Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
Officer Barbrady
2147 Followers
David Sullivan
4983 Followers
NeosopheusJan 19, 2012
Guilt by association is a logical fallacy that people use to divert attention away from the real issues because they have no substantive or otherwise tenable arguments to stand on.
norman619Jan 19, 2012
Yet both sides always use it AND many diggers here on both sides employ it regularly.
NeosopheusJan 19, 2012
Two wrongs don't make a right. Perhaps if people were more concerned with facts and logical arguments rather than partisan bickering and emotionally charged rhetoric we could actually say things that resemble reality and accomplish something meaningful.
norman619Jan 19, 2012
Who said it did?
NeosopheusJan 19, 2012
"Yet both sides always use it AND many diggers here on both sides employ it regularly."
People use that same argument to justify it: "Well they do it, so why can't we?" I didn't say that you said it was right; I am simply pointing out that either way it is wrong.
cantstopwontstopJan 19, 2012
you can say both sides always use it, but the majority of people who agree with you do exactly that when it suits them, accusing the other side while ignoring their own side.
for example, the same people defending obama right now, would have been nagging about bush in the same situation. and then when people attack obama they'll say something along the lines of 'two wrongs don't make a right', a.k.a. 'ill do it and get away with it, but you can't...and if you do do it, then you're automatically worse than me'.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aveterenJan 19, 2012
Damn cantstop you knocked that one out of the park.
Truer words have never been posted on Digg.
The...'ill do it and get away with it, but you can't...and if you do do it, then you're automatically worse than me'.
That is the bias politics going on here and in DC.
And yes we all have participated. Unfortunately.
But one thing needs to be said.."get over Bush".
It's been 3yrs. You can't use him as an excuse ever time Obama is questioned about something.
Let Obama stand up and own his own.
He is "supposed" to be our Leader.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
Only if this was about a right-winger ... you'd see about five blogs about it ALL hit the front page OUTRAGED at the injustice!
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
"Those statements, among others, have gained notice largely because of CAP’s influential role in Obama’s Washington. Founded and chaired by John Podesta, a onetime chief of staff in the Clinton White House, the center is an idea generator for the administration and a source for many of its top officials. The executive who headed the arm overseeing the CAP bloggers, Jennifer Palmieri, recently became a top communications official in the White House, and Podesta is now a part-time adviser to the State Department."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
For people burying the truth. The Washington Post is not a conservative paper.
The administration is VERY concerned about the Jewish vote in the USA... they lost Weiner's district.
American Jews are very concerned about Israel right now and rightly so ... the middle east is in upheaval so it's hard to know what her neighbors are going to evolve or devolve into. And Iran, you know, the REAL leaders are a bats**t crazy death cult and they are pursuing nuclear weapons while the rest of the world says, "Hey. You REALLY can't do that..."
Now ... go ahead and digg my comments down ... but this IS an issue right now.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorJan 19, 2012
The Washington Post carried a LOT of water for the ultra-conservative Bush/Cheney regime actually. I think their reporting has become more balanced lately however.
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
In DC circles among conservatives, it has been known as the "compost" because of its tendency to fawn over liberals. It was known as that BEFORE Bush/Cheney and during Bush Cheney and even now.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorJan 20, 2012
hank, is that you?
Ouzel7Jan 20, 2012
I am ouzel7
I am not any hank.
etubruteJan 19, 2012
The Washington post is trying to be neutral so where they lean is actually debatable.The ruler of Iran is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he is a figure head. The country is actually ran by a supreme leader and the assembly of experts who stay in the shadows while he draws all the attention.
The biggest mistake people make is thinking Mahmoud speaks for Iran, his job is to make headlines and please the extremist in his country.
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
"the REAL leaders are a bats**t crazy death cult"
That's exactly what I meant. Mahmoud shows up with a creepy grin in his Members Only jacket while these downright Achmed the Dead Terrorists with skin have the real power. These people, however, are SCARY.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Jan 19, 2012
As you say, Iran is run by bats**t crazy death cult. So is Gaza and Lebanon and Syria. They're all funded and steered by Iran, you know.
GentlemanGhost542Jan 19, 2012
indeed. Sounds like a desperate attempt to smear a Progressive organization.
kasha34Jan 19, 2012
"Guilt by association is a logical fallacy "
Hardly. "Birds of a feather flock together"
drthunderJan 19, 2012
“Israel-firsters.” That is anti-Semitic? Not being 100% pro Israel means you hate Jews? Very strange point of view.
spazattack5000Jan 19, 2012
Don't you know? It's written in the constitution that you have to support Israel 100%. The founding fathers said so.
daimposterJan 19, 2012
you do know that the right wing thinks that if you are not inline with them, then you are the complete opposite.
'mainstream liberal media' if it's not the same viewpoint as Fox News
'socialism' and 'communism' if its not the same as unchecked capitalism
'traitor' and 'anti-american' if you don't support sending in troops to Iraq
etc
GentlemanGhost542Jan 19, 2012
people on the Progressive side usually criticize Israel because of the policies the Right wing Coalition makes and not the country it as a whole.
there are some desperate Right wingers out there that so desperate to win possible Jewish voters over to their side that they will try to play the anti-Semitic even when it is clear it isn't as such
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
So the Jewish voters in Weiner's district were tricked by "right-wingers"?
GentlemanGhost542Jan 19, 2012
I am saying that there are some who are desperate to use such a tactic to win votes.
I am pretty sure more was at play in Weiner's district when the people there went out to vote
stevanoskiJan 19, 2012
I think there is a basic difference GG. The Rep.s would certainly welcome the votes that I am not denying. But the Rep.s have backed Israel quite some time for religious reasons while the Dem.s have backed Israels enemies for several reasons. One, the hate Israel crowd is almost totally Leftist and two the Blacks tend to be more in line with Arabs therefore anti-Israel.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aveterenJan 20, 2012
"I am saying that there are some who are desperate to use such a tactic to win votes."
You mean trying to win votes like Obama is 1/2 white, 6/16 Arab, and 2/16 African black according to Ancestry.co.uk Managing Director Simon Harper.
But Obama and his minions like you continualy repersent him as African-American which technically just is not true. He is more European Caucasian than he is Kenya-African. He has no ties to African-Americans. Thus his assersion that he has ancestry that were slaves should piss off real African-Americans who do have ancestry that were slaves.
But he gets a bye because his skin tone is light tan which is indicative of the middle eastern Arab nations.
This means that he had, on his father's side, one black great-great grandparent, and the rest on his father's side were Arabs. Thus his name Barack Hussein Obama.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
GentlemanGhost542Jan 20, 2012
nice red herring
aveterenJan 20, 2012
GG.............
Nice denial of facts.
"Red herring is a figurative expression in which a clue or piece of information is or is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual question."
Point out one thing about obamas heritage that is not true. And remember all of this came from him and Ancestry.com. They are the most reputable geneologist in the world.
Instead of red herring how about obama smoke screen, cover up. Why doesn't he give "full" disclosure?
You know quit saying he's African-American when he plainly is not. His only ties to America is his Irish-American mother.
Get over it....................
No "opinions" just reputable facts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tehravenJan 21, 2012
I thought his tie to America was him being born here . . . guess that doesn't count when we're talking about a black guy . . .
eraptorJan 20, 2012
Why don't you pose your question to former Mayor Koch (who led the voters) in that election?
kasha34Jan 19, 2012
sigh.
The implication is that all Jews (not just Israeli citizens) consider themselves Jews first. That there's a secret organization of Jews that are a fifth column in their "host countries."
In other words, Jews are not and cannot be loyal to the United States.
