crockett

And here we have it, the second most hateful Right Wingbat on GFY outside of 12clicks..

dyna mo

the truly dimwitted part of this is i'm the one providing factual information in this thread while you're adding "i facebooked a fuck you to michele bachmann" while accusing me of being drunk.

crockett

We are sorry, we must of over looked all these countless Michelle Bachmann topics due to the countless whines about Obama that you and your fellow team mates partake in.

2MuchMark

You son of a .... well, actually, ok, point taken.

HOWEVER, I would just like to say 2 things about why she commands (commanded? my attention).

#1. She really, honestly, truly is, a dope. My interest isn't in her so much, it is in how she ever even landed a job, let alone got elected to any kind of office.

#2. And it is possible that some of the things COULD affect my life. Bachmann in 2008 said "Carbon Dioxide is Harmless". What if too many people believed her, and green programs were delayed or scared? She also said that HPV Vaccine causes retardation. What if I had daughters who heard that and then refused to get this important vaccine? So true, she has no direct effect on my life and never will, but she still has dangerous influence, and that worries me a little.

Peace.

__________________

Custom Software | Server Management | Integration and Technology Solutions
https://www.2much.net

dyna mo

at least crockett isn't a hypocrite fuckwad, he's just wrong [most of the time].

directfiesta

a typo ???

explain how 2 letters ( A & E ) got a typo of one letter ( I ) pretty far on the keyboard ?

you can`t spell, that is all

2MuchMark

Please prove why I am a hypocrite.

What little old lady? What Internet Scam? Are you high?

Prove me wrong then. Don't just ramble - post some links.


Are you sure you're not talking about yourself? This really sounds like you my friend.

I never said you don't inform yourself.

I don't feel like I'm saving the planet, but I do enjoy the drive a lot more now.

I used to drive a V8 Camaro, and cry like a baby at all the dirty oil. So I sold the V8 and bought an EV. I'm not saving the planet, but at least I'm polluting it less (0 L / 100 KHM , *ahem*!). What is wrong with that exactly? And why are you right when people like Elon Musk are wrong?

So I get it. You are saying 2 cars are bad, 1 car is good. We had this argument already. I*Sold* my Camaro to someone. Had I not sold it, that person would have bought a new Camaro, making 3 Cars on the road. By selling my car I "recycled" it as it were, leaving only 2 cars. Furthermore since one is an EV, I'm now driving the same amount as I used to but not burning fossil fuel to get where I need to go, and not wasting money either.

(By the way: I would have spent $1866.00 in dirty polluting Gas for the amount I have travelled since June 2014, but instead I spent only $137.41 buying pretty darn clean electricity. So, sorry Dynamo, you are way way off. Stop being such a sour puss and open your mind to other possibilities, especially the possibility that you are wrong sometimes. Yes this is GFY and you can tell people to go fuck themselves but I've learned that its not the best thing to do, especially on a forum with people you do business with sometimes).

Happy Easter.

__________________

Custom Software | Server Management | Integration and Technology Solutions
https://www.2much.net

EonBlue

Agreed.

1. There are tons of people who really, truly are dopes. There are not enough hours in the day for someone to track the stupid things even a fraction of them say.

2. Carbon dioxide, blah, blah, blah. I get the feeling from you that even if it is proven to be harmless someday you won't believe it because that would mean agreeing with this woman that you hate so much. I do have daughters and if they heard her say that HPV Vaccine causes retardation I would point them in the direction of some proper information that states otherwise.

She really has no more influence than any of the millions of people that are on the internet posting false, misleading and/or utterly ridiculous information. I want to teach my daughters to think critically so they can see through this stuff themselves.


.

EonBlue

Well, definitely a fuckwad. Crock-o-shit.


.

crockett

Yes, because anyone whom has a different opinion from yours, is obviously wrong..

EonBlue

What about this guy:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-joh...arine-buildup/

See how easy that is?

Now what if some poor sap reading that had plans to vacation in Guam but now thinks he must cancel because of what that dope said?


.

dyna mo

This is why I specified you are mostly wrong. Because sometimes you get it right. Like just now! I can't deny the fact that I win debates here.

dyna mo

********** is such a dimwitted fuckwad he's already forgotten about the little old lady he mocked, and started a thread about so other could mock her also

https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...harleston.html

uno

This thread title sounds like an AWESOME name for a comedy tour.

