to this belief.

However, what also ought to be remembered are a number of evidentiary things which suggest that Obama, on matters of foreign policy (i.e. Pro-America), is little different than Bush.

Examples:

Despite opposing the Military Commissions Act in 2006 (detention of citizens indefinitely) as senator, he now has accepted and adopted these broad sweeping powers.

Previously excoriating Bush's military commissions on due process grounds, Obama has retained them.

He has expanded wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is not talk of Yemen....

I understand the Neo-Con strategy here but the facts simply do not support their want to show Obama as all that much weaker on FP issues. I realize for the Neo-Cons if they lose their National Security credentials to a warhawk liberal they have little else to run on.

soapster said...

"... sure are overestimating this country and the indoctrination of our children."

You couldn't be further from the truth Z. In fact, it is myself and a number of other members of my community who have established a voluntary collective of individuals to homeschool so that parents can rotate thereby not having to commit to one parent being at home all 5 days of a week but instead each family commits to one day.

"so, we have to compromise to get even CLOSE to what we want."

This is where we disagree. The middle ground is not an option for me anymore. I've take great strides in shoring up what I believe to be necessary in the event of a total and complete economic collapse of the dollar, etc.

If we creep slowly and incrementally towards socialism (we are and have been) it becomes far more difficult for the masses to recollect on how things "used" to be. If we steamroll very very fast ahead to it, they are far more capable of remembering how things used to be.

Sad to say we're not done falling yet but we're getting there while it is not what I desire, it is in my view necessary to return to our rightful place politically, morally, and ideologically.

Z said...

YEMEN is very much being discussed now...I heard it everywhere the last couple of days, Soapster.

Homeschooling..Oh, please. What percentage of kids get that teaching? 2% I hope I'm very wrong.

"Sad to say we're not done falling yet but we're getting there while it is not what I desire, it is in my view necessary to return to our rightful place politically, morally, and ideologically."

I believe this too, but I will not concede on my opinion that we haven't the Americans to build ourselves up again. NO WAY.

soapster said...

Your post illustrates my point Z. On the one hand you are saying that America has the wherewithal to build itself up again but then that is only after you state about 2% are homeschooling.

Our entire homeschooling project is an effort to change the school system and re-establish it by not futily trying to take on the powerful unions or wait for a damn politician who will but instead to deprive the unions of the key component they need.

This is the type of action good patriots need to take if we want to rebuild and re-establish this republic. And yet where are these Americans????? Instead they continue to send their kids to piss poor schools where their children are indoctrinated and talk to be good comrades.

Further, there was a resolution within our state (MN) party platform at this year's state convention under the education portion. It stated something to the effect of "parents and school boards and teachers can best make decisions regarding our children's education". I made a motion to strike school boards and teachers and could't garner 2 thirds to prevail. I then decided "okay you dummies how about this to illustrate the problem" and the proceeded to try and strike parents from the resolution.

The gist....as much as I love America, good Americans still (by and large) aren't getting it.

Elmers Brother said...

You couldn't be further from the truth Z. In fact, it is myself and a number of other members of my community who have established a voluntary collective of individuals to homeschool so that parents can rotate thereby not having to commit to one parent being at home all 5 days of a week but instead each family commits to one day.

I prefer the word co-op vice collective but anyway...

my family has done this sort of thing before (we homeschool) and it can work well

we had two parents who were trained in nuclear power that taught chemistry to our homeshcool group...it was great.

homeschooling has been growing by about 7% annually

soapster said...

"I prefer the word co-op vice collective but anyway..."

I concur which is why I preceded it with VOLUNTARY.

Z said...