That is the anti Semitic part.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ratatratrJan 20, 2012
But you're content to assume nasty things about all Palestinians. And probably all Muslims.
kasha34Jan 20, 2012
Yes. It's a religious imperative for them.
ratatratrJan 20, 2012
And "that is the anti Islamic part."
kasha34Jan 21, 2012
Sorry. But that's what the Koran and the hadiths require.
eraptorJan 20, 2012
Patriotism is measured by one's actions, NOT their religious beliefs or ethnicity.
Are there SOME voters in the U.S. who cast their votes purely on the basis of how U.S. policy affects Israel? Yes, but that pattern of behavior is not unique to the Jewish community since there are many Christians who share that voting behavior.
Does it make these voters patriotic/loyal to the U.S.? No, it makes them patriotic/loyal to Israel. Pointing this political fact out does NOT make someone anti-Semitic. It's a political OBSERVATION, NOT a xenophobic attack.
kasha34Jan 20, 2012
The majority of Americans side with Israel against the Arabs because the Israelis are the good guys. They're more like us.
You can keep pumping this Israel-is-just-like-apartheid bulls**t. But the majority of Americans don't buy it.
Israelis are outnumbered a hundred to one in the Middle East. Yet they don't teach their children to despise Muslims. The Muslim countries all carefully teach their children IN SCHOOL to hate and despise Jews.
The Israelis have actual laws. Not thuggery as does every Arab country. Israel has politics similar to ours and not bloody dictators as the Muslims countries all do.
Israelis don't trick their children into becoming suicide bombers. Don't beat their women for not covering themselves in walkaround-tents. Don't saw off their little girls sex organs.
When the IDF finally defends itself they take extraordinary measures to avoid hitting civilians (though it happens anyway.)
Tiny Israel contributes a big chunk of the new technology that makes our lives better. The Arab countries contribute nothing.
If and when Islam enters the 21st century Americans will welcome it. Again, the majority of Americans side with Israel.
Now you know why.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJan 20, 2012
Who disputed that the U.S. sides with Israel? Nice straw man...
As for the accusations of apartheid, the similarity between the actions of the Israeli government and that of the former South African government are readily apparent to anyone who looks at both of those situations with an open mind.
I support Israel's right to exist, but I don't condone ethnic bigotry, tyranny and oppression from ANYONE. There is NO excuse for the unrelenting violence and bloodshed. Take another look at the tone of your response before you attempt to accuse anyone of ethnic bigotry and "hatred".
The Middle East dispute revolves around LAND and who controls it. It always has and it always will. Unless those LAND disputes are settled FAIRLY, once and for all, there will NEVER be peace in Israel. EVERYONE knows this hard truth, regardless of the political "games" being played. Since no one wishes to acknowledge this truth (especially the hardliners), the bloodshed will continue and innocent people on BOTH sides of the conflict will continue to die senselessly.
It's an unrelenting tragedy, nothing more.
kasha34Jan 20, 2012
Maybe you don't know --
Half of Israelis are Middle Eastern Jews and their children. See, in 1948, some 800,000 Middle Eastern Jews fled (or were ejected) from the Muslim nations where their families were oppressed for 1,400 years. Third-class non-citizens by law for most of that time. And de facto the rest.
They left behind whatever property they had managed to hide from Jew-only taxes and periodic Muslim pogroms. Better to start over broke in Israel than to raise another generation to be persecuted and held down for being Jewish.
So here's a summary: The Jews were in the area for 5,000 years before the Arabs got there. And now have less than 1% of the land.
Israel is the only place in the Middle East where Jews can't be lynched for being Jewish.
PS - You said "Who disputed that the U.S. sides with Israel? Nice straw man..."
My point was that we side with Israel not because of some illicit influence by the Jew lobby. We side with Israel because they are the civilized ones. The others are the barbarians.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJan 20, 2012
I understand your point and I don't mean to be insensitive to anyone.
I simply have a hard time seeing how anyone will break the cycle of violence and hatred in the Middle East as long as each side ignores the concerns and needs of the other.
How much bloodshed must we see before BOTH sides learn to treat each other with the love, dignity and respect they ALL deserve? Is a piece of land truly worth THAT? I understand the significance of the Holy Land to everyone involved, but there should be limits to the animosity anyone would engage in to obtain it. Do any of us truly believe that God meant for people to kill one another over that land? I can't imagine that to be the case based on my understanding of him.
Land can very easily become a form of idolatry which God forbids and which the religions of the region forbid. How is it that no one recognizes this danger of misplaced faith? I don't have the answer to these questions, but it begs asking in light of the ongoing bloodshed.
kasha34Jan 20, 2012
For Muslims it's ALWAYS a fight over land.
In the Philippines they're warring with Christians. They want their own f**king country.
Likewise in Russia.
In Thailand they're warring with the Buddhists. They want their own country. There, they just killed several Thais this past week.
There have been 18,313 Islamic terror attacks worldwide since Sept 11. Israel is just one of many places.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
humanitJan 20, 2012
People in many countries that are against each other just do not want to face the ugly (well, actually quite lovely in some way) truth that they are quite close relatives, thus they have to cencor it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics .
daimposterJan 20, 2012
Racist much?
"The majority of Americans side with Israel against the Arabs because the Israelis are the good guys"
Even if that was 100% correct, it still does not mean we should back ALL actions of Israel. It does not mean that Israel should do whatever it wants and that we should agree 100% on their approach.
If a man breaks into someones property, we can all agree that the man has committed a crime. However, it does not mean we all agree on the punishment or how to protect that land. Should the criminal get the death penalty for breaking and entering? Should the owner be allowed to booby trap his house or be allowed to kill anyone who breaks in?
Agreeing on who is the criminal or 'bad guy' is one thing, but that doesn't mean we have to agree on the punishment or how it's handled. Afghanistan harbored Bin Laden and his terrorist organization....should the rest of the world be OK if the US nuked the country?
kasha34Jan 20, 2012
FEB 2011
"Americans' views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held fairly steady over the past year, with a near record-high 63% continuing to say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis. Seventeen percent sympathize more with the Palestinians..."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146408/americans-maintain-broad-support-israel.aspx
First of all, regarding Israel and their Arab neighbors, the issue of "punishment" doesn't apply.
See, "punishment" is when you've already stopped them. You can't "punish" a murderer until he's imprisoned and can't do any more harm.
The "Palestinians" are STILL launching rockets into Israeli civilian towns. The Hezbollahs are STILL stockpiling rockets and ignoring so-called UN "peacekeepers.
Until that stops, Israel is justified in doing anything to protect itself.
Yet the IDF goes to extraordinary lengths to try not to hurt non-combatants. Probably more than any military in all of human history.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
humanitJan 20, 2012
"The "Palestinians" are STILL launching rockets into Israeli civilian towns. "
You mean these "rockets"?
http://wontsomebodypleasethinkofthechildren.ytmnd.com/
The sad thing is that overreaction to those and the beast of war getting out of bag will maybe bring these into play in near future:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/
And the winners will be.. (drum beat) ..people selling the missiles to both sides of course! (or rats, if people just vanish from the face of earth).
aveterenJan 20, 2012
@diam
"If a man breaks into someones property"
If a man, or woman, breaks into my home they are d.e.a.d. They did not break into my home to give me money or hug my neck.
"However, it does not mean we all agree on the punishment or how to protect that land."
YOU,,, assh**e, luckly, do not have a say in how I protect my home, my property, and my family. Criminals love you touchy filly liberals let's all sit down and talk this break-in of "my" home to death.
Let's sing kumbaha and I'll get you a drink. GEEZ
"Should the criminal get the death penalty for breaking and entering?"
If he doesn't have a legitimate reason that is safe for my family.....he dies every time.......that is if he survives me shooting his sorry ass.
"Should the owner be allowed to booby trap his house or be allowed to kill anyone who breaks in?"
I think I have throughly answered that.
