Pongo - 25 March 2008 10:59 PM
About 80% of the Jewish vote went to John Kerry in the last presidential election.
Since he’s actually of Jewish descent himself, that’s no big surprise.
But Jews won’t be voting for Obama.
You can take that to the bank.
Why would Jews vote for Hillary? Hillary and Obama are the same person, differences without distinction. One seems to be male, one appears to be female.
Both are an anathema to individual liberty, free enterprise and limited government power.
Obambi and Hillary have something in common after all:
One of HER favorite insults is: “Fücking Jew bastard.”
(From Jerry Oppenheimer in his book State of the Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton -2000.)
There’s no doubt, Hillary Clinton called Paul Fray a “fücking Jew bastard.” If there were the slightest doubt, you can bet that vicious Hillary would have sicced her amoral $450-an-hour shyster David Kendall on every author, publication and news service that reported her anti-Semitic slur, regardless of how veiled and coy the media were about her vile outburst.
Following is a sampling of how the media reported “fücking Jew bastard.” Note the euphemized ####### and its suppression, the euphamized bastard, as well as the various uninformative paraphrases and verbal maneuvers.
The quotations are arranged from the most to the least complete reporting of Hillary’s exact and complete pottymouthishness.
This is another of the PL posts that raises alarms. Within the McPeak quote is the following (with my italicization):
Let’s say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq.
And that would be exactly where we are now with Mac saying we’ll be there for a hundred years. But then of course, he’s had to back away from that, but still compares Iraq to Germany and SKorea where we’ve had bases for more than half a century. Mac’s gonna have to back yet further if he’s to get my vote.
You don’t think we have any legitimate national interest in the Middle East that would allow for basing troops?
Suppose Bush had told us in 2003 that we were going to have bases in the ME for decades - 100 years? - do you suppose we would have given him permission to go to war? Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith et al may have had the basing in mind all along. McPeak might be right.
Given that we had no legitimate national interest in 2003 - remember, no WMD - in going to war w/Saddam, any national interest we have now is derivative of the decision to go to war and the inept way it was carried out between May 2003 and last year.
This is another of the PL posts that raises alarms. Within the McPeak quote is the following (with my italicization):
Let’s say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq.
And that would be exactly where we are now with Mac saying we’ll be there for a hundred years. But then of course, he’s had to back away from that, but still compares Iraq to Germany and SKorea where we’ve had bases for more than half a century. Mac’s gonna have to back yet further if he’s to get my vote.
You don’t think we have any legitimate national interest in the Middle East that would allow for basing troops?
Suppose Bush had told us in 2003 that we were going to have bases in the ME for decades - 100 years? - do you suppose we would have given him permission to go to war? Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith et al may have had the basing in mind all along. McPeak might be right.
Given that we had no legitimate national interest in 2003 - remember, no WMD - in going to war w/Saddam, any national interest we have now is derivative of the decision to go to war and the inept way it was carried out between May 2003 and last year.
No bases in Iraq and out ASAP!
Patrick:
I say once again that we are in the Middle East because we cannot afford to have that huge portion of the world’s oil supply that happens to be there controlled by ANYONE hostile to us. That includes Saddam’s Iraq and the Mullah’s Iran.
That is why we went there and that is why we will probably have to stay there for decades.
How could you possibly think that the Middle East oil is not a vital national interest?
This is another of the PL posts that raises alarms. Within the McPeak quote is the following (with my italicization):
Let’s say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq.
And that would be exactly where we are now with Mac saying we’ll be there for a hundred years. But then of course, he’s had to back away from that, but still compares Iraq to Germany and SKorea where we’ve had bases for more than half a century. Mac’s gonna have to back yet further if he’s to get my vote.
You don’t think we have any legitimate national interest in the Middle East that would allow for basing troops?
Suppose Bush had told us in 2003 that we were going to have bases in the ME for decades - 100 years? - do you suppose we would have given him permission to go to war? Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith et al may have had the basing in mind all along. McPeak might be right.
Given that we had no legitimate national interest in 2003 - remember, no WMD - in going to war w/Saddam, any national interest we have now is derivative of the decision to go to war and the inept way it was carried out between May 2003 and last year.
