Halperin Calls President Obama a D*CK!

reply to post by Indigo5


The topic, actually, is Mark Halperin calling the President a d*ck. I gave an example of why that may be. Or do you not know what the topic is? This isn't about the right or the left and taxes but about why he called him that. Don't forget that Halperin is a left-leaning political analyst. So, your assertion that this has to do with Republicans is puzzling.

This is Obamanable . . .why did he lead the HEAD out? D*ck Head is the proper word, this guy Halpern is a stiff geek dude.

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


I LIKED what Obama did yesterday. He's been too much of a wimp and now he's standing up for what he wants and what he was elected to do. He's fighting for it. I LIKE it!

Why didn't he go after the Democrat controlled Congress last year when they refused to submit a budget?

Easy to take a stand against the opposition, especially when you won't take on your own.

And why don't all of obama's comments justifying the U.S. role in Libya also apply to Syria and all the other genocidal muslim governments?

Just asking ...

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
reply to post by Indigo5

 

The topic, actually, is Mark Halperin calling the President a d*ck. I gave an example of why that may be.

Okay...then why was your post directed to/quoting my post asking for an explanation of the puppet/tptb/nwo claim?

post by PhantomLimb

There are plenty of conservatives who have called Palin and idiot and there are plenty of liberals who have called Obama a D.

Get over it....ARGUING OVER NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by centurion1211

And why don't all of obama's comments justifying the U.S. role in Libya also apply to Syria and all the other genocidal muslim governments?

Just asking ...

If the question is honest and not rhetorical...

Syria differs radically from other mid-east uprisings in that it is a "semi-popular" uprising backed by a clear Jihadist movement.

The people of Syria do not like the Assad dictatorship, but they are more scared of the Jihadists taking control.

Simply lumping the revolution of Syria in with Libya, Tunsenia, Egypt etc. doesn't work.

Earlier, at the end of March, Qatar-based Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi, a fan of Nazi anti-Semitism who has said that Hitler was "Allah's divine punishment for the Jews", incited Sunnis in Syria on an Al Jazeera broadcast sermon to revolt against the Assad regime, and said that Assad was "a prisoner of his own religion." Giving the Syrian unrest a religious identity, it was not much of a surprise when, on April 1, Qaradawi further described demonstrators in Syria as "Jihadists."

mideast.foreignpolicy.com...

reply to post by mishigas


They shouldnt have suspended him, those other two morons told him he was on delay.

What a world.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by centurion1211

And why don't all of obama's comments justifying the U.S. role in Libya also apply to Syria and all the other genocidal muslim governments?

Just asking ...

If the question is honest and not rhetorical...

The question is honest.

I listened to the press conference and plainly heard obama justify U.S. involvement in Libya based on the government there murdering its own people. He said nothing about what you mentioned. So, using obama's own words, I stand by my question because CLEARLY the government of Syria (and others) are murdering their own people.

Originally posted by David9176
There are plenty of conservatives who have called Palin and idiot and there are plenty of liberals who have called Obama a D.

Get over it....ARGUING OVER NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not many of the former.

And not enough of the latter ...

reply to post by Indigo5

What if instead Halperin was speaking about Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann? and referred to her with the appropriate anatomy?

Would the right-wingers be laughing? Would Palin or Bachmann's campaign managers be as forgiving?

Hmmm...

Don't know about the right-wingers, but I do know that this thread would have been on p 30 by now with left-wingers agreeing with Halperin.

reply to post by mishigas


Im a "liberal" (but not a democrat) and I agree with Halperin. Benevolent Heretic is an Obama fan, and she is saying that what happened to Halperin isnt right, and she even agreed Obama was a, male genital appendage, although she did justify it.

Not all "liberals" are supporters of Obama, and even some that are are not completely unfair. Sometimes it would be nice if every political thread didnt end in stupid and untrue generalizations about people who disagree with your view.

Originally posted by mishigas
Don't know about the right-wingers, but I do know that this thread would have been on p 30 by now with left-wingers agreeing with Halperin.