"Agreeing on who is the criminal or 'bad guy' is one thing, but that doesn't mean we have to agree on the punishment or how it's handled."
I don't give a crap on how you punish criminals who break into your home. Hell suk his dic if you want. ME? He will not do it again, believe me.
"Afghanistan harbored Bin Laden and his terrorist organization....should the rest of the world be OK if the US nuked the country?"
The nuke reference is just a cheap shot at bush and you know it. To start with not one nuke has been dropped in war since WWII. And it was never considered because it would start WWIII. So it is a moot question. Just a cheap shot.....
But more to the point, what in the hell does a war have to do with someone breaking into your home? bin laden didn't "break" into Afgan. The murdering assh**e lived there. They embraced him. They loved him. Nothing whatsoever to do with the property break in that you brought up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterJan 20, 2012
@aveteren:
Calm the f**k down dude. You are filled with hatred and don’t seem to care for ‘collateral damage’. Let’s say the guy went onto your farm to steal a few stalks of corn. He is breaking the law….should you be allowed to kill him? Even if he is running away and poses no danger to you at that moment.
The nuke question is NOT moot. The B&E or the nuke question is not meant to equate to anything other than to provide an example that can make a point that even if people agree who is the ‘bad guy’, it doesn’t mean we should agree on the proper actions to take.
Are you in troubled high school student that need therapy? Or do you have an IQ under 50 and can’t understand the purpose of an analogy or hypothetical question?
MusicManGPJan 19, 2012
Accused? Evidently. Rightly? Sure doesn't seem like it.
theswashbucklerJan 19, 2012
There's nothing anti-Semitic about thinking that some Americans seem more concerned about Israel than the U.S.
apokalyps2547Jan 19, 2012
A guy who knows some people who know some people who know Obama tweeted nasty things!
Grasping for straws much?
slang4catJan 19, 2012
I know! It's not like he spent 20 years in the church of an anti-Semite racist preacher or anything! "God DAMN AMERICA!"
jhbarrJan 19, 2012
Yup, Obama must really hate the Jews, I mean only his current and past senior advisor's and chiefs of staff have been Jewish, along with a host of other top position's.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/obamajews.html
austinjameshereJan 19, 2012
Conservatives are getting desperate to attack the president through association... what is under contention is the phrase, "Israel-firsters" and it was written on a personal twitter page of someone who works at the Center for American Progress. Anyone with more than a dozen brain cell can see that this isn't news worth discussing, nor is it in anyway related to Obama. Talk about sensationalized news.
particleman420Jan 19, 2012
so which part of the article that i just read has anything to do with obama?
spazattack5000Jan 19, 2012
The part at the top of this page that shows who submitted it.
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
This is the Washington Post. That's not known as a conservative paper.
Also - 420 - I guess reading and comprehension are two different things?
"Those statements, among others, have gained notice largely because of CAP’s influential role in Obama’s Washington. Founded and chaired by John Podesta, a onetime chief of staff in the Clinton White House, the center is an idea generator for the administration and a source for many of its top officials. The executive who headed the arm overseeing the CAP bloggers, Jennifer Palmieri, recently became a top communications official in the White House, and Podesta is now a part-time adviser to the State Department."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Jan 19, 2012
right, it's got nothing to do with obama.
im glad you agree.
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
...go smoke another...
mtownJan 19, 2012
You made a vague statement hinting that you aren't completely thrilled with smoking. By this article's logic, you actually violently hate smokers and anything that has to do with, or produces, smoke. Why do you hate smokers, campfires, and matches so much?
Ouzel7Jan 20, 2012
As relentlessly stupid and nonsensical as 420's posts are on Digg, I am surprised that the legalize crowd (of which I am one) hasn't asked him to please change his name because he's tarnishing the image.
(I don't use ... I just think it should be legal... he's making me change my mind.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Jan 20, 2012
what does any of that have to do with the topic we're discussing, oozey?
you got shown up and proven that its got nothing to do with obama and then switch to your tired old personal attacks and deflection that you've been using for years, Quirk.
hopefuldavJan 19, 2012
So, who was the US Senator that changed his identifier to R-AIPAC?
Did the "Isreal first" writer leave because of what he wrote, or did he find a new job?
Also, it seems to have been a big enough deal for them to adopt a new policy.
Other than all that, whats the big deal?
inetroadkillJan 19, 2012
FTA: "Some experts say the phrase has its roots in the anti-Semitic charge that American Jews are more loyal to a foreign country."
Yes, because if you don't agree with the idea that the US should be the lap dog of the Israeli lobby, you obviously must be anti-semetic.
ikorkyiJan 19, 2012
i equate this phenomenon to the "support our troops" argument - where if you don't favor a war, you're not supporting troops. one would think that the ultimate support of the troops would be making sure they're fighting a battle worth fighting.
both are silly.
quisquisJan 19, 2012
Just because you don't understand the roots of the phrase doesn't mean it can't have an antisemitic meaning.
I didn't think saying a black person (or anyone for that matter) looked like a monkey was racist until people were freaking about about someone saying it about one of the Obamas here on digg.
I probably reacted like you... saying something like:
"Yes, because if you take note of someone's physical features that look like an animal, you obviously must be racist."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaJan 19, 2012
"I didn't think saying a black person (or anyone for that matter) looked like a monkey was racist"
the racism there goes back way before Obama and digg
PyriteGenieJan 19, 2012
It goes back to at least George W Bush.
savetheseaJan 19, 2012
Howard Cosell
kasha34Jan 19, 2012
Obama looks like Curious George. That's what Carlos Mancina says.
stevanoskiJan 19, 2012
Now he's racists. But he's not white so he can't be, this gets all too confusing.
kasha34Jan 19, 2012
Hispanic good. White bad.
What's complicated?
quisquisJan 20, 2012
I know it does now. The racism link was only made for me though by people pointing it out on digg. That's what I was saying to him.
booglefloopJan 19, 2012
That's what happens when you get ANY country who's basis is religion. Israel is no different than Iran when it comes to this.
The big difference is that the US will drop trousers for Israel the second they ask. I would love to know the real reason for this some day.
Israel looks at the US with disdain. We are supposed to help them out because them and their nuclear arsenal are too weak to defend themselves (so we are told) but I don't remember israel sacrificing many troops for us in the last couple of wars.
They look at us with such disdain that they have been caught with mossad spies many times in the US. All we do is send them back and apologize to them for catching their spies.
I have no problems with Jews. I work with some, I have them as friends, but the religious nation of israel is just as corrupt as any religious nation of islam.
kasha34Jan 19, 2012
Religious nature of Israel? Is the same as Islamic countries? Really?
booglefloopJan 19, 2012
The reason countries get founded and governed by religious principles at all is because they particular religion believes it is superior or more pure than the rest of the world.
The bonus is that when bad things happen to them, they get to claim religious persecution rather than bad government policy.
We all know your views kasha, you would probably make the US a 'christian nation' even though it isnt one and was never founded as one for the same reason. You hate muslims and probably feel the same about atheists, buddhists, hindii, native american shamenism, and the list goes on.
kasha34Jan 20, 2012
Actually, I was raised a Communist and I'm indifferent to religion.
It ISLAM that hates atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews, Baha'i,etc.
Hey, here's what they did today:
2012.01.19 (Pattani, Thailand) - A 39-year-old Buddhist is gunned down by militants Muslims.
And Tuesday:
2012.01.17 (Pattani, Thailand) - A 14-year-old Buddhist boy and his father are shot in the head and chest by Muslim 'insurgents'.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Jan 19, 2012
"Lap dog of the Israeli lobby"...sigh.
The Saudis have waaaay more money than Israel.
And are happy to spread it around.
