Bush said today
“Some Sunnis have expressed reservations about various provisions in the constitution and that’s their right as free individuals in a free society,”
Bush praises Iraqi draft constitution despite disagreements.
Why doesn’t he dare to say this constitution is widely unpopular among all Iraqis Shiite, Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Christians, Mandeans and Yezidis, from the far north to the far south.
For Basra’s Christians, Hussein era the good old days.
“Saddam Hussein was a criminal and an oppressor. Everybody knew that,” said Majid, 45, a Sunni taxi driver who said he was afraid to be identified further. “These new parties cry for society, but try to drink the blood of the people..“
Is it an attempt to give piece of Iraq to Iran?
The US dollar can have a deeper impact on the US economy than a direct nuclear attack by Iran. The permanent demand for dollar-denominated paper stems substantially from the fact that until now almost all resources of the world are quoted in it. While this led to the eurodollar (US dollar-denominated deposits at foreign banks or foreign branches of American banks) market in the 1970s, the new terms of trade could ring in the demise of the dollar as the premier reserve currency.
I don’t want Bush supporters to enjoy the day without reminding them of this:
Reuters soundman shot dead in Baghdad
A Reuters Television soundman has been shot dead in Baghdad and a cameraman with him was wounded and then detained by US soldiers.
For sure he is an Iraqi and that give him Mr. Nobody among American soldiers, don’t forget to read the best part in the story:
Kadhem, the only known eyewitness, was later detained by US troops and was still in custody six hours later despite Reuters’s requests that he be freed to receive medical attention.…..Two Iraqi colleagues who arrived on the scene minutes after the shooting were briefly detained, then released.
“They treated us like dogs. They made us, … including Khaled who was wounded and asking for water, sit in the sun on the road,” Reuters Television soundman Mohammed Idriss said.
Now you can enjoy your day.
Arnhem-Baghdad
Is that all you have to write? Don’t you feel ashamed of yourself?
Do you know something, Michael? That’s silly, you think you know all. ANYWAY, if you were to open your eyes, you would realize that I have never changed my story. From the first time you called me David, I have clearly stated that was not my name. I have never said I was anything but an Interrogator. You even admitted I was who I said I was about two months ago, before you tried to be James Bond and figure out who I was. Michael, I’m not going to repeat the list above. You now know more about me than most people who have ever met me, yet you continue to claim my name is David and that I’m un-employed in the American NW. Even my challenge to publish all that poor slob’s information on the web didn’t convince you. I don’t know what will. It really doesn’t matter.
Give it a rest.
Deceitful and untruthful to the last. You’re hopeless, I would certainly respect you more if you could accept reality.
Likewise.…
Hmmm.… I see that you’ve forgotten to call me George, blood pressure must be up with all the embarrassment. Shame I enjoyed that.
No, actually, I was trying to give the name to you that you chose unilaterally, with hopes that you would do the same. Guess not. I’ll tell you what.…do you know anything about AKO?
You mean Army ignorance online David?
some call it that. do you know the requirements to have an AKO account?
Active Army, Army Reserve, National Guard, DA Civilian, Retired Army, and Army Guests.
Well I guess that’s the end of that conversation. As if knowing what AKO is proves anything. :) Pathetic.
Actually, Michael,
I’ve reconcidered. I have an AKO email and I was going to give it to you to prove who I am. However, I just don’t trust you. My original idea was to let you search AKO for me, and you would find that I am Retired Military/GS civilian at Ft Huachuca. However, that particular email has my entire name and I don’t want you to go snooping around to find out more about me than you need, so.…
You are right. That line of conversation is, indeed closed. Never mind.
Well what would have been the point anyway? That would not have proved you saw active duty. You’re obviously a military groupie and wannabe but that’s as far as it goes.
See? I’m glad I didn’t give you any more information than I already have. Claim what you want, Michael. Believe what you want, but know that this belief you have is false.
Michael,
They are not ‘my’ rules — they are the rules of civilized discourse.
Hee Hee — Is anyone else watching this? Nadia and Ladybird, for all of your mistrust and/or hatred for Bush, the US, etc., could you please step in here? While we probably disagree on most interpretations of events, etc., you still seem to have common decency. This is becoming ludicrous.
Michael is again asserting that the US was the main supplier of weapons to Saddam. Are you beginning to see a pattern?
Very insightful response as usual Michael.
You provided no evidence of either controlling or stealing. There is a state ministry in Iraq that controls Iraqi oil.
