Saturday, August 31, 2013

Okay, race crime, race pimps, and the fecless blatherings of the terminally deranged left aside, what do we do about Syria? What do y'all think?

While a bullet to the head would be a satisfactory end for Lil' Assad, we do have a rule about that. Gentlemen simply do not go about assassinating national leaders. Not so it can be pinned on them, at any rate.

We should do something about poison gas, nuclear material, and other actual WMDs, IMHO. Assad got a nice haul in 2003 from Iraq, and he seems to have used them. Now, do we risk a shooting war? Do we smack his knuckles and crow about how we "did something to stop the evil?" I have an idea.

Ever since the Serbian war, I have wondered how it is that the west is so easily bamboozled and simply does not recognize a major truth about these thugs and bastards like Milosevic, Radovich, Hussein, Assad, Imin (okay, he goes back a bit)or the Kims? We treat these guys like they run a legitimate government. They do not. They are more like an organized crime ring. They run a criminal enterprise. As such, we need to treat them like that.

Usually there are families. The Top Thug, supported by his extended family. Then there are lower level thugs and their families, who all support the Top Thug. This can go down quite a few layers. At each layer, booty rolls up, and largess roles down. Top Thug and his family get the lion’s share, in aggregate, and each layer down gets some, too. What does this create? Assets. Nobody keeps the goodies in the upstairs bed mattress. They put it into bank accounts, businesses, villas, cars, boats, estates, investments. In other words, they turn it into things that can be gotten to.

So, Grand Leader lives in a palace, skis as his villa in Gestadt, takes the waters at his humble 20 room cottage at the Hot Springs, relaxes at his dacha in the woods, counts his money in his Caymans account, relishes his extensive wine cellars, etc.

What if, when GL starts something big, he gets an e-mail with the address of his boat slip at the marina in the Seychelles say off Eden island, with a suggestion that he stop preparing to do naughty things, within 24 hours. Then, phoosh, his custom 56m Perini Navi yacht mysteriously burns. Next day, another e-mail - a bank asset disappears. Day by day, more stuff is destroyed. Do the same with the supporting families, maybe 3 or 4 at a time.

How long until the Grand Leader stops or is deposed by the ever more impoverished favored families?

I’ll bet it could work. No shots fired. Total deniability, or else we blame France.

64 comments:

free0352 said...

Al'Qaeda is presumably bad. Al'Qaeda has pretty much coopted the Syrian Rebels. Therefore anything that helps the rebels presumably helps Al'Qaeda.

Conclusion- Helping Al'Qaeda is bad for the United States.

I came out for the Syrian rebels before they radicalized. Back when they were Syrian soldiers who didn't want to massacre their own people. I was wrong and should not haves supported them. They got into bed with the Jihadists, and frankly that means they deserve to die. Of course innocent people will get caught in that crossfire. That isn't the United State's fault, and it also isn't our problem.

What if Assad were killed and the rebels (and Al'Qaeda) won? Would they not gain access to all of Syria's military, to include their chemical weapons? Would not engineering the victory of the rebels be tantamount to handing Al'Qaeda nerve gas? Whom do we think would be more judicious in their use of chemical weapons - Syria or Al'Qaeda?

Assad is reaping here what he sowed. During the Iraq war Syria was the main doorway for foreign Jihadists into Iraq. Now many of those same Jihadists are in Syria killing Assad's men, along with just about anyone else who isn't a radical Muslim fanatic.

I'm content to let Assad kill our enemies for us and reap what he sowed by supporting terrorists during the Iraq war for as long as it lasts. Should Al'Qaeda win in Syria, a ground invasion by us may be necessary to avoid our sworn enemies getting hold of nerve gas. In light of that, I'm pulling for an Assad victory, as Al'Qaeda having chemical weapons is unthinkable.

So in short, I hope we do NOTHING on Syria and simply let the bodies pile up. Too bad for the innocents caught in the crossfire, but that's life and life is cruel. Over here in America, this is about our national interest. And right now our national interest is not to become a Jihadist's air force. The rebels were dumb enough to get into bed with those pieces of human shit, so now as far as I'm concerned they can reap the fucking whirlwind. Hezbollah is currently fighting Al'Qaeda. This is as good as it gets. Let the show go on, for a thousand years if we're lucky. While they are fighting each other, they aren't fighting us. That's fucking beautiful. Fuck the Al-Nusra Front, fuck it in its ass. I hope Assad gasses the lot of them, and I won't lose much sleep over those caught in the middle. They didn't drop a tear on Sep-11th did they? They allowed these people into Iraq to kill Americans and innocent Iraqis didn't they? To hell with them. Pictures of poor, dead kids aside, this is who mostly got gassed in Syria. And I feel about that the same way I feel about fumigation of any pest. Great.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I agree with most of what Rickvid in Seattle had to say. However, I don't think burning yachts or even seizing bank accounts would work. It would simply invite retaliation.
The answer is what has been always known (to all but those with a childish world view): A nation protects its own interests, period. How another nation treats its own people should be of concern to us only insofar as it affects American interests.