The truth is that the USA supports Israel because a majority of the American people support Israel over the Arabs. And rightly so.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Jan 19, 2012
I met a racist once. I am not a racist.
JustSayNoPartyJan 19, 2012
Yet another 'non story'. Get ready for a joyful political season bound to bring up all kinds of egregious connections and misdeeds by both candidates. I can't wait. Swift boat, where are you?
NeosopheusJan 19, 2012
Guilt by (flimsy) association. Don't you guys know how this game is played?
MrFrogyJan 19, 2012
Both parties do it all the time. And when they are not doing it the press is contriving these controversies in order to make money by views, clicks, ads, ratings, etc. If we would just stop watching these kinds of train wrecks, REGARDLESS OF WHICH PARTY IT IS HURTING, our country would be a much better place.
NeosopheusJan 19, 2012
If people would apply logic, our country would be a better place.
JustSayNoPartyJan 19, 2012
Perfect explanation of my thoughts as well. If people would stop falling for these ridiculous 'contrived stories', they would stop writing them. Did ya hear? Newt Gingrich's Ex is being interviewed tonight. Apparently, she's going to say 'bad things' about him. Don't forget to watch.
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
I'll tell you what.... I'll bet you the Center for American Progress has more influence in actual government than the Koch brothers.
GentlemanGhost542Jan 19, 2012
"Twitter posts by one CAP writer on his (PERSONAL ACCOUNT) referring to “Israel-firsters.”
I find it amusing that they making a big fuss when the guy working for The Center for American Progress was using his own personal account separate of the organization.
sounds like guilt by association being used in a desperate smear attack on the CAP
abstractj3Jan 19, 2012
Sounds like the liberal think tank is right to me and that's coming from a liberal with Jewish family living in Israel.
macdaddy357Jan 19, 2012
Anti-semite: Anyone who dares to criticize even a single facet of the Israeli government's policies, or acknowledges that the Palestinians are human beings.
jpurdyJan 20, 2012
The Post needs to find something important for Wallsten to do
FesteringStumpJan 20, 2012
Strange. Here in the UK I know many Jewish anti-semites by this metric.
minheadroomJan 20, 2012
Cut out this anti-Semitic crap, the pro-Israel Jewish groups or whatever you want to call them have made this phrase totally meaningless, although their intent is clear.
jagpopJan 20, 2012
Let's all get a clue.
The word anti-semitism has two usages/definitions.
1) bigotry where the target is jewish
2) word uttered to cause intimidation, usually political intimidation
Which definition fits this case? - pretty clear
Which definition fits most cases? - pretty clear
JustSayNoPartyJan 19, 2012
"There has not been a more prejudice and bigoted president since President Lyndon Johnson."
It gets So Old to hear from the crowd that thinks so Subjectively and is prone to massive over exaggerations. Yes yes, enough already. President Obama is all manners of evil. You are 'so right'. You don't need to keep digging in every single trash can to prove his incompetence any more.
I do believe Ron Paul is a better choice this time around. But damn, enough with the partisan rhetoric. Dem: (Bush should be prosecuted for War Crimes. Bush single handidly destroyed our country. He's the worst president ever). For Republicans, just replace Bush with Obama.
Closed AccountJan 19, 2012
bush= truthful to a fault but to nieve to realize that people would take advantage of that.
obama= consorts w/ terror supporters and has failed on nearly every promise.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJan 19, 2012
And you don't see the bias in that statement? Basically, Bush was a good man. Obama is just evil. Seriously, the 'rooting' sections are old. Go Conservatives. Go Liberals. Go Team. I must digg 'conservative posters' for the win.
I could care less about the 'label'. I don't need to join 'a side'. Some have a strong need to be part of 'a side'.
I'm trying my best to just determine each candidate's qualifications and positions. That will determine my vote. I vote both Republican and Democratic. Neither side has a corner or righteousness.
stevanoskiJan 19, 2012
Bush was a good family man and so is Obama.
miklkitJan 19, 2012
What?!!?!?
You are even dumber than you look. Bush/cheney lied and people died.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/politics/bush.iraq_1_intelligence-flaws-iraq-and-al-qaeda-study?_s=PM:POLITICS
Closed AccountJan 20, 2012
the article itself says they misguided by bad info.
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
basically they took bad info and used it as propaganda w/o knowing it was bad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitJan 20, 2012
But they were not misguided by bad information. They made it up as they went along.
They slandered the former Ambassador to Iraq who said they were wrong.
They outed a spy who was in charge of looking for WMD.
Did I mention that she was OUR spy? That is treason.
The UN weapons inspector who said the evidence was "sexed up" was murdered.
http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/10/death-dr-david-kelly
Why are you defending those war criminals?
Closed AccountJan 20, 2012
okay if bush is a criminal so is obama for violating the war powers act and circumventing congress for his dream act.
dr. david kelly may have been killed but there is no proof of who. so a lot of hearsay and rumors. wont was in court, means it wont wash in the real world.
my guess is a mugging went wrong. he was killed after fighting back and the body was tossed...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaJan 19, 2012
"anti-Semitic charge that American Jews are more loyal to a foreign country"
How is that anti-semitic?
GentlemanGhost542Jan 19, 2012
wow ask a basic question and the DP goons bury you
savetheseaJan 19, 2012
I got on some sort of hit list yesterday for cheering the halting of the Tar Sands pipeline.
Don't mind getting dugg down but I do like to know why others think it is worthy of a bury, and it was a serious question.
apokalyps2547Jan 19, 2012
FTA: “very troubling things that have been written on a pretty regular basis by certain people associated with the organization.”
So now it's yet another step removed. Someone associated with the organization which is associated with the Democratic Party and thus Obama by extension. Whoop-de-doo.
treehugger87Jan 19, 2012
In a post on their personal Twitter account, no less.
Not to mention that getting Israel-first politicians out of Washington wouldn't be a great idea anyway. Do we really want legislators putting another country's interest before our own?
cosmicsurferJan 19, 2012
Its an election year...Can't kick around Bill Ayers connection - that was so LAST election cycle. NOW have to come up with a new made up scandal
Closed AccountJan 19, 2012
how the f**k was that made up? he bombed and killed people and after being arrested said he wished he would have killed more people. i not sure about you but i don't want a president that hangs around with a terrorist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
Eh, you're wasting your time attempting to find any kind of coherent commentary coming from this user.
Best thing to do is use her statements as lessons to young people...psilocybin and tree bark don't mix.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJan 19, 2012
You are right. it wasn't 'made up'. But still, the only reason you don't want a president that has any association with Ayers is because the President is Barack Obama. This is still Guilt by association. I'm tired of each side looking for any and all attacks that then push out real topics like how a President will handle our awful economy.
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
What the hell are you talking about? The guy's an admitted terrorist who said he "didn't regret setting bombs off"
No one who isn't insane would want ANY president to have ties to people like this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJan 19, 2012
atom, you seem to be getting more and more 'angry'. No, relations with Ayers would not be a 'single issue' that would lose my vote. i don't believe Obama is either a terrorist or sympathizer. I do believe this is mostly another 'hit piece' to attack the opposition. Enjoy that interview tonight of Gingrich's ex.
Post Vietnam war times (context), Ayers seems to have some strong accomplishments. But yes, the bombings are inexcusable.
ultimisJan 19, 2012
Ayers had committed these acts before Obama tied himself to the terrorist. It's not like he did stuff crazy after the two did activities together.
Closed AccountJan 19, 2012
justsayno- i don't give a damn who the president is..to consort witha convicted terrorist is wrong. wrong no matter who does it. a psch report from 05 showed that people who built bombs and stuff had a 90% recurring rate. meaning they would be repaet offenders.. makes ayers no better than a naziComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
"No, relations with Ayers would not be a 'single issue' that would lose my vote. "
No one asked you about that, so if I didn't know better I'd say you were trying to divert from what you wrote earlier.