I responded to you at length and you chose to ignore it and move on to another nonsense assertion (typical tactic).
By your logic everything bad that ever occurred is ultimately Iraq’s fault anyway becuase Adam and Eve broke god’s rules and were cast our of eden (land between the rivers). Interesting how you totally deny that human individuals have any freedom of thought or responsibility for their actions.
I’m still waiting for any sane person to point out where I have lied.
I agree. While the volume of trinkets bought at markets in Iraq by US soldiers is small relative to the overall looting, it is still wrong. Many of the soldiers thought they were buying souvenirs. In any case, they should be returned to Iraq.
By the way, did you hear of Emory University and citizens of Atlanta paying for a mummy, bringing it to the university, restoring it, identifying it as a king, and returning it to Egypt?
I’ll bet your taliban would have dopne the same thing!
Charles the usual “big lie” crap. Keep repeating the same lies over and over and hope some people will believe them. That’s what Bush did and imbeciles like yourself fell for it. But unfortunately you are only fooling yourself, the USA was the biggest client of Saddam’s selling him arms, illegal weapons, even WMD. Then during the sanctions it was the USA companies/individuals that did most of the illegal trading.
As unpleasant as it may be for you, you have to start facing reality. The reality being that the USA cannot afford to spend $220,000,000,000 out of concern for Iraqi’s well being or pretended concerns over human rights. I must admit sometimes this forum is hard to follow and if by chance I’ve missed your attempt at explaining the fact that it was an oil invasion away, I do apologise, best try again I like a good laugh. To be honest it’s probably not a good time now anyway since dusk descends here and I’m hardly likely to go searching for one of your posts in the morning.
I am beginning to wonder if Michael is just some software script used for trolling blogs.
He keeps repeating the same things over and over again almost verbatum.
He is either ‘simple’ person, or a clever software script.
Charles,
Your name will soon be something like Joseph Klienmetz, with supposedly two email addresses that confirm your identity. You are making too much sense, Charles, so you must be discredited. Mark my words. It’ll happen. Michael is actually quite predictable.
Oh and PS —
If you consider trawling the internet the same as a split second google search to the original text of the 9/11 commission report that debunks your misrepresentations — then — well — hee hee — I guess you’ve got me pegged mikey.
However good it makes you feel to lie and dole out insults mikey, the truth is in black and white for all to see.
And I hope you don’t think that your insults hurt anyone’s feelings. Just consider the hundreds of silent readers watching these discussions — watching as you regurgitate common, yet baseless assertions, and then reading how patient, thoughtful people tear your nonsense to shreds.
They already all know what’s coming next —
As unpleasant as it may be for you, you have to start facing reality. The reality being that the USA cannot afford to spend $220,000,000,000 out of concern for Iraqi’s well being or pretended concerns over human rights.”
It never fails!
People could start placing side bets on when you will provide the rote response.
You are not taken seriously Mikey.
DaKruser,
I think if I had chosen an alias I would be more vulnerable. But perhaps you are right. We shall see.
Nichael writes that the liberation of Iraq was “illegal”. Could he perhaps identify which law he has in mind?
Can someone please confirm whether or not the Bosnian and Kosovo campaigns by NATO were approved in advance by UNSC?
I’m pretty sure the latter was not (Russian veto threat).
In either case, were the arab al jazeera types up in arms about the brutal oppression of the Serbs by the fascist US military?
Um, What the hell! You mean there is no oil in the former Yugoslavia? What a friggin waste…
Michael
Yes of course but that doesn’t stretch to illegally invading another country resulting in the deaths of over 123,000. I’m sure you would be the first to complain if China invaded Iran and took control of the oil fields.
Or do you take the position that all countries except the USA should act in the their national interest?
Not at all as I’ve already explained. The point is you seem to believe that it’s only the USA that can invade another country in order to seal and control natural resources.
*****
Of course I would be among the first to complain if China took over the Iranian oilfields. In fact we are now working on plans to prevent exactly that. The national interest of the Anglo-Sphere (USA, Great Britain, India, Australia etc) and or other firneds is to deny control of Middle Eastern oilfields to unfriendly powers. While it is not quite clear whose interests you are defening in your comments on these blogs, you will no doubt at least understand that logic.
You also appear to think, naively if I may say so, that theer are laws among nations governing these matters. Not so, since ‘laws’ require an enforcer, and there is none..An unhappy position for the human race perhaps, but there we are — at least for the foreseeable future and/or until the Anglo-Sphere can exert its benevolent sway more widely.
