Thursday, February 17, 2011

Ann Coulter on the Middle East

I never use Coulter's columns here but this made me burst into laughter several times and I hated to think you might miss it!   Enjoy!:

The Middle East is on fire again, and crazy Muslims with funny names aren't helping things -- Mahmoud, ElBaradei, al-Banna, Barack...

The major new development is that NOW liberals want to get rid of a dictator in the Middle East! Where were they when we were taking out the guy with the rape rooms?

Remember? The one who had gassed his own people, invaded his neighbors and was desperately seeking weapons of mass destruction? The guy who emerged from a spider hole looking like Charlie Sheen after a three-day bender?

Liberals couldn't have been less interested in removing Saddam Hussein and building a democracy in Iraq. So it's really adorable seeing them get all choked up about democracy now. Say, as long as liberals are all gung-ho about getting rid of out-of-touch, overbearing dictators, how about we start with Janet Napolitano?

Why did they want to keep Saddam Hussein in power again? Yes, that's right -- because he didn't have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Their big argument was that Saddam was five long years away from developing them.

By my calculations, that means as of March 2008, Israel would have been gone and Saddam would have been in total control of the Middle East.

Thanks, liberals!

But they were shocked by Mubarak. Liberals angrily cited the high unemployment rate in Egypt as a proof that Mubarak was a beast who must step down. Did they, by any chance, see the January employment numbers for the United States? The only employment sectors showing any growth at all are medical marijuana cashiers, Hollywood sober-living coaches and "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark" understudies filling in for maimed cast members.

Are we one jobs report away from liberals rioting in the street?

Mubarak supported U.S. policy, used his military to fight Muslim extremists and recognized Israel's right to exist. Or as the left calls it, three strikes and you're out.

Obama was so rough on the Egyptian leader, the Saudis reportedly had to ask him not to humiliate Mubarak. (You know, like Chinese President Hu did to Obama.) In fact, Mubarak may be the only despot Obama didn't bow to.

You'd think Mubarak and Obama would be natural allies. Mubarak lives in Egypt; Obama created a pyramid scheme known as ObamaCare. To win Obama's support, maybe Mubarak should have dropped the whole "president" thing and called himself "czar." Obama seems to like czars.

Or he should have announced that Egypt was going to blow $500 billion on a high-speed bullet train nobody wanted.

You know another country where Obama wasn't interested in democracy? (I mean, besides the U.S. when it comes to health care reform?) That's right -- Iran.

Iran is ideal for democracy: It has a young, highly educated, pro-Western population, and happens to be led by a messianic, Holocaust-denying lunatic.

Liberals say: Why upset that apple cart? Much better to support tumult and riots against our allies than our sworn enemies.

When peaceful Iranian students were protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stolen election in 2009, we didn't hear a peep out of Obama. The students had good reason to believe the election had been rigged. In some pro-Ahmadinejad districts, turnout was more than 100 percent.

Wait, no, I'm sorry -- that was Al Franken's election to the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. But there was also plenty of vote-stealing in Ahmadinejad's election.

When it came to Iran, however, the flame of democracy didn't burn so brightly in liberal hearts. Even when the Iranian protester, Neda, was shot dead while standing peacefully on a street in Tehran, Obama responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone.

But a mob of Egyptians start decapitating mummies, and Obama was on the horn telling Mubarak he had to leave. Obama didn't acknowledge Neda's existence, but the moment Egyptians started rioting, Obama said, "We hear your voices."

He can hear their voices? He couldn't hear the voices of the tea partiers, and they were protesting on the streets of Washington, D.C.


But as long as Obama can hear the voices of protesters in Cairo, why doesn't he ask them what they think about ObamaCare? Maybe the Egyptians can change his mind.

The fact that liberals support democracy in Egypt, but not in Iraq or Iran, can mean only one thing: Democracy in Egypt will be bad for the United States and its allies. (As long as we're on the subject, liberals also opposed democracy in Russia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and all the Soviet satellite states, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua and Minnesota.)

Democrats are all for meddling in other countries –- but only provided a change of regime will harm U.S. national security interests.

Time and again, Democrats' fecklessness has emboldened America's enemies and terrified its allies, which I believe was the actual slogan of the State Department under Jimmy Carter: "Emboldening America's enemies, and terrifying her allies, since 1976."

For 50 years, Democrats have harbored traitors, lost wars, lost continents to communism, hobnobbed with the nation's enemies, attacked America's allies, and counseled retreat and surrender. Or as they call it, "foreign policy."