Your comment that it's only because it's Obama that anyone's concerned that a f**king PRESIDENT has ties to a terrorist is idiotic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJan 19, 2012
No. No need to 'divert', atom. The real reason many typical 'Republican' posters are truly latching on to this issue is that it is against Obama. in my list of things I'll be looking at during the next elections, it won't be anywhere near the top of my list. Now, Obama's actual performance will have a strong impact.
Perhaps you should try 'meditation'.
breadfredJan 19, 2012
Atom - - WTF - he committed these hideous crimes AFTER he had an association with Obama. Is Obama supposed to be able to look into the f**king future?
Of course, you know this, and you also know that you are wrong on this. But you will not admit it. Most likely your reaction will be that Obama made him do it as he met him before he did these awful acts.
You are a partizan shrill, nothing EVER good to say about the opposition. Shallow as hell, non-imaginative and hard-lined. easy to lead bu a charismatic leader, who you will parrot wherever you can. Also, you will NEVER admit that you are wrong (even if you know you are) and put yourself in a tight spot on a regular basis.
Maybe you should get some help. You f**king need it.
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
"he committed these hideous crimes AFTER he had an association with Obama. Is Obama supposed to be able to look into the f**king future? "
Dude. Educate yourself and then apologize.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
asfinktersezwutJan 20, 2012
atom
And yet people like you supported Bush - whose family had deep ties to the Bin Laden family. In fact it was the Bin Laden family that financed Bush's first oil venture in Texas.
How is it that you can reconcile your staunch support for Bush in the face of his direct ties and relations to Osama Bin Laden and the house of Saud - the most important supporters of Islamic Jihad in the known world?
david4041Jan 20, 2012
@asfinktersezwut
There's a big difference between the Bin Laden family and the Saudi royal family and Osama Bin Laden. Although OBL's father had close ties to the Saudi royal family, OBL hated the royal family (for allowing the Americans into Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I). OBL was one of his father's 20+ children (child of his father's tenth wife) and was by no means his father's favorite. While OBL worked for his father's company for a short while, he was never a top official with the company.
david4041Jan 20, 2012
"This is still Guilt by association."
What's wrong with guilt by association? These are the people he choose to hang out with. The people he chooses to hang out with is some indication of his views and beliefs.
JustSayNoPartyJan 19, 2012
Taylor, this election cycle, I'm going to be very suspect of any stories indicating a candidate is a 'terrorist sympathizer', 'open marriage' supporter, or other mud raking stories. I'm going to very interested in stroies that go directly at the candidates ability to manage our nation's economy, international affairs, etc. In other words, I will remain focused on essential job qualifications.
Closed AccountJan 19, 2012
so your gonna support a guy who has openly supported ayers...a convicted terrorist??? classy..better hope ayers dont start killing again.
JustSayNoPartyJan 19, 2012
Don't fall for every negative story coming out about either candidate. Now, if Obama was involved with Ayers in theses acts, he'd lose my vote.
I am attempting to remain as neutral as possible. I'll be evaluating each candidate solely on whether I believe the candidate is the most 'effective leader' going forward. The story regarding Ayers won't have any impact. Being an Obama 'opponent', you're allowing yourself to over emphasize such stories. I'm sure you also think the Acorn scandal was one of the worst ever uncovered. This is a psychological 'over attribution'.
netantJan 20, 2012
@JustSayNoParty
Plus, the non-story is ridiculous in itself. Its just a planted story to discourage Jews from supporting Obama in 2012. "How dare people suggest some people from AIPAC put Israel's interests ahead of the US's! Fire them!"
What Acorn scandal? Its been shown that all the accusations against Acorn were unfounded and manufactured. Acorn got federal funding support removed because of political chicanery.
spatula7Jan 19, 2012
Yet, Ron Paul says he wouldn't have helped the Jews in WW2...where's the outrage? No wait, here's someone who said something about someone else who Obama probably doesn't even know, and, a scream fest.
Closed AccountJan 19, 2012
paul said that???ouch...he's done...
we only got into the war causegarmany was japan's ally and after japan declared war on us so did germany....so we declared war on garmany also....if japan doesn't attack us we wouldn't have been too involved besides the lend lease act...
and i think he was talking about history saying we should of helped the jews but didn't until it was way too late...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
truthroxJan 20, 2012
Digging up 1960's radicals? Pathetic!
If you want to look into someone's dirty laundry, we don't have to go too far to catch the stench emanating from conservative circles these days.
Closed AccountJan 20, 2012
uh it was 70's and a person like that never changes..... so failure on your part....
support terrorists all you want they have killed fellow americans and i will not support them.
so you can go back to cair and tell them what a failure you are jerk....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
netantJan 20, 2012
After all, everyone should know that Reagan funded terrorists, called Contras, that raped and murdered nuns in Central America.
aadyssJan 19, 2012
No, let's kick around Gingrich's former marriage (again & again) and Romney's wealth and tax rate. Wealth, the "NEW" scandal.
Of course Obama himself is rich but that is never mentioned. When he leaves office he will be extremely rich from speaking fees and (?) another book. Quite a prolific author. Obama, the hero, gives 23% of his wealth to the needy. Not really and not even close. He keeps most all of his money for himself. Very altruistic of him.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 19, 2012
he made 8 mil last year and donated 0 dollard according to the treasury...i made slightly more than 25k(i got a roommate so i doesn't hurt too bad) and i donated 850.00 to the red cross.
classy of obama not to donate a dime huh???
LEAD FROM THE FRONT, NOT FROM BEHIND-
GEN. George S. Patton.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
truthroxJan 20, 2012
Patton wasn't a seditious p***y, Mitt IS. 'nuff said
If he was here today, Patton would punch your lights out for championing those seditious conservative views.
Closed AccountJan 20, 2012
at least Gen. patton had balls something this wuss in the WH will never have.
and keep failing...prick...
truthroxJan 22, 2012
You're right, Patton had balls and so does Obama. He brought down bin Laden when that band of Chicken Hawks in the Bush Administration couldn't. It took courage to ignore the cautious advice most of his military advisers gave and go into Pakistan to get bin Laden.
Remind us again...how many deferments did Dubya, Cheney, Romney and numerous other Republicans use to run from combat duty in Viet Nam when they were eligible? Hanging with cowards doesn't give you or your kind the "marbles" you presume to "swing".
Closed AccountJan 22, 2012
i dont hang w/ cowards. everyone in my family has erved in a combat zone at least twice.(xcept for my dad who got hit by a friggin drunk which cost my dad most of the flexability in his knee.so he got a med discharge before he could go overseas).
also according to panetta bammy waited 16 hours to make a decision. not very good at making quick choices is he?
YachtRokrJan 23, 2012
@tylorliles
Was your family listed among those cowards? No? Then, consider that truthrox was linking your political leaning to key figures in the conservative movement, not your family. At the very least, your family has the spine/balls most high powered politicians don't.
Nothing was as repulsive as watching Dick Cheney (who took multiple deferrments during Viet Nam) and Dubya (who used his Daddy's political connections to get into the National Guard, avoid combat duty and avoid meeting his service requirements) boastfully sending others to war/death/dismemberment when they lacked the courage to face the same dangers.
I'm from a family who has sent/lost numerous family members to various wars since before the Revolutionary War. I don't question people who are genuinely patriotic, I simply hold patriotic "posers" in contempt.
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
And the Center for American Progress has MUCH MORE influence than the Koch Brothers (that reminds me, I haven't seen any blogspam about how evil they are yet today...)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aadyssJan 19, 2012
Ya, w'sup with that?
truthroxJan 20, 2012
@aadyss,
You don't get the outrage aimed at Mitt. I'm not surprised you would get it wrong since conservatives never "get it".