I completely agree with Free0352.
I once read that Churchill wanted to aid Stalin no more than necessary to keep the USSR hanging on. Winston's idea was to let Hitler and Stalin exhaust each other so that the West could ultimately control Europe at a low cost. I think that is what Free0352 is saying. I also think he agrees with me that the followers of the Prophet aren't worth our sympathy

free0352 said...

I think that is what Free0352 is saying. I also think he agrees with me that the followers of the Prophet aren't worth our sympathy

When the Syrians ask us for help -and believe me they are - I'd respond with

1. When you recognize Israel and the Jewish religion as equal in stature and respect to Islam.

2. When you recognize all other religions, specifically Christianity are equal to Islam and you have nothing over them.

3. When you proclaim you deserve for a secular government with a separation of church/mosque and state.

4. When you condemn every paramilitary organization by name, from AQ to Hamas.

5. When you can admit a woman is your equal and a woman in a bikini isn't a whore.

Then and only then, should we help them. And if they do that, we should do a lot more than a few token air strikes. We should put boots on the ground.

By the way, the Iraqi government did all these things.

free0352 said...

Dear Syrian Army,

I am a former member of the United States Armed forces where I served for 13 years active duty, 2 reserve.

As someone who has had experiences fighting Al ‘Qaeda, I can assure you I have nothing but a profound loathing for any member or associate of that organization. This is because I have borne personal witness to their cruelty, fanaticism and will to dominate and victimize innocent people, not to mention level attacks upon my homeland. It is because I believe any attacks upon you would in the long run benefit Al ‘Qaeda, that I hope my country does not engage yours from the air or in any other capacity.

Today I am a private citizen, and would share my thoughts on your recent message to the US Marines when you hacked the recruiting website of that service, of which I am a former member. While I must admit my loathing for Al ‘Qaeda would certainly give me pause if asked personally to attack you, don't EVER think that is because I support you.

You are the representative of a vile, totalitarian monster. While serving in the United States Marine Corps had one of my commanders ordered me to open fire on my own people, I'd have turned my weapons on him. You gleefully opened fire and gunned down your own people - and it would seem even used weapons of mass destruction on them. You did this to defend a dictator who mercilessly abuses those whom he rules with an iron fist. I can think of no lower order of soldiery than the Syrian Soldier. The American volunteer Soldier is superior to you because we serve the people and Constitution of our great nation and not the will of murderers and thugs. You are a gang of thugs and murderers and I sincerely hope none of you survive the conflict in which you now take part. You are in no way my, or any American Service Person's brother. It is only because those you fight are somehow more loathsome and evil than you are that I and many of my fellow veterans - to include those whose image you stole for your propaganda attack on US Government Property - do not support attacking the regime you so mindlessly serve. Go fuck yourself.

Sincerely, free0352

CrabbyOldMan said...

Well, there is at least some good in all this. Comrade Hussein and his commissars are being further exposed as the lying, incompetent opportunists that they are.
If it were not so dangerous, I would enjoy the spectacle.
We need to keep in mind that the Kaiser's and Czar's ineptitude ignited a catastrophic world war. Kennedy,an earlier darling of the media and the faculty lounges, nearly set off a nuclear exchange with the Russians with his bungling.

Bram said...

What Free said - there are no good guys in this fight. There is no benefit and possibly harm to the U.S. if the rebels win.

Just leave it alone - at least it won't be our fault when things go from bad to worse.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Amen Bram.

By the way, apparently Reliably Blathers Bilge, Malarkey, Nit and Enemas have not yet been told by their handlers how this can all be blamed on Bush and Republican obstructionism ("obstructionism" is apparently the current synonym of "sabotage" and "counter revolutionary activities" in Stalin's time).

CrabbyOldMan said...

