First time visitor? Learn more.

The good psychopaths and America

by Speranza ( 126 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Iran, Israel, Turkey at October 8th, 2013 - 12:00 pm

The obsessive American attempts to find “moderates” in the most odious of organizations such as Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s U.S.S.R., the Baathists,  Hamas, the P.L.O., the Taliban, Hezbollah and Iran has  always – not just most of the time – but has always been a failure. New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins is rapidly following in the footsteps of Walter Duranty and Herbert Matthews.

by Caroline Glick

In his speech on Tuesday before the UN General Assembly, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu tried to get the Americans to stop their collective swooning at the sight of an Iranian president who smiled in their general direction.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” the premier warned, “I wish I could believe [President Hassan] Rouhani, but I don’t because facts are stubborn things. And the facts are that Iran’s savage record flatly contradicts Rouhani’s soothing rhetoric.”

He might have saved his breath. The Americans weren’t interested.

Two days after Netanyahu’s speech, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel issued a rejoinder to Netanyahu. “I have never believed that foreign policy is a zero-sum game,” Hagel said.

Well, maybe he hasn’t. But the Iranians have.

And they still do view diplomacy – as all their dealings with their sworn enemies – as a zerosum game.

As a curtain raiser for Rouhani’s visit, veteran New York Times war correspondent Dexter Filkins wrote a long profile of Iran’s real strongman for The New Yorker. Qassem Suleimani is the head of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is the most powerful organ of the Iranian regime, and Suleimani is Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s closest confidante and adviser.

Rouhani doesn’t hold a candle to Suleimani.

Filkin’s profile is detailed, but deeply deceptive.

The clear sense he wishes to impart on his readers is that Suleimani is a storied war veteran and a pragmatist. He is an Iranian patriot who cares about his soldiers. He’s been willing to cut deals with the Americans in the past when he believed it served Iran’s interests. And given Suleimani’s record, it is reasonable to assume that Rouhani – who is far more moderate than he – is in a position to make a deal and will make one.

The problem with Filkin’s portrayal of Suleimani as a pragmatist, and a commander who cares about the lives of his soldiers – and so, presumably cares about the lives of Iranians – is that it is belied by the stories Filkins reported in the article.

[.......]

As the commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Suleimani commands the Syrian military and the foreign forces from Iran, Hezbollah and Iraq that have been deployed to Syria to keep Basher Assad in power.

Filkins quotes an Iraqi politician who claimed that in a conversation with Suleimani last year that the Iranian called the Syrian military “worthless.”

He then went on to say, “Give me one brigade of the Basij, and I could conquer the whole country.”

Filkins notes that it was the Basij that crushed the anti-Islamist Green Revolution in Iran in 2009. But for a man whose formative experience was serving as a Revolutionary Guards commander in the Iran-Iraq War, Suleimani’s view of the Basij as a war-fighting unit owes to what it did in its glory days, in that war, not on the streets of Tehran in 2009.

As Matthias Kuntzel reported in 2006, the Revolutionary Guards formed the Basij during the Iran-Iraq War to serve as cannon fodder. Basij units were made up of boys as young as 12.

They were given light doses of military training and heavy doses of indoctrination in which they were brainwashed to reject life and martyr themselves for the revolution.

As these children were being recruited from Iran’s poorest villages, Ayatollah Khomeini purchased a half million small plastic keys from Taiwan.

They were given to the boys before they were sent to battle and told that they were the keys to paradise. The children were then sent into minefields to die and deployed as human waves in frontal assaults against superior Iraqi forces.

By the end of the war some 100,000 of these young boys became the child sacrifices of the regime.

[.........]

Filkins did not invent his romanticized version of what makes Suleimani tick. It is a view that has been cultivated for years by senior US officials.

Former US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker spoke at length with Filkins about his indirect dealings with Suleimani through Iranian negotiators who answered to him, and through Iraqi politicians whom he controlled.

Crocker attests that secretary of state Colin Powell dispatched him to Geneva in the weeks before the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to negotiate with the Iranians. [.........]

Bush labeled Iran as a member of the “Axis of Evil,” in his State of the Union address. Supposedly in a rage, Suleimani pulled the plug on cooperation with the Americans. As Crocker put it, “We were just that close. One word in one speech changed history.”

Crocker told of his attempt to make it up to the wounded Suleimani in the aftermath of the US-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in 2003. Crocker was in Baghdad at the time setting up the Iraqi Governing Council. He used Iraqi intermediaries to clear all the Shi’ite candidates with Suleimani. In other words, the US government gave the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards control over the Iraqi government immediately after the US military toppled Saddam’s regime.

Far from convincing Suleimani to pursue a rapproachment with the US, Crocker’s actions convinced him that the US was weak. And so, shortly after he oversaw the formation of the governing council, Suleimani instigated the insurgency whose aim was to eject the US from Iraq and to transform it into an Iranian satrapy.

[.........]

The main take-away lesson from the Filkins profile of Suleimani is that US officials – and journalists – like to romanticize the world’s most psychopathic, evil men. Doing so helps them to justify and defend their desire to appease, rather than confront, let alone defeat, them.

Suleimani and his colleagues are more than willing to play along with the Americans, to the extent that doing so advances their aims of defeating the US.

There were two main reasons that Bush did not want to confront Iran despite its central role in organizing, directing and financing the insurgency in Iraq. First, Bush decided shortly after the US invasion of Iraq that the US would not expand the war to Iran or Syria. Even as both countries’ central role in fomenting the insurgency became inarguable, Bush maintained his commitment to fighting what quickly devolved into a proxy war with Iran, on the battlefield of Iran’s choosing.

The second reason that Bush failed to confront Iran, and that his advisers maintained faith with the delusion that it was worth cutting a deal with the likes of Suleimani, was that they preferred the sense of accomplishment a deal brought them to the nasty business of actually admitting the threat Iran posed to American interests – and to American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Expanding on Bush’s aversion to fighting Iran, and preference for romanticizing its leaders rather than acknowledging their barbarism, upon entering office Barack Obama embraced a strategy whose sole goal is engagement. For the past five years, the US policy toward Iran is to negotiate. Neither the terms of negotiation nor the content of potential agreements is important.

