First time visitor? Learn more.

DeMint Bitchslaps Pooty

by Macker ( 34 Comments › )
Filed under Patriotism, Russia, Special Report, Syria at September 14th, 2013 - 2:28 pm

In a letter dated yesterday, Heritage Foundation President (and former US Senator) Jim DeMint takes Владимир Владимирович to task for his Op-Ed piece in the New York Saddam Times…and at the same time, takes a swipe at The SCOAMF. Here’s the text:

Take THAT, Pooty! Grab your own copy here.

Tags: , ,


Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

34 Responses to “DeMint Bitchslaps Pooty”
( jump to bottom )

  1. waldensianspirit
    1 | September 14, 2013 4:03 pm

    Rand Paul Criticizes Evangelical Christians Claiming They Want To Go To War For Israel…

    Not Presidential material. And there is a lot of time between now and 2016. He’ll be reaching Lindsey and McRINO level of loathesome

  2. 2 | September 14, 2013 6:03 pm

    “we attract people of all ethnicities and they become proud Americans” – may have been true up to the 1940s but no longer the case. We mainly attract Muslims, leftists from south of the border, and outright spongers these days. Those weren’t American flags I’ve seen at the pro-amnesty rallies.

    “When we have used our power… we have used it for good.” America is hardly exceptional for claiming to be more righteous than its foes. But we can point to counter-arguments: Suez 1956, the Philippines 1900s, the 1980s intervention in Lebanon (to bail out Arafat), Mossadegh in Iran. These weren’t interventions on behalf of the locals. They were done for power politics.

    DeMint’s little ra-ra episode here is not going to convince many outside the US, and it’s dangerous to our way of life inside it.

  3. waldensianspirit
    3 | September 14, 2013 6:13 pm

    @ Zimriel:
    Yea it could be written with some chronology and context. The ones you’re pointing out would make it have strength

  4. 4 | September 14, 2013 8:08 pm

    And now in a game of Tit-for-Tat, McCain’s going to enter the fray:

    McCain To Write Letter In Правда

    “If John McCain wants to write something for us, he is welcome,” Dmitry Sudakov, the English editor of Pravda tells The Cable. “Mr. McCain has been an active anti-Russian politician for many years already. We have been critical of his stance on Russia and international politics in our materials, but we would be only pleased to publish a story penned by such a prominent politician as John McCain.”

    I wonder if Правда will rip him a new asshole which he so richly deserves?

  5. Vinegar Joe
    5 | September 14, 2013 9:17 pm

    @ Macker:

    McCain didn’t do too well in Round 1…….why does he think he’ll do any better in Round 2?

  6. Bumr50
    6 | September 14, 2013 9:32 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Did you even read the interview, or are just jumping on the opening to bash Rand?

    Where did he say ANYTHING about “evangelical Christians”?

    It’s one thing to disagree, it’s another to go on assault, which is what this is.

    All that he said was that calls for preemptive warfare aren’t helpful.

    He was doing an interview at BuzzFeed.

    All that I hear is a bunch of angry SoCons taking cheap shots and piling on a libertarian-leaning conservative because his first instinct is to evaluate American interests before beating war drums.

    He’s publicly stated that in the event Israel is threatened that the US would be obligated and should respond with adequate force.

    This does not a holocaust denying, anti-Semite make.

    Also, he was giving an interview to BuzzFeed. There’s a certain amount of strategy involved in such an interview, unless you absolutely want to refuse to give interviews in perceived enemy territory.

    Rand Paul is LEADING by taking principled stands.

    Everyone SAYS they want MORE of that, eh?

    You don’t have to AGREE, but please don’t make stuff up, like inserting improper adjectives.

    That’s hack, and reactionary.

  7. coldwarrior
    7 | September 14, 2013 9:41 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Rand Paul Criticizes Evangelical Christians Claiming They Want To Go To War For Israel…
    Not Presidential material. And there is a lot of time between now and 2016. He’ll be reaching Lindsey and McRINO level of loathesome

    answer the question of bumr in comment 6.

    in fact i offer you any time slot you want and i will block for 24 hours any and all other threads.

    its on you. prove your assertions. please.

    or stop.

    pick one.

  8. waldensianspirit
    8 | September 14, 2013 9:58 pm

    @ coldwarrior:
    His question neesds to be put to weaselzippers and the Weekly Standard

  9. Bumr50
    9 | September 14, 2013 10:05 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    I already put it to Zip, and I refuse to visit the Weakly Standard.

  10. Bumr50
    10 | September 14, 2013 10:08 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Also, YOU brought it here and claimed it to be proof that Rand Paul was not “Presidential material.”

    Did you not READ the interview?

    I did, before I typed a key.

    THEN you said:

    He’ll be reaching Lindsey and McRINO level of loathesome

  11. waldensianspirit
    11 | September 14, 2013 10:11 pm

    @ Bumr50:
    Rand getting embroiled in criticizing a big voter block is in my opinion not Presidential material. For any would be candidate leading up to 2016. What could he possibly think he will gain by it?

