Yes....Dictator, indeed!
The left has always loved dictators.
Monday, May 4, 2009
53 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem is you're getting this from Michele Malkin. And you are believing her?
ReplyDeleteThe White House AND Perella Weinberg
both DENY the accusations quoted by Malkin.
Your link is to the NYSlimes...and you believe them?
ReplyDeleteYou are a sheep, Jim. Through and through!
Agreed. Sheep. The New York Times is fit only to line the bottom of bird cages.
ReplyDeleteAlso... the White House and Perella Weinberg "deny?" Bill denied he ever had sex with Lewinsky. So what? It's the New York Times.
Malkin quotes a third party (heresay). The NY Times quotes the principals including the person the White House is supposed to have threatened.
ReplyDeleteThat's the difference.
Good one Feodor!
ReplyDeleteYuk, Yuk! Hee! Hee!
ReplyDeleteLiberals have always reminded me of teenagers.
As long as you keep to your side of the family, Feodork and Jimbama, we'll be fine.
I would say most of those images were created by or on behalf of far left fringe people, not me. Do you equate yourself on the right with this degree of fringe fanaticism?
ReplyDeleteFringe Fanaticism... you mean like your ilks worship of Barack Obama?
ReplyDelete"Do you equate yourself on the right with this degree of fringe fanaticism?" Jimbama
ReplyDeleteNo, I equate YOU and Feodork to this degree of fringe fanaticism, Jimothy.
Now...go bow down to your image of the Obamessiah.
You guys are really this scared of the mirror?
ReplyDeleteWell you should be.
"Malkin quotes a third party (heresay)..." - Jimbama
ReplyDeleteYou sure it wasn't "theresay"?
Feodork,
ReplyDeleteDidn't see myself, pal.
But...from your own testimony here at this blog, I can guarantee that you saw yourself in the mirror I presented to you.
The trouble is...you THINK you look really cool.
All you have to do is Google "Roosevelt" and "Dictator" and you'll find your blog-family tree.
ReplyDeleteFeodor,
ReplyDeleteWhere do you get your weed?
Haha, that's funny. No. Really, Feo, where do you get your dope? Only stoners come up with the stuff you bring to the table. And I envy the quality of bud you're token.
ReplyDeleteThe new York Times was one of the 30+ news organizations (along with CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS) that admitted under oath before a grand jury that they lie when reporting the news. This was during the so-called Valerie Plame outing scandal. They all admitted they knew the truth, that Karl Rove had nothing to do with it, but they reported he did anyway.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, they really admitted they lied.
I don't believe Michelle Malkin was part of that particular entourage. Nor, for that matter, was FOX news.
I know the Libs that troll around here will demand citation for the statement I made above. Here it is:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF
OK, That PDF file has mysteriously disappeared. That could be fodder for another post.
ReplyDeleteActually I was mistaken. There were actually 36 news organizations, including the Times, that filed a "friend of the court" brief admitting that they lied in the Valerie Plame case. Apparently, it wasn't before grand Jury. It was in Superior court, or the Supreme Court. I don't remember now, and since the PDF file is no longer available on the net I can't be positive which court the brief was filed in.
Let me try to explain from memory what the brief was about.
The thrust of the brief was that reporters should not be held in contempt or forced to reveal their sources in the Plame investigation. Why? Because, the media organizations confidently asserted, no crime had been committed. Now, that is stunning enough given the baleful shroud the press has consciously cast over this story. Even more remarkable, though, were the key details these self-styled guardians of the public's right to know stressed as being of the utmost importance for the court to grasp — details those same guardians have assiduously suppressed from the coverage actually presented to the public.
In short, they admitted to lying about the source of Plame's outing. It wasn't Karl Rove, or whatshisname...that Conservative journalist. It was the CIA themselves, years before Rove had even been heard of.
But the point is, 36 news organizations, including the New York Slimes and MSNBC, admitted making up stories to report to the public.
FOX news was not among those news organizations. Nor was Michele Malkin.
Now, if you want to cast aspersions on the messenger in this case, wouldn't it make more sense to cast them on news outlets that have a record of guilding the lily, rather than those who have yet to show any evidence of dishonesty?
Sorry, MA, I've never taken drugs. Haven't eaten squirrel either.
ReplyDelete__________
Izard is drafting on Malkin and spending his time talking about Obama as a Dictator.
I simply wanted to point out that there is a grand tradition of screwed up obscurantists worrying about Presidential Dictatorship.
And even this inanity about Obama is hardly new. Look at this article on Obama's "penchant" for dictatorial power from... (wait for it)...
December 2008! And he quotes Jonah Goldberg!
Here: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1241444/barack_obama_and_franklin_d_roosevelt.html?cat=9
You guys are an absolute mess, high on cast iron fried squirrel meat, and whatever else MA seems to be jonesing for.