[..........].

It’s possible that Obama believes that these negotiations will transform Iran into a quasi-US ally like the Islamist regime in Turkey. That regime remains a member of NATO despite the fact that it threatens its neighbors with war, it represses its own citizens, and it refuses to support major US initiatives while undermining NATO operations.

Obama will never call Turkey out for its behavior or make Prime Minister Recep Erdogan pay a price for his bad faith. The myth of the US-Turkish alliance is more important to Obama than the substance of Turkey’s relationship with the United States.

A deal with Iran would be horrible for America and its allies. Whatever else it says it will do, the effect of any US-Iranian agreement would be to commit the US to do nothing to defend its interests or its allies in the Middle East.

While this would be dangerous for the US, it is apparently precisely the end Obama seeks. His address to the UN General Assembly can reasonably be read as a declaration that the US is abandoning its position as world leader. The US is tired of being nitpicked by its allies and its enemies for everything it does, he said. [.........]

Like his predecessors in the Bush administration, Obama doesn’t care that Iran is evil and that its leaders are fanatical psychopaths. He has romanticized them based on nothing.

Although presented by the media as a new policy of outreach toward Tehran, Obama’s current commitment to negotiating with Rouhani is consistent with his policy toward Iran since entering office. Nothing has changed.

From Obama’s perspective, US policy is not threatened by Iranian bad faith. It is threatened only by those who refuse to embrace his fantasy world where all deals are good and all negotiations are therefore good.

What this means is that the prospect of Iran becoming a nuclear power does not faze Obama. The only threat he has identified is the one coming from Jerusalem. Israel the party pooper is Obama’s greatest foe, because it insists on basing its strategic assessments and goals on the nature of things even though this means facing down evil.

Read the rest – America and the good psychopaths

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

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!

126 Responses to “The good psychopaths and America”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | October 8, 2013 12:27 pm

    Beware of Moderates!


  2. 2 | October 8, 2013 12:36 pm

    In other words, the US government gave the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards control over the Iraqi government immediately after the US military toppled Saddam’s regime.

    This is the worst thing that Bush did as President. This should have never been done. We turned Iraq into a shiia vassal state, and we got nothing in return.


  3. 3 | October 8, 2013 12:55 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Told you!


  4. 4 | October 8, 2013 12:56 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    We are the world’s sucker. Our people die and get nothing in return.


  5. 5 | October 8, 2013 1:04 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    I’ve never denied it. The Iraq war was a war that needed to be fought, but we needed to follow up on it, and we didn’t. Oh, we wanted to build roads and bridges and schools, but we didn’t want to build them a government that looked after the rights of its citizens or was even remotely secular in scope. We let them make Iraq a Shariia States, and that is the same thing as saying we let them build a slave state. It should not have been done that way.


  6. 6 | October 8, 2013 1:08 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    The one good result of the Iraq War was that it discredits nation building and Americans are now anti-interventionist.


  7. 7 | October 8, 2013 1:17 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    I think that the American public is too easilliy swayed by emotional appeals, rather than simply being non-interventionist. The Iraq war was popular when it started, but the Media and Democrats spent the next six or seven years with a drumbeat of how awful Iraq was, and the Bush Administration let them get away with it. The truth is that our combat losses were fairly light compared to any major battle in World War Two. Rather than give Bush credit for a war successfully waged, the Media and the Democrats did their level best to encourage al Qaeda in Iraq, ad promise them that they’d turnthe place over to them if only we could get rid of the dastrdly Bush. It wasn’t Bush who pulled out without leaving a permanent garrison in Iraq. That was all on Obama. It was his version of battlespace preparation. We will most likely go to war with Iran sometime in the future, probably after they’ve nuked us. Having a fighting division right next door to them might have caused them to think twice about starting something.


  8. 8 | October 8, 2013 1:24 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Americans did not understand why were building schools for people blowing up our soldiers. But we have had this debate already and the Iraq War is water under the bridge.


  9. MikeA
    9 | October 8, 2013 1:25 pm

    Seems the Park Rangers are feeling their oats. Why did none of this happen in the previous 17 shutdowns. Oh yeah, our President is a vindictive little prick!!!

    ‘Gestapo’ tactics meet senior citizens at Yellowstone


  10. 10 | October 8, 2013 1:25 pm

    Another type of welfare parasite:

    The former president of California’s biggest union local was sentenced Monday to 33 months in federal prison for stealing from his low-income members to finance an expensive lifestyle that included being married to two women at the same time.

    Declaring that Tyrone Freeman betrayed the “sacred trust” of the workers he represented, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins also ordered him pay to about $150,000 in restitution and barred him from holding office in any union for 13 years after he is released from prison.

    “He lost sight of his mission,” Collins said of Freeman, once a rising star in the national labor movement who headed a Los Angeles-based local of the powerful Service Employees International Union.

    No, he didn’t lose sight of his mission. The goal of any Union is to enrich its leadership while throwing table-scraps to their general members. That is what Unions do.


  11. Buffalobob
    11 | October 8, 2013 1:25 pm

    Mr. stompy pants just reaffirmed that he is willing to negotiate with the republicans on the condition they agree to his demands. The MSM will swoon.


  12. 12 | October 8, 2013 1:35 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I wonder if he’s pals with Jason Greenslate?


  13. 13 | October 8, 2013 1:37 pm

    @ MikeA:

    Obama’s “leadership” is letting the inner facist in all of these petty bureaucrats come out and play. These are the types of people who gravitate towards government service, where they can be put in a position of power over the “little people”. Obama has pretty much given carte blanch to these people to abuse the public in any manner they see fit. I don’t know if the American people are going to see through that or not. If they do Obama is going to be very badly hurt here.


  14. Bumr50
    14 | October 8, 2013 1:38 pm

    OT -- Jon Stewart shreds Sebelius.

    Video of it on Daily Show site doesn’t work.

    You can view clips here. For now.