Your opposition to US control of Middle Eastern oil is of course based less on your respect for the illusion which you conjure up of international law than your laughable characterisation of that country as a Nazi state. As the closet homosexual is frequently the most vociferous homphobe, so the would-be assassin of the people’s liberty masks his aims by characterising the free countries as fascist.In the no doubt hopeless hope of receiving one of your less demented answers Michael, let me ask you which countries do you see as approximating to free and democratic and by what characteristics is this apparent to you?
So if you would deny control of the oil to the Anglo-Sphere (and in particular what appears to be your professional bugbear, the USA), who would you have control it, who else would you deny that control to, and how would you enforce that denial of others?
On another of your responses, no doubt scripted by that software as Charles has suggested, how did the jailing of the poet and independent Cuban journalist, Raul Rivero,along with the independent journalist and poet Manuel Vazquez Portal and the 73 other dissidents who were arrested and imprioned in March 2003 by the dictator Castro and his family and cronies protect Cuba from the terrorist state next door? Rather to protect the dictator-for-life Castro, his family and cronies I would have thought, wouldn’t you, old boy?
Hank writes “You also appear to think, naively if I may say so, that theer are laws among nations governing these matters. Not so, since ‘laws’ require an enforcer, and there is none..An unhappy position for the human race perhaps, but there we are — at least for the foreseeable future and/or until the Anglo-Sphere can exert its benevolent sway more widely.”
I feel this is like trying to explain nuclear physics to a neanderthal, but there is such a thing as International Law. Laws get broken and as with Germany in 1939, sometimes it takes a number of years before they are enforced. So if you think the USA, Bush and the rest of his Nazi accomplices are off the hook, I feel like you may to celebrating a little too early. The US economy is shortly to collapse, when that happens the uSA will be looking for help and assistance from the rest of the world, but there will of course be a price to pay.
Sorry about that, I wrote the aboce not the other goon, Charles.
No Michael, although there is a subject which you can study which is called “International Law”, there is no international law. International Law if is going to be enforced must be enforced through national courts. It is therefore in fact a species of national law. By the way, we are about to see a fine example: “The sense in Washington and Paris is that both governments are resolved to bring the Assad regime to an end” http://www.debka.com/ . As you watch this happy event tyranspire (long overdue if i may say so) yo will note that theere may be much jumping up and down in the capitals of the world’s tyrants (and on this blog by their acolytes I would think) but no law case is going to be brought to decide who was right and who was wrong. You are not, and this this is demonstrated by your every post, living in the real world, my dear chap.
By the way Michael, I see from your #124 that we are getting our knickers in a twist again.
A very interseting link, Hank. “DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report the Assad regime is in a panic as the UN team’s findings on the murder case come closer to Damascus. In Beirut, the specter of civil war hovers as Syrian agents and Hizballah officers are seen handing out weapons to Muslims – the first sign that Assad has decided to react to the threat closing in on him by igniting fresh civil bloodshed.”
Now there we have a leader REALLY misleading his people. In the manner of the tyrant, he is prompt to trigger a civil war to save his own miserable skin. It won’t work. He will be brought down like the dog he is. A little further off in Iraq, your muslim terrorist leaders are up to the same ruse — casually causing the deaths of 600 or so Iraqis participating in a holy ceremony — in a desperate attempt to stop the adoption of a constitution in Iraq by fomenting civil war. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LV4GKTM2NX2HPQFIQMGCM5WAVCBQUJVC?xml=/news/2005/08/31/uiraq.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/08/31/ixportaltop.html Same thing in Gaza of course. Where do the Arabs and other muslim regimes and religious mafias not engage in this barbarity?
The misleading of the peoples of the Middle East though is going to be brought to an end by the power of the Coalition. It is not likely to be pretty — the downfall of tyrants rarely is. How does the Internationale’s first line go…? I have said it before;I will say it again; the United States with its allies is the only true revolutionary force in the world today. Down with the boy Hassad! Down with all tyrants! Long live liberty! Long live the USA!
i think you may be too sanguine, Christopher. here is the summary of an artile in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs Magazine:“The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.” http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84506/f-gregory-gause-iii/can-democracy-stop-terrorism.html
What is the corollary — that President Bush should support some kind of autocratic state? This is a conundrum. What is clear to me though is that US national interest (and Coalitional national interests) must come first, as a matter of principle in foreign policy. If encouraging democracy would endanger the USA, then — if only as a tactic — it must oppose it. Michael, who does not of course believes democracy or any approximation of it — exists anywheer and would probably stamp on it if he saw it, would probably agree with this — but may be not. Since he wants to see the USA brought down, he should be encouraging democracy in the Middle East! Contradictions to wrestle with!