Wealth and "envy" are not the problem, it's Mitt's detachment from reality, his weirdness, the means by which he "earned" that wealth and his determination to avoid paying his fair share of taxes (by sheltering it in the Cayman's) which are the source of his problems.
Had Mitt been a man like Steve Jobs, who genuinely created economic value in this country with his commercial efforts, the man's wealth would be an irrelevant issue.
netantJan 20, 2012
Wealth appeared to be an irrelevant issue when raised against FDR. "FDR's rich", that's a reason to vote for the Republican determined to do nothing?
It was a pre-eminently qualified Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulsen, (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) who came up with TARP, and felt every bank had to be FORCED by the gov't to take the money, in order to "save the banks". Meanwhile, if that same money was "given away" to the people with the foreclosures, there would have been no bank collapse, no reason for financial panic, AND there would less people losing their homes.
For some odd reason, previous experience as a vulture capitalist doesn't strike me as a motivational reason to vote for them for POTUS. Or someone who campaigned previously on some issues, and now vehemently repudiates the same issues. Principled and resolute does not come to mind.
aadyssJan 20, 2012
"The means by which he earned his wealth." You obviously know nothing about venture capital. If it were not for venture capital, I would not have been able to establish a company in the late 70's employing 100 people.
If it were not for venture capital many jobs that exist today would not exist. and companies that exist today would not exist.
You really don't know what jobs he helped to create and you o not want to know. You have your view and you are sticking with it regardless of truth I'm sure you like Warren Buffet. What did economic value did he create as far as iphones and ipads? Do you even know?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
truthroxJan 22, 2012
@aadyss,
Venture Capital has changed a lot since the 1970's. Count yourself as lucky because that industry looks nothing like it once did, in form and values/integrity. You're stuck in a time capsule and that explains why you are so disconnected from the real world.
You're confusing Warren Buffett with Steve Jobs. Regardless, I have no doubt that both men have used and been venture capitalists at various points in their life. What you miss about my position is that I don't oppose venture capital which creates economic value, I oppose vulture capitalists who destroy it.
Imagine how you would have felt if a vulture capitalist had sunk their talons into you and your company instead of getting help from a responsible venture capitalist. Instead of bragging about the jobs you/they created, you would be bankrupt and those employees would be unemployed. That's a distinction you keep missing.
Wake up and smell the coffee, chump. We're living in a much different world than what once existed in the 1970's.
netantJan 20, 2012
And what's your point?
Nobody like rich guys voting themselves tax breaks while raising taxes on the 48% so they can occupy foreign countries, rig the markets, and get rich in the process. Common sense, stupid.
Why would I consider a guy for POTUS who can't be bothered to stay married when his wives become ill? Does Gingrich have the minimal level of personal integrity necessary to be an adequate POTUS? If he were a child molester, but was the best POTUS in history, would that be a reason to overlook that character flaw?
aadyssJan 20, 2012
Yet you love a President who committed and more than likely commits adultery as a lifestyle and has been accused of groping, indecent exposure and rape. He did some of those acts while president. Come on, get real. And then there was J.F.K. You guys have monstrous double standard notions.
So character flaws of conservatives ... no redemption. The character flaws of Democrats...non-existed or forgotten.
What do we really know about the current prez? Snorted cocaine?? What else?? He seems to have lived the life as a monk that is well protected by the media.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
netantJan 20, 2012
1) If you're talking about Clinton, there's no love there. You mistake my nostalgic reaction to him, compared to the American Anti-christ that came after him, as love. I'm certainly not going to equate Clinton as a rapist based on YOUR baseless accusation.
2) What do I care about JFK? I certainly wouldn't vote for him based on what he was doing while POTUS.
"So character flaws of conservatives ... no redemption."
Only a conservative FOOL would believe Gingrich is a moral man who honors his marriage vows. He did not merely suffer a weak moment once; he dumped the second wife for the same reason he dumped the first one, while cheating on them with their replacement.
You don't bring up divorce papers while your wife is undergoing cancer treatment. I find it astounding sociopaths like you don't even grasp the iniquity of such an action. You lack human decency or ethical morality, and you just can't grasp that.
"The character flaws of Democrats...non-existed or forgotten."
When John Edwards runs for office, and you see me defending him, THEN you can bring up hypocritical standards. Until then, just accept that you're either sociopathic or phenomenally stupid.
"What do we really know about the current prez?"
I know from his 3 years in office, I'd rather vote for him than Romney or Gingrich.
aadyssJan 20, 2012
Perhaps no love for Clinton from you but from the majority of Democrats and the Democratic Party itself...love-fest. How in the world do you think he made millions after leaving office. How many jobs did his millions create I wonder?
Clinton - a worse adulterer than Gingrich and perhaps rapist. He was, after all, accused of rape. Not many Presidents can say that. Many republicans are accused and convicted in the court of the Democratic Party. Mrs Clinton cared more about her career and her desire to become the President than her husbands awful behavior.
JFK - a hero in the Democratic Party circles and with the American people. A worse adulterer that Gingrich. His wife should have left him but money, a lot of money, was involved. How did the Kennedy family make their millions? Were they better than Romney or his family? JFK lived off a trust fund for crying out loud.
I didn't say that Gingrich was a moral man. You are just going all hyperbolic. What I did say is we have had less moral men in the White House representing the Democratic Party. than Gingrich. Our nation is involved with severe difficulties and you are judging morality. What ever happened to the Democratic creed of what happens in the bedroom is no one's business?
"You don't bring up divorce papers while your wife is undergoing cancer treatment. I find it astounding sociopaths like you don't even grasp the iniquity of such an action. You lack human decency or ethical morality, and you just can't grasp that." How does one respond to such an idiotic statement such as this? Are you forcing your morals on others? Are you a Democratic "fundie"? You know, those people that the left just hate while accusing them of forcing their morals on others.
John Edwards was running for the presidency while doing what he did, the press knew it and said nothing. ABC interviews Gingrich's wife 30 hours before a primary vote. Of course the media is not bias. They obviously just like choosing presidents.
Vote for whomever you desire but quit throwing about your morality and judging with a high and mighty superiority. It sounds as though you think you are perfect.
Of course you know nothing about Obama before he became president. The press never told us much. He's a liberal Democrat and must be protected by the press and his control apparatus.
Frothing at the mouth may lead to rabies shots.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
YachtRokrJan 23, 2012
@aadyss,
The reason Obama isn't criticized for his wealth is because wealth isn't "the" point of contention among critics you are making it out to be. You don't "get it".
Mitt is criticized for his destructive business practices as a vulture capitalist and disgraceful Cayman Island tax dodging, nothing more. Obama has earned every dime to his credit without engaging in a single incident of vulture capitalism or Cayman Island tax dodging. If that changes, Obama will earn the same national scorn Mitt is getting.
aadyssJan 23, 2012
Making statements like that just make your side look ignorant and impotent.
Not a shred of truth in that diatribe.
YachtRokrJan 24, 2012
My side? I don't have an ideological side. I'm simply reflecting what I see.
You claim there isn't a shred of truth to what I wrote without credible evidence to back up your baseless claim.
I simply pointed out the lies your "side" is using to deflect righteous criticism. If that gets your shorts in a bunch, it can only be due to the fact that you are the one lying.
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
Hey apok, there's a person with a user name exactly the same as yours who diggs up just about every FON and polusa sub detailing low-level GOP staffers and local officials' controversial twitter posts and and statements. It's really s**tty...these blogs try to portray anyone with even the most remote ties to the GOP as somehow representative of the party at large.
I just thought you ought to know about it, so that no one calls you a shameless hypocrite or anything.
apokalyps2547Jan 19, 2012
Examples?