  15. 15 | October 8, 2013 1:41 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    They have the same kind of sponge off of society thinking, so who knows? I just do not get people like that. Of course, this guy was probably making six figures in addition to all the money he was stealing. Goes to show that income alone isn’t what makes a criminal. Personally, I wouldn’t see even this kind of moey worth the risk of stealing it. You simply have to know that you are going to get caught. People always think that they are going to be different. They aren’t, though. 33 months seems like a long time to me, though he’ll probably be out on parole long before that. Jail just ain’t worth it.


  16. eaglesoars
    16 | October 8, 2013 1:42 pm

    Part of this comes from the same mindset that thinks any muslim entity will ‘make peace’ with Israel. Not gonna happen.

    The rest of it comes from a deep antipathy to western civilization in general. That’s where Obama is coming from. He’s willing to befriend anybody who hates us, because so does he.


  17. 17 | October 8, 2013 1:51 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    The rest of it comes from a deep antipathy to western civilization in general. That’s where Obama is coming from. He’s willing to befriend anybody who hates us, because so does he.

    Exactly, and he doesn’t even really hide it. It permeates his two autobiographies, and directs almost every move of his policy as President. Heis doing incalcuable damage to the country. The debt he has amassed alone is going to cripple our economy for generations. Indeed, I don’t see any way we keep from going bankrupt without a radical change in our direction. Under Obama, we are not going to grow our economy to meet our expendatures, and we are already taking out more in taxes than is prudent. The average voter doesn’t realize all of this, of course. They voted for him because he was “cool”, not because he was competant.


  18. coldwarrior
    18 | October 8, 2013 1:56 pm

    MikeA wrote:

    Seems the Park Rangers are feeling their oats. Why did none of this happen in the previous 17 shutdowns. Oh yeah, our President is a vindictive little prick!!!
    ‘Gestapo’ tactics meet senior citizens at Yellowstone

    it might be time to get nasty with these government punks


  19. eaglesoars
    19 | October 8, 2013 1:59 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Exactly, and he doesn’t even really hide it.

    I think not only is he not hiding it, he’s FLAUNTING it. He always has for anyone willing to believe their own eyes. If the Apology Tour didn’t wake people up, maybe gestapo-izing the NPS rangers will.


  20. 20 | October 8, 2013 2:00 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Obama is 3rd WOrld Liberation to the core. He wants the West destroyed and envisions some Global Marxist-Islamic codominion.


  21. eaglesoars
    21 | October 8, 2013 2:00 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    t might be time to get nasty with these government punks

    and watch Obama declare martial law.


  22. eaglesoars
    22 | October 8, 2013 2:02 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    Obama is 3rd WOrld Liberation to the core. He wants the West destroyed and envisions some Global Marxist-Islamic codominion.

    which just goes to show how stupid he is. Islamists don’t ‘co-diminion’. Especially not with infidels


  23. coldwarrior
    23 | October 8, 2013 2:06 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    t might be time to get nasty with these government punks
    and watch Obama declare martial law.

    and what exactly?

    seriously, lets go down that road as a thought exercise for a moment.

    there are not nearly enough guns in fedgov to pull off true martial law even if one assumes that 100% of all police in all jurisdictions go along with it.

    then, lets talk logistics…food and water flows into DC how? how does fedgov get food and water to its thugs in the hinterland?

    the idea of martial law is actually kind of funny.


  24. 24 | October 8, 2013 2:06 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    it might be time to get nasty with these government punks

    Someone’s gonna call their bluff, the longer this petty BS goes on, the more inevitable it becomes.


  25. Bumr50
    25 | October 8, 2013 2:07 pm

    @ MikeA:

    From the link:

    The bus stopped along a road when a large herd of bison passed nearby, and seniors filed out to take photos. Almost immediately, an armed ranger came by and ordered them to get back in, saying they couldn’t “recreate.” The tour guide, who had paid a $300 fee the day before to bring the group into the park, argued that the seniors weren’t “recreating,” just taking photos.

    “She responded and said, ‘Sir, you are recreating,’ and her tone became very aggressive,” Vaillancourt said.

    - See more at: http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1442580353/Gestapo-tactics-meet-senior-citizens-at-Yellowstone#sthash.IGc95JNL.dpuf


  26. coldwarrior
    26 | October 8, 2013 2:08 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    corp of engineers placed a locked chain acorss the access road to the boat launch in the next town. someone (rumor is the police chief) cut the chain.

    launch is open.

    see, easy.


  27. 27 | October 8, 2013 2:10 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    watch Obama declare martial law.

    That’ll be scary if it comes to that. Will Obama overreach? My wife thinks so. Personally, though, I don’t believe that the Democrats can overreach. The public gives them a pass for having “pure” motives, even when what they are doing is so self-evidently wrong Obama is clearly trying to make the shutdown as hard on the American people as he possibly can. I’d like to see that backfire on him, but I don’t know that it will His poll numbers are going down, for whatever that is worth. I can’t for the life of me see why his poll numbers aren’t much worse, just based on the unemployment/underemployment catastrophe that has happened on his watch.


  28. coldwarrior
    28 | October 8, 2013 2:11 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    it might be time to get nasty with these government punks

    Someone’s gonna call their bluff, the longer this petty BS goes on, the more inevitable it becomes.

    those jokers live in the community out there at these parks and such. they are asking for some very very angry neighbors.


  29. coldwarrior
    29 | October 8, 2013 2:11 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I can’t for the life of me see why his poll numbers aren’t much worse, just based on the unemployment/underemployment catastrophe that has happened on his watch.

    cant bad mouth the racial hire.


  30. 30 | October 8, 2013 2:12 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Obama figures if he can cause a civil war, then there will be a UN led foreign intervention force backing him. Plus he knows the Right is divided and will fight each other as much as Obama’s forcesa. I doubt he will do this, but you never know.


  31. 31 | October 8, 2013 2:20 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    That’ll be scary if it comes to that. Will Obama overreach? My wife thinks so. Personally, though, I don’t believe that the Democrats can overreach. The public gives them a pass for having “pure” motives, even when what they are doing is so self-evidently wrong Obama is clearly trying to make the shutdown as hard on the American people as he possibly can.