As Joe McCarthy once said, if liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America's interests.
z: SO what do you think?     Obviously, she stretches things a little but geeeez......she's mostly RIGHT on and so funny!   Thanks to Pris for sending it to me.
z

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ann at her very best -- skewering liberal hypocrisy with wit, style and highly perceptive use of selected facts.

OFF TOPIC but germane to recent discussions:


The first major intellectual to embrace the term neoconservative, Irving Kristol, is often called the founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'''


His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".


Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.


"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman.


A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA.


Some members of the mid-20th century literary group, The New York Intellectuals were forebears of neoconservatism. The most notable was literary critic Lionel Trilling, who wrote, "In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition." It was this liberal vital center, a term coined by the historian and liberal theorist Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., that the neoconservatives would see as threatened by New Left extremism.


[T]he majority of vital center liberals remained affiliated with the Democratic Party, retained left-of-center viewpoints, and opposed Republican politicians such as [vigorous anti-Communist activist] Richard Nixon, who first attracted neoconservative support.


Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had been socialists or liberals strongly supportive of the American Civil Rights Movement, integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr.


The neoconservatives, arising from the anti-Stalinist left of the 1950s, opposed the anti-capitalism of the New Left of the 1960s. They broke from the liberal consensus of the early post-World War II years in foreign policy, and opposed Détente with the Soviet Union in the late 1960s and 1970s.

- from Wikipedia

For a deeper understanding of the influences that have been brought to bear on us we need to look up "The New York Intellectuals" and "Max Schactman." Also study why Jeanne Kirkpatrick became an EX-Schactmanite and an EX-member of Social Democrats USA.

Meanwhile, BRAVO, Ann!!!

beamish said...

The defining characteristic between paleocon and neocon, if such a arbitrary distinction must be made is the "paleocon" is anti-state while the "neocon" is anti-left.

The "paleocon" says "there should be no public schools." The neocon says "public schools should teach..." on go on with a litany of what public schools SHOULD be teaching contra what they currently teach.

That extends to foreign policy. Percieved certainties vs. percieved possibilities. Naysaying vs. doing.

A conservative, particularly a Russell Kirk / Bill Buckley libertarian-conservative "fusionist" type [i.e. a Reaganite] recognizes "paleocons" and "neocons" are the same group, on the same side, and in cases like Jeane Kirkpatrick, are the same people.

White supremacist anti-Semites pretending to be conservatives [David Duke, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, etc.] aren't interested in what "neoconservatives" actually advocate beyond seeing their support for Israel and their hard stance against totalitarians and start looking for a hidden Jewish mind control laser animating them.

Another word for "neocon" is "neo-Reaganite" not "Jew-lackey."

No, go honor Z's request to go away, FoulThinke.

=====

Back on topic, Ann Coulter is very good at spotlighting hypocrisy and self-contradiction on the left.

Ducky's here said...

I love the part about Hussein having nuclear weapons. That level of delusion is typical for this incoherent harpy.

Is there a policy suggestion somewhere in that mess?

beamish said...

Are there any reading comprehension skills in your head, Ducky?

I would think if one were going to make a misplaced search for a "policy suggestion" in a pointed piece of satire it would be for the left to acquire critical thinking skills to avoid monopolizing the wrong side of history.

But, I suppose it's easier for the left to tell Israel to stop building houses in their own capital city than it is for the left to encourage Arab and Persian armies to not start bombing and gassing their own people.

Anonymous said...

I love Ann. Her gutsy approach, her sarcasm and her humor all come together to make her point. No political correctness from her!

She's so right about the the left. They never met an ally they didn't try to push around.

But our adversaries? Well that's a different matter. They scrape, crawl and turn belly up to show their willingness to be taken advantage of.

They'll meet an enemy's demands without getting anything in return. In fact they'll just give in first and ask questions later, and are surprised when they're betrayed by unkept promises.

The latest example of course is what Coulter is referring to. Obama told us how important it is to respect the protesters in Egypt and their right to protest and be heard.

But, Americans, the tea partiers, were derided, lied about, and called names. Why, according to the left, we were violent and a threat.

Really? Oh I forgot, it's consistent for the left, we're American protesters and conservative. Peaceful dissenters, and the left can't abide that!

As I write this there are rioters in Wisconsin. Union organized with a dash of thuggery thrown in. But, no concern from Obama, no name calling, no effort to calm things down. Silence!