Soapster, then you misread me. Sorry.
IN MY DREAMS,America can pull itself up again. ONLY in all of our dreams.
That I hope so should go without saying.
that "pendulum" my dad used to remind me of has swung its final swing.
Unless we can CHANGE OUR MEDIA and CHANGE TEACHERS, we're done. The media is SO dishonest and our teachers are SO screwed up (I can only speak for the majority, especially in our U's), I don't see American kids suddenly saying "Hey, this freebie stuff is BAD, I want to study and WORK HARD AND SUCCEED" (right, and when you DO, Obama's idiot laws will preclude your success because you'll be paying for everyone else)

Even 7% a yr in homeschooling growth is too slow......and I'd even guess we'd hit a wall at 10%, 10% being the number of parents who care and enough and CAN homeschool despite financial difficulties, etc.

soapster said...

"...and CAN homeschool despite financial difficulties, etc."

This is why the co-op thing works. Parents can't likely commit to homeschooling 5 or even 4 days a week. But 1 day....that can be done.

Z said...

not if both parents work 5 days a week.

soapster said...

You'd be surprised how many members were able to make arrangements (they didn't otherwise think they'd have been able to make) with their employers to go to 4 days with longer hours.

Z said...

Soapster, I hope that grows, I really do. I am pleasantly surprised.

I had an idea years ago that young children should be allowed to have grandparents of other kids come to the schools after class as day care/tutoring....giving the kids someone to look up to and giving the grandparents a way to be productive.
I was told insurance situations would prohibit that and have always felt like it was a lost opportunity where a lot of people could have been helped.
Perhaps grandparent-age people could be used to help out with homeschooling?

soapster said...

"Perhaps grandparent-age people could be used to help out with homeschooling?"

No authority to dictate otherwise and if there be one...

Z said...

not a bad idea, huh?

My idea was also sending public school kids to the homes of older people in the neighborhood but that did set off insurance red lights.

But why couldn't retired people help homeschoolers??!!

Z said...

and they'd get traditional values, too.!! Some of the older people just might have HEARD of the Constitution and honor it! We can hope!

cube said...

I don't know if ducky/soapster wants to open this can of worms, but there are plenty of instances where BO just doesn't act like an American.

One example (and there are many more) September 2007, in Indianola, Iowa, while he was campaigning, he didn't put his hand across his heart during the playing of the national anthem. Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton did... but barry was given a pass.

I can produce many more examples, but really, if you don't see it by now, you are deliberately trying not to see it. It is THAT obvious.

soapster said...

I am aware of the Iowa incident Cube and others. But I pay no mind to the punditry who's aim it is to paint him as all things anti-American in their quest to reclaim political power.

Anonymous said...

You don't have to aim very high to find his lack of patriotism.

Silvrlady

soapster said...

Depends how you define patriotism. Look I didn't vote for the guy and I think his economic polies suck but if patriotism is marked by fidelity to a country; to nationalism the yeah...you're quite right and failing to place your hand over your heart during the anthem or wear a flag lapel pin is right up there. If however we define patriotism as fidelity to an ideal (individual freedom and liberty) then he probably scores low as well. But, I'll give him respect where it is warranted and his statement on the Islamic cultural center near ground zero in my opinion defines patriotism and the American ideal.

Z said...

Soapster, what 'punditry' about the flag incident. Want to see the picture? We all did.

As for his statements about the Mosque; he couldn't even stick to his original statement...is that something to be respected?

I'd LOVE to like something about Mr. Obama, I SERIOUSLY would, but anybody who's ruined this country in such amazing, quick, and devastating ways is nobody I can respect.

beamish said...

"Obama is America's first Muslim President."

And this would matter because....

Those who preach the virtues of the Constitution and a return to its fundamental principles would do well to pick it up and read it every once in a while. If they did they'd know that Article II Section I Clause V which sets forth the requirements for the executive office makes no religious requirement.


And likely to your relief in your own pretentions to electability, Soapster, there is no intellectual prerequisite for candidates barring you from running your joke to its inevitable concession speech.

It only matters that Obama is a Muslim in the context of the content of his character.

One of my heroes, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was Muslim. My own little sister is a Muslim.