    Obama and his people are a political campaign organization charged with governing and they’re terribly ill-suited to the task. Everything looks like a campaign to these people the way that, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. He, and them, are terribly one-dimensional but so are we. That said, as the saying goes, anything that can’t go on forever, won’t.


  32. MikeA
    32 | October 8, 2013 2:20 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    That will be surest way to unite America. Bring in foreign troops to try to put down the populace. Not gonna work unless he removes ALL the guns first and that in and of itself would cause people to rise up. Might he over-reach, yes he is arrogant enough but he would cause some serious blowback.


  33. 33 | October 8, 2013 2:24 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:

    Obama figures if he can cause a civil war, then there will be a UN led foreign intervention force backing him. Plus he knows the Right is divided and will fight each other as much as Obama’s forcesa. I doubt he will do this, but you never know.

    Ain’t happening. We’re not in a low budget Tuesday Scy-Fy Channel movie……yet.


  34. 34 | October 8, 2013 2:31 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    Even he won’t push it to Civil War, I don’t think. He is willing to make a lot of people miserable, thoug. Is excited about making the most people miserable as possible. As I’ve said before, this is what Leftists do. They want things to get bad enough for a revolt, but they want to control the revolt. In Marxist terms, people like Obama are considered part of the “Revolutionary Vangard”. They are the first ones to assume power after the violent revolt gets under way. No matter what the ideology of the people revolting, it is the Vangard’s position to make sure that Communists get the real reigns of power in the Revolution. Gaining and consolidating power are their only aim. Any “redress of grievances” will only be cosmetic, and only then if it advances the Communist cause. None of this is any secret. This is the stuff Obama’s bedtime stories were made of when he was a kid. It is how he was raised. The problem with forcing, say, the Tea Party to revolt is that the Leftists would have a hard time taking control of the revolt once it got under way. What Leftists generally want is widespread insurrection to tie down the forces of the State, and then strike behind the lines to topple the government and replace it with a dictatorship. That was what the Bolsheviks did at the end of World War I. I don’t see any way for Obama and the Left to do that in America today. Forget Congress. I doubt the State governments would let that go very far.


  35. MikeA
    35 | October 8, 2013 2:31 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    Are you telling me the UN won’t bring in a….

    SHARK-NADO!!!!!


  36. 36 | October 8, 2013 2:34 pm

    MikeA wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    Are you telling me the UN won’t bring in a….

    SHARK-NADO!!!!!

    Oh Noes!!! SHARKNADO!!!


  37. 37 | October 8, 2013 2:40 pm

    @ MikeA:

    It’s opening a Pandora’s box.


  38. 38 | October 8, 2013 2:41 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    Ghost Shark!


  39. 39 | October 8, 2013 2:42 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    They don’t even know how to run a political campaign well. Obama had so much on his side. The public was tired of Republicans, and then there was Obama’s race. And the fact that neither of Obama’s GOP adversaries was particularly adept at campaigning. Add in the fact that the IRS kept the Tea Party down for the 2012 election, and there was really not a lot of campaigning that Obama needed to do. Actually governing, though, is a different kettle of fish. Obama has done everything in his administration unilatterally. He did not bring a single Republican vote into the mix for ObamaCare, not even Lindsey Graham or John McCain. He doesn’t even try to reach out to the opposition. He won, and that’s all that matters. It is like with the government shutdown. He won’t even negiotiate. It i shis way or no way, and the American people are coming to realize that. Once enough people wake up to that, and to the fact that so much of our government is non-essential, Obama will lose the shutdown debate. What he has to hope for at this point is that the Republicans cave before he has to. If the Republicans can get the message out to the people that Obama is deliberately making things wore for them, then we will win. The onlty thing that sdistresses me is that the Republicans don’t appear to be making that case. They aren’t going on the news shows, and they aren’t running the ad campaign, to let people know the real facts on the ground. This is a repeat of Bush II’s failing strategy of simply ignoring all the lies and obfuscation directed at him. Absent another narrative, people simply bought into the “Bush is Bad” meme. we need to learn that politics is war, and we need to ac accordingly. We should be trying to destroy Harry Reid personally now. Back before the elections, there were rumors about Harry Reid and pederast. While I don’t think we need to go quite that far, I think it is only fair to ask how a man of no particular means becomes a multimillionaire on a $178K a year salary. The income simply isn’t there to build the kind of wealth Reid has built. If we can get him indicted on a RICO violation, that would be the cherry on top.


  40. Bumr50
    40 | October 8, 2013 2:42 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    Ghost Shark!

    They’d come through the innerwebz…


  41. 41 | October 8, 2013 2:47 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    We should be trying to destroy Harry Reid personally now.

    I have been saying this for a week. Yet no GOP ads.


  42. 42 | October 8, 2013 2:49 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    It is too risky a strategy. Obama wants to destroy the United States, sure enough, but he wants to live to glory in that destruction. He’ll bankrupt us. Indeed, he is doing that right now. But he won’t be able to send in the troops to fire on American citizens. I won’t say he wouldn’t like to do that, but I am saying that he simply can’t do that. There wouldn’t be a civil war. The Secret Service itself might remove him from office. The makjor possibility I see for Civil War is the outlawing of guns. People are buying guns at a record rate right now because they are worried about the Democrats imposing gun control on us. These people aren’t buying these guns just so that they can turn them in when Obama declares that they must. As I’ve said before, if only 1% of the gun owners in America are willing to fight ot keep their guns, that is a million man army. I am not surprised that Obama pushed for more gun control as soon as he was sworn into a second term. I expected that. I didn’t expect him to get anything through the legislature, though, and so far he hasn’t even been able to get through the Senate. When your support for your position is that weak, you don’t start a shooting war over it. You simply cannot win that.


  43. 43 | October 8, 2013 2:53 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    People are buying guns for a number of reasons. In my case, I have weapons for personal protection and in case we have either a Democrat or Republican dictatorship. I don’t trust either party.

    Regardless, all this civil war talk is just that, talk.


  44. 44 | October 8, 2013 2:56 pm

    Watching the Obama press conference, this is a tongue bathing. It’s how awesome are you Obama!