__________________
-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!

MediaGuy

Why? If you had an opinion of our President Harper or any of the members of his cabinet, I'd be interested in the "outside perspective".

Actually, US politics might start interesting us less. Where ours used to be basic, boring and regular exercises in democracy, they're beginning to get really interesting what with our own Patriot Act, corruption, backtracking and torture involvement becoming exposed - and all with an election coming up next year!

This wasn't really about Iran getting nukes, and neither is the framework agreement they've ironed out. It's about Bachmann using a wholly inappropriate and sad event overseas as her analogy for yet another anti-Obama talking point, using the fear of a mushroom cloud despite the fact Iran signed the Nuclear non-proliferation pact and the US did not, btw.

But the deal doesn't give Iran nukes. And it's not "his" deal. There are five countries plus Iran involved in the negotiation.

:D

__________________

YOU Are Industry News!
Press Releases: pr[at]payoutmag.com
Facebook: Payout Magazine! Facebook: MIKEB!
ICQ: 248843947
Skype: Mediaguy1

dyna mo

you are completely misinformed/uninformed. you don't get that nukes is the term for nuclear technology. you are not aware the deal is exactly about iran keeping their nuclear manufacturing capability intact and moving forward to become a nuclear nation. you're the one who stated that this thread is about the dr strangelove like comment she made.

you're the one that doesn't get that this is entirely BO's deal, the dealmakers are in fact john kerry and zarif, with kerry reporting hourly to BO and the other 5 countries going along with BO.

but what's worse is you don't get at all that the problem here is letting iran have nukes AT ALL. instead of them spending 10s of billions of dollars on nuke manufacturing and ballistic missiles why haven't they sunk that money in solar farms? do you really think the 1 nuke power plant they are capable of building trumps the power they could generate from acres and acres of solar farms in the sprawling wasteland of a desert?

but in the hysteria to point fingers at bachmann, common sense gets lost and BO's giving iran the OK to become a nuclear nation is a grandstanding moment.

inform yourself before pointing fingers.

dyna mo

here's a framework:

hey iran, torch every single fucking 1 of your nuke facilities and give up your 1000s of pounds of enriched cake and start building solar farms or we don't lift the sanctions. deal or no fucking deal. end of negotiations.

kane

Perhaps their plan is to show the world that they can responsibly handle nuclear energy so they might be able to build more power plants in the future.

To me the options are simple:

1. Deny them nuclear energy at all costs which will likely further radicalize the nation and cause more instability not to mention they may still then go ahead with their nuclear program just to spite us.

or

2. We try to find a common ground to deal with them allow them nuclear energy and keep an eye on what they are doing to make certain they are not making nuclear bombs.

Either option comes with risks. The question is which is the one the has the higher potential upside.

dyna mo

the only cost/risk in denying them nuke manufacturing is in keeping sanctions in place.

the question we all have to ask is why is nuke manufacturing so important to Iran? they have vasts stretches of deserted desert to build incredible solar farms that would easily out rival a nuclear plant or 2. there is absolutely zero justification for them to have any nuclear technology at all. more nuke is worse not better.

and that's excluding their history up until the very very recent of having a nuclear warhead military goal.

we have them in a negotiating corner, they wouldn't even be at the table if the sanctions were not working. the deal could easily be destroy your entire nuke operation and go solar or we don't lift the sanctions.

Robbie

Bachman is a nut case. That much is a given.

As for Iran...I am constantly scratching my head that some of you think we are "giving" them anything. Or that WE are the ones "conceding" ANYTHING in these talks.

The only ones who are giving in are the Iranians. They don't have to do a damn thing we tell them too. They are a sovereign nation.

I try to picture what our govt. would say if another govt. tried to tell US what we could and couldn't do.

Remember, Iran is a sovereign nation. We don't have any rights at all to boss them around. But we still try to do so.

And everything that is in that agreement is THEM giving in to us. Not the other way around.
Just sayin'...

