Bachmann

[likwid]

C'mon Jim, even YOU have to admit she's batsh*t.

[Nebe]

McCarthyism at its finest
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

C'mon Jim, even YOU have to admit she's batsh*t.

If she made this claim with zero evidence, she should be ashamed and villified. It's just as bad as liberals playing the race card...

I agree with Bachman on the major issues, but I've always thought she was a little kooky. This validates that.

Likwid, there are plenty of Democrats I admire, and plenty of Republicans I don't like. I'm not brainwashed. I can give you reasonable, common sense-based reasons for everything I believe.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If she made this claim with zero evidence, she should be ashamed and villified.

Well lets look at just Huma Abedin (who just happens to be married to a jew).
Her father taught at a school in Saudi Arabia 25 years ago.
He knew a dude back then, who was part of a muslim alliance group (not the brotherhood).
They MAY have agreed/aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood on UNKNOWN issues.

Thats the connection.
SEEMS SOLID TO ME!

So like this guy, he told me about this stuff that this other guy did, and it caused this other guy to be all like "OMG" and like totally caused 9/11.
Like fer shuuuur.

Not only batsh*t.
But an attention whore.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If she made this claim with zero evidence, she should be ashamed and villified.

Republicans line up to rip Michele Bachmann - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

[JohnnyD]

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You can see in her eyes that something is off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

^ LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Raven]

i wanna see her nekid still

[scottw]

you should read this....

Questions about Huma Abedin - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

"Now, I’m perfectly willing to believe that McCain may not know what the words “unspecified” and “unsubstantiated” mean. That, however, would not excuse his use of them in this context. The ties of Ms. Abedine’s father, mother, and brother to the Muslim Brotherhood are both specific and substantiated."

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

you should read this....

Questions about Huma Abedin - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

"Now, I’m perfectly willing to believe that McCain may not know what the words “unspecified” and “unsubstantiated” mean. That, however, would not excuse his use of them in this context. The ties of Ms. Abedine’s father, mother, and brother to the Muslim Brotherhood are both specific and substantiated."

Why would anyone want to read a slob site op-ed that has about as much relevance in reality as Bachmann's hysterical accusations?

I browsed through and tried to read the psycho ties he tries to create via, yet again, unsubstantiated claims.
Such as claiming the institute her father was part of was backed by a group that had brotherhood members in it. Yet again, 20 years ago.

His whole theory DEEPLY relies on the common reader being basically ignorant to the history of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But yet again, no name op ed on a no name website.
Crack dealers on Staten Island have more relevance.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

Why would anyone want to read a slob site op-ed that has about as much relevance in reality as Bachmann's hysterical accusations?

But yet again, no name op ed on a no name website.
Crack dealers on Staten Island have more relevance.

he's actually quite versed on the subject, has written extensively on these matters and has first hand experience...just sayin'...I wouldn't expect that you'd have a clue or a coherent comment

Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[1] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is currently a columnist for National Review.

McCarthy was educated at Columbia University and New York Law School, and has served as a professor at the latter and at Fordham University Law School.

He is currently a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, serving as the director of the FDD's Center for Law and Counterterrorism. He has served as an attorney for Rudy Giuliani, and is also a conservative opinion columnist who writes for National Review and Commentary.

[scottw]

I think there are some members of Congress that are wondering about the realtionship of this administration and the Muslim Brotherhood, not an unreasonable concern...

Napolitano was on the Hill recently being questioned and this is how it went.....
you can watch the video

The man in question is Mohamed Elibiary, appointed by President Obama and allegedly affiliated with the Islamic Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt.

Napolitano called the allegations against him “misleading” and “objectionable” and implied multiple times that Gohmert and others were accusing Elibiary of wrongdoing simply because he is Muslim.

Gohmert told Napolitano that her staff was apparently lying to her because an investigation found that Elibiary had accessed classified information and had downloaded it. The only thing that wasn’t “confirmed” was that he leaked the information to the press.

“It did not bother you that he accessed information?” Gohmert asked.

The secretary then altered her answer slightly but quickly changed the subject. “He accessed some information. What bothers me quite frankly, are the allegations that are made against anyone that happens to be Muslim,” Napolitano replied.

“Well, the allegations are not because he is Muslim. ”This administration seems to have a hard time recognizing members of terrorist groups who are allowed into the White House. You are aware of that happening aren’t you?”

Napolitano immediately shot back, “Absolutely not.”