  12. 12 | September 14, 2013 10:14 pm

    Vinegar Joe wrote:

    @ Macker:

    McCain didn’t do too well in Round 1…….why does he think he’ll do any better in Round 2?

    What’s that phrase? Trying the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result each time. Insanity, that’s it!

  13. Bumr50
    13 | September 14, 2013 10:16 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    What did he say, exactly, that would alienate Christians from voting for him?

    That he’d rather not involve the US in a PREEMPTIVE war for another nation’s interests??

  14. Bumr50
    14 | September 14, 2013 10:20 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    Here:(a SMALL part of a LARGER interview)

    Paul also finds plenty to dislike in his own party’s approach to beating the war drum — particularly the theological overtones of the Bush years. In a strikingly candid speech last year at the Value Voters Summit, Paul, a Presbyterian, cited his religious beliefs while declaring, “I’m not a pacifist. But I do think it unacceptable not to hate war.”
    He elaborated to BuzzFeed: “I think some within the Christian community are such great defenders of the promised land and the chosen people that they think war is always the answer, maybe even preemptive war. And I think it’s hard to square the idea of a preemptive war and, to me, that overeagerness [to go to] war, with Christianity.”

    Now square that with:

    Rand Paul Criticizes Evangelical Christians Claiming They Want To Go To War For Israel…

    Pandering to his dad’s base.

    I call major B*LLSH*T.

  15. waldensianspirit
    15 | September 14, 2013 10:21 pm

    @ Bumr50:
    Are there not Christians commenting on wz? Reading their comments he didn’t gain their vote.

    And this story isn’t even as troubling as the one he’s got John Bolton riled about.

    He cannot take on everybody and win a Presidential election.

    He should speak to caution against war but do it without naming or mischaracterizing folks who otherwise would weigh his opinion

  16. Bumr50
    16 | September 14, 2013 10:27 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    He’s a Christian too.

    Who did he name? Certainly not “evangelicals.”

    At BEST “sensationalism, at worst SLANDER.

  17. Bumr50
    17 | September 14, 2013 10:29 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Who is he “taking on”?

    Are YOU ready to got to war?

  18. waldensianspirit
    18 | September 14, 2013 10:31 pm

    @ Bumr50:
    Ask him to clarify which Christians. I doubt it was Catholics he was referring to in this instance. Again he shouldn’t be naming anyone. Just say his piece cautioning against war

  19. The Osprey
    19 | September 14, 2013 10:31 pm

    Can de Mint cover up de Poot?
    I know it works for bad breath.

  20. waldensianspirit
    20 | September 14, 2013 10:33 pm

    @ Bumr50:
    I think the Navy should be strengthened and we should be working with our allies to be strong to deter war

  21. waldensianspirit
  22. Bumr50
    22 | September 14, 2013 10:39 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Honestly, NOT trying to pile on, but this is an egregious case of journalistic malpractice designed to create a certain reaction.

    It takes an agenda to pull THAT out of an interview and then regurgitate it as something it’s not.

    It disappoints me that Zip gives the Weakly Standard as much credit as he does here.

    These are the guys that are backing Obama’s intervention in Syria.

  23. waldensianspirit
    23 | September 14, 2013 10:41 pm

    @ Bumr50:
    Again a candidate for President needs to know that; needs to be attacking Hillary et al.

  24. waldensianspirit
    24 | September 14, 2013 10:43 pm

    The IRS, fast and furious, get the survivors of Benghazi under his protection and get vocal. NSA being used as a political tool of immense abuse of power.

  25. waldensianspirit
    25 | September 14, 2013 10:45 pm

    Doea he have good advisers? If not fire them and replace. If so is he listening to them?

  26. Bumr50
    26 | September 14, 2013 10:46 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    We are in agreement on a strong and cutting edge national defense capability.

    From Rand Paul’s Senate site LAST YEAR:

    This week, I will campaign for Gov. Mitt Romney. I believe this election will and should be about moving America back from the edge of the abyss on which we stand, where our debt and spending threaten to overwhelm and drown us. Romney’s belief in free markets, limited government and trade make him the clear choice to lead our country come January.

    I do not, however, support a call for intervention in Syria. And, if such intervention were being contemplated, it is absolutely necessary that Congress give any such authority to the president. No president, Republican or Democrat, has the unilateral power to take our nation to war without the authority of the legislature.

    At times, I have been encouraged by Romney’s foreign policy. I agree with his call to end the war in Afghanistan sooner rather than later and with his skepticism of, and call for reform in, foreign aid, but I am a bit dismayed by his foreign policy speech Monday, titled “Mantle of Leadership.”

    Romney chose to criticize President Obama for seeking to cut a bloated Defense Department and for not being bellicose enough in the Middle East, two assertions with which I cannot agree.

    Defense and war spending has grown 137% since 2001. That kind of growth is not sustainable.

    Adm. Michael Mullen stated earlier this year that the biggest threat to our national security is our debt.

    If debt is our gravest threat, adding to the debt by expanding military spending further threatens our national security.