And Michelle Bachman is indeed right up there with the craziest people we've ever had in our federal govt. But she's definitely not alone.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

dyna mo

and here's the other important question-

why is it so important to BO to allow them the ability to manufacture nuclear materials?

dyna mo

because this isn't 1 nation exerting control over another. USA is a declared enemy of iran, they hold state-sponsored death to america rallies routinely, they sponsor anti-american terrorism.

they are building a ballistic missile program designed around nuclear payloads. they have built a hardened missile-proof bunker loaded with centrifuges. they have lied to the international atomic energy commission on their goals aspirations and accomplishments with nukes, they have denied inspections and misled inspectors, etc, et al, on& on and more.

again, if energy is so important to them, why haven't they built massive solar farms that would trump the energy output of a nuclear power plant?

dyna mo

Over the past few years, Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism has increased dramatically to levels not seen since the late 1980s and early 1990s. Some of this is terrorism carried out by the regime's own operatives from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force, and some by the regime's closest militant ally, Hezbollah. Events in Syria today have further cemented this partnership, with dire consequences for regional and international security.

Even under the regime of President Rouhani, and even as Tehran engages in the P5+1 talks over its nuclear program, Iran continues to engage in these types of activities itself and sponsors the efforts of its partners.

Iran's Support for Terrorism Worldwide - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

kane

He likely doesn't give a shit about them making nuclear material. He wants to be known as the president who put an end to their nuclear weapon program and brought them to the table in reasonable negotiations with the West.

Instead of the West (read United State) telling them what to do, we are going to allow them to determine their own course so long as they don't make nuclear weapons.

If we tell them to tear down the nuclear power and just use solar, they could simply say, "You go fully solar first."

directfiesta

I am ... surprised ....

It is re-assuring to see someone able to analyse the '' deal '' instead of just trashing it with talking points, such as Dyna Mo .

directfiesta

Does Israel have inspections ....


oups, forgot, they have not signed the treaty , unlike Iran

dyna mo

i've done nothing but support my comments and questions on the nuke deal with facts and figures and real data.

you on the other point fingers at people like me because i have a big enough nutsack to understand an issue and make an educated opinion on it based on facts, then articulate that cohesive thought well-beyond your comprehension.

Robbie

What I'm saying is...who made the United States into "God" with the power to tell any other nation what they can and can't do?

If we go with the line of thinking that you laid out (and that our own govt. seems to believe and the media is pumping us with)...then shouldn't Iran be demanding that we "de-nuke" as well?

If you step back and look at it for a second you have two countries.
One is the ONLY country to ever use nuclear weapons on another country. The other is run by religious radicals that we don't like (and that don't like us).

Looks like a case of two "bad guys" to me.

But I digress. My point is that the U.S. has no authority over another sovereign nation.
And our insistence on being the world's "policeman" has already caused us a lot of problems over the last few decades.

9-11, the Patriot Act, wars...all because we insist on putting our nose in everyone else's business worldwide.

It's bad enough the govt. tries to run all of our lives right here in the U.S.

Ironically, this is NOT what the founding fathers ever had in mind for our country.

Not many people realize this...but ironically (with our govt. spying on us, running our lives, and invading other countries without being attacked), the first coin ever minted by the U.S. Govt. didn't say "In God We Trust"
It said "MIND YOUR BUSINESS"



I wish our govt. was still like that instead of the power hungry bunch of crooks we have now.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

dyna mo

oh, i get it. no need to struggle with trying to be clever. you think it's OK for iran to have nuke manufacturing on account of israel doesn't have inspections.


and that makes sense to you. more nukes [in the hands of radical anti-americans] is better than being a hypocrite (in your eyes).

i'm not surprised.

directfiesta

serious link ....

nice link, DynaMo ....

dyna mo

so you think the time for USA to step down from being the leader of the western world is right now and we should do that by allowing iran nukes?

dyna mo

actually, the joke is on you. prove that iran isn't sponsoring terrorism.

it's well-documented, regardless what you think of that author.

i have time invested in this topic, unlike yourself, who's scrambling to just try and troll me instead of actually participating in the debate.

do your research on iran sponsored terrorism like i have, do your research on iran's ballistic missile program like i have, do your research on the framework agreement like i have, do your research on the hidden nuclear bunker iran built.

like i have.

then you're welcome to enter into this debate.

dyna mo

again, joke is on you.