The dissenters in Iran? They're on their own. We wouldn't want to upset Ahmadinejad's apple cart. After all, he's an enemy and the President want's to play nice.

Yep, Ann Coulter has her finger on the pulse of the leftists, and loves to drive them to distraction, all the while exposing the truth about their agenda and hypocrisy.


Pris

Common Sense said...

I think everyone wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I just think some thought it could be done without losing 3000 to 4000 American troops.

How many American troops were killed in Egypt?

Z said...

Ducky, you're improving in your agenda bias! You want a policy suggestion from Coulter, good!
That's not her job, Ducky...we're still waiting for a policy suggestion from an administration whose job it IS that will work.
Her job is criticism and humor...I know it's hard for you to read but you don't have to.

Brooke said...

I love Coulter's sarcasm. It is truly art.

Z said...

Common Sense! Do you think Egypt and Iraq are so similar?

I'll be gone a while today...see you all later

Please keep comments as close to topic as possible...thanks

Elmers Brother said...

I love the part about Hussein having nuclear weapons. That level of delusion is typical for this incoherent harpy.


Never read this book eh duhkkky? It was required reading while I was in the military. what a maroon!

Elmers Brother said...

How many American troops were killed in Egypt?

It's too early to tell.

Faith said...

When Ann is good she's SO good at what she does. I needed that laugh today about the depressing and terrifying realities she so tellingly broadsides.

Ticker said...

She drives the Leftist crazy and for that I have to give her a A+.

Faith said...

Ducky asks: Is there a policy suggestion somewhere in that mess?

Seems pretty obvious to me: Support our allies, fight our enemies.

Common Sense said...

Time and again, Democrats' fecklessness has emboldened America's enemies and terrified its allies, which I believe was the actual slogan of the State Department under Jimmy Carter: "Emboldening America's enemies, and terrifying her allies, since 1976."

For 50 years, Democrats have harbored traitors, lost wars, lost continents to communism, hobnobbed with the nation's enemies, attacked America's allies, and counseled retreat and surrender. Or as they call it, "foreign policy."


Now I'm thinking and would really like to know.....What Presidents, Democrat or Republican have won more wars?

cube said...

I love Ann's effect on the libbies. This column is one of her best.

Anonymous said...

Support our allies, fight our enemies.

I would agree, Faith, but thanks to the many professional prevaricators, wily, insidious "obfuscationists," and their dupes who wear false colors and delight in spreading disinformation in the guise of quasi-passionate denunciations of phantom enemies, we live in a world where it has become increasingly difficult to determine who is enemy and who is friend.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Remember the absurd, trumped up charges used to justify the torture-murder of Our Lord.

"... And we are on a darkling plane
Where ignorant armies clash by night."


The truth may be denigrated, obfuscated, misrepresented, suppressed and in every possible way denied, but the truth can never be killed. Truth is immortal, invisible and unconquerable.

Those who portray the truth as a lie will reap the whirlwind.

Anonymous said...

I should have added -- "and vice versa," of course.

Z said...

Faith "Seems pretty obvious to me: Support our allies, fight our enemies." That only seems to be obvious among conservatives!

CommonSense, there's some homework for you but it's almost like asking "Which president did better for our economy?" because conservatives know that people think Clinton was so good for the economy because we had a Republican congress; things were rocky before that.....Bush Jr was doing fine until the Liberal congress and all hell broke loose with our economy.
It's hard to tell who gets credit but, if we're to decide based on the media and America-hating historians, I'd guess it's all about lib presidents winning wars :-)

Brooke, it IS art, isn't it!

Elbro, Let's hope we don't go near losing any of our kids for that. I think of the Beirut Barracks and what a disaster that was.

beamish said...

Now I'm thinking and would really like to know.....What Presidents, Democrat or Republican have won more wars?

Depends really on how you define "war" and how you define "won."

Chuck said...

Democrats are opposed to democracy in the US, why wouldn't they oppose it in Iraq?

The column is funny, as many of Coulter's are.

Z, you nailed this:

Ducky, you're improving in your agenda bias! You want a policy suggestion from Coulter, good!
That's not her job, Ducky...we're still waiting for a policy suggestion from an administration whose job it IS that will work.

Anonymous said...

Every major conflict -- "war" -- whatever you want to call it -- has been started by a Democratic administration. The Revolution and the War of 1812 don't count, because political parties, as we know them today, did not exist.