I wish I had come up with this comment:
No blood for ego is a catchy slogan

This was a comment from another blog that I just had to share.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Syrian army? The average grunt may be a shlub in many ways, but the leadership is vile. Story from an Israeli friend, Robert. His tank unit fought across the Sinai in 1967, taking prisoners and defeating the Egyptians; his father was born in Alexandria, oddly enough, and fought at El Alemein with Montgomery. Robert's unit was turned north to run up to the Golan and fight the Syrians. He describes the awe of seeing hell unleashed as his unit followed a rolling barrage up the hillsides. His tank was close enough to get peppered by debris and shrapnel. They rolled up to some bunkers and, after a token fight, the Syrians waved a white flag. The Israelis dismounted and called for them to come out of the bunkers. They said they were chained to their positions and could not get out. They begged the Israelis to come let them loose. But, an Israeli unit had found some IDF soldiers viciously tortured to death, and the army issued a "no prisoners" order. Robert said they would have taken prisoners, but that his men were not going into those bunkers just to be blown away by some Baathist political officer or fanatic. They also could not just bypass an unknown number of soldiers and supplies in the bunkers and leaave them at their backs. They tossed in thermite grenades to ensure that everyone and everything in that bunkers was completely destroyed. Too bad for the grunts. Too bad they did not go to Damascus and hang those army generals who ordered that their own men be chained in place.

Zelda said...

Oh I really like "No Blood for Ego." That does sum it up very well. If we're going for humanitarian reasons, then fine. But that means Obama has to get rid of Assad, find and destroy all the chemical weapons, kill al Qaeda, and install a secular, humanitarian government. But he's a giant, frigid pussy.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I know that there is not even a remote chance of it happening, but wouldn't it be delicious if all the republicans voted "present" on the authorization bill?

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

I have to say I'm completely in agreement with Free (surprise there). I don't think we're doing anything in our best interest by helping out now. Let them fight their own civil war first. I have no interest in helping out the radicals, at all.

free0352 said...

Sec Kerry asked if we feel comfortable if Assad gasses more of his own people.

My answer is, yes. I don't care in the least.

free0352 said...

I do think that we have to act because if we don't we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity and those international norms begin to erode.

- George Bush

ooops I mean President Obama. GWB never said that. My bad.

Its so easy to get them confused these days.

Anyway, this is all too ironic. All those anti-war hippies must feel so betrayed LOL

I'm hardly willing to put my Cindy Sheehan hat on and scream "Give peace a change" at an Answer rally. But before we spend a couple billion on cruise missiles I'd like to have a warm fuzzy that our efforts won't be aiding our sworn enemies who killed 3000 Americans on September 11th.

Just say'n.

Zelda said...

There will be no ANSWER rallies. It was never about war for them. There will be a few stringy hippies wandering around stupidly wondering where all the hipsters are.

KayInMaine said...

Another brown man murdered by the system.

http://gma.yahoo.com/cleveland...

*SPIT*

Nate said...

I don't buy the evidence that Syria used chemical weapons and frankly think it pretty incredulous that the regime would use such weapons in a war that all reports indicate they are winning. It is an unnecessary risk that provides a pretext for the U.S. and it's allies to justification for an invasion or military strike. Why poke the sleeping bear? Were they set up? Is it all a fabrication?

free0352 said...

There will be no ANSWER rallies. It was never about war for them.

Tru dat.

I hear reports the rebels got caught with some ho-made Sarin. Who knows? Its Al'Qaeda. In fact, if you show me evidence Al'Qaeda used it, I'll be all for actions in Syria all right. But on the opposite side this President is on! Sarin in the hands of Al'Qaeda is intolerable. If they did that, I say we simply kill them all. Regime change or nothing. The big problem with this, is if the rebels win like dumb fuck John McCain wants, they'll be here in five years up to the same shit they were pre-9-11.


CrabbyOldMan said...

From what I have read over the years, the Lusitania sank as fast as it did because of the munitions it wasn't carrying blowing up.
You have a point that Syria using chemical weapons was dumb. Such incompetence, coupled with the Messiah's incompetence, greatly increases the risk of catastrophe.

free0352 said...

I think this will so infuriate the hard left, that they will start their version of the Tea Party over it. What started the Tea Party was Republicans not acting like Republicans and not listening to the voters. Well, Dems are in that boat now. The rank and file Dems don't want to do the Syria thing, but oh lordy their politicians do. They're probably like "Al Franken how could you?" over there.

So I predict instead of some drug fueled, rape fest that was the Occupy thing... you'll get real Democrats I.E. old people, really, really pissed about what their party is doing.