  45. darkwords
    45 | October 8, 2013 2:57 pm

    Tim Scott ‏@SenatorTimScott 7m
    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” -- Sen. Obama, 3/16/06
    Retweeted by Senator Rand Paul


  46. MikeA
    46 | October 8, 2013 2:58 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    The biggest problem to worry about is what happens when the financial game of musical chairs has the music stop. That will happen soon since the spending is out of control. What will people do when food prices triple or more due to hyper-inflation? They could try martial law at that point and then try to round up supplies from people hoarding, etc… but that gets ugly very quickly. If anything, that is a more realistic scenario. You would have people begging for the govt to “do something”. That is when you worry about a take over.


  47. Speranza
    47 | October 8, 2013 2:59 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    Beware of Moderates!

    Remember when we spoke about that and got hell from a former commenter on this blog?


  48. 48 | October 8, 2013 2:59 pm

    @ MikeA:

    This game will come to an end.


  49. Speranza
    49 | October 8, 2013 3:00 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    We are the world’s sucker. Our people die and get nothing in return.

    But our soldiers spent their time building roads, schools, etc. That’s what they are trained to do. /


  50. 50 | October 8, 2013 3:01 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    Obama figures if he can cause a civil war, then there will be a UN led foreign intervention force backing him.

    You better double up the thickness on that tin foil hat, guy. That’s just stupid.


  51. 51 | October 8, 2013 3:02 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    Yet no GOP ads.

    That is the thing I don’t get. The GOP shuld be running a million dollar ad campaign against Obama right now. You can’t expect the LIVs to educate themselves about the issues. YOu have to spoon feed them the opinion you want them to have. This is another place where the Democrats understand the market better than the Republicans. The Republicans think that because they have the truth on their side they don’t need to do propaganda. That is simply wrong. To reach the LIVs you have to get the information to where they will see it, and you have to package it to where they will be willing to listen to you. It is not that they are ineducable, but that they don’t want to put any effort into getting an education. As long as they’ve got beer in the fridge and sports on TV, they don’t really care what Obama or the Republicans does. You have to package it up to where they will care. Gu control is one of those issues that the LIVs takes note of. That is why we’ve been setting sales records in the gun industry for the past five years. But those same people don’t really always get the message that the best way to protect their guns is to vote Democrats out of office. The Republicans aren’t making that case. The Republicans act as though they are embarrassed by the gun issue. That needs to change if we are to start winning. If you convinced people to vote in the numbers that they’ve been buying guns and ammunition, the Democrats would be the minority party in almost every State, and there’d only be a very few Democrat Congressmen and Senators up there. We have to learn to motivate those people, who are our natural voters, to actually go out and vote for us.


  52. Speranza
    52 | October 8, 2013 3:03 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    Does the term “corrupt consulting class” mean any thing?


  53. 53 | October 8, 2013 3:06 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    It’s speculation and frankly I don’t appreciate you calling me stupid. Disagree with speculation is one thing calling me stupid is low class.


  54. 54 | October 8, 2013 3:07 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Does the term “corrupt consulting class” mean any thing?

    They are a huge part of the problem.


  55. darkwords
    55 | October 8, 2013 3:08 pm

    @ 51 Iron Fist: I agree. The GOP still thinks the fight occurs on a 4 year cycle with funded budgets and timelines. It’s a daily battle now for hearts and minds. Slick anti Obama ads are needed. The idea of a gun needs to be melded with patriotism. A special country be a part of it. The GoP seems shortsighted in so many ways.


  56. 56 | October 8, 2013 3:08 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    They should focus their fire on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelsoi. Obama has an emotional hold on people. Attacking him would feed into him.


  57. 57 | October 8, 2013 3:09 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Of course. But at this point I don’t think it is corruption. I think it is malfeasance. Anybody can see that the Republicans should be running an ad campaign agaisnt Obama to get the people on their side of the arguement. That they are not doing so indicates to me that they don’t want to win. Cruz pushed them into this corner, and they’d rather die there than fight their way out of it. I hae said many times tht I believe the Washington Insider Republicans don’t want to be the majority party. They throw away oppertunities like this pretty much every time they come along. It is too predictible to be simply an act of stupidity. They’ll win if they have to, if the public forces them to, but by and large thery’d rather be the low man on the totem pole as long as they get their pork and their perks.


  58. 58 | October 8, 2013 3:12 pm

    @ darkwords:

    The GoP seems shortsighted in so many ways.

    They are not a serious party.


  59. Bumr50
    59 | October 8, 2013 3:12 pm

    @ Speranza:
    @ Iron Fist:

    Kelly Ayotte’s Lynch Mob

    Jeffrey Lord seems to think it’s either a “consultant problem” or an “ego problem.”


  60. darkwords
    60 | October 8, 2013 3:13 pm

    @ 57 Iron Fist: I don’t understand this GOP complaint about Cruz. He is doing the heavy lifting for them while they are drunk in the bleachers.


  61. 61 | October 8, 2013 3:13 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    They are not interested in victory.


  62. coldwarrior
    62 | October 8, 2013 3:15 pm

    darkwords wrote:

    @ 57 Iron Fist: I don’t understand this GOP complaint about Cruz. He is doing the heavy lifting for them while they are drunk in the bleachers.

    i understand.

    there are 3 parties now, the dems, the center left republicans, and the TEA party.


  63. 63 | October 8, 2013 3:16 pm

    @ darkwords:

    Honestly, Cruz =has terrible political instincts. He picked a fight the Democrats wanted. The GOP has been lucky that the Obama Regime and their allies have used hostile rhetoric that is turning people off.


  64. 64 | October 8, 2013 3:18 pm

    @ darkwords:

    I know that doesn’t sell in all parts of the country, but you aren’t ever going to be able to win all parts of the Country. You simply can’t be all things to all men. You have to have some principles, or at least appear to have principles. I pick the gun issue because of several things. It is one place where the Republicans can draw a stark diffrence between themselves and the Democrats, and it is a dividing lne that more of the country falls on our side of the divide than theirs. This is naturally ripe for exploitation. Conversely, anyone who is so for gun control that being against it would cause them to vote against you is someone who would never vote for the GOP on a number of issues, so you aren’t losing their vote on the issue. Their vote was never yours to lose. That the GOP doesn’t make more of this is another indication to me that they don’t particularly care to win. 1994 was a great repudiation of the Democrats and their whole agenda, and the Republicans never really delivered what we asked for. If we give them back the Senate next year, maybe then the Republicans will bestirr themselves to try to pass an agenda, rather than merely hold office to dole out pork.