You could say that Abe Lincoln -- the greatest mass murderer in our history whose willful, Draconian, strictly illegal, unconstitutional policies claimed approximately 650,000 American lives -- was a Republican, but the parties have switched identities since the days of the Civil War.

The Republican party was the "progressive" party of its day when it was formed. Its mission to reform and revamp America, and it sure did. The Democrats were the "conservative" party back then.

Some time during World War One Republicans became increasingly conservative, although never quite conservative enough

The Founders were true libertarians, though they never used the term. We sure moved away from their ideals very quickly, didn't we? And always in the names of "Fairness and Safety."

Enforced standards of Fairness and Safety are the antithesis of Liberty -- and the root cause of more death and destruction than any other factor on earth. Ironic isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Read all about neocon Jeannie Kirkpatrick's early intellectual mentor:

Max Shachtman

From Wikipedia:

Max Shachtman (pronounced /ˈʃɑːktmən/; September 10, 1904 - November 4, 1972) was an American Marxist theorist. During his lifetime, he evolved from being a Trotskyist associate of Leon Trotsky to a social democrat and associate of AFL-CIO President George Meany.


Shachtman was born to a Jewish family in Warsaw, Poland, which was then part of the Russian Empire. He emigrated with his family to New York City in 1905.


At an early age, he became interested in Marxism and was sympathetic to the radical wing of the Socialist Party. Having dropped out of City College, in 1921 he joined the Workers' Council, a Communist organization led by J.B. Salutsky and Alexander Trachtenberg which was critical of the U.S. Communist Party but merged into it in December 1921.


Shachtman was persuaded by Martin Abern to move to Chicago to become an organizer for the Communist youth organization and edit the Young Worker. After joining the Communist Party, he rose to become an alternate member of its Central Committee.


He edited Labor Defender, a journal of International Labor Defense, which he made the first photographic magazine on the US left. As editor of Labor Defender he fought to save anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti from execution, speaking at street-corner meetings that were broken up again and again by police.


Through most of his time in the Communist Party Shachtman, along with Abern, associated with a group led by James P. Cannon. Central in the party leadership from 1923 to 1925 but pushed aside due to the influence of the Communist International (Comintern), the Cannon group became in 1928 supporters of Leon Trotsky.


Shachtman, Cannon and Abern were expelled from the Communist Party in October 1928 as Joseph Stalin took control of the Comintern. These three and a handful of others formed a group around a newspaper called The Militant.


Winning new support, including an important group of trade unionists in Minneapolis, the group shortly thereafter formed the Trotskyist Communist League of America (CLA).


As Tim Wohlforth notes, Shachtman was already noted as a talented journalist and intellectual: The Militant listed Shachtman as its managing editor. Shachtman took up a series of positions as a journalist which allowed him the time and resources to bring the American Trotskyists into contact with their co-thinkers.


The CLA often gave him responsibility for contact and correspondence with Trotskyists in other countries. While holidaying in Europe during 1930, he became the first American to visit Trotsky in exile, on an island called Prinkipo in Russian, one of the Princes' Islands near Istanbul, Turkey.


He attended the first European conference of the International Left Opposition in April 1930 and represented the CLA on the International Bureau of the ILO.


Shachtman's working relationship with Abern was strengthened in 1929 and 1930. They invited Albert Glotzer, already an old friend and political colleague of Shachtman from their days as leaders of the Communist youth organization, to work with them.
Shachtman's journalistic and linguistic skills allowed him to become a successful popularizer and translator of Trotsky's work and to help found and run the Trotskyists' publishing house, Pioneer Press.


He was known for the liberal use of humor and sarcasm in his polemical speeches. A division of labor developed within the CLA in which Cannon led the organization while Shachtman directed its literature and international relations.


Jeannie, m' dearie, we hardly knew ye!

Leticia said...

This is another great lady who is able to stand strong under opposition. She tells it like it is and does not pull any punches.

Great commentary.

Anonymous said...

Z,
When I was in LA, I pulled some weeks of working around 70 hours a week. I knew it was getting out of hand when I didn't read Coulter's article till Friday. (they come out on Wednesdays)

New Coulter book due for release June 7.

tio

Z said...

new book, huh? Thanks for the head's up, tio...ann gets richer ! $$$
America gets a tad wiser; but only we conservatives learn from it. the media just gets a tad nastier toward her.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Over 1,400 pages of investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, released recently under the Freedom of Information Act, into the background of Albert Einstein revealed that he was was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with 34 communist fronts and served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations. The report has the baffling conclusion that Albert Einstein had more Communist affiliations than the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. ...