We're going to see the hard left strike back for this. They've been hoodwinked, bamboozled and run amok just as bad as the Republicans were from 2005-2010. We're not talking about scuzzy 20 somethings or loser college drop outs either. We're talking about 40-65 year old Dems who woke up the other day and were like WTF?

Rickvid in Seattle said...

What would the lefty dumbasses call their "we ain't gonna take it any moooorrreee!" party? Can't be Tea Party as that actually means Taxed Enough Already, and they don't believe that. Not to mention the vile crap they spew about teabagging and such.

Maybe they can be the Spew Party as they are quite adept at that.

What say y'all?

free0352 said...

Destroy it in the womb. They like abortion right?

I think they'll just get honest and call it the Socialist Movement.

CrabbyOldMan said...

We did NOT go to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein seemed unlikely to go to Heaven. We went to war because Iraq invaded Kuwait and was poised to grab the Saudi oil fields, and, probably, Iran’s as well. We could not tolerate an ambitious thug controlling that large a part of the world’s oil supply. Neither could we have a situation in which Saddam suddenly had all the money he wanted to buy weapons with (thereby greatly benefiting the Russians).
The howling about the atrocities was, as it always is, a means of getting the clueless segment of the electorate to support the war. I think the stories were true, but they were not reason enough to send the American military into harm’s way.
The situation in Syria is not comparable to the Iraq war. We are meddling in Syria to save Comrade Hussein’s credibility, but telling everyone it is because the Syrian government is controlled by bad actors who are killing off other followers of the Prophet. While there are many who will not admit it, nobody cares about this any more than they do about the African tribesmen killing each other off.
I generally agree that damaging the credibility of the President is damaging the credibility of the United States. However, the Messiah and his Disciples incompetence have already wrecked their credibility. They have already inflicted enormous damage to the United States that will probably manifest itself for decades.
I have pointed out before that it is very dangerous to have incompetent narcissists running our national security apparatus.
Until it is demonstrated that there is a serious threat to our national interests, like an ally being attacked or the oil flow being disrupted, we should let the situation in Syria run its course without US involvement.
The first step toward repairing the damage is to drive the Chicagocrat/Marxist coalition out of office. Things will not improve domestically or internationally until that happens.

Zelda said...

The credibility issue is actually one to consider however unfortunate it may be. The only thing preventing me from supporting cashing the check stupid Obama wrote is that we'd be helping our sworn enemies. Has Obama really forgotten who took down the WTC?

CrabbyOldMan said...

I say that the credibility is already gone and will not come back until we get rid of the Messiah and all His Disciples.

free0352 said...

I just said this on Jim Marquis' blog. We set up a no-fly zone over Iraq after the Gulf War. We fought the Gulf War because Iraq invaded a sovereign state. During the no-fly zone years, Iraq fired on our airplanes over 10,000 times. I'd say shooting at US fliers is grounds for war, let alone shooting at us 10,000 times not to mention trying to murder a former US President and not cooperating with the terms of the 91 cease fire. There was a way, way better case for war in Iraq.

Not so much in Syria. I'm not even sure I'd support a war with Iraq these days. The regime in Iran hasn't attacked US forces in a long time, but I may support strikes to take our their nuclear program. Syria is their ally, and if they want to jump into that, they can get some too. But as for helping Al'Qaeda take over Syria and get hold of the WMD there?

Fuck that.

Steve In Tulsa said...

I have yet to see any evidence that Assad used these weapons. I suspect if he had there would be more than a few hundred victims. I think the al Qaida associated Muslim Brotherhood could just as easily used these weapons. Perhaps more easily as they regard the afterlife as their reward.

Zelda said...

We were fighting a bit of a proxy war in Iraq with Iran which is why it went so badly. I don't think we were fighting Saddam's supporters for more than a few months. But Iraq was a strategic for us because of it being located right between Syria and Iran. Obama was a fool to have left. He's not a smart man.

CrabbyOldMan said...

RE: He's not a smart man.
Could not have been put more kindly.

However, there is always the possibility that the hustler-in-chief is wrecking our national security deliberately.

free0352 said...

The Limbaugh theory Obama is doing this on purpose is laughable.