What matters is that as Muslim, Obama might be hesitant to pursue a war in which the enemy is also his fellow Muslims.

We already see "moderate" Muslims willing to speak out against terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are almost as rare as measurable brain activity at a Ron Paul campaign rally.

We see Muslim soldiers in our own armed forces attempting to refuse their deployment orders to wartime operations in Islamic nations. We even had one Muslim soldier go berserk at Ft. Hood and kill several people over his deployment orders.

So the point of pointing out the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim is simply to suggest he might not be the most prudent choice for leading a war against Islamic terrorism next time we get to choice our President.

Z said...

Ahmad Shah Massoud

Beamish, I can't believe you said that. He's one of my personal heroes, too, or WAS.

I wasn't very political when he got killed...especially not political about that area of the world, but I have to tell you I was stunned when I heard he'd been killed and I'm not clairvoyant but I remember thinking "oh, man, this is REALLY bad and it signals something.."
I didn't know what, I didn't know why....
but, ........and here we go.

soapster said...

Beamish, it is laughable that your distaste for the president and your want to believe he is a muslim sympathizer in matters of the war on terror are such that you cannot see the facts of reality on his foreign policy and its emulation of his predicessor. What's more, this is further illustrated in your jab at the intellect of RP supporters, a group of individuals who as followers of the austrian school of economics foresaw the fiscal debacle as well as the quagmire that has become our interventionalist foreign policy and its effect on American citizens and our nation.

beamish said...

Soapster,

I seriously doubt any of the neo-Nazi "wite suprimasist" rabble that funds the Ron Paul circus can even spell "Hayek" or "Von Mises" much less explain their views.

Dithering on the golf course while actionable strategic planning goes to waste in the region as central Asian basing rights are lost and the Defense Department has to bribe the Taliban to let some of our supplies reach our troops that will never attack their strongholds in Pakistan is a continuation of Bush policy?

And you recoil at having your intellect disparaged?

Really?

Seriously?

beamish said...

Z,

I read of and followed the news of Ahmad Shah Massoud's fight against the Soviets back in the early to mid 1980s. My grandfather was part of an effort to secure funds and weapons for his troops back then.

Z said...

Beamish, really? That is SO SO cool on your grandfather's part.
Honestly, as a pretty apolitical person in those days, I have always wondered what made me SO upset and worried when he was killed; it was like I sensed something coming in the muslim world. Just plain WEIRD. I've always wondered at my severe reaction....
I seriously remember thinking to myself "Calm down, who IS this guy? WHat's the big woop that you're so upset?" just weird.

beamish said...

Z,

It didn't dawn on me until later that the Massoud killed by al Qaeda on 9/9/2001 was the same Massoud that led mujahideen fighters against the Soviets when Osama Bin Laden was still a peripheral part of the insignificant contingent of Arab mercenaries that went there in the 1980s.

My grandfather was quietly involved in a lot of "unsung causes" around the world. Probably made me the geopolitics junkie I am today.

Z said...

Beamish, that was the only way I know of Massoud; hadn't heard of him in any other context. I guess I've always thought anybody who fought the Soviets was alright by me.
I'd be very very curious as to how Massoud would have looked at what's happening now in Afghanistan, you know?

Was your grandfather part of our gov't or an independent contractor..?

soapster said...

"Soapster,

I seriously doubt any of the neo-Nazi "wite suprimasist" rabble that funds the Ron Paul circus can even spell "Hayek" or "Von Mises" much less explain their views.


I agree that the Liberty movement suffered a lot of fringe folks, and IMO a much broader base than any other major campaign I have ever heard of, from democrats, greens, independents, republicans, and the otherwise apathetic. However, one must look at what is America comprised of, exactly? The average turnout in Presidential elections runs around 50% - 60%, but has not broken 40% since 1970.