:::::::::


Matthew Levitt is an American expert on Islamist terrorism. Levitt is a senior fellow and director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and professorial lecturer in International Relations and Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

From 2005 to early 2007 he was a deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In that capacity, he served both as a senior official within the department's terrorism and financial intelligence branch and as deputy chief of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. From 2001 to 2005, Dr. Levitt served the Institute as founding director of its Terrorism Research Program, which was established in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Previously, he provided tactical and strategic analytical support for counterterrorism operations at the FBI, focusing on fundraising and logistical support networks for Middle Eastern terrorist groups. During his FBI service, Dr. Levitt participated as a team member in a number of crisis situations, including the terrorist threat surrounding the turn of the millennium and the September 11 attacks.[1]

Dr. Levitt has also lectured on international terrorism on behalf of the Departments of State, Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security, consulted for various U.S. government agencies and private industry, and testified before the Senate and House on matters relating to international terrorism. He is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the international advisory board for both the Institute for Counter-terrorism in Israel and the International Centre for Political Violence & Terrorism Research in Singapore, and a CTC fellow with the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the U.S. Military Academy (West Point).

He received his B.A. from Yeshiva University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He was a graduate research fellow at Harvard Law School's Program on Negotiation, and has taught at Johns Hopkins University. He attended high school at the Maimonides School.

Levitt is a frequent media commentator on terrorism,[2] and has given testimony at the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.[3]

Published works[edit]
Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God (Georgetown University Press) September 2013[4]
Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad (Yale University Press) April 2006[5]
Targeting Terror: U.S. Policy toward Middle Eastern State Sponsors and Terrorist Organizations, Post-September 11, 2002[6]
Negotiating Under Fire: Preserving Peace Talks in the Face of Terror Attacks (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008)[5]
?Hezbollah Finances: Funding the Party of God,? in Terrorism Financing and State Responses: a Comparative Perspective (Stanford University Press, 2007)
?Hamas Social Welfare: In the Service of Terror,? in The Making of a Terrorist: Recruitment, Training, and Root Causes (New York: Praeger Publishers, 2005)
?The Impact of Acute Security Crises on the Process of Ongoing Negotiations: Lessons from the Palestinian-Israeli Peace Process, 1993-1996? (Ph.D. dissertation, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 2005).

bronco67

A nuclear weapon delivery system means nothing if you can't enrich uranium to 98%. The tentative deal ensures that won't happen.

__________________

dyna mo

how does it ensure that? according to iran's spin, nothing is ensured-
Iran’s Persian statement on ‘deal’ contradicts Obama’s claims | New York Post

why isn't a nuclear weapon delivery system part of an agreement to 10000 % ENSURE iran doesn't act out and go nuclear militarily? it's not even in the framework. the entire point of the agreement is to stop it all before it starts, wouldn't you include the delivery system in that?

what about the other questions, why does iran want nuck so desperately anyway? why should we concede any ability to them? what's wrong with their aggressively pursuing solar instead of spending 10s of billions enriching shit and building ballistic missiles?

dyna mo

i'll repost the democrat, menendez' press release on Fordow, the top-secret fortified bunker iran built in a mountain and didn't tell anyone about, it was just discovered in 2009

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator Robert Menendez, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued the following statement regarding an Associated Press report that Iran will be allowed to operate centrifuges at Fordow as part of a potential nuclear agreement.

“If today’s news report from Lausanne is true, we are not inching closer to Iran’s negotiating position, but leaping toward it with both feet. We have pivoted away from demanding the closure of Fordow when the negotiations began, to considering its conversion into a research facility, to now allowing hundreds of centrifuges to spin at this underground bunker site where centrifuges could be quickly repurposed for illicit nuclear enrichment purposes. My fear is that we are no longer guided by the principle that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal,’ but instead we are negotiating ‘any deal for a deal’s sake’.

“An undue amount of trust and faith is being placed in a negotiating partner that has spent decades deceiving the international community; denying the International Atomic Energy Agency access to its facilities; refusing to answer questions about its nuclear-related military activities; and all the while, actively destabilizing the region from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq to Yemen. A good deal must meet our primary negotiating objective – curtailing Iran’s current and future ability to achieve nuclear weapons capability. If the best deal Iran will give us does not achieve this goal, it is not a good deal for the United States or its partners. A good deal won’t leave Iran as a nuclear threshold state.”




that's an informed Democrat's view, he's the ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee.

MediaGuy

In the traditional cold-war vernacular, "nukes" was a reference to ICBM-borne nuclear weapons, and not non-weaponized nuclear power generation.

These negotiations are about preventing from Iran developing nuclear weapons (nukes) which they have persistently denied, and, according to the IAEA, were truthful.

The situation reminds me of the WMD weapons inspectors back in the pre-shock&awe invasion of Iraq, where inspectors were saying there weren't any WMDs and so were pulled by the US so Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld could keep making their fear-claims.