Last month, Hani Nour Eldin, a member of Egypt’s parliament, was granted a visa and invited to attend several meetings with high-ranking White House and State Department officials, some in the executive mansion. Eldin is also a member of Gamaa Islamiya, a radical Islamic group currently listed as a designated terrorist organization.

For the next several minutes, Gohmert pressed Napolitano on whether she knew what the Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt was. After initially dodging the question, she answered “Yes.”

“Are you aware that Mr. Elibiary’s foundation that has now been, had their charter pulled because they have failed to provide the information that the government requires to keep their 501(c)(3) status — are you aware that that was, before the 501 (c)(3) status was pulled, called the Freedom and Justice Foundation?” asked Gohmert.

“Representative, I am not going to get into a debate about some of this — ” Napolitano started.

“I am asking you if you know simple facts!” Gohmert replied. “I don’t want a debate, this is a question and answer.”

The Freedom and Justice Party is an Islamist political party in Egypt with ties to the radical Muslim Brotherhood. The party won 47.2 percent of all seats in Egypt’s lower house of parliament and praised the election of Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Mursi.

Napolitano absolutely refused to answer the question and was interrupted repeatedly by Gohmert because of her inability to give a straight answer.

“These kinds of insinuations demean the committee,” a frustrated Napolitano said. “The insinuation that I or my staff would allow someone who is a terrorist to infiltrate –”




so the moral of the story is that this administration does not have to provide answers to simple questions and even if the answer is "yes", you are wrong for asking the question because you are by default a hater and simply asking the questions relegates you to the status of 'demeaning insuator" this is great

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others.

The most open and shut case in the history of NY law makes him an expert? Are you kidding me?
A 12yo could have tried that trial and won.

Did you know that al-Qaeda hates the hell out of the Muslim Brotherhood for supporting democratic elections?

No, most likely not.
That would require you to go beyond posting op-eds that have zero relevance. And this kooks splooge on a scam site (if he's so important, why isn't he on fox et al?) made you all doe eyed huh?

[detbuch]

So far Scottw has calmly provided information from credible sources, and
likwid has spewed vulgarities (batsh*t, attention whore, slob site, splooge on a scam site) as retorts. And likwid claims Scott's information has no relevance to reality or is less relevant than crack dealers on Staten Island. I don't know what relevance (to anything) likwid's comments have. They seem to be spouts of anger which Paul S might take notice of and comment on. On the face of it, an objective observer would have to conclude that Scottw has the better of the argument, but, something else is going on here other than rational argument on likwid's part. So then an objective evaluation might not be relevant, at least not as relevant as a crack dealer on some island.

[scottw]

yeah, I'm not sure if that gets him put on the Zimmy, Pauls, Spence "ignore list" .......or if it gets him a lifetime membership in the Zimmy,PaulS, Spence private intellectual society....pretty funny either way

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

yeah, I'm not sure if that gets him put on the Zimmy, Pauls, Spence "ignore list" .......or if it gets him a lifetime membership in the Zimmy,PaulS, Spence private intellectual society....pretty funny either way

I would not put Spence in that group. I doubt if he has an ignore list. He genuinely seems to be interested in ideas, though I think he should widen his sources of information to get more of the balance he professes to desire. The really good thing about Spence is his willingness to debate ideas in a rational way. Sure, he has his moments of sarcasm (maybe more than I like, but that's just me), but for the most part he's not merely a flame thrower. I often am disappointed that he will suddenly drop out of a conversation when it seems, to me, that it is reaching a point of enlightenment. But, though he can be annoying (as I'm sure I am to him) in his persistently obstinate progressive views, I miss, lately, his absence in the recent threads. Sounds like he's too busy right now to mess with this stuff. That's a good thing, but not necessarily for the forum. Back and forth discussions with him can shed light and clarify issues and philosophies for those listening in.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I would not put Spence in that group. I doubt if he has an ignore list. He genuinely seems to be interested in ideas, though I think he should widen his sources of information to get more of the balance he professes to desire. The really good thing about Spence is his willingness to debate ideas in a rational way.

I agree and thought the same thing when including him but I think Zimmy very much wanted him involved in his "think tank"...I anticipated a "hey, don't lump me in with them" protest post from him....hopefully he's very busy trying to keep the dow near 13,000 so that his hero has something to run on

[Swimmer]

Hey if she was still with Turner and Overdrive I vote for her.