“Charles” (actually Mikey in disguise according to his confession) writes “The US economy is shortly to collapse.”
Other, brighter minds disagree although you will be sorry to hear that.Elsewhere in Foreign Affairs Magazine a Chinese commentator who is Director of the Institute of International Strategic Studies at the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China (yes, Michael old bean a red commie bastard no less which will make you happy — although he could be wrong — the CP usually has been) writes: “Despite serious problems such as swelling trade and fiscal deficits, illegal immigration, inadequate health care, violent crime, major income disparities, a declining educational system, and a deeply divided electorate, the U.S. economy is healthy: last year, U.S. GDP grew an estimated 4.4 percent, and this year the growth rate is expected to be 3.5 percent, much greater than the corresponding figures for the eurozone (2.0 percent and 1.6 percent). Barring an unexpected sharp economic downturn, the size of the U.S. economy as a proportion of the global economy is likely to increase in the years to come.
Many other indexes of U.S. “hard power” are also on the rise. The U.S. defense budget, for example, has increased considerably in recent years. In 2004, it hit $437 billion, or roughly half of all military spending around the world. Yet as a percentage of U.S. GDP, the figure was lower than it was during the Cold War.“
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84504/wang-jisi/china-s-search-for-stability-with-america.html
You really should widen your horizons a bit Michael.
And further “For a long time to come, the United States is likely to remain dominant, with sufficient hard power to back up aggressive diplomatic and military policies.”
Dream on, Michael.
As to the national interest of the USA in the area, which I mentioned in #122, the red commie bastard continues:
” The greater Middle East, a region stretching from Kashmir to Morocco and from the Red Sea to the Caucasus, is vital to U.S. interests. Rich in oil and natural gas, the region is also beset by ethnic and religious conflicts and is a base for rampant international terrorism. None of the countries in the area is politically stable, and chaos there can affect the United States directly, as the country learned on September 11.”
How can ladybug and Michael and little nadia possibly subscribe to the idea that in defending this interest president Bush , as the title of this thread puts it,“continues misleading his people”? You characters really do spout the most unutterable rubbish. What party school were you educated in? Try a course in the department at Peking University where the author of the article cited also teaches.
“Vital interests” That means interests which a country must be prepared to go to war to defend. Just learn the ABCs first Michael.
Hank writes “Barring an unexpected sharp economic downturn, the size of the U.S. economy as a proportion of the global economy is likely to increase in the years to come.”
Well that’s what they keep telling you but the reality is somewhat different. But look at the WTO figures on http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2004_e/section1_e/i05.xls
Germany already exceeds the USA as the world’s largest exporter and indeed out of the top 10 leading exports the USA shows the smallest growth. Imports are of course a different matter, the trading deficit grows at an alarming rate and relies of inward investment to keep your heads above the water. However, I do feel that relying on countries such as China, Russia and the OPEC countries to keep financing your spending spree may not be the most sensible of moves.
Already there’s a switch from using the US$ to various other currencies.
Not that I would expect a redneck such as yourself Hank to understand any of this, you just worry when the ground is removed beneath your feet. Even Greenspan, noted for his unfounded optimism is starting to issue warnings.
No Michael, it’s NOT Hank writes — as I thought I had made plain, even to the dullest; it’s by a Chinese communist analyst and even by your lights not one surely to overlook if he could possibly avoid it the likelihood that “The US economy is shortly to collapse”.
Dream on, Mikey!
Did you look at the link I provided Hank, and if you did, did you understand any of it? It seems to me that you are going to have that arrogant smirk wipes of your fat hillbilly face within a very short time. Just remember it was me that tried to explain it to you first :)http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2004_e/section1_e/i05.xls
US attempted to bribe Sunni lawmakers with $5 million each to sign constitution
Juan Cole
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/2345711.html
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Al-Watan (Riyadh) [Arabic link] reports that one Sunni member of the parliamentary drafting committee told it that Washington at one point promised $5 million apiece to tthe Sunnis on the committee if they would sign off on the constitution.
Sy Hersh has also alleged bribery.