Just thought I'd like to see some, so that no one calls you a shameless liar or anything.
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
Well let's see there's one from FON entitled:
"GOPer Pushing For Ban On Abortion From Rape Comparing It to a Flat Tire"
The "GOPer" in question is but a Kansas state Representative and has no national significance whatsoever. But the submission says:
"...this message is clear and simple, brought to you by another GOPer."
So like...did someone commandeer your keyboard that day or did you digg it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Jan 19, 2012
So he's an elected Kansas State Representative, you say? Which category does that fall under, "low-level staffer" or "local official"? Also, why no link? BECAUSE YOU HAD TO GO BACK TO MAY 2011 TO FIND ANYTHING WHATSOEVER?
http://digg.com/news/politics/goper_pushing_for_ban_on_abortion_from_rape_compares_rape_to_a_flat_tire
"Just about every FON and polusa sub", you said. What, they submit once every 7 months? You're truly pathetic. Your comparison is bogus and you lie when you mischaractarize me.
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
"YOU HAD TO GO BACK TO MAY 2011"
Quit blowing snot bubbles and calm down. It took me like half a minute to find that one and I'm sure there are other examples.
"Which category does that fall under, "low-level staffer" or "local official"
Well considering that he represented the booming metropolis of Mulvane with a population of about 6,000, I really don't think he's representative of the larger party is he. But anyone with any ties at all to the GOP is far game for the left's s**tty tactics, ain't that right apok?
The fact is that you're here dismissing the Jew-hatin' rhetoric from people from the Center for American Progress--a PROMINENT left-wing organization run by John Podesta with close ties to the White House--as unrepresentative while as you get so far down in the much to grasp at straws against the GOP that you don't know which way is up.
You're a f**king apologist hypocrite and you know it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
PyriteGenieJan 19, 2012
Wow. May 2011? That's, like, ancient history. /s
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
Indeed. He's a changed man now.
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
The Socialist workers show up repeatedly at ows - "They don't represent us!"
Some freaky lone white supremacist shows up at an obscure tea party - "The Tea Partiers are all racist!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Jan 19, 2012
What a worthless comparison. We're talking about an elected Kansas State Representative versus some kid working for some think tank, and you act like I'm a hypocrite for being able to see the difference?
And then you lay on the bulls**t that I do this all the time on "Just about every FON and polusa sub", picking on "anyone with even the most remote ties to the GOP" and then you're unable to follow through on your bogus claim.
Grow up, man up, and admit that you were completely wrong. All the sockpuppet buries in the world won't change that fact, liar.
anomaly100Jan 19, 2012
That's funny. The last one I published (just today) bashes the hell out of Dems.
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
Yes you write that your Democratic Senators' actions "disappoints me greatly".
Meanwhile--despite the fact that just about every major media outlet supports SOPA, you also wrote:
"What I find baffling is "Hacker Corp’s" public outcry in support of SOPA/PIPA. The profits of that entity went down initially because of their own hacking issues. Even so, Rupert Murdoch announced in November that his profits were up 7% from the year before, totaling: $7.96 Billion. The irony of a hacker ridden company denouncing piracy is just surreal."
In the meantime I notice that you didn't mention that NBC has had it's own f**king lawyers on that network (and on MSNBC) defending it...guess that just slipped by you, huh?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
PyriteGenieJan 19, 2012
The above post is a secret resume for the position of Fact Checker at FreakOutNation.com.
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
My guess is the pay is commensurate with the value of the content therein.
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
Oh, so you'd have to pay THEM to work there?
rudegarJan 19, 2012
anti semitic is hating a group of people who follow a religion
anti Isreal is hating the nation isreal who happen to have a lot of jewish people living there
those 2 things should at all times be kept seperate
much like hating the Irish should not be seen as a hate against the catholic church
(the are lots of better reasons for hating them then a lot of micks :P)
novenatorJan 19, 2012
Accusation /= proof
Of course, what would conservatives know about anything, they still think the pi is the biblical value of 3!
ferretmanJan 19, 2012
Yet another example of a liberal group trying to set the terms of a discussion...an elaborate variation of "how you stopped beating your wife yet".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jan 19, 2012
To retarded Repukes like bett anti-semitic is not wanting to continue throwing our tax dollars and our military might behind Israel.
I guess I hate Jews right? I hope none of you are parents...I'd feed the kid paint chips. It'd be less cruel.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lew2048Jan 19, 2012
This is not a partisan issue. AIPAC, which gets a lot of $ recycled from our foreign aid to Israel, owns both parties. Look at web sites like that for Anna Eshoo or any of the CA Democrats, any section dealing with foreign policy wrt Israel could have been constructed by AIPAC.
Very few of the real problems in the US are actually partisan. R and D depend on everybody believing in the partisan BS to cover up the fact that they are both puppets for our oligarchy. Jews, btw, make up quite a lot of that oligarchy, but that isn't an anti-semitic statement, as it is due to a combination of their history and when they migrated to the US.
The US is falling into a depression, which may last 10+ years. Bad politics happen in times of economic stress. We all need to be vigilant against any kind of ethnic politics.
The US is as civilized as any in history just now wrt racism, sexism, ... but that can disappear overnight. War and anti-xxxx propaganda are standard political tools that the elites use to distract attention from their many successes (banksters looting the taxpayers for $Ts) and failures (the Greater Depression we are entering).
We need to be vigilant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Jan 19, 2012
mlw - another disgusting comment from you. Wow.
KapsiotJan 19, 2012
Everyone knows obama hates the jews, and the Irish, and American Southerners etc. etc.
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
I didn't know he hated the Irish.
savetheseaJan 19, 2012
I thought he hated all Americans and America
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
That's what you get for listening to Rev Wright's sermons.
savetheseaJan 19, 2012
I heard it from the conservatives here on digg
atomheartmotherJan 19, 2012
Don't listen to them...they're just spouting Black Liberation Theology propaganda.
aveterenJan 19, 2012
Really sea.....
"conservatives spouting Black Liberation Theology propaganda."
REALLY????????????????????????
When did the dead Malcolm X join conservatives?
Why are you striking out at African-Americans who want to worship as they like? You know, that pesky thing called the constitution. The 1st amendment. Freedom to worship as we please.
from wiki........
"James Cone first addressed this theology after Malcolm X’s proclamation in the 1950s against Christianity being taught as "a white man’s religion".[8] According to Black religion expert Jonathan Walton:"
Also from wiki..........
"Black liberation theology, is a relatively new theological perspective found in some churches in the United States. It is an instance of the liberation theology which originated from Catholic Theologians in the 1950's."
You see sea, the Black Liberation Theology was born out of dislike of a "a white man’s religion" view.
You make positively no sense except to once again to demonize conservatives.
Your obama liberalism is showing.
But for real you were kidding right? you meant to put a /S after that. Right?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaJan 19, 2012
aveteren - try reading the entire thread......
atom said: I didn't know he hated the Irish.
I responded: I thought he hated all Americans and America
atom said: That's what you get for listening to Rev Wright's sermons.
I responded: I heard it from the conservatives here on digg (referring to my original comment stating that Obama hates all Americans and America)
where did I mention Black Liberation Theology propaganda?????????? That was atom's comment.
"But for real you were kidding right? you meant to put a /S after that. Right?"
I never said it, but it was a beautiful deflection on your part, 100 internets to you today
I would understand the thread before the outrage
aveterenJan 19, 2012
actualy sea you are right...`that was not supposed to be directed at you.......
In my endeaver to be a good grandfather I got distracted by my beautiful great granddaugther and looked at the wrong name.
As you can see atomwithoutaheart didn't have a reply under his/her post. So I had to post under your name. And I put your name not his/hers by mistake. Sorry..
You said "That was atom's comment." and you are right.