No bases in Iraq and out ASAP!
Patrick:
I say once again that we are in the Middle East because we cannot afford to have that huge portion of the world’s oil supply that happens to be there controlled by ANYONE hostile to us. That includes Saddam’s Iraq and the Mullah’s Iran.
That is why we went there and that is why we will probably have to stay there for decades.
How could you possibly think that the Middle East oil is not a vital national interest?
I focus on
--- that [oil] is why we will probably have to stay there for decades.
Every day we spend as much on the Iraq war as we do on oil imports from the ME. Check it out. So if we’re going to have a decades long outlook, let’s spend a lot of money to get over our oil addiction, in addition to feeding the MIC. (And BTW, remember that we are in the process of becoming addicted to ME natural gas.)
Patrick:
I couldn’t agree more that we need to get beyond our oil addiction. The problem is that we have not done so yet, and I am not hopeful that blessed day will come anytime soon. We have to base our national policy on the reality that we (and everyone else)ARE so dependent. We act according to what the world is and not according to what some wish it were. Wake up!
The double standard here is too obvious. No need for affirmative action for African Americans. As far as race is concerned we are supposed to be colorblind.
But when it comes to Israel and American Jews you advocate for special treatment.
IN other words Affirmative Action for Israel is supposed to rule our political discourse, but affirmative action for any other religion or race is out of the question? Hypocrits of hype.
This is another of the PL posts that raises alarms. Within the McPeak quote is the following (with my italicization):
Let’s say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq.
And that would be exactly where we are now with Mac saying we’ll be there for a hundred years. But then of course, he’s had to back away from that, but still compares Iraq to Germany and SKorea where we’ve had bases for more than half a century. Mac’s gonna have to back yet further if he’s to get my vote.
You don’t think we have any legitimate national interest in the Middle East that would allow for basing troops?
Suppose Bush had told us in 2003 that we were going to have bases in the ME for decades - 100 years? - do you suppose we would have given him permission to go to war? Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith et al may have had the basing in mind all along. McPeak might be right.
Given that we had no legitimate national interest in 2003 - remember, no WMD - in going to war w/Saddam, any national interest we have now is derivative of the decision to go to war and the inept way it was carried out between May 2003 and last year.
No bases in Iraq and out ASAP!
Patrick:
I say once again that we are in the Middle East because we cannot afford to have that huge portion of the world’s oil supply that happens to be there controlled by ANYONE hostile to us. That includes Saddam’s Iraq and the Mullah’s Iran.
That is why we went there and that is why we will probably have to stay there for decades.
How could you possibly think that the Middle East oil is not a vital national interest?
Really! We are there for oil!! To protect our oil interests. That’s working out great so far...... the only people profiting from this bizarre mess are oil interests, including Russian and Iran.
How does it feel to have our American troops fighting and dying for oil, while at the same time every time you fill up at the pump you are supporting terrorists. The joke is on you bud. And you believed Bush’s hype.
april: “Really! We are there for oil!! To protect our oil interests. That’s working out great so far...... the only people profiting from this bizarre mess are oil interests, including Russian and Iran.
How does it feel to have our American troops fighting and dying for oil, while at the same time every time you fill up at the pump you are supporting terrorists. The joke is on you bud. And you believed Bush’s hype.”
As one who rides a bicycle, when her meds are just right, you sure have a strange way of treating America’s allies like:
Mexico
Canada
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Bahrain
The UAE
Etc.
So, april ... Just how much oil IS America stealing from Iraq?
Grouch - I say with all respect and friendliness: There are too many interests vested in the status quo. We are not required to accept it. Wake up!
And I respond with equal respect and friendliness:
PLEASE tell me that you are not one of those people who think that someone invented a carburetor that will allow your car to get 200 miles per gallon, but the oil companies bought the patent and thereby kept the product off the market, or that the only reason that we have high oil prices is because of a plot by the oil companies, in the absence of which gasoline would cost 50 cents per gallon.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should be making a national effort similar to the Manhattan Project to find a PRACTICAL way to make ourselves independent of foreign oil.