I was using Dr. Strangelove as a comparison to Bachmann's bullshit assessment of post-nuclear holocaust vindicating her and her warhawk brethren's insistence on ditching diplomacy and blacking out Iran (which would then drive them "underground" and assure war and military nuclear development).

There are many nations that have (peaceful) nuclear power. I don't agree with it, but there you have it. The whole point of the framework agreement/negotiations is to ensure Irans nuclear development remains peaceful.

This is a supposition. The representatives of the other countries presumeably are reporting back to their heads of state in the same way. There is no reason to believe that "BO" is lording it over the negotiation.

Why haven't we? Why aren't we forcing everyone to "go green"?

Why do you think? Then the super powers and their allies would have to act as... examples? Swap to renewables, shut down nuclear, shut off oil...? Yeah, right.

The US (and friends) recognize nuclear as legit. They want to make sure Iran sticks to "peaceful" nuclear.

Iran ain't quite a wasteland but regardless. This is pointless "discussion" - the negotiations are over the nature of Iran's Nuclear - that's it. Don't talk about solar or wind or ocean current power generation. It's not what that is about.

Again, Iran becoming a nuclear-power-generating nation (since they already are BTW) is OK in the eyes of the Big Five. It is not hysteria to point at Bachmann's hysterical depiction of nuclear holocaust in the homeland and comparison to the suicide commercial jetliner pilot as being the same thing, and saying that BO is like the killer.

So you're saying you agree with Bachmann's analogy in the statement I quoted?

They only have one that I know of the rest are in development. Ever heard of Pakistan? There are two dozen countries in the world with nuclear energy, and most are more stable than Pakistan or Slovenia - including Iran, btw.

The Furdow (?) plant was built because Netanyahu's Israel has had his finger on the trigger against Iran from the start. There is a lot of anti-Iran propaganda in our media that has to be researched and peeled back to be understood. They haven't outright lied, but they have rejected inspection at points because it seems they felt there was no point - no matter what the IAEA found or reported back, the media and hostile governments made WMD/Iraq/Sadam type claims.

But Regardless, Bachmann said a stupid thing. And you haven't said anything about the stupid thing she said. What say you on the stupid thing Bachmann said?

:D

__________________

YOU Are Industry News!
Press Releases: pr[at]payoutmag.com
Facebook: Payout Magazine! Facebook: MIKEB!
ICQ: 248843947
Skype: Mediaguy1

dyna mo

i'm using solar to perfectly illustrate the disingenous iran position, don't be daft and try to imply i'm claiming solar is a part of the framework, instead realize it is a completely valid example.

i've also already commented on bachmann's analogy.

next, here's your post

again, you made reference to the whole quote. i bolded, italicized, underlined and increased the font size of the specific part i replied and i commented on asking you to prove wrong the prediction that this won't lead to a nuclear strike from the ME.


so don't be even more daft exclaiming i didn't and haven't been on topic here (and more importantly, on point).

you're fucking welcome.

MediaGuy

Sorry, I scrolled back and saw nothing directly pertinent.

I can't prove or disprove a "prediction".

Iran's missile capability I believe according to analysts is 1000 km. Beyond this, the fact the agreement will remove and pre-empt their (disavowed) ability to create deadly nuclear missile weaponry, regardless of their ballistic technology, means a prediction is hardly more than a baseless fear.

You would need to prove the contrary, no?

Fucking thank you

We've (the whole thread) drifted from my point regarding Bachmann's lunacy due to MY unfortunate analogy to Dr. Strangelove, but still it is interesting.

Now, since I can't prove a prediction wrong, I must believe it is most disproportionate and unlikely. Especially since the framework agreement stipulates the IAEA can traipse down and through and around Iranian facilities, and centrifuges have been extremely limited AND restrained to the older type (except Fordow).

Since the US is strictly out of range, and even if the Iranians might be able to carry nuclear payloads, they have fatwawed and vowed and sign non-proliferation regarding nuclear weapons... well, every aspect just begs negation of such a prediction as nuclear annihilation of any body else.

Besides, the instant Iran would launch a single ICBM, they would be erased from the world by the massively potent US, Israeli, Pakistani, and more nuclear powers. WHO CARES if they get a nuke? They would be afraid to use it; as in past cold-war ideology, it would be a deterrent/defensive measure. As they all are, unless they desire planet-wide destruction.