  65. 65 | October 8, 2013 3:20 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    If we give them back the Senate next year, maybe then the Republicans will bestirr themselves to try to pass an agenda, rather than merely hold office to dole out pork.

    Don’t hold your breath on that!


  66. lobo91
    66 | October 8, 2013 3:20 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    What foreign troops would that be, anyway?

    No country whose military is even remotely capable of any such action (not that there even is one, aside from ours) would be willing to back such a plan.


  67. 67 | October 8, 2013 3:21 pm

    Obama just finished his media tongue bathing. The questions were all about how awesome he is.


  68. 68 | October 8, 2013 3:22 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    That is the way I see it, though I’d say that it is more that it is Dems, Establishment Republicans, and Republican base. The base are the people that have put us in control of more state houses and governorships than the Democrats, and the Washington Republicans want nothing to do with them. Oh, they’ll graciously accept our votes and eagerly take our donations, but don’t expect them to govern anything like a Republican should. They aren’t there to pass an agenda. They are there to go to parties and rub shoulders with all the right people.


  69. Bumr50
    69 | October 8, 2013 3:24 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    I know you disagree with the stand he took, but it’s spilled milk.

    All the GOP is doing is crying about it.

    As you often point out Rand Paul didn’t support the stand, but stood WITH Cruz when the rubber hit the road and is still fighting the good fight as best he can.

    Ayotte and King PUBLICLY threw him under the bus.

    While I suppose Cruz’ timing was bad, his point in recent interviews was the fact that his views and those of others willing to fight are being suppressed at every turn by members of his own party.

    They all say they’re upset that Cruz didn’t conference with them first, but from the Cruz/Lee side they’re saying that every time they go into conference with their caucus, they NEVER want to fight.


  70. Tanker
    70 | October 8, 2013 3:25 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ darkwords:
    Honestly, Cruz =has terrible political instincts. He picked a fight the Democrats wanted. The GOP has been lucky that the Obama Regime and their allies have used hostile rhetoric that is turning people off.

    Murphy: Right. That’s the problem. I think we ought to go back to the problems with the computer sites. Because what we have is a perfect storm here. You take the cynics who run the Democratic party, and you take the stupid wing of the House G.O.P. they fell for a trap. So now we’re going to debate all this, when we’re 13 months away from an election the Republicans can win on Obamacare.

    I see you and the consulting class (Mike Murphy) agree more than you want to admit!


  71. 71 | October 8, 2013 3:27 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    No country whose military is even remotely capable of any such action (not that there even is one, aside from ours) would be willing to back such a plan

    Exactly. Nobody can put troops in America. There’d be a ifleman behind every blade of grass. That was Yamamoto, wasn’t it? That is still true today. It gets trickier when you ask would our troops fire on American citizens. I don’t know the answer to that question. I doubt that Obama does, either, though. While I have no doubt that Obama would like to outlaw guns by executive fiat, and order the troops to go around collecting them up, I don’t think that is realistic at this time. There are simply too many people opposed to that. I don’t think Obama could get anything through the Senate to try to accomplish that, let alone through the House. What I do worry about is what happens if the Dems take the House back and hold the Senate as well. That is a scary scenario.


  72. Bumr50
    72 | October 8, 2013 3:27 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    I know you disagree with the stand he took, but it’s spilled milk.

    Sorry -- the TIMING of his stand.

    As you say though, the Dems really know how to overplay a hand.

    Manhandling senior citizens in National Parks? Then allowing a pro-immigration rally at the same time in one of the “CLOSED” parks??

    They can’t hide from the disaster that is O-care, either.

    Jon Stewart made Sebelius look like the moronic shill that she is.

    That’s gonna sting.


  73. 73 | October 8, 2013 3:29 pm

    @ lobo91:

    China has manpower. It would not fly anyway, but it’s just a speculation on what could be going through Obama’s mind.


  74. lobo91
    74 | October 8, 2013 3:30 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Exactly. Nobody can put troops in America. There’d be a ifleman behind every blade of grass. That was Yamamoto, wasn’t it? That is still true today.

    While that’s certainly true, I wasn’t even going that far.

    There’s no country in the world that even has the capability of deploying a significant force to North America, anyway.

    The few that have any sort of transport capability (like the Canadians and the Brits) don’t have enough troops to bother with, and wouldn’t try anyway.

    The idea of China, Russia, or North Korea doing so makes for an entertaining movie, but that’s all it is.


  75. Bumr50
    75 | October 8, 2013 3:30 pm

    @ Tanker:

    Hindsight’s ALWAYS 20/20, especially for these jerks.

    I guess we’ll never know for sure how Murphy would’ve advised to go about the O-care battle during the debt ceiling fight, but if history’s any indicator he’d have taken some small compromise and declared it a stunning victory.


  76. 76 | October 8, 2013 3:31 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    They all say they’re upset that Cruz didn’t conference with them first, but from the Cruz/Lee side they’re saying that every time they go into conference with their caucus, they NEVER want to fight.

    That is how it appears to me. Not only do they not want to fight, they don’t want to win. The Washington Republicans are quite content to let a Democrat agenda pass. They don’t care about any specific agenda so long as they get their pork and their perks.


  77. lobo91
    77 | October 8, 2013 3:31 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    China has manpower. It would not fly anyway, but it’s just a speculation on what could be going through Obama’s mind.

    And they’re going to do what? Swim across the Pacific?


  78. 78 | October 8, 2013 3:31 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    The need to be hammering Reid 24/7. He is the weak link on the Democrat side. He’s a very nasty vile man.