The effort should simultaneously involve both short term steps and a long term search for a holy grail of whatever it turns out to be. The near term steps (windmills, solar power and alcohol ain’t going to do it) needs to include public mutilation of the opponents of nuclear power, drilling for oil off shore and in anwar, and the building of refineries. The search for the holy grail would be funded by private, not public, money. The incentives to the private sector would have to include a government guarantee that it would not try to cut itself in on the very large rewards that may accrue to the discoverer, via, for example, “windfall” profits taxes.
But when it comes to Israel and American Jews you advocate for special treatment.
Well, April, you’ve picked your side. Introducting the latest celebrity endorsement for The Messiah, Egyption pop star, Shaaban Abdel Rahim, known for such classics as
I Hate Israel
Bin Bin Bin Bin Bin Bin Laden
Hey People, It Was Only a Tower
Don’t Hit Iraq
and his ode to Dutch cartoons
We Are All Out of Patience
What is the latest smash hit for this Teen Dream type? Despite the squeals from April and his legion of fans, he won’t divulge. But he did tease us with the first verse, from his upcoming epic endorsing The Messiah, and damning Bush
Before leaving, Bush wants to turn the world into a mess,
Since he is a bad omen, as if he was born in a fight,
Cursing you, Bush, or your father doesn’t suffice,
It was a disastrous, black day when you were elected …
As I said, you’ve picked your side, April. And I’ve picked mine. They arn’t the same.
It’s simple, Obama is a slick politician who uses his charm and pretty talk to keep us from seeing his dishonesty and inexperience. He’ll tell us he doesn’t agree with that statement about the Jews, yet he has another “advisor” with racist and anti-semetic beliefs. Oh, but the aren’t Obama’s beliefs. Perhaps no. Perhaps yes. What we do know for certain is that it calls into question his supposed superb “judgement”.
Have you checked out his lies on lobbyists??? He slammed McCain and Clinton on taking money from lobbyists, but Obama has taken more money from subprime mortgage lobbyists than both McCain and Clinton COMBINED!!! He roasted CLinton for taking PAC money in the US Senate. However, when Obama was in the Illinois State Senate he took 50% of his money from PACs----Clinton only took 8%. AND he has been railing against both opponents for taking lobbyist money. BUT, McCain and Clinton take their money openly and legally and have it recorded--- Obama has his people call the lobbyists and have them give the money is their WIVES’ NAMES so that it doesn’t have to be recorded.
He’s slick and everyone thinks he is so gentle and honest. New politics??? There are too many things about this guy that are not good for America.
Suppose Bush had told us in 2003 that we were going to have bases in the ME for decades - 100 years? - do you suppose we would have given him permission to go to war?
Yes.
Bush didn’t have to tell us: During the 18-month-long “rush to war” when *most of us* discussed the subject in great detail, we all knew that attacking Iraq would more than likely involve a military presence there for many years to come, viz. our national experience making war on Japan, Germany and Korea.
Given that we had no legitimate national interest in 2003 - remember, no WMD - in going to war w/Saddam, any national interest we have now is derivative of the decision to go to war and the inept way it was carried out between May 2003 and last year.
We had several legitimate national interests in 2003, the primary one being 9/11 itself.
And the fact that we had been in a state of war with Saddam since 1990 and that he was in violation of 16 U.N. resolutions regarding his possession of WMD.
Saddam refused to cooperate with UNSCOM inspectors.
We would never have known he did not have WMDs had we not gone in there.
And because the U.N. diplomatic process took so long, Saddam had months to get rid of them before we got there.
The war hasn’t been waged (what you call “carried out") ineptly.
The cost, in both human and financial resources, has been minimal and we took the country in 3 weeks.
We’ve decimated AQ and gotten their killers to meet our soldiers over there, rather than coming over here to attack us civilians.
No bases in Iraq and out ASAP!
I hope we never get out unless or until the Muslims can quit waging jihad on the West.
The Middle East can’t be left to itself and our presence there has quieted down the entire region quite a bit and turned their minds to democracy rather than jihad.