It is certainly the case that a lot of money is being spread around for cooperativeness. I was told that one high Iraqi official received one million dollars a month for serving in the interim government of Iyad Allawi, and recently went on a shopping spree at Harrod’s in London where he spent $1 million on gifts for his second wife. [We guys object to this sort of thing on two grounds. First, it gives the impression of corruption or at the least overly high living on the part of a public servant. Second, the expectations of wives just shouldn’t be raised this way, especially those of second wives.] This politician supports the constitution.
I would agree with Michael to a large extent that the US economy faces many significant challenges. This has always been the case though, and history has shown that a more liberal and diverse economy is better positioned to adapt and prosper.
Every country faces economic challenges.
Some are certainly sitting pretty (oil exporters) because of the current high prices of oil, but as with most ‘one act shows’, their success is fleeting. Having a lot of cash in the bank does not necessarily equate with having a strong economy. Higher oil prices spur investment in new production, and bring more reserves into the range of viable recoverability. Canadian tar sands are now quite viable and bring Canada to the number two spot of proven reserves, nearly double the size of Iraqi and Iranian reserves, at 180 billion barrels.
But quite frankly, I don’t see the point of this discussion. Are we simply trying to bash the US by relishing in gloom and doom hyperbole?
What link was that Mikey — where you were posting under the name of Charles?
It’s here you piece of Yanqui shit.
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2004_e/section1_e/i05.xls
Charles, “Are we simply trying to bash the US by relishing in gloom and doom hyperbole? ” That, according to my understanding, is the raison d’etre of this blog.
Is “Conservatism” a New Kind Of Mental Illness?http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com/2005/08/is-conservatism-new-kind-of-mental.html
By Manifesto Joe
When I heard the title of Michael Savage’s latest screed — Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions — the irony wasn’t lost on me. This is from a man who:
Was fired from MSNBC for telling a caller to “get AIDS and die” among other things.
Has referred to Iraqi prisoners as “subhumans” and called for them to be summarily executed by the thousands.
Said the tsunami that struck East Asian countries was not a tragedy but rather a message from God.
Says women should be denied the vote because they are too emotional — their hormones rage.
But Savage isn’t the only “conservative” who’s been waxing psychopathic lately. The vilification of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan has shown a zany viciousness once heard only from the most demented elements of the right. The typically milder-mannered Fred Barnes called her a “crackpot.” Rush Limbaugh said Sheehan’s story is “nothing more than forged documents.” (Two days later Limbaugh denied saying anything like this, whatever it was that he meant.) One-time Trotskyite turned right-wing straitjacket candidate David Horowitz described Sheehan’s protest as “hateful” and said she is dishonoring the memory of her fallen son. A political consultant and blogger named Erick Erickson said Sheehan is “a whore in the form of a grieving mother.”
Savage is right about one thing: There is a strain of mental illness spreading in America. Problem is, he’s pointing in the wrong direction, as usual. Many of those who call themselves “conservatives” are not merely dangerous radicals. They could use a dose of anti-psychotic drugs.
I’ve been wondering about the sanity of “conservatives” since the days of Lee Atwater, when it became apparent that these self-styled paragons of virtue would say and do just about anything to win an election. Atwater later died, reportedly of a brain tumor; but I’m convinced that the tumor was benign. It’s the brain that was malignant.
It’s gotten worse since then. Consider a political landscape in which:
A Republican congressman, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, suggests that if terrorists attack the United States with a nuke, we could “take out their holy sites.” (Presumably he would hold all Muslims responsible.)
The Rev. Pat Robertson, one of our best-known “Christian” broadcasters, suggests that we assassinate a legally elected foreign head of state because we don’t like his policies or the company he keeps. (But hey, keep that oil coming.)
Bestselling commentator Ann Coulter says, quite seriously, about Islamic nations that we should “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” (Millions buy this shrill woman’s books. I suppose these are the readers who cut class the day the professor lectured on The Crusades.)
Barry Goldwater, after leaving politics, lamented that the Republican Party had been taken over by “a bunch of kooks.” This was ironic when one recalls LBJ supporters in 1964 saying about rival candidate Goldwater, “In your guts you know he’s nuts.” If Goldwater scared people back then, what does that say about some of the loonies who hold high office now?
I suggest something further: That pretty much describes the whole contemporary “conservative” movement. It’s not just some of the top politicos, pundits and preachers who are spouting rubber-room rhetoric. It’s become like a bizarre cult of millions. The only positive aspect about how many of these fanatical weirdos there are is that they could never have all fit into the compound at Mount Carmel.
The Texas Republican Party, in its delusional 2004 platform, for example, urges that the IRS be eliminated, along with “income tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, payroll tax and property tax.” The state GOP would also kill “the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms, the position of Surgeon General, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor.” (I guess when you believe that The Rapture is coming soon, who needs a government?)