Obama isn't doing this on purpose, he's doing it because he's an empty suit in waaaaaaay over his head.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Kennedy promised that we would not invade Cuba and removed the intermediate range missiles we had in Turkey (Khrushchev's twin goals in the first place) in exchange for the USSR "blinking".
I wonder what our smart diplomacy handed the other side under the table in exchange for getting the Messiah's tit out of the wringer.
I give Limbaugh's theory low probability, but would not dismiss it out of hand.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I watched Comrade Hussein's speech last night.
The only thing that I learned is that it is more reprehensible to kill people with poison gas than it is with bullets, shrapnel and napalm.
I agree that it is to our great disadvantage to have the Russians and Iranians calling the shots in the middle east, but believe "smart diplomacy" has already virtually accomplished this.
I was left wondering how many of the liberal do gooders think that they or their children would be the ones going into harm's way to save the innocents.
Also, from time to time I think of how it would have been to have President Gore handle 09/11/01 and shudder.
I am certainly relieved that we put Jug Ears back in office rather than elect some impure RINO.

free0352 said...

I was left wondering how many of the liberal do gooders think that they or their children would be the ones going into harm's way to save the innocents.

Zero. They don't serve in the military, mostly because they can't do as they are told and they are weak.

certainly relieved that we put Jug Ears back in office rather than elect some impure RINO.

What on earth makes you think Romney would handle this any differently?

CrabbyOldMan said...

What on earth makes you think Romney would handle this any differently?

You have to be kidding.

Questionmann said...

No! Here is the REAL truth! You’re just a racist that hates having a black man as President!

The very idea that President Obama is destroying America is just another republican lie!

Is Barack Obama a Communist? No he is not

You racists claim that the President is the devil. That he is a commie, socialist, Nazi, dictator, who is both a secret Muslim, and
anti-American bigot who hates all white people. Not one thing you said was true. It
really sucks that a black man can go to Harvard and make more money in a year than you’ll make in your life, doesn’t it?

He is neither Muslim or Illegal or Evil! Obama is not a traitor to the USA but his agenda is questionable?

You’re writing this after having 8 years of THE WORST president of all time – a
Republican that started 2 needless wars and cut taxes to fund them. The same president whose relaxing of regulations led to the second worst
economic downturn in American history.

So, you call saving America from the disaster of the Bush/Chaney years destructive. You must have been born in an outhouse.

Obama has not committed a single impeachable offense. If he had, the House GOP would have started impeaching him by now. You people hate him because he is black!

Period. The End!

Zelda said...

I'm going to imagine him delivering this in Shirley MacLaine's voice. You?

Zelda said...

And somehow I don't think Romney always had to be the smartest one in the room. This is part of Obama's problem. He's the smartest. He has to be. So he surrounds himself with weapons grade idiots. His own ego is intact, but it means he doesn't have any idea what he's doing and no one who can tell him.

free0352 said...

I'll imagine it as one of Shirley McClain's past life's voices.

free0352 said...

COM

No difference at all.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nope, none at all.

"There's a wide array of potential threats, but clearly the concern would be that some terrorist group – whether Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda or others – would receive the capacity to carry out a mass destruction, mass death event, and therefore, America has to be ready whether it's there or anywhere else in the world,” Romney said.
The former Massachusetts governor has also threatened to attack Iran to prevent the country’s gaining nuclear weapons capability. “[Iran needs to] know that a military option is one which we'd be willing to consider if they do not take action to dissuade a course towards nuclearization [sic].”

Nate said...

He has to be. So he surrounds himself with weapons grade idiots

Like Rahm Emmanuel? Like Hillary Clinton? Chuck Hagel? Steven Chu?

Oh what a fantasy land you must live in....

Roboto said...

Nate,

Which one of those did he choose to be his second-in-command? Mr. 'slight Indian accent', wasn't it?

Oh what a fantasy land you must live in....

(BTW, I wouldn't quote Ms. 'what difference does it make' as NOT being idiotic. After all, she didn't know hubby was dipping his wick in anything with breasts, and everyone else who was sentient did know it.

Roboto said...

Oops, almost forgot Secretary of State John 'I was for it before I was against it' Kerry. And Tim 'TurboTax' Geitner. And yes, the angry naked shower fairy Rahmbo. Throw in a 'wise Latina' or two, and subtract some police 'acting stupidly' and someone that could have been his son (apparently, however, without the GSW to the sternum), and you have the 0bama brain trust.

Real rocket scientist material there, huh?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, you make a complete fool of yourself.

free0352 said...

Like Rahm Emmanuel? Like Hillary Clinton? Chuck Hagel? Steven Chu?

Yeah those idiots, among others.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Yes, Nate, incompetents pushing incompetence into new realms.

Rahm "My finger got an owie when I was in Israeli special forces, not from a meat slicer when I worked in a restaurant" D-Lots of dead black kids, Mr. "Dead dead dead" is a boob. Axelrod would crawl through piles of steaming crap to kiss Barry's butt. A crew of bumbling fools, Nate, even you might just toss your filthy glasses and see the clear air truth.