My comment was a retort at atomwithoutaheart.
I know we don't apologize here on digg very much, who am I kidding...probably never....but sorry for getting you mixed up in what was a retort aimed at
"atomwithoutaheart"
and thank you for your response. It was thoughtful and magnanimous.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaJan 20, 2012
aveteren - you are a true gentleman/ gentlewoman with great class, thanks
CrashingDownJan 20, 2012
Class on Digg? No s**t? When did that happen?
JustSayNoPartyJan 19, 2012
OH, he does. Obama is a communist, Muslim sympathizer bent on destroying America. Don't you read?
boo1Jan 19, 2012
nah....just you kaps! He likes everyone else,...........but you.
JustSayNoPartyJan 19, 2012
No way. You posted something negative about Obama? Let me catch my breath. just a second.
aveterenJan 19, 2012
That is very true. There has not been a more prejudice and bigoted president since President Lyndon Johnson. I know Johnson enacted the "Great Society" for minorities, but he did that for political and monitary gain when the DNC asked him not to run again. Obama has openly declared "class warfare" on the people of this country, and divided them, which he swore an oath to serve "all" Americans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here's a little tidbit of Obamas "hated" irish heritage........he calls himself African-American to get votes...nuf said.
"US Presidential re-election hopeful Barack Obama can now count himself as one of the millions of Americans with Irish heritage."
Research by the genealogy website ancestry.co.uk reveals that Obama's great-great-great-grandfather, on his mothers side of the family, was born in Ireland. "Falmouth Kearney", Obamas great-great-great grandfather, sailed from Ireland to New York in 1850 at the age of 19 on the S.S. Marmion arriving on the 20th of March. He initially settled in Ohio, got married, had eight children, and later moved to Indiana, right next door to the state Obama represented in the US Senate.
Obama's father was from Kenya with Arabic ancestry, while his mother grew up Irish-American in Kansas. They met in Hawaii.
'A great deal has been made of Obama's Kenyan roots, however his European and Arabic ancestry has until now been overlooked', said Ancestry.co.uk Managing Director Simon Harper. His genealogy shows his ancestry is more European Caucasian than he is Kenya-African. He is 1/2 white, 6/16 Arab, and 2/16 African black. This means that he had, on his father's side, one black great-great grandparent, and the rest on his father's side were Arabs. Thus his name Barack Hussein Obama.
Does Obama's Arab ancestry explain Obama's Palestinian sympathy and his hatred for Israel? Is this where his anti-Jewish attitude comes from? Is that why when he first met Iran's lesder that he "bowed" to him. His Muslim sentiments have to come from somewhere.
Our research began with Obama's own writings and genealogical work already done by William Addams Reitwiesner and other researchers. Then, we pored over documents on Ancestry.com and from other sources and interviewed descendants, historians and genealogists.
Like many Americans with deep roots in this country, thru his mothers ancestry, Obama has ancestors who were slave owners. But unlike many African Americans, he is not known to have any who were slaves.
So, Obama is the first multiracial US president in history - and join a long list of those with Irish ancestry including Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and of course, John F. Kennedy.
Ronald Reagan's great-grandfather, Michael O'Reagan, was born in Ireland in the 1820s, Obama's great-great-great grandfather, Falmouth Kearney, was born in Ireland in 1831. John F. Kennedy's great-grandfather Patrick Kennedy came from Dunganstown, Co. Wexford, while Bill Clinton's maternal ancestors are said to have come from Co. Fermanagh.
But here's the shocker. Research by the genealogy website ancestry.co.uk reveals that Obama definitely has presidential timber in his family tree: He's distantly related to three U.S. presidents -- Harry S Truman, George W. Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush -- as well as to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Believe it or not. It shocked the pure hell out of me. Seems we have a family fued on our hands.
People you really need to look this up yourself..........................
http://tvally.com/showthread.php?1816-Obama-s-Heritage-ClarifiedComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ka5p3rJan 19, 2012
goddamn jews "eric cartman"
chassupJan 19, 2012
If this was a single association, we might be cautious about extending the anti-Semitic label to Obama, but when you add the long list of public anti-semites in Obama's circle of friends and associates, it is just another verification of what we all believe. It's too bad Obama is such a coward he won't just admit it with words, not just actions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lew2048Jan 19, 2012
You mean like his first Chief of Staff, Ramm Emanual, who is also a citizen of Israel?
I know of NO information indicating Obama is anti-semitic. My wife and our son are Jewish, I watch for this kind of thing.
Obama is the first President in my memory to start distinguishing Israeli interests from US interests. He isn't very good at it yet, but better than ever before.
I am against almost every other thing Obama has done -- he is George Bush re-incarnated in most of his policies -- but on this point it is real progress.
This foolish charge of 'anti-semitism' is part of opposing that trend to distinguishing Israeli and US interests. Low-level, stupid politics, divorced from reality but meaningful to the political idiots who are trying to run our lives.
crymtyphonJan 19, 2012
That was well said.
savetheseaJan 19, 2012
an·ti-Sem·i·tism [an-tee-sem-i-tiz-uhm, an-tahy-] Show IPA
noun
discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.
---------------------
definition says nothing about supporting or not supporting Israel without question.
breadfredJan 19, 2012
You raise an interesting question. How Jewish is Israel? What would Jesus think?
stevanoskiJan 19, 2012
Like you care.
monvalleyJan 19, 2012
You libs don't have to get excited, or lie to cover up or change what was said. It's OK , you are liberal democrats, you have no standards or ethics or pride in yourselves. It's OK, don't worry, no one cares about scum.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fauozJan 20, 2012
The press has fallen out of love with Obama
kasha34Jan 19, 2012
Obama was happy to sit and listen to anti Semitic sermons every Sunday for twenty years. And bring his wife and young daughters. And contribute twenty thousand dollars to the anti Jew pastor. So why is THIS a big deal?
Obama spoke at rallies to raise funds for "Palestinians". And we know what that money is used for.
So why is THIS a surprise?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaJan 19, 2012
"Obama spoke at rallies to raise funds for "Palestinians""
Gasp! The HORROR
are you saying that ALL Palestinians are bad? Even the kids and women trying to survive?
Nothing is as black and white as you like to think. The Palestinians are human, there are good elements and bad elements, same as those in Israel.
kasha34Jan 19, 2012
The money goes to the jihad. Everyone knows it but you still pretend you don't.
apokalyps2547Jan 20, 2012
"anti Semitic sermons every Sunday for twenty years"
You really just make stuff up with impunity, don't you?
kasha34Jan 20, 2012
You're saying that stinking Rev Wright's sermons were NOT anti -Jew? (in addition to being anti white, anti American and anti capitalist?)
apokalyps2547Jan 20, 2012
You're saying that such things were said every Sunday and Obama was there for all of them for 20 years. This is outright bulls**t.
kasha34Jan 20, 2012
Leftists are soooo literal.
Yes, I admit I don't know he was there EVERY single Sunday for 20 years.
Yes, I admit that sometimes the sermons were anti-Jew. Sometimes anti-white. Sometimes anti-American. Variation is the spice of life.
You know how we know about these monstrous sermons? The stinking church is super proud of them. They sell them on DVD! It is impossible that Obama didn't hear them over-and-over.
Closed AccountJan 20, 2012
gee apo....by your logic obama was too dumb to know what rev wright really was about...or he was smart and realized what rev. right preached about and enjoyed it.
which was it?
obama was smart and enjoyed it or too dumb to comprehend it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Jan 20, 2012
How about the third option: you're badly mischaracterizing what Rev. Wright "was about".
Closed AccountJan 20, 2012
uh no....he said god da*n america and called white people the devil and said we who support military ops deserve to die...yeah no mistake there...
keeping spinning tool...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.