So the question becomes, did Ron Paul get a lot of folks who would otherwise not be involved in politics out of the shadows? I think we call those PEOPLE. And they have every right to express their views and participate on the same level that your state party chair, favorite campaign manager, or anyone else does.

Now on to Ron Paul. The above quote assigns blame to a minor faction of the movement. Their issue aside, is there merit to this claim? Or was it Dr. Paul’s long standing opposition to things like the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the interventionist foreign policy we have had since the early 1900’s, the ever growing national government , and loss of state’s rights that caused him to have the entire GOP establishment fighting him harder than the Democrats? Hmmm.....lest we forget, during the 2008 primaries that "fair and balanced" outfit couldn't give to shites about him and since then he's been on there pretty much weekly.


"Dithering on the golf course while actionable strategic planning goes to waste in the region as central Asian basing rights are lost and the Defense Department has to bribe the Taliban to let some of our supplies reach our troops that will never attack their strongholds in Pakistan is a continuation of Bush policy?"

One instance out of many does not define the policy.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/17/clinton-outlines-continuation-of-bush-policies-under-obama-at-cfr/

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/04/obama_has_bushs_iran_policy_and_europe_may_hold_the_key

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/world/24prexy.html?_r=2&hp

soapster said...

Further, it's bad enough our troops are in Afghanistan and now you want ground forces to attack strong holds in Pakistan?

Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. What I mean by that is that contrary to popular belief, it wasn't so much Reagan's SDI that broke the back of the Soviet Union but much instead it had much much more to do with Russia having been first bogged down in Afghanistan and thus depleting their budget on military expenditures.

beamish said...

Z,

My grandfather belonged to a few independent organizations that - for lack of a better term - skirted the laws - to do the right thing. His brother, my great uncle, was rather "well connected" to the US intelligence community, particularly under Reagan. That's as much as I can piece together from what little I know about it all. I've only met my great uncle twice in my life and the last time was nearly 20 years ago.

soapster said...

"I seriously doubt any of the neo-Nazi "wite suprimasist" rabble that funds the Ron Paul circus can even spell "Hayek" or "Von Mises" much less explain their views."

Come to think of it Beam, I wasn't aware that our military was so full of neo-Nazi white supremacists.

Ron Paul, the Choice of the Military
Posted by
Lew Rockwell on February 1, 2008 09:12 PM
Thanks to Jeff Schulman for discovering that Ron Paul has received more military donations than all his opponents COMBINED.

Paul: $286,764; 1349 donors
McCain: $79,597; 413 donors
Romney: $29,250; 140 donors
Huckabee: $24,562; 94 donors

Obama: $81,037; 466 donors
Clinton: $49,523; 181 donors

beamish said...

So the question becomes, did Ron Paul get a lot of folks who would otherwise not be involved in politics out of the shadows? I think we call those PEOPLE. And they have every right to express their views and participate on the same level that your state party chair, favorite campaign manager, or anyone else does.

And as the favored candidate of neo-Nazis and white supremacists and other assorted kookery, Ron Paul must explain why he resonates with them. Of course, if you read Ron Paul's newsletters from the 1980s onward, you'd know it's because the man himself is a racist piece of trash.

Ron Paul's foreign policy views in the 2008 elections were best represented by the candidates running in the Democratic primaries. He was out of place on stage with the Republicans because he's in the wrong party.

Now on to Ron Paul. The above quote assigns blame to a minor faction of the movement. Their issue aside, is there merit to this claim? Or was it Dr. Paul’s long standing opposition to things like the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the interventionist foreign policy we have had since the early 1900’s, the ever growing national government , and loss of state’s rights that caused him to have the entire GOP establishment fighting him harder than the Democrats? Hmmm.....lest we forget, during the 2008 primaries that "fair and balanced" outfit couldn't give to shites about him and since then he's been on there pretty much weekly.

