Mission Statement: This blog reviews the news of the day in light of 242 years of American history. "Nationalism," a modern day pejorative, has been our country's politic throughout history, until 2008. Obama changed that narrative. Trump is seeking a return to our historical roots. Midknight Review supports this return to normality.
Clearly, when a very liberal audience supports the logic the allows Israel to attack Hamas, Obama's opposition to Israel is a losing cause. (see the surprising and short video)
#1) Obama is not opposed to Israel, only in Smithson mind. Or maybe he has Obama confused with Rand Paul. #2) Maher is brilliant as usual. The fact that Arab countries are generally less advanced is because they are thrid world theocracies. #3) The reason Obama supports Israel is because it is a pluralistic democracy, unlike Iran and Saudi Arabia whose growth has been stilted by fundamentalist religion. #4) If we are to be successful as a nation, we will follow Israel's example and promote science and education, and make sure fundamentalist theocrats (like the teaparty) don't get a foothold in running this nation. We don't want to end up like the their fellow theocrats in the middle east, stilted, ignorant and backward thinking
1. Obama's anger with Bibi is well documented. He has insulted the PM on many occasions, and is an open supporter of Hamas and the PLO. Of course, nothing is linear with our Presidential Goof, but these are the facts. In his Cairo speech, he framed Israel as the "occupier" of Palestine. Under no stretch of an intelligent mind, can this be viewed as anything other than a traitorous statement with regard to Israel. 2. Mahar is a self-absorbed "dumb-ass." Indeed, he probably is a brilliant type fellow - most comedians have a bit of genius in their DNA. Dubi is less advanced that we? What about India - a markedly "religious" nation? Then there is godless Europe, failing miserably on so many levels.
4." If we are to be successful as a nation" -- we are already "successful as a nation." We do not need the philosophical help of a failed Marxist mentality . The teaparty a "fundamentalist theocracy?" Is that what you are saying? Yu have no idea what either of those words actually mean, do you.
3. The reason Obama supports Israel (when "support" is giving that country arms and money without taking a public and persistent stand FOR Israel at the UN or elsewhere) is a thing called "politics." You are humorous in your "naivete"
The Indians, Persians, and Arabs that come to America as physicians and engineers are generally not those that embrace science and education... religion... not so much. Not many world religions are as opposed to science as the evangelical religious right in America. Not all religions are as backward.
Physicians and engineers are not those who embrace science and education? Seriously? Give up on your childish branding of the "evangelical religious right." It is stupidly off the mark and I think you actually know this. Alinsky's 13 commandment is: "Pick the target (the religious right in this case), freeze it (never stop with a particular branding), personalize it AND polarize it." and you want me to believe you don't know Alinsky. Clearly, you are nothing but a Marxist Minion and and an accomplished disciple of Saul Alinsky. The readership needs to always keep that in mind. Folks, THIS is the Progressive Left in our time - they are not simply "statists," but Marxist and "foreigners" in their intent.
Of course Obama is anti-Israel. Why does your opponent think he has a 75% approval rating among Amerian Muslims? They love the guy and understand his deceit.
Typo The Indians, Persians, and Arabs that come to America as physicians and engineers are generally those that embrace science and education... religion... not so much.
Of course you have heard of Alinsky. His "Rules for Radicals" is the bible for Progressive Marxists. Most certainly, Obama has "heard" of the man. Understand that Alinsky's book is addressed to the American community organizer. Obama has not only read an d review Alinsky's book, but taught out of that book while teaching summer school for 12 years at Columbia. He (Alionsky) is part of the maggot population infecting this once great nation.
Since you recommend the book so often and highly, maybe I'll look into this Alinsky guy. Never really heard of Alinsky, except a little on Fox News before the election, and sometimes mentioned by politicians of low intelligence, like Palin, and other losing teaparty candidates.
I have no intention of being a radical. I'm one of the lucky ones, would be happy if things stay as they are for a good while. I've also earned it.
So, you'er a radical Marxist, an anti-colonial type bent on tearing down this wildly successful nation - by accident? I mean, what does "I have no intention . . ." mean in view of your published polemics; a clear contradiction of terms that fool no one.
Buy Alionsky. It will fit right in with your library of Gonzo political crap. But lets be honest, shall we? You can't tell me that someone as adept at the "cut and paste" style of rhetorical debate as you, has not "googled" Alinsky and his book. I simply do not believe you. Your MO is my best argument, on this point.