The news from Japan's Nikkei yesterday that Barry was planning on naming Larry Summers to replace Bernanke at the FED came as no real surprise.

- Barry has always been fond of Larry, who was his key economic advisor between his power naps in the Oval Office during meetings.

- Larry also has a 100% track record on economic matters, too...he's never been right about a single thing!

I have come to realize that Barry is building his "Dream Team" systematically, methodically, one at a time.

- If you consider clueless, inept, incompetent, useless, and second-rate personas, that is.

Consider this:

- A Muslim convert as head of CIA

- A Jew-hater at Defense

- An "unbelievably small" Secretary of State

...the list goes on, but Larry fits right in here. I can hardly wait for him to name Janet "Big Sis" Napolitano to the Supreme Court. Not bad if you can't have Van Jones at your Left hand!

You may not exactly consider this a "Dream Team" yourself, but you are obviously NOT dedicated to the systematic gutting of a Constitutional Republic either.

Bravo choom-boy!

- You have found yet another tooth to pull from an already toothless gooberment.

H.T. to Rico

Zelda said...

Those people aren't smart, Nate. You just have low standards.

Zelda said...

LOL. It's actually funnier and funnier each time I read Nate's list. Which of those brilliant logicians do you think is advising him on foreign policy? The economy? What good advice have they given that is observable in any way?

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Z, you ask hard questions that make lefties cry. Your so meen.

CrabbyOldMan said...

The world view that prevails in faculty lounges, the media, among guilt ridden trust children and those who just can't hack it on their own has collided with reality. Their only defense is denial.
They are terrified at how far the pendulum might swing in the other direction. There is nothing that they will not do to beat back the right, including feeding third party movements under the table so as to divide and conquer.
Events in Wisconsin and Colorado must have the left seeing it as win or perish.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Can anybody point to some public policy over which the left has had control, or even major influence, that has been successful?
Public education?
Our national security?
Our economy?
Medical costs?
The court system?
Honest government?

Roboto said...

Can anybody point to some public policy over which the left has had control, or even major influence, that has been successful?

The media? They WERE successful for quite some time.

Roboto said...

Oh, sorry. I just saw 'policy'.

I got nuthin'.

Nate said...

I'm pretty sure that if Hagel was a presidential candidate you'd be screaming his praises, calling him an innovator and a genius.

Roboto said...

I'm pretty sure that if Hagel was a presidential candidate you'd be screaming his praises, calling him an innovator and a genius.


Because you saw such love for McCain and Romney here, right?

When you're in a hole, it's time to stop digging.

Roboto said...

What about Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton? Did you give up on them?

(I wouldn't blame you if you did...)

Nate said...

I chose the lowest hanging fruit. I, unlike many of you I think that people that I disagree with often are intelligent, but are simply working under a differing set of assumptions and priorities.

Though some people I disagree with are dumbasses.

Roboto said...

Though some people I disagree with are dumbasses.

As well as many people that you agree with.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, working under a different set of assumptions and priorities hits the nail squarely on the head!

Margaret Thatcher said this during question time at Parliament:
Is the right honorable gentleman saying that he would rather have the poor be poorer if only the rich were less rich?

free0352 said...

I'm pretty sure that if Hagel was a presidential candidate you'd be screaming his praises,

Was best answered by

Because you saw such love for McCain and Romney here, right?

Damn right. We'll leave the cult of personality worship to Obama and his minions.

Nate said...

Damn right. We'll leave the cult of personality worship to Obama

Reagan.

Also I don't have time to go back and look up the posts defending Romney, but I'm pretty sure they exist.

Zelda said...

I don't think there were any commerative dish towels made for Reagan BEFORE he even took the oath of office. Defending politicians is one thing. Handing them Nobel Peace Prizes merely for existing is another. But go ahead and defend Obama. We're waiting to hear what wonderful things he and his brain trust have accomplished.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, the only thing that I will add to Zelda's comment is that over the next few decades Comrade Hussein will have been exposed for what he is, and you and the rest of the clueless will claim that you never even heard of the Messiah and His Disciples.

Roboto said...

Also I don't have time to go back and look up the posts defending Romney, but I'm pretty sure they exist.

Going on faith, are we? I am pretty sure, as I was posting some of them, that the most positive post about Romney was that he was better than TOTUS. Of course, that's not what you would call high praise; a dead wombat fits that definition as well.