The comparably deranged 2000 platform calls for America to return to the gold standard and supports “individual teachers’ right to teach creation science in Texas public schools.” It also calls for the United States to quit the United Nations and re-establish control of the Panama Canal. (It stops short of unleashing Chiang Kai-shek’s skeletal remains on mainland China.)
Consider that this is the political party that is governing Texas, virtually unchallenged.
Then there are the assorted lunatics who blog, argue in chat rooms, etc. A “Christian conservative” who identified himself (herself?) as “frogribs” posted a reply to an earlier article of mine on this blog in which he wrote:
“Yes, it is better ‘to have the London subway system be a battleground than to have al Qaeda blowing up folks over here.’ The duty of the president is to place the lives and well being of Americans above all others.” (I’m glad Bush was thinking that when he misled the country into a needless war in Iraq. And I’m certain the British will be thrilled to know we’re willing to use them, and other allied civilians, as human shields.)
“Iraqi civilian casualties have occurred, but at a rate lower than anyone expected.” (Was this person here, on this planet, in March 2003? We were hearing that this would be a cakewalk, and that Iraqis would be tossing rose petals at our soldiers’ feet. Since then, dozens of suicide bombings later, the cake’s been decorated with entrails, and the petals look curiously like toenails.)
“The U.S. still faces an insurgency, but they must remain to complete the mission in order to avoid the disastrous result learned in Vietnam. Napoleon said it best, ‘If you decide to take Paris, take Paris.’ Finish the job. …” (This person evidently never heard about Waterloo. Or Nixon’s hapless “Vietnamization” policy. What should we call this now — “Iraqification”?)
“Does anyone remember how we got this country? We got it by force. We decimated the Indians … We invaded the Spanish and the Mexicans and we took the spoils. We exploited slaves until the error was purged with the blood of 500,000 of our countrymen … Manifest Destiny still runs in my veins and the veins of the free and the brave …”
(Gosh, so America really was largely built on genocide, slavery and military aggression? Since it worked so well in the past, why don’t we do all that stuff again? And when they bring back the slave auctions, I wonder — how much would Jesus bid?)
If this person is a sincere, believing, born-again Christian, then someone must have slipped a couple of books by Nietzsche and Machiavelli into his Bible. I can envision The Prince, and Beyond Good and Evil, bound in there somewhere between Galatians and Revelation, no doubt by Godless nihilistic conspirators.
But seriously, crazy people don’t perceive even such basic ideological contradictions. I’ve seen this firsthand in paranoid schizophrenics. They feel quite free to just make it up as they go along.
I think we’ve identified a unique personality disorder. It isn’t hard to diagnose, because most of the patients call themselves “conservatives.”
Charge nurse, call the orderlies, and break out the Thorazine. This is no problem that a little heavy sedation won’t fix.
Now, now, mikey, temper, temper.
It’s the only way to get your attention. Do you milk horses like your president?
Where have we seen Michael’s language elsewhere? Try this for example:
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/analysis.htm
Yes, folks. Michael is just a sore loser of the old, unreconstructed Pravda style “leftwing” hoping for a come-back by allying himself with Islamic terror.
As Hank says: Dream on, mikey!.
Hank —
Oh, right. I keep forgetting…
What’s all this about milking horses mikey? Another weighty political point you are making? Went by me I’m afraid — but then I’m a bear of little brain.
Outside of your little goldfish bowl Hank, your President is an object of ridicule throughout the world due to his low IQ and stupidity. I guess he’s another “bear of little brain” like yourself.
here check this out, it includes a video for you to watch.
http://www.depresident.com/laura-bush-horse-joke-video.asp
Laura Bush + George Bush = milking male horse
Michael, a running dog of… For all those who don’t yet understand “where Michael is coming from”, try this:
“The Nazis denounced America as a Jewish state and blamed the Jews for starting World War II. The communist denounce America as an imperialist state and prepare to blame the Americans for starting World War III. The writing is on the wall. The propaganda has already done its work. And should the American economy falter, the propaganda will get more and more blatant until it begins to resemble the old Stalinist rant (and the raw insistence that America should be destroyed if the world is to know peace).…
… Communist propaganda has a strategic objective. Blacken America’s name, place a question mark over America’s motives and rally the malcontents.”
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/analysis.htm
But the problem is Crusader is that the USA are the new Nazis.
Yes, comrade.