August 30, 2013

Let's check in with the moonbats

Well, what else would you expect from the wisher of death upon Republicans? In this ... predictable post, Delaware Dunce blames George W. Bush for the current administration's inability to intervene in Syria, and notes that if Al Gore had been allowed to serve as president (since he "really" won the 2000 election), Bush/Iraq fatigue wouldn't even be manifested now, and attacking Syria would be much more palatable. And DD would be for intervening now.

Or something.

Posted by Hube at August 30, 2013 09:57 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Did you read the post about the fast food workers strike yesterday?

Pay special attention to Jason's comments. Care full, your IQ will drop 20 points.

Posted by: John Galt at August 30, 2013 03:18 PM

"and attacking Syria would be much more palatable. And DD would be for intervening now."

Pathetic.

Where did the standard that "chemical weapons" have magical powers to create "red lines" come from, anyway? Because white phosphorous seems to be fine, etc.

Posted by: mynym at August 30, 2013 05:09 PM

If "we" were to intervene, it should probably be to stop the Qataris and the Saudis from creating rebellions. If anything.

But it's not as if "we" can do much, given that our government has basically been captured by multinational corporations, Zionist factions and global bankers. None of which necessarily have our best interests and health and wealth as Americans at heart.

No war without representation?

We're a long way from no taxation without representation now.

Posted by: mynym at August 30, 2013 05:17 PM

"Zionist factions"? Who is this -- Louis Farrakhan?

Posted by: Hube at August 30, 2013 05:21 PM

"Zionist factions?" Yeesh. Holy anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, Batman!

Posted by: Carl at August 30, 2013 05:31 PM

Zionist faction:

The powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC is planning to launch a major lobbying campaign to push wayward lawmakers to back the resolution authorizing U.S. strikes against Syria, sources said Thursday.

Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon. They are expected to lobby virtually every member of Congress, arguing that “barbarism” by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated, and that failing to act would “send a message” to Tehran that the U.S. won’t stand up to hostile countries’ efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, according to a source with the group. Politico But the way it turned out shows that their influence on the American government is waning, fortunately. As far as antisemitism goes, it's unlikely that you can tell the difference between a Jewish soccer mom and the Zionist factions influencing the U.S. government. So it's probably best to leave it at that, huh?

Posted by: mynym at October 19, 2013 08:05 PM

Again, holy anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, Batman!

Posted by: Carl at October 19, 2013 09:38 PM

Your favorite book must be "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," correct? No wonder why you're so afraid of the "Israel lobby" boogeyman.

Posted by: Carl at October 19, 2013 09:46 PM

Do you even know what Semitic means? Zionism is an ideology.

Posted by: mynym at October 22, 2013 12:55 AM

mynmym: Cease the bullsh**. You wanna peddle your Zionist conspiracy nonsense, go do it somewhere else. Last warning, or it's Blockedville

Posted by: Hube at October 22, 2013 07:29 AM

There's nothing bull about it. It's a documented fact that AIPAC lobbyists stormed DC to try to create a war with Syria/Iran. Can you even try to look at reality without going off on your talking points or conditioned reactions? Probably not. What's next, claiming that I'm writing that all AIPAC lobbyists are part of the Protocols? The only person using bull here instead of dealing with reality, is you.

Posted by: mynym at October 26, 2013 12:21 AM

"Stormed" DC trying "to create a war."

It's also a documented fact that anti-Semites now routinely use "Zionist" and "global bankers" to make their rants more ... "appealing." But it's the same bigoted bullsh**.

It's one thing to oppose US action in Syria, Iran, or elsewhere; It's another to use terminology that would make Farrakhan proud. An AIPAC lobbyists have every right -- like any other lobbyist -- to try to presuade lawmakers to act in the interests that they wish; in this case, Israel's. Whether lawmakers act is another matter and up to them. You say they want to start a war; they would say they're trying to prevent their annihilation.

Posted by: Hube at October 26, 2013 10:25 AM

"An AIPAC lobbyists have every right -- like any other lobbyist -- to try to presuade lawmakers to act in the interests that they wish; in this case, Israel's."

Since AIPAC lobbies for a foreign power, then it ought to register as a foreign agent.

To understand why AIPAC has never done so, Libertarian Scott Horton interviews Grant F. Smith on why the Department of Justice is unable and unwilling to prosecute Israeli spies.

http://scotthorton.org/2013/10/23/102313-grant-f-smith/

Posted by: delacrat at October 26, 2013 02:39 PM

Aaaaand we see Grant's real issue:

"Such a truthful declaration would turn the tables on AIPAC and its small group of donors now pushing Americans to steal from themselves by systematically violating the Symington and Glenn amendments to U.S. foreign aid laws. Ending aid would disentangle unwitting Americans from Israel’s unending conflicts, illegal settlements, systematized abuse of Palestinians, and clandestine nuclear proliferation in the Middle East."

There 'ya go. He's anti-Israel with a clearly one-sided view of "unending conflicts, illegal terrorism, systematized abuse of non-Muslims, and clandestine nuclear proliferation in the Middle East." Which is fine. But don't sell him as some unbiased observer.

I have no issue w/registering AIPAC as "agents of a foreign power." I could care less. They'll still do what they do. And they dispute your claim that they lobby for Israel, BTW.

Posted by: Hube at October 26, 2013 05:19 PM

Hube does not contest the veracity of anything Grant says.

Hube only make empty claims of "bias" or "one-sided".

The ugly truth about israel is still the ugly truth no matter if it's "biased" or "one-sided".

Posted by: delacrat at October 26, 2013 05:37 PM

I said I have no objection to registering AIPAC as agents of a foreign power if the gov. so deems necessary. So, what's your overall beef? Y'know, aside from the fact that your "progressive" bias against Israel defies reality and is ridiculously morally inconsistent?

Posted by: Hube at October 26, 2013 05:41 PM

" Y'know, aside from the fact that your "progressive" bias against Israel defies reality and is ridiculously morally inconsistent?"

Explain the inconsistency.

Posted by: mynym at October 30, 2013 01:17 PM

"It's also a documented fact that anti-Semites now routinely use Zionist' and 'global bankers' to make their rants more ... 'appealing.' But it's the same bigoted bullsh**."

I agree with you. There are racists.

But if you're against racism and bigotry, then can you criticize the racial and ethnic ideologies of supremacy promoted by many Zionist factions? (If you need examples: Chabad.)

Or would it supposedly be anti-Semitic and racist to be against ideologies of supremacy and/or racism promoted by those that apparently (and usually falsely) perceive themselves as Semites?

(Because the descendents of European converts to Judaism and/or the ideologies of racial/ethnic supremacy and Zionism found in the Talmud aren't actually a Semitic race.)

Posted by: mynym at October 30, 2013 01:28 PM

Still peddling your conspiracy theories? Go to Stormfront if you want to do that. I'm sure they accept Zionist conspiracy loons in open arms.

And yes, they are Semites. Hebrew is a Semitic language that evolved from the first Semitic language, Akkadian.

Posted by: Carl at October 30, 2013 01:36 PM

I was speaking to delacrat in my last comment, mynym. Are you admitting, then, that you're the same person?

Or would it supposedly be anti-Semitic and racist to be against ideologies of supremacy and/or racism promoted by those that apparently (and usually falsely) perceive themselves as Semites?

So, is this you claiming from above, then, that AIPAC and/or the "global bankers" are all Zionists hence "racists" and "Jewish supremacists?"

Posted by: Hube at October 30, 2013 02:08 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?