So you can't be a true bleeding heart if you don't act like this?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39182

edit- congrats folks, I just saw some Ann Coulter banner ads.

That is not too far off from reality, Bio!  Hilarious!  The Onion was really cranking out the best stuff in the aftermath of 911. 

The ACLJew lawyer who was willing to go down with the building to stay true to his philosophical bent reminded me of Dukakis, the presidential candidate, when asked if he'd have a different opinion of the death penalty if his wife were heinously raped and murdered.  SNL did a funny parody of that debate moment back when they were a comedy show. Can't find the SNL clip but here's the real thing .  Almost as funny.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

For Fud's reading pleasure

WELCOME BACK, CARTER
June 10, 2009


Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America
for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER

"Harry, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black coffee. Like this."  -Dale Cooper

Obama says that Miranda rights apply to terrorists-- as in Afganistan ! ( My mistake. I can't use the word terrorist, I mean "those who cause man made catastrophies".)
 
So, any activity by the U S military in an Afganistan battleground becomes a crime scene just like a bank robbery in the States envolving U S citizens for whom the Miranda rights actually apply ? The "alleged criminals" shall be read "their" Miranda rights, and will be given lawyers to defend them- provided by your tax dollars. I know Attorney General Eric Holder's firm has defended 18 enemy combatants in the past so that may be a help. I guess the familiar yellow tape will be used to rope off any battlefield "crime scenes" and all shell casings etc. identified as evidence ?

Will the U S military now have to worry about going to court on top of everything else they face ? How the hell can they function ? Al Queda must love this.

With Obama up is down and left is right.

Obama is for Iran having peaceful nukes-just like the deal with North Korea in the 90s. Love for all our enemies and meantime Israel is being thrown to the jakals. Wonderful.

        *                     *                                  *                              *

Can't wait to buy a car designed by Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Half ton death traps on the way. Car Czar, Wage Czar, actually they are just the assistant Czars.  Also, a UK/Canadian health care system is in the works. The nat debt has been quadrupled in a couple of months. Can't wait to see this country in 2012.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/605iidws.asp

I'm not saying the Miranda rights thing totally makes sense to me, but it might help with PEOPLE WHO ARE INNOCENT.

Incarcerating innocent people costs money too, and pissing off an innocent person then putting them in jail for years with people who really do hate America is not a good idea either.

And who knows, maybe some plea-bargains can lead to bigger gains in intel?  I'm sure the gov't funded attorneys aren't going to be going all Johnmy Cockran- seems like if Al Quaeda has to pony up millions of dollars for a high priced lawyer that's money they aren't spending on sat phones and rpgs.

I think the image of everything being a crime scene is a bit extreme- for one thing- it sounds like other agencies will be helping investigate (so it won't be military only- maybe military can concentrate more on security), and, you know, actually investigating this stuff might help.  I have no doubt that the gov't can find a way to hang onto someone they really do think is dangerous even after a trial.

Regardless, I doubt we've seen the last of this, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are enough modifications to water this down enough that it doesn't really affect things oversees.

NewRaymond- where is your debt info coming from?  I was surprised by the "quadrupled" statement, and found "only" about 1trillion increase (from about 10trilliion to about 11 trillion) from January to June on one of the online national debt clocks.  Last time i checked that isn't anywhere close to quadrupled, especially given the time frame is longer than "a couple of months".

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

should have been budget deficit- good eyes Bio !

...from the Onion article cited above...

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

 i have a bad habit of not clicking links (50% of the time they navigate the user away from the forum he's using instead of opening a new tab and it makes me crazy). that's a great onion article, and i'm glad to see you're a little less foaming-at-the-mouth crazy than i previously thought. it was like "she's staunchly pro-israel, but just used that tired old ACLjew slur..my brain hurts...."

does anyone else remember how great the onion was the day they came back after 9/11? "terrorists surprised to find themselves in hell"

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

As far as the national debt is concerned, are you forgetting that there was a national surplus BEFORE Bush got in office?  Can anyone really blame Obama for trying to throw money at the shitpile he inheritted?

ps Ann Coulter is a hatemonger.

I never noticed this old thread's last posts until today. In answer to MayRay.

Yes, there was a nice series of budget surplus years that occurred after Hillarycare was defeated and after the Reps took
back the congress in 1994 to 1996. It was a time when Bill Clinton declared " The era of big government is over." and Bill had signed the Welfare reform bill. It was one of those 'safe' times when the admin and the congress were not the same party. The internets were booming and I was content with Bill and did not want him impeached over the Lewinsky thing. Now, we were entering a market bust and recession by later 2000. So Bush inherited an ordinary recession and Obama inherited a serious recession, no question. Surpluses were gone by 2001 as a result of the recession and then the 9-11 happening that prolonged the recession into late 2002-2003. And then recovery.(without surplus years unfortunately- yes the iraq and Afganistan wars ate up revenues).

Bush never vetoed a spending proposal for 6 of his 8 years. The Bush administration dropped the ball as far as SEC vigilence and the Treasury Dept. allowed 40 to 1 leverage to be used by financial institutions using fluky CDOs and other reckless derivatives. Yes the push to put people in homes they couldn't afford was pushed by the Dems and not stopped by the Bush admin and congress--The housing bubble depended on a continual increase in housing values that worked until the shakeout and MBS collapse in 2007-8. The Bush Admin and Dem congress quickly OKed the so called TARP program to the tune of 750 billion to prevent a complete meltdown of the banking system in late 2008.

But no, i would not suggest throwing stacks of money and quadrupling the already high deficits of the Bush war years. The FED lowered interest rates in late 2007- money supply side approach to the economy. If you are a Keynesian and believe in a demand side approach ( I don't and would lower taxes for folks and  businesses instead-as did my favorite Dem JFK in the early sixties.) But if you did go Keynesian, Obama's stimulous bill should have been truly 'shovel ready projects' and not the huge fluky package passed in the still of the night that Obama promised would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. 

Huge Federal programs and spending leads to printing money-devaluing the dollar-and 2) borrowing from others like China, our largest creditor. Deficits that add to the national debt ( 11 tril right now) are problematic to put it mildly. The U S also has unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the 10 s of trillions.