  79. 79 | October 8, 2013 3:33 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Tell that to Obama. I have seen these Leftist One Worlders talk about using a UN ARMY to occupy America. It aint gonna happen, but it is how they think.


  80. 80 | October 8, 2013 3:35 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    Jon Stewart made Sebelius look like the moronic shill that she is.

    And that kind of thing is why I thinkObama may be in some real trouble here. To win we don’t need to convert people like Stewart to our side. We just need to make it clear to them that there is comedy gold in the Democrats, and that it is OK to mine it. If people like Stewart and Colbert start really trashing the Democrats, they will fold like a bad chair. They simply cannot handle criticism from that angle. They count on these people to keep the LIVs “informed” about what they should believe. If they deviate from the script, then the Democrats aren’t left with much of any place to stand.


  81. lobo91
    81 | October 8, 2013 3:35 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    Tell that to Obama. I have seen these Leftist One Worlders talk about using a UN ARMY to occupy America. It aint gonna happen, but it is how they think.

    I don’t have to tell him that. That’s what he has the Joint Chiefs for.

    I’m fairly certain that they’d laugh at him if he asked such a question.


  82. 82 | October 8, 2013 3:35 pm

    @ Tanker:

    Broken Clocks are right 2x a day. Just because the Corrupt Consultant Class was right on this does not redeem their otherwise well deserved low esteem others have of them.


  83. 83 | October 8, 2013 3:35 pm

    @ lobo91:

    I wish they do more if he ever suggested that if you get my drift.


  84. lobo91
    84 | October 8, 2013 3:36 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    I wish they do more if he ever suggested that if you get my drift.

    Normally, I’d say that they probably would.

    The current bunch? Not so sure.


  85. 85 | October 8, 2013 3:37 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I’m from the let Obamacare collapsed of it’s own weight school.


  86. 86 | October 8, 2013 3:37 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Sadly you are right.


  87. RIX
    87 | October 8, 2013 3:39 pm

    http://weaselzippers.us/2013/10/08/obama-republicans-are-extremists-extortionists-holding-country-ransom/

    This is the most nasty, childish President in our history.
    The best way to have civil negotiations is to insult your opponents./


  88. lobo91
    88 | October 8, 2013 3:39 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    I’m from the let Obamacare collapsed of it’s own weight school.

    It’s going to do so regardless, because that’s what it was designed to do.

    In one sense, standing by and watching is actually playing into their hand.

    The other problem with that strategy is that you’re talking about people’s lives.


  89. 89 | October 8, 2013 3:39 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Mike C.:
    It’s speculation and frankly I don’t appreciate you calling me stupid. Disagree with speculation is one thing calling me stupid is low class.

    I didn’t call you stupid; I called the idea stupid. But only because it’s a Charles Johnson-class fantasy.

    Do you ever listen to yourself? Or is the idea to convince the NSA et al that everybody here are just harmless lunatics?


  90. 90 | October 8, 2013 3:39 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    I’m fairly certain that they’d laugh at him if he asked such a question.

    I’ve always thought we had more to fear from our domestic militarized police than we do from any foreign army.


  91. lobo91
    91 | October 8, 2013 3:42 pm

    If anyone has to swim across the Pacific, I nominate Shepard Smith. He has a fancy new set for his new show, but he’s as much of a dick as ever.

    He just badgered Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA) about how her refusal to cave in to Obama’s demands is going to cause us to default, and it’s going to be all her fault when puppies and kittens die.


  92. 92 | October 8, 2013 3:42 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    I didn’t call you stupid;

    OK, I must have misread and appreciate you clearing it up.

    But only because it’s a Charles Johnson-class fantasy.

    Actually I did get this idea from there and other Lefty blogs. I am not joking, some of them are calling for a UN invasion. I was just speculating what could be going though Obama’s mind since he comes from that milieu.

    Or is the idea to convince the NSA et al that everybody here are just harmless lunatics?

    Shhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    :lol:


  93. coldwarrior
    93 | October 8, 2013 3:42 pm

    if the gop wins, they have to govern, if they have to govern, they actually have to WORK.

    its easy to be the opposition, its much harder to be the leaders.


  94. 94 | October 8, 2013 3:44 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    @ lobo91:

    On the Left blogs they are calling for Obama to invoke 18 USC chapter 115, Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities. I am dead serious, they want Obama to arrest Republican members of Congress.


  95. lobo91
    95 | October 8, 2013 3:45 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I’ve always thought we had more to fear from our domestic militarized police than we do from any foreign army.

    Of course we do.

    There is no military in the world with the capability of deploying more than a token force to North America. That’s just a fact.

    Russia, Canada or the UK could probably deploy a brigade or so here. That’s about 3,500 troops.

    They’d have a hard time pacifying San Diego with that small of a force.


  96. 96 | October 8, 2013 3:45 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    They did not do a good job when they had total control 2002-2006. I think it spooked them and now they are happy playing a strawman opposition.


  97. lobo91
    97 | October 8, 2013 3:46 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    @ lobo91:
    On the Left blogs they are calling for Obama to invoke 18 USC chapter 115, Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities. I am dead serious, they want Obama to arrest Republican members of Congress.

    If they want to start another civil war, that would be an excellent way to do it.


  98. 98 | October 8, 2013 3:47 pm

    @ lobo91:

    They are really calling for this. They keep citing what Fujimoro did to the Peruvian Congress.


  99. coldwarrior
    99 | October 8, 2013 3:47 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    They did not do a good job when they had total control 2002-2006. I think it spooked them and now they are happy playing a strawman opposition.

    i really just think they are are lazy and dont want to work.


  100. 100 | October 8, 2013 3:49 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    These are the people who really do want a totalitarian America. They are, fortunately, in the minority, but they should never, ever be allowed the tools of power. In truth, I was more worried about the Republic in the first two years of Obama’s first term. He was practically unopposed in Congress. He could have done anything, if he’d been willing to lead. Obama isn’t anybody’s leader. He’ll be their messiah, but don’t expect leadership from him.


  101. lobo91
    101 | October 8, 2013 3:50 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    They are really calling for this. They keep citing what Fujimoro did to the Peruvian Congress.