Anonymous said...

People who impersonate other posters and sign false names to inane, untrue, vicious remarks also qualify as classic useful idiots whose essential depravity and anti-social attitudes work to tear apart the fabric of society and undermine its foundation.

Blog hosts and hostesses who permit and encourage such practices are remiss in their duties to the reading public, and party to grossly indecency.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"

- Almighty God

"Blessed are ye when men revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil things against you falsely ..."

- Jesus Christ

Anonymous said...

Another term for preventive war is aggressive war - starting wars because someday somebody might do something to us. That is not part of the American tradition.

Ron Paul

In other words acting the bully -- even for a purpose perceived as righteous -- is ignoble.

People use bullies as a cat's paw to do their dirty wrk for them are even worse. They are ungodly.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

People use bullies as a cat's paw to do their dirty wrk for them are even worse. They are ungodly.

A racist asshole who continues to daily harass a blog forum over a month after they have been specifically asked to leave by the blog owners, like you FeebThinky, wouldn't know godly if a steeple was up your pretentious faggot ass.

Go away, you racist asshole.

Anonymous said...

AMERICAN THINKER

February 18, 2011

Cloward Piven Comes Undone

by Henry Oliner

I am reluctant to accept conspiracy theories. In 1966 sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven proposed to overwhelm the political and economic system with welfare recipients forcing the government to guarantee a minimal national income. It has been interpreted as a desire to push a greater degree of socialism, forcing a collapse that would require central government control. It may have been a grand socialist strategy, but that does not necessarily translate into a conspiracy meant to overthrow the capitalist system.

Regardless, it seems that although the system has become clearly overwhelmed with public pensions, unsustainable deficits, and reckless cronyism the result is quite the opposite of what they expected.

The first result of the Democrat's majority and the ensuing reckless legislation was for them to lose the House in an overwhelming defeat. But this only applied the breaks a little so far. The real revolution is at the state level.

Mitch Daniels decertified the state unions in his first days as governor of Indiana. Chris Christie is receiving wide respect for standing up to the various unions in New Jersey and cutting their benefits. And Governor Walker in Wisconsin is standing up to the teachers in his state.

Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal Where the Leaders Are (2/17/11) quoted Chris Christie addressing a convention of firefighters about cuts in pension benefits,

Here's the deal: I understand you're angry, and I understand you're frustrated, and I understand you feel deceived and betrayed. For 20 years, governors have come into this room and lied to you, promised you benefits that they had no way of paying for, making promises they knew they couldn't keep, and just hoping that they wouldn't be the man or women left holding the bag. I understand why you feel angry and betrayed and deceived by those people. Here's what I don't understand. Why are you booing the first guy who came in here and told you the truth?

By recklessly bestowing such overgenerous benefits to so many in the public sector, statists have awoken a vein of leaders that will surely undo the reckless spending of the past decades. Many voters who generally remain disinterested in politics have become fierce advocates, and will likely remain so until some sense of fiscal sanity is restored.

Rather than push us into the statist arms, government's overindulgence has destroyed public support for the very programs Cloward and Piven sought to support.

The voters will have little patience and sympathy for public workers who receive better pay and benefits than private employers can afford. Dick Armey had an axiom that you should not waste time killing someone who is busy committing suicide. Those public employees and their political allies who scream and protest to protect unsustainable benefits in states teetering in bankruptcy are doing just that.

Henry Oliner

www.rebelyid.com

: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/cloward_piven_comes_undone.html at February 18, 2011 - 11:04:54 AM CST

Anonymous said...

A racist asshole who continues to daily harass a blog forum over a month after they have been specifically asked to leave by the blog owners, like you FeebThinky, wouldn't know godly if a steeple was up your pretentious faggot ass.

Go away, you racist asshole.


Tsk tsk tsk! Now who is harassing whom? And precisely who is it who's cluttering up the boards with intemperate, unduly provocative, mendacious, ill-natured, inexcusably vulgar epithets and absurd accusations?

Peter speaking about Paul tells us so much more about HIMSELF than he does about the object of his uncontrolled orgies of irrational spite, doesn't he?

Eventually people will see that for themselves.