#1) Obama is not opposed to Israel, only in Smithson mind. Or maybe he has Obama confused with Rand Paul.
ReplyDelete#2) Maher is brilliant as usual. The fact that Arab countries are generally less advanced is because they are thrid world theocracies.
#3) The reason Obama supports Israel is because it is a pluralistic democracy, unlike Iran and Saudi Arabia whose growth has been stilted by fundamentalist religion.
#4) If we are to be successful as a nation, we will follow Israel's example and promote science and education, and make sure fundamentalist theocrats (like the teaparty) don't get a foothold in running this nation. We don't want to end up like the their fellow theocrats in the middle east, stilted, ignorant and backward thinking
1. Obama's anger with Bibi is well documented. He has insulted the PM on many occasions, and is an open supporter of Hamas and the PLO. Of course, nothing is linear with our Presidential Goof, but these are the facts. In his Cairo speech, he framed Israel as the "occupier" of Palestine. Under no stretch of an intelligent mind, can this be viewed as anything other than a traitorous statement with regard to Israel.
ReplyDelete2. Mahar is a self-absorbed "dumb-ass." Indeed, he probably is a brilliant type fellow - most comedians have a bit of genius in their DNA. Dubi is less advanced that we? What about India - a markedly "religious" nation? Then there is godless Europe, failing miserably on so many levels.
4." If we are to be successful as a nation" -- we are already "successful as a nation." We do not need the philosophical help of a failed Marxist mentality . The teaparty a "fundamentalist theocracy?" Is that what you are saying? Yu have no idea what either of those words actually mean, do you.
3. The reason Obama supports Israel (when "support" is giving that country arms and money without taking a public and persistent stand FOR Israel at the UN or elsewhere) is a thing called "politics." You are humorous in your "naivete"
The Indians, Persians, and Arabs that come to America as physicians and engineers are generally not those that embrace science and education... religion... not so much. Not many world religions are as opposed to science as the evangelical religious right in America. Not all religions are as backward.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bahai.us/welcome/principles-and-practices/harmony-of-science-and-religion/
Physicians and engineers are not those who embrace science and education? Seriously? Give up on your childish branding of the "evangelical religious right." It is stupidly off the mark and I think you actually know this. Alinsky's 13 commandment is: "Pick the target (the religious right in this case), freeze it (never stop with a particular branding), personalize it AND polarize it." and you want me to believe you don't know Alinsky. Clearly, you are nothing but a Marxist Minion and and an accomplished disciple of Saul Alinsky. The readership needs to always keep that in mind. Folks, THIS is the Progressive Left in our time - they are not simply "statists," but Marxist and "foreigners" in their intent.
ReplyDeleteOf course Obama is anti-Israel. Why does your opponent think he has a 75% approval rating among Amerian Muslims? They love the guy and understand his deceit.
ReplyDeleteTypo
ReplyDeleteThe Indians, Persians, and Arabs that come to America as physicians and engineers are generally those that embrace science and education... religion... not so much.
A convenient "typo" after I nail your logic to the Wall of Incoherency? Well . . . . . . ok.
DeleteAlso, I've never heard of Alinsky or about him from anyone but you. He must be one of your paranoid delusions / conspiracy theories...
ReplyDelete" like maggots they're everywhere." - JD Smithson
Of course you have heard of Alinsky. His "Rules for Radicals" is the bible for Progressive Marxists. Most certainly, Obama has "heard" of the man. Understand that Alinsky's book is addressed to the American community organizer. Obama has not only read an d review Alinsky's book, but taught out of that book while teaching summer school for 12 years at Columbia. He (Alionsky) is part of the maggot population infecting this once great nation.
DeleteSince you recommend the book so often and highly, maybe I'll look into this Alinsky guy. Never really heard of Alinsky, except a little on Fox News before the election, and sometimes mentioned by politicians of low intelligence, like Palin, and other losing teaparty candidates.
DeleteI have no intention of being a radical. I'm one of the lucky ones, would be happy if things stay as they are for a good while. I've also earned it.
So, you'er a radical Marxist, an anti-colonial type bent on tearing down this wildly successful nation - by accident? I mean, what does "I have no intention . . ." mean in view of your published polemics; a clear contradiction of terms that fool no one.
DeleteBuy Alionsky. It will fit right in with your library of Gonzo political crap. But lets be honest, shall we? You can't tell me that someone as adept at the "cut and paste" style of rhetorical debate as you, has not "googled" Alinsky and his book. I simply do not believe you. Your MO is my best argument, on this point.