[PaulS]

The Repubs. have a long history of this. I bet she has West on her speed dial. Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion. As someone mentioned, McCarthyism as its best. Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. It prob. helped out the re-elect. bank acct.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. .

if you read the whole thread you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements

Republicans line up to rip Michele Bachmann - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com


"Senators in her own party, congressional candidates, a lawmaker in her state’s delegation and leaders of the House Republican Conference are all lambasting the Minnesota Republican for saying the wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Repubs. have a long history of this. I bet she has West on her speed dial. Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion. As someone mentioned, McCarthyism as its best. Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. It prob. helped out the re-elect. bank acct.

....

something tells me Paul that if Jim had made a generalized statement like this you'd have suggested that he is full of hate and out of line for suggesting that a party or certain people had a long history of anything in addition to the other suggestions.....we can make a list if you'd like, of insulting, offensive claims or things that were construed as offensive by members of congress from both sides and compare the reaction of their fellow congress people and it might paint a far different picture than what you've suggested. as for McCarthyism, while it's an easy word for some to remember and toss about(an endless supply of ism's) whenever it is convenient, it's little more than one of the many pejoratives that some keep close at hand and throw out in self satisfied fashion not understanding that they actually have little relevance .....but I guess it sounds good ...if you know anything about FDRism or Woodrow Wilsonism, Mccarthyism might seem tame in comparison

it seems awfully easy for some to simply dismiss anything that disagrees with their own world view and also deride others for behaviour that they find deplorable but yet justify their own similar behaviour as long as it was apparently prompted by others....it's an odd standard but one that we've come to expect

did you know that Mccarthy(ism) was more popular that Obamacare?

In January 1954, a Gallup poll found that 50% of the American public supported McCarthy, while 29% had an unfavorable opinion of the senator.

and it was a bi partisam effort


The overwhelming support provided by the liberals has attracted much attention from historians such as Mary McAuliffe (The Journal of American History). McAuliffe argues that, despite the liberals’ traditional role as the protectors of fundamental rights and civil liberties, the perceived gravity of the threat of Communism during the Cold War led some liberals to ignore the fact that the CCA suspended the citizenship rights of the Communist Party members. Most liberals did not even offer a token opposition to the Act; on the contrary, they ardently supported it.

The Communist Control Act of 1954 was passed with overwhelming support in both houses of Congress after very little debate. Jointly drafted by Republican John Marshall Butler and Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the law was an extension of the Internal Security Act of 1950, and sought to outlaw the Communist Party by declaring that the party, as well as "Communist-Infiltrated Organizations" were "not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities - commonly referred to as the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) - was the most prominent and active government committee involved in anti-Communist investigations. Formed in 1938 and known as the Dies Committee for Rep. Martin Dies(democrat)

The SISS was headed by Democrat Pat McCarran and gained a reputation for careful and extensive investigations. This committee spent a year investigating Owen Lattimore and other members of the Institute of Pacific Relations. As had been done numerous times before, the collection of scholars and diplomats associated with Lattimore (the so-called China Hands) were accused of "losing China," and while some evidence of pro-communist attitudes was found, there was nothing to support McCarran's accusation that Lattimore was "a conscious and articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy".

On June 1, 1950, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a Maine Republican, delivered a speech to the Senate she called a "Declaration of Conscience". In a clear attack upon McCarthyism, she called for an end to "character assassinations" and named "some of the basic principles of Americanism: The right to criticize; The right to hold unpopular beliefs; The right to protest; The right of independent thought". She said "freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America", and decried "cancerous tentacles of 'know nothing, suspect everything' attitudes".[80] Six other Republican Senators—Wayne Morse, Irving M. Ives, Charles W. Tobey, Edward John Thye, George Aiken, and Robert C. Hendrickson—joined Smith in condemning the tactics of McCarthyism.


there's an important lesson here with regard to the various legislation that was passed which empowered the government to have the expanded power to commit what some consider atrocities....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Repubs. have a long history of this. I bet she has West on her speed dial. Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion. As someone mentioned, McCarthyism as its best. Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. It prob. helped out the re-elect. bank acct.

"The Repubs. have a long history of this"

Wow. I mean, wow.

Paul, time and time again, you criticize me for taking the actions of one or two liberals, and blaming all liberals for that. Please tell me how that's any fifferent from what you've done here.

"Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. "

Then you need to stop getting all of your information from radical liberal sources. Hordes of Republicans have denounced her. And I'm proud of those Republicans, good for them.

When Democratic congressman Alan Grayson of Florida said that Republicans wanted sick people to die, how many Democrats spoke out against him?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The Repubs. have a long history of this"

Wow. I mean, wow. Wow Wow???What are you a little kid?