As an unbiased, but highly perceptive observer I can only repeat:

Hypocrites who hire thugs to do their dirty work for them so that they may comfortably play the victim and remain spotless in the eyes of their coterie of sycophants are even more contemptible than the thugs who do their bidding.

beamish said...

Tsk tsk tsk! Now who is harassing whom? And precisely who is it who's cluttering up the boards with intemperate, unduly provocative, mendacious, ill-natured, inexcusably vulgar epithets and absurd accusations?

That would be you, FreeThinke, making the case that Z revoke the possibility of anonymous comments from socially retarded anti-Semitic racist assholes pretending to be more than one socially retarded anti-Semitic racist asshole.

GO AWAY ASSHOLE.

beamish said...

Hypocrites who hire thugs to do their dirty work for them so that they may comfortably play the victim and remain spotless in the eyes of their coterie of sycophants are even more contemptible than the thugs who do their bidding.

Why yes, sure, that's precisely it. Really Z is wrong for asking you to not post here anymore, and you're really right for not taking every reminder of that as a sign that you're an asshole, but rather that the fragility of your ego reputation and reason for existence all all rests in the hands of a blog owner that just wants you to go away. Find a life outside words on a computer monitor.

What kind of drugs are you on, FreeThinke?

Anonymous said...

I'm on Seroquel, Beamish. It's a anti-schizophrenia med that makes me forget to sign "FreeThinke" to some of my anonymous posts that cut and pastes some of my anonymous posts that I do sign.

Whenever I need to belligerently defy Z's request for me to stop posting on her blog with yet another of my bootstomping, goosestepping daily doses of racism and anti-Semitism, sometimes the Seroquel interrupts my attempts to be more than one person and pretend to be innocent of the anonymous racist things I do sign my name to.

It's bad enough my racism and anti-Semiticism and cultishly homosexual attraction to Ron Paul is embarrassing enough to stay anonymous without trying to remember if I'm posting as FreeThinke, Jesus Christ, or as one of the millions of anonymous sock puppet people on the internet ready to surge forward to pretend to be on my side when they're not stuffing some poll for Ron Paul.

So why don't you shut the hell up, you nigger lover. This is my blog, not Z's.

Z said...

Farmer J, that's not funny.

Anonymous said...

"Someone" appears to be having a mental breakdown. It's very sad when a fundamentally warped personality resorts to [badly] impersonating an odd assortment of fictitious characters who fling vulgar invective at each other in public.

Sic semper tyrannis.

It would be a pleasure to see such a remarkably unworthy antagonist shed every pretense at decency and credibility as he shows the world that he is capable only of calling names and telling lies, if it weren't so pathetic a demonstration of moral impotence, linguistic ineptitude and bad breeding.

Watching someone disgrace himself and publicly disintegrate out of sheer spite always makes a sad spectacle no matter who he is or what his motives may be.

The more stridently and insistently you shout, and the more scurrilous, unfounded and uncontrolled your epithets become, the stronger, more virtuous and more appealing your intended victims are sure to appear.

Your adversary is like the Jews you love to accuse him of hating. The harder you try to get rid of him, the stronger he will become -- and the more determined he will be to stay.

In the end you will have to resort to something even filthier and more brutal than the tactics you've used to date. Since your risible attempts at character assassination have backfired, you will have to make yourself guilty of murder -- metaphorically speaking, of course. ;-)

The record clearly shows that it was YOU who started this fight for no legitimate reason whatsoever. By continually fanning the flames of the fire that YOU started YOU will be guilty of whatever detrimental consequences YOUR actions have brought about.

Some people cannot -- and will not -- let themselves be frightened away by the likes of a despicable cyber thug like you. The sooner you accept that, the sooner this nonsense may be laid to rest.

Anonymous said...

Farmer J? I haven't seen any posts by Farmer J.

Things just get curiouser and curiouser.

beamish said...

Some people cannot -- and will not -- let themselves be frightened away by the likes of a despicable cyber thug like you. The sooner you accept that, the sooner this nonsense may be laid to rest.

Why are you still posting here, FreeThinke, when you were asked to not post here by the blog owner, who you have also repeatedly insulted?

The "nonsense" will be laid to rest when you comply with the blog owner's wishes for you to depart from here and never be heard from again. Go post your mendacious bullshit to a less intelligent crowd, say perhaps your fellow Ron Paul fans at Stormfront or the Daily Kos.

FrogBurger said...

Check on the videos on hotair

Wow those people are really pathetic.