And Michelle Bachmann is mad, btw.

:D

__________________

YOU Are Industry News!
Press Releases: pr[at]payoutmag.com
Facebook: Payout Magazine! Facebook: MIKEB!
ICQ: 248843947
Skype: Mediaguy1

L-Pink

I've already lived longer than I ever thought I would, and have no children. When the big fuck-up comes, and at this rate it will, it will just make the bonus part of my life more interesting.

You younger guys and those with children will live to regret Muslim nations with nuclear capabilities. Don't kid yourselves ........


(and yea, I know about Pakistan)

.

bronco67

It's always funny to see the usual suspects jump up to the defense of the indefensible.

If you don't know Michelle Bachman is an idiot by listening to her speak for more than a few seconds, then so are you.

__________________

SuckOnThis

This is like watching Manson debate which is the best Beatles song.

Robbie

I agree that nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy people willing to use them (such as the United States did in WW2 don't forget) is a bad scenario.

I DON'T agree that the United States has any power to order other countries around and try to make up "rules" for them to follow (especially since we won't follow them ourselves).

To me, the only real answer to the nuclear problem (and face it...you just can't keep assassinating scientists in other countries, you can't kill science and how to make a bomb) is to do this:
Have the President Of The United States make a declaration that is ratified by Congress that declares that if ANY country tries to join the nuclear weapons club in the future...it will be considered an act of war and the United States will immediately go to war with them.

At least that can be legitimized.

Not this vague bullshit of "do what we order you to do" that is going on now.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

sandman!

__________________
Need WebHosting ? Email me for some great deals [email protected]

baddog

I guess that is where we differ; but does anyone care about Canadian politics outside of GFY?

Captain Kawaii

You beat me to it... Board of Advisors - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

The advisory board is a who's who of war criminals and friends.

I guess hasbara project now pays for gfy posts too.

dyna mo

who's defending bachmann in here? the usual suspects, which ones are they?

i haven't spent 1 single fucking second listening to her since she was the vp nom, only a fucking idiot would do that.

so fill us all in. who the fuck are you talking about? because it certainly isn't me, i've voiced concern over a nuclear deal and supported those concerns with real data.

dyna mo

again, iran sponsored terrorism is well-documented, i know you spend your life drunk most the time so most things fly right by you, but i'll ask anyway, fill us all in then, who the fuck on this list of advisors is a war criminal?

Gen. John R. Allen
United States Marine Corps (ret.)

Howard Berman
Member of Congress, 1983-2013

Birch Evans Bayh III
United States Senator, 1999-2011

Eliot Cohen
Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies

Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State, 1973-1977

Joseph Lieberman
United States Senator, 1989-2013

Edward Luttwak
Center for Strategic and International Studies

Michael Mandelbaum
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

Robert McFarlane
National Security Advisor, 1983-1985

Martin Peretz
Journalist and Publisher

Richard Perle
Assistant Secretary of Defense, 1981-1987

Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State, 2005-2009

James G. Roche
Secretary of the Air Force, 2001-2005

George P. Shultz
Secretary of State, 1982-1989

R. James Woolsey
Director of Central Intelligence, 1993-1995

Mortimer Zuckerman
Publisher, U.S. News and World Report

crockett

You are looked at as defending her because you do everything possible to avoid the subject of having to say she is a crazy fucking nut.

It's the same as Muslims whom don't condemn other Muslims whom commit terrorist actions. While they might not support it, they end up supporting it by not condemning the actions of those whom do.

While it's not the same seriousness, it is the same concept. The Right Wing has this "team" issue that allows morons like Michelle Bachmann to breed with in your ranks like wildfire.

Her remarks are clearly ridiculous but she is pandering to her narrow minded base. Meanwhile people like you and our other GFY Republicans may not agree with her, but you don't say anything about it. You just brush it off as if it means nothing.

This same brushing it off happens all the way up the line with-in the Republican party which empowers the lunatics to run amok. By saying nothing you are doing just as much wrong as those whom support her actions, because if people in her own party took a stand to ridiculous things like this being said, things like this would stop being said.

Much like if Muslims started standing up to the hate speech of their fringe elements, the fringe elements would start to die off..

dyna mo

i get it, you don't give a shit:

keep your head in the tar sands but keep your hand free so you can still point your finger at people.