    While I would always stand up for America and preserve our ability to defend ourselves, a less aggressive foreign policy along with an audit of the Pentagon could save tens of billions of dollars each year without sacrificing our defense. To dismiss either idea is to miss the very compromise that will enable us to balance our budget. That compromise would be for conservatives to admit that not every dollar spent on the military is sacred or well-spent and for liberals to admit that not every dollar spent on domestic entitlements and welfare is necessary.

    In North Africa and the Middle East, our problem has not been a lack of intervention. In the past 10 years we have fought two full wars there, and bombed or sent troops into several others.

    This past year, President Obama illegally began a war with Libya, taking sides with the rebels to unseat an admittedly bad man in Moammar Gadhafi. There were several problems with this policy: First, the president did not seek or get the necessary constitutional authority from Congress for this military action. If our Constitution is to mean anything it must be applied even in times of war, when those seeking to exercise power do not find it expedient.

    Just as importantly, the Libyan rebels were assisted with virtually no one in the administration or in Congress demanding to know who these people were that we were arming and propping up. No one seemed to understand that in toppling Libya’s dictatorship, we were leaving in its wake an unformed, unorganized government without a centralized structure, one that would have a difficult time keeping order among the more than 100 tribes that make up Libya.

    This “act first, think later” foreign policy has real consequences. We’ve seen our embassies and consulates stormed in more than one country. Our diplomats and security team were killed. Our flag is being burned, our country mocked.

    The proper response to this would be to step back and think of whether we really need to be involved in these countries in the way we have been. Instead, both parties rush headlong into more places they don’t understand, exemplified Monday by Romney urging action to arm Syrian rebels and topple President Bashar al-Assad.

    But just who are these rebels? What will they do when in power? Is this really in our vital national interest?

    We’ve been 10 years in Afghanistan and we can’t identify friend from foe. Do you think we can, with certainty, identify friend and foe in Syria?

    Before taking our country closer to war, shouldn’t we at least ask the viewpoint of the significant Christian population in Syria? News reports indicate they are wary of the rebels and are either sitting the fight out or siding with al-Assad. Al-Assad is by no means a saint but Christians flocked to Syria from a war-torn Iraq because they feared al-Assad less than the Islamic government we brought into being.

    Before getting deeply involved, should someone ask: Are these rebels going to be implementing the death penalty for criticism of Islam?

    There is ample evidence the rebels are being funded and armed by the most extreme Islamist elements and governments in the region. Is that where we want our funds and weapons to end up? We need to stop and think before we act.

    I am not an isolationist or a pacifist. I heartily reject both labels. I believe in engagement in the world, with trade, commerce, diplomacy and a foreign policy that projects the greatness of America and her people. I would not hesitate to vote to send American troops to war to protect our country and our vital national security interests.

    But we are in too many places, too often, and we don’t seem to even know the reason — or where we will end up when we’re done. This foreign policy has created more enemies than it has vanquished. It has siphoned trillions of America’s dollars. It has cost tens of thousands of casualties in the loss of the lives and limbs of our soldiers.

    We owe it to ourselves, our soldiers and our children to take a more careful look at our foreign policy, to not rush into war, and to not attempt to score political points with wrongheaded policy ideas.

    What say you about that?

  27. Bumr50
    27 | September 14, 2013 10:47 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    @ Bumr50:
    Again a candidate for President needs to know that; needs to be attacking Hillary et al.

    He’s a Senator.

    Is he running for President?

  28. waldensianspirit
    28 | September 14, 2013 10:52 pm

    @ Bumr50:
    I’m all for him being the Senator from Kentucky, for years to come.

    I’d like a Walker/Cruz 2016 ticket

    Walker did give them a sound bite about jobs not important

  29. Bumr50
    29 | September 14, 2013 10:56 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Sounds good to me. For now.

    Miles to go…

    I respect your opinions, and hate to harp, but I hope that you see mine as well.

    It’s NOT helpful.

  30. waldensianspirit
    30 | September 14, 2013 11:00 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    What say you about that?


    And this is meant for fun

  31. Bumr50
    31 | September 14, 2013 11:23 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Never was the flick.

    Falco comes to mind…

  32. Bumr50
    32 | September 14, 2013 11:23 pm

    @ Bumr50:



  33. coldwarrior
    33 | September 14, 2013 11:36 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Rand Paul Criticizes Evangelical Christians Claiming They Want To Go To War For Israel…
    Not Presidential material. And there is a lot of time between now and 2016. He’ll be reaching Lindsey and McRINO level of loathesome


    make your case as a post.

    i WILL put it up as main and special. all comments will be shut off on al others.

    make your point with links and comment in writing within 96 hours to the email for the blog.

    if not, well, its on you. here is your chance to prove to blog that rand hates jews.

    holla when yer ready.

  34. coldwarrior
    34 | September 14, 2013 11:37 pm

    this thread is suspended until waldensian replies with a post .

    dont like it , too bad.

    its in your court walden.

Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David