    They might as well use a banana republic as an example of how to proceed. It’s the next logical step from where they are now, after all.


  102. lobo91
    102 | October 8, 2013 3:51 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I was more worried about the Republic in the first two years of Obama’s first term. He was practically unopposed in Congress. He could have done anything, if he’d been willing to lead. Obama isn’t anybody’s leader. He’ll be their messiah, but don’t expect leadership from him.

    Fortunately for us, Obama is way too lazy to actually lead.


  103. 103 | October 8, 2013 3:51 pm

    @ lobo91:

    There was some idiot also citing what Yeltsin did to the Russian Duma in 93.


  104. 104 | October 8, 2013 3:51 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    It could be as simple as that.


  105. 105 | October 8, 2013 3:52 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    i really just think they are are lazy and dont want to work.

    I think that is the big part of it. They don’t really have an agenda that they want to push through congrss. That is too much work. They want their pork and their perks, and they are content to let the Democrats have their way with the country as long as those aren’t trifiled with. The GOP at a State level is often a different animal, though. What we need to do is get rid of the Washington Insiders, and replace them with some peopl ewho aren’t afriad of work.


  106. Bumr50
    106 | October 8, 2013 3:52 pm

    I don’t think the “blind squirrel-nut” analogy is quite strong enough here…

    Rangel Rails Against White Founding Founders During Pro-Amnesty Rally: “They Didn’t Make This Country What It Is Today”

    ht -- WZ

    Emph mine.


  107. 107 | October 8, 2013 3:52 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    What I am reading on Lefty blogs would make anyone skin’s crawl.


  108. 108 | October 8, 2013 3:54 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    So says the Tax evader!


  109. lobo91
    109 | October 8, 2013 3:54 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    I don’t think he meant that the way you (or I) are thinking.


  110. lobo91
    110 | October 8, 2013 3:55 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    What I am reading on Lefty blogs would make anyone skin’s crawl.

    It mostly just makes me shake my head in wonder at their stupidity.


  111. Bumr50
    111 | October 8, 2013 3:57 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:
    @ lobo91:

    Maybe the groups of tourists in the National Parks should band together and say they’re simply “holding a rally.”

    I guess THAT’s not “recreating.”


  112. coldwarrior
    112 | October 8, 2013 3:57 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:
    @ Iron Fist:

    they get paid the same, win or lose.


  113. Tanker
    113 | October 8, 2013 3:58 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Goldwaterite wrote:
    @ Iron Fist:
    I’m from the let Obamacare collapsed of it’s own weight school.
    It’s going to do so regardless, because that’s what it was designed to do.
    In one sense, standing by and watching is actually playing into their hand.
    The other problem with that strategy is that you’re talking about people’s lives.

    This is the problem I have with it also. We are playing with the lives of many in this nation. It doesn’t just hurt the Dems, it hurts us all. How many dead seniors will it take to be willing to die (politically) on this hill! Babies aren’t worth it either it seems!

    Name a law or social program ever gotten rid of once totally implemented! No matter how bad it is!


  114. RIX
    114 | October 8, 2013 3:59 pm

    http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/08/disgraceful-families-can%E2%80%99t-be-flown-dover-when-remains-fallen-loved-ones-come-home
    HT Fox Nation.
    This defies belief. This guy can find money to keep his golf course on federal land open.
    But he can’t find a nickel for these grieving families.


  115. coldwarrior
    115 | October 8, 2013 4:00 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    It mostly just makes me shake my head in wonder at their stupidity.

    and their votes counts exactly the same as yours!


  116. lobo91
    116 | October 8, 2013 4:01 pm

    @ RIX:

    They aren’t receiving the death gratuity payments, either.


  117. lobo91
    117 | October 8, 2013 4:03 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    It mostly just makes me shake my head in wonder at their stupidity.
    and their votes counts exactly the same as yours!

    We’ve always had that problem.

    We’ve never had to deal with having people who might actually think those are good idea in charge of anything, though.


  118. 118 | October 8, 2013 4:04 pm

    Bottom line is that Cruz succeeded in putting the budget on the front burner and getting everyone’s attention well ahead of the Debt Ceiling debate. Call me crazy, but that’s looking pretty shrewd from where I’m sitting.


  119. RIX
    119 | October 8, 2013 4:05 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ RIX:

    They aren’t receiving the death gratuity payments, either.

    Obama really disdains our military, military families & vets.
    I am thinking that next time we elect a pro American, American President.


  120. Speranza
    120 | October 8, 2013 4:07 pm

    RIX wrote:

    I am thinking that next time we elect a pro American, American President.

    What a novel idea!


  121. Bumr50
    121 | October 8, 2013 4:08 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    I just had Neal Cavuto on for about two minutes.

    He was doing great until his guest ridiculed Obama and Cavuto stopped him saying, “We’re not going to embrace this childish tit-for-tat going on, but…”


  122. RIX
    122 | October 8, 2013 4:13 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    I am thinking that next time we elect a pro American, American President.

    What a novel idea!

    Yeah, I was just kind of thinking out loud.
    Might just be a silly idea./


  123. coldwarrior
    123 | October 8, 2013 4:14 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    I just had Neal Cavuto on for about two minutes.
    He was doing great until his guest ridiculed Obama and Cavuto stopped him saying, “We’re not going to embrace this childish tit-for-tat going on, but…”

    never speak ill of the racial hire, ever


  124. 124 | October 8, 2013 4:15 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    I just had Neal Cavuto on for about two minutes.

    He was doing great until his guest ridiculed Obama and Cavuto stopped him saying, “We’re not going to embrace this childish tit-for-tat going on, but…”

    I like Neal and, while I understand the spirit of what he’s doing, and that it’s been evenly enforced, he’s wrong. If you meet bad policy halfway, you have either half-good or half-bad policy, neither of which is acceptable in our current state of affairs.


  125. 125 | October 8, 2013 4:20 pm

    New Thread.


  126. Bumr50
    126 | October 8, 2013 4:23 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    As SOON as his guest brought up Soetoro, he interrupted.

    I respect him too, and am sure he’s simply taking orders, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to keep tuning in.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David