I refuse to engage in further discussion of Ron Paul's views with someone that dishonestly refuses to acknowledge the solid fact that the man is an idiot. We need solid definites here. The sky is blue, cats meow, and Ron Paul is a damned imbecile. He wants to bring back the "glory days" of America circa 1900 when America was backwards in every respect? When even Argentina had a higher GDP?

Be serious, Soapster. Ron Paul is not a serious candidate. He's Dennis Kucinich without the treehouse.

Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. What I mean by that is that contrary to popular belief, it wasn't so much Reagan's SDI that broke the back of the Soviet Union but much instead it had much much more to do with Russia having been first bogged down in Afghanistan and thus depleting their budget on military expenditures.

The collapse of the Soviet Union had more to do with the insustainability of communism as a viable economic system and Reagan's ending of the Carter practice of propping up the economies of the Soviets and their satellite nations with international loans.

It's hard to say Russia's Afghanistan invasion drained them throiugh military expenditures because one thing missing from Russia history even going back to Tsarist Russia is anything resembling a military vicotry against armed opponents. Russians simply aren't very competent at warfare. Hitler, with 15 years notice in his book "Mein Kampf" said he was coming for the Ukraine, and the Nazis took it, easily, and maintained control over it for nearly 3 years, 1000 miles east of Berlin on Russian soil while the Red Army cowered behind the Volga River waiting for America and Britain to bomb them a path of dead Nazis and low resistance to march over. This while America and Britian were fighting another war on the other side of the planet while simultaneously shipping food and supplies to the Russians through enemy lines and airspace.

It's not likely we're "repeating the mistakes of the past" because for one, America has never been as militarily incompetent and bogged down by a unviable economic system such as Tsarist feudalism or Soviet communism, and only recently did we acquire wartime leadership from one who exhibits the primary characteristic of leftists known as imbecility.

We'd go back to having the upper hand in Afghanistan if we were indeed "continuing Bush policy."

But we're not. We're currently making the mistake to learn from.

beamish said...

Ron Paul, the Choice of the Military
Posted by Lew Rockwell
(formerly known as "Ron Paul" when he was writing first-person racist anecdotes in Ron Paul's newsletters as a staffer)

1,349 donors defines the "choice" of nearly 1.5 million service personnel?

Hyperbole much?

soapster said...

Ron Paul's an idiot...that must be why the uneducated peons over at FOX like to have him on so much so he can explain monetary policy to them huh.

Dare we inquire as to who your beloved candidate of choice is??

beamish said...

Ron Paul's an idiot...that must be why the uneducated peons over at FOX like to have him on so much so he can explain monetary policy to them huh.

That would be the FOX News that has a show named for a former presidential candidate hosted by that candidate?

That may do for the short of attention span trying to shift the discussion to Cthulu-under-the-Masonic jar economic nonsensicals from rather a foreign policy discussion where Ron Paul's retro-isolationist buffoonery suits al Qaeda and its scary fists of "blow back" just fine. No man who considers the ever-duplicitous "feelings" of mass murdering ideological psychopaths over the lives of his own fellow citizens deserves to be a fuckin' Republican.

Get that poseur off the damn stage.

beamish said...

Dare we inquire as to who your beloved candidate of choice is??

Despite the impossibility of a member of the House ever becoming President, I was an early supporter of Duncan Hunter. I had easier time backing McCain than most, after having been a McCain supporter in 2000 against Bush in the primaries. Still I realized that McCain had mutated in 8 years from a reliably conservative vote to the Rimocrat Senator from Arizona. And then our only viable means to avert the disaster now unfolding in the form of "hope and change."

Given a better alternate that the field that remained at the end of the Republican primaries provided would probably have had me voting for them instead.

The GOP hopefully got the message in 2008, if not then in the current surge of Tea Party protests and the rise of conservative and libertarian political activism that their next candidate for President had damned well be a solid CONSERVATIVE, if not a Goldwater / Reagan libertarian-conservative fusionist.

Or say hello to 4 more years of Obama in 2012.

Ron Paul ain't it.