If frogs had tails and horse could fly,
If...

Obama was kind of being a dick and probably because he should be. You seem pretty upset about it though. You need a hug?

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

reply to post by mishigas
Im a "liberal" (but not a democrat) and I agree with Halperin. Benevolent Heretic is an Obama fan, and she is saying that what happened to Halperin isnt right, and she even agreed Obama was a, male genital appendage, although she did justify it.

Not all "liberals" are supporters of Obama, and even some that are are not completely unfair. Sometimes it would be nice if every political thread didnt end in stupid and untrue generalizations about people who disagree with your view.

So, let's see...
Liberals == left-wingers, according to you. Just wanted to get that straight, cuz there has been some discussion here around terminology. All libs are lefties, and some libs are not Dems. And not all liberals support Obama. But I'll bet you want to be called a...what? Indy? Liberal libertarian?

Why all that? Because I never mentioned "liberals" in my post.

BH could no more criticize Obama than you could sprout wings and fly. She agreed Obama was a d*ck and then said "And that's a good thing!".

Oh, the madness!!

reply to post by mishigas


My point is, why do you have to bring stupid partisan generalizations into the thread when they really add nothing? And, technically, are off topic?

I know its too much to ask, but holy flock it would be nice to just have a political topic be political without all the low brow, "right winger left winger" generalizations.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I didn't bring it into the discussion. But your partisanship blinds you to that fact.

I was responding to Indigo5. He's the one that brought up -wingers. Go complain to him. But wait..he's a lib, so that won't happen.

reply to post by mishigas


Whatever, I couldnt be less partisan. And no where am I singling you out because you are conservative. Im singling you out because it was YOUR partisan complaining about how "left wingers" would be on the 30th page by now.

I would be doing the same if a "left winger" was making stupid generalizations in the thread that really had no real bearing on the OP at all, but were just "zings" based on partisanship. Its just so tiresome. I could care less what party you stump for. There are "left wing Obama supporters" I wont even respond to at all, not even to scold, because their blind partisanship and hypocrisy makes my head hurt so much its not even worth it. So please dont pretend Im on "their" side somehow.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by mishigas

 

Sometimes it would be nice if every political thread didnt end in stupid and untrue generalizations about people who disagree with your view.

This is exactly what I was going to say. This could have been a good thread. I know it's in Political Madness, but there was a chance to talk about what happened and what we thought of the comment and the truth of the comment, but no. People have to start slinging political bait and making assumptions and hurling insults "right" and "left".

Truth be told, there are a couple people in this thread who do this to nearly every thread in which they post. People take the bait and before you know it, we're talking about Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin in a thread that has NOTHING to do with them.

I, an admitted Obama fan, said Halperin shouldn't have been fired because he was speaking his mind in a safe environment (he thought). I also said I agreed with him. Obama was harsh, sly and confronted Republicans in an embarrassing way. And yes, I'm glad he did.

That's my position on THIS issue.

If everything was REALLY as polarized as some of you seem to want it to be, as an admitted Obama supporter, I should have called for Halperin to be hanged in the town square for his racist comments... But that's not at ALL what I think of the situation. (And the only people who are making this about race are the Obama critics)

Originally posted by mishigas
BH could no more criticize Obama than you could sprout wings and fly.

That's absolutely not true. I could show you 50 times I've criticized Obama here. I do support him, but that doesn't mean I agree with him on everything. And there are many things I disagree with him on. I know Republicans and Democrats like to stick with their own kind, but I don't have a kind. Political parties are like religions. I don't want anything to do with ANY of them.

You can make comments like the one above all you want. But if they're not true, you just lose credibility.

.

but Obama IS a D*CK...just no balls...

reply to post by Indigo5


That would be because you were trying to take the thread off topic. I apologize that in my haste I wasn't specific enough in my post.

reply to post by here4awhile


I tend to agree. The GOP are bullying him, and the best he can do is compare them to kids who wont do their homework on time?

Cmon. If you are going to be a male genital appendage, then at least grow some testicles and do it right.