Paul, time and time again, you criticize me for taking the actions of one or two liberals, and blaming all liberals for that. Please tell me how that's any fifferent from what you've done here. Look at amount of times it has happened. We can go on and on. The word Socialist has lost its meaning with the amount of times it has been used in the last 4 years. When you have a huge % of people actually stupid enough to believe the Pres. of the United States wasn't born here, that must tell you something about the cons. - doesn't it? As if when Obama was in the Senate and on the Senate foreign relations committee, the FBI didn't check into his background. Do we need to do a list of times again when Rep./Dems made stupid aqusations about the other party? Remember when you wanted to compare the amount of prominant Rep/Dems politicians who called into talk shows and I showed Bush called in many times while actually in office to Limbaugh. Your list had minor politicians (and Carter 15 years after he was out of office

"Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. "

Then you need to stop getting all of your information from radical liberal sources. I don't visit radical sites - really none at all - just this one where I see the radical 3% (that is you by the way) CNN and the NYT (those prob. qualify in your mind. Hordes of Republicans have denounced her. And I'm proud of those Republicans, good for them. I only saw McCain on ABC (I guess to you that is a radical site). When ScottW said others did, I thanked him and said it was good when pol. on both sides call out crazy statements.

When Democratic congressman Alan Grayson of Florida said that Republicans wanted sick people to die, how many Democrats spoke out against him?

Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

[Jim in CT]

PaulS -

"Don't know ..."

Paul, the oceans could be filled with the many things you don't know...

"Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering?...where have all the compassionate cons. gone?"

Let's dissect this statement...

First you admit you don't have any facts...but that doesn't stop you from assuming there was one single incident where a crowd applauded that sick people should die. Then, you take that incident (which you probably invented) and you use it to assume that all conservatives feel the same way.

You have hit a breathtaking new low with this post. Breathtaking.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

PaulS -
First you admit you don't have any facts...but that doesn't stop you from assuming there was one single incident where a crowd applauded that sick people should die. Then, you take that incident (which you probably invented) and you use it to assume that all conservatives feel the same way.

He didn't invent it.
It was a conservative high point, like when the active service member who happens to be gay was booed for asking a question at a debate.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

PaulS -

"Don't know ..."

Paul, the oceans could be filled with the many things you don't know...

"Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering?...where have all the compassionate cons. gone?"

Let's dissect this statement...

First you admit you don't have any facts...but that doesn't stop you from assuming there was one single incident where a crowd applauded that sick people should die. Then, you take that incident (which you probably invented) and you use it to assume that all conservatives feel the same way.

You have hit a breathtaking new low with this post. Breathtaking.

Was the gist of the quote correct or not - It was correct so your full statement has no merit. So what was breathtaking? - I admitted that I wasn't sure where it was (was it a political stop, a debate, etc). The facts of where it was doesn't matter, the fact that it took place is what matters. It was a Ron Paul rally - so why don't you apologize since I was right and you were wrong (and I won't act like a little child and make a snide comment as you usually do).

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion.

Since the only one who has actually provided any account of what Bachmann did and an actual analysis of it was Scottw with the Andrew Mcarthy article, and since the thread otherwise teeters back and forth on the verge of, as JohnnyD said, pooh pooh, not a little driven there by your insertions, I'll wander into another unrelated thread diversion that you've led us. So, do you like the Constitution? Do you think it is being adhered to and followed faithfully? Do you believe that the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate everything through the Commerce Clause? Do you think the Constitution gives Congress unlimited power to tax? Do you think that various legislations that Congress has passed over the years and have been allowed to stand by SCOTUS as constitutional has given the Federal Government power, if not nearly total, well beyond that which the original Constitution intended and still clearly states? Do you understand that the SCOTUS decision that the HCB was a tax, and therefore constitutional, was such a decision and one that grants fedgov the power to tax beyond what was specifed in the Constitution, and, actually, says the government can tax anything and everybody at will with no limits? Do you believe that all members of the fedgov, including the present President and SCOTUS, have abided by there oath to support and defend the Constitution? Just curious, since you brought up the subject of hating the Constitution, what you think of all this?

[PaulS]

I believe that you have already said repeatedly that lib. hate the constitution.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I believe that you have already said repeatedly that lib. hate the constitution.

soooo...you should be able to provide an example....you don't even have to read it yourself...just post a link, to anything...like Bryan....lots'a stuff tossed about on this page without much to back it up and from the people that always demand...backup