"I simply wanted to point out that there is a grand tradition of screwed up obscurantists worrying about Presidential Dictatorship." - FeoDORK
ReplyDeleteAnd I simply POINTED out that its your crowd who has the most to say about presidents and dictators, pal!
And to top it off, your PARTY used the lies to its advantage.
And...as Mark pointed out...you people rely on lies.
The fact is...Obama has clearly displayed a tendency towards dictatorship since day one!
You can't bring yourself to condemn him for it even though you know in your heart of hearts it is true!
You're not a sheep, feodork...you're a jack-ass. I'll bet you display an image of one on the bumper of your car.
Sorry, no car either. Subway takes me everywhere I want to go. That and my feet.
ReplyDeleteYou remember your feet, don't you, Izard? Need a mirror?
"Sorry, MA, I've never taken drugs."Wow. That's too bad. I was hoping to provide for you an explanation for your inane and often cryptic comments. Weed made the most sense. If it ain't drugs, it's just you.
ReplyDeleteOr it's you - and pan fried squirrel meat. Which is my story.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's a lovely story, too, as most fairy tales are. But the stoned and the mentally questionable always think it's the other guy. I mean, who else would think of "pan fried squirrel meat", but someone with the munchies or someone who's, uh, a little squirrelly?
ReplyDeleteFeoDORK,
ReplyDeleteMy feet carry me to some of the most awesome places.
Some, subterrainean.
I knew you were un-American. Not having a car and all.
"But the stoned and the mentally questionable always think it's the other guy."
ReplyDeleteSelf-incrimination.
________
Izard,
George Washington didn't have a car.
But you've always had a pretty stupid standard of what makes an American.
And George Washington would never have supported a man like Barack Obama for president... would have balked at what men like Barack have done, and is doing now to the country he fought a revolution to secure.
ReplyDeleteNo, George Washington didn't own a car, but he DID own the sense to know the values upon which this nation were founded... CHRISTIAN values... that would never have supported the right of a woman to choose to kill her own child.
He would never have supported the oppressive taxation America has faced for decades now. He would never have supported the office of the president taking on more power to affect policies than the Constitution allows. And neither would Washington have supported government funded schools, universal medical care, or social security, medicaid, or medicare.
Washington would never have stood for prayer or the Bible being removed from the classroom, nor the right of ANY citizen of any age, however affected by geography [on campus or off], to pray aloud over meals, or the commencement of sports or graduation.
George Washington would never have been allowed to take the census from the commerce department and allow parties known for voter fraud to participate. He would never have forced any investor to forfeit their lawful preeminence in bankruptcy court in favor of the unsecured debt promised to a union, giving them an ownership stake in the company. He would never have supported the right of the city of New London to STEAL property from one private citizen to give to another private entity for the purpose of increasing New London's tax revenue.
In short, George Washington would not recognize the United States of America in 2009, and would likely deny vehemently that the United States of America even existed, in our day, except in name only.
Eric,
ReplyDeleteYou and George Washington don't even have the same notion of God. You fool yourself if you don't think that by your lights, Washington's deistic christianity would be out of bounds.
And that you presume to know whom Washington would support politically is not only wild guessing, but a kind of insane hubris that the General would have found distasteful and repugnant in the extreme.
Thus, "the rest of you blather is hogwash and vile intemperance," as he might have said.
And yet you resort to the same "kind of insane hubris" by telling us all what the "General would have found distasteful and repugnant in the extreme."LOL! Bravo! Feodor, Bravo!
ReplyDeleteEric, you're short on rhetorical comprehension.
ReplyDeleteI can say GW despised insane hubris. Seems apparent from the many biographies of the man and his reserved, stoic nature.
I can say that I think you are showing insane hubris.
I can connect the dots and say yours is "a kind of" the sort that all history has known. But I am the one who is connecting the dots, not George.
Insane hubris existed; cars did not, democrats did not, Obama did not.
Deistic Christianity did and GW tended to be sympathetic with the broad direction of such.
Of course this history you do not want to pick up.
No bravos for your shadow boxing.
Sheesh! Talk about hubris! Who manifests that better than our own little Feodor?
ReplyDeleteIt is not hubris to make assumptions based on available knowledge, such as Washington's habit of beginning and ending each day in prayer and Scriptural study. Gosh, would it be hubris to assume by that it is meant the Christian Bible?
It is not hubris to extrapolate from what principles the man defended to believing his opinion of what has become of this nation since that time might be one of shock and dismay.
It does not matter that GW's perception of God might differ somewhat from Eric's. It is clear that GW had no problem with public exressions of faith, public appeals to God, or any of the many ways religion is now prohibited in the public square by those who don't even care about the opinions and principles of the founders.
And what could show more hubris than pretending to have a better knowledge and understanding of GW without presenting anything to support that contention? And gee, how typical is THAT ploy?
What you've offered thus far regarding insane hubris applies far better to yourself than it ever will to Eric. Indeed it's far worse than what the pot calls the kettle.
I have a Buddhist friend who begins every day in prayer and scripture study. I only pull the spiritual sword when I have to cut down the Spanish Moss you decorate it with.
ReplyDeleteAnd my god isn't yours.
So my public calls upon God are filled with intentions far from yours, opposite to yours, in fear of yours, and in love for my communities, in faith that love will win out.
You and I have nothing in common except names for things.
And extrapolating what GW would think about President Obama is useless. Washington would see a slave, perhaps against his inner qualms, but he would uphold the institution.
To say that he would agree with you, then, should be a little scary for you. And confirms things others suspect.
"And my god isn't yours."Finally, you speak truthfully and intelligently.
ReplyDelete"You and I have nothing in common except names for things."That makes two inciteful and intelligent statements in one comment posting. Bravo.
"So my public calls upon God are filled with intentions far from yours, opposite to yours, in fear of yours, and in love for my communities, in faith that love will win out."You've shown no manifestations of understanding regarding our intentions as ours contains nothing to fear nor any reason to believe love doesn't drive us.
"Washington would see a slave, perhaps against his inner qualms, but he would uphold the institution."I'll stick my neck out, not too far I think, and assume Eric's claims about GW's possible view of Obama was in reference to his proposals and not his skin color. I know that's true for me. Apparently you still are too hung up on such superficial things. Your posturing as an intellectual fails you yet again.
GW wouldn't get to the proposals. He would see a slave.
ReplyDeleteHow could he not?
How can you expect him not to be him?
Inanity again. And a second self-incrimination, by the way.
And why does MA keep speaking up for others with nothing of his own to add?
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure Neil and Eric can fend for themselves.
No, strike that, Neil cuts and runs. Eric surely fends for himself.
"GW wouldn't get to the proposals. He would see a slave."Now you're purposely being a lunkhead. The proposals are the point here, not the man proposing them. That is, as far as how GW would respond. The same could have been said if it were Jimma Carter instead of Obama. For our purposes, it just so happens to be Obama making them. If there's any inane self-incriminations, they are those you are making.
ReplyDelete"And why does MA keep speaking up for others with nothing of his own to add?"First of all, I did add the clarifications that I'm not sure you're yet capable of understanding. Secondly, we've already covered why I speak up for others: that's what friends do. I understand how foreign this concept might sound to you, but someday, if you play your cards well, you'll have friends of your own and all will then be made clear.
Oh, and Neil doesn't cut and run. He merely limits how many times he responds to the same lame arguments.
I would LIKE to see Feodor cut and run. He has smelled up way too many good sites. He should stick to his friends like ER and Geoffrey and Alan. mom2
ReplyDeleteSee, mom2 knows I have friends.
ReplyDeleteWith friends like those, one needn't have enemies.
ReplyDeleteYou do know, Feodor, that dictators execute those who supported their coup first, don't you?
See, the reasoning goes like this: If they are so willing to betray their own country, they would betray the new government, too. Better to purge the new order of possible traitors first than risk allowing them to mount a counter revolution.
If you don't think Obama is capable of, or willing to go that far, remember, his textbook is Marxist Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals".
Marshall, are you up to defending lunacy, too? Take Mark to the clinic, would you.
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get all your education? Prophet, protector, AND psychiatrist? Whew, you make it hard for a fellow to keep up.
FeoDORK,
ReplyDeleteYou SHOULD know to not even try to keep up with MA.
He has you well out-classed.
But...you DON'T know.
That's why you keep making such a fool of yourself.
MA is a shadow boxer who follows Neil and Eric around the gym.
ReplyDeleteYou're the guy on the stool with the stogie.
And you are the cigarette girl.
ReplyDeleteIt's the gym, stupid, not fight night.
ReplyDeleteI'm the water boy because I carry all the water around here.
Whoa - where am I?
ReplyDeleteFeodor asked,
ReplyDelete"Marshall, are you up to defending lunacy, too?"I've defended your right to make a fool of yourself. Is that what you mean?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHI Les! you lurker!
ReplyDeleteKinda like stepping through to a different dimension, huh?
While we wait for someone willing to engage in serious discussion, we get to bide our time with Feodor, our resident troll. He's a good one, ain't he? And he didn't cost us nothin'.
And I thought Malkin was the cheap entertainment.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute! Wait just one darn minute!
ReplyDeleteAm I hearing that money can be made doing this?
I want to renegotiate.
"I'm the water boy because I carry all the water around here."
ReplyDeleteYou may be a waterboy, FeoDORK.
But it is because of your LACK of being able to compete.
I graded out so they wouln't let me. Too many AP courses.
ReplyDeleteOutcome-based Education, eh?
ReplyDelete