Krauthammer's off his meds again. What a load of tainted horsesh*t.

...Then, just in case Obama failed to get the message, Iran's parliament speaker rose in Munich to offer his response to Obama's olive branch. Executive summary: Thank you very much. After you acknowledge 60 years of crimes against us, change not just your tone but your policies, and abandon the Zionist criminal entity, we might deign to talk to you...

Oh get over it. You're acting as though Westerners dispatched with your democratically elected government or something. Jeez, who lit a fuse on your tampon? Farking crybabies. You LOST! Get over it!

Stay Cool Babylon: ...Then, just in case Obama failed to get the message, Iran's parliament speaker rose in Munich to offer his response to Obama's olive branch. Executive summary: Thank you very much. After you acknowledge 60 years of crimes against us, change not just your tone but your policies, and abandon the Zionist criminal entity, we might deign to talk to you...

Oh get over it. You're acting as though Westerners dispatched with your democratically elected government or something. Jeez, who lit a fuse on your tampon? Farking crybabies. You LOST! Get over it!

Yeah, I don't think the current round of islamo-thugs give a damn about free and fair elections. Apologizing to the Ayatollah for the coup makes not farking sense.

god dammit tricked into clicking a Krauthammer link.

...and they say the PITA works....

depmode98: god dammit tricked into clicking a Krauthammer link.

It's like a Rickroll, except instead of 80s dorkpop it's an assault on rationality and sanity.

Obama wants to maintain peace at home and let the rest of the world do their own thing. If we butt out of their affairs, they'll stop terrorizing us. Peace through congeniality.

depmode98: god dammit tricked into clicking a Krauthammer link.

I must now kick seven puppies in reparation.

bimalc: Yeah, I don't think the current round of islamo-thugs give a damn about free and fair elections. Apologizing to the Ayatollah for the coup makes not farking sense.

I think the point here is that Obama's grab-ass tone of the past month is merely a symbolic end to the Bush years, but nothing to hang a hat on. "Grinning Goliath" or not, Obama can not erase some very deep-seated friction. And though it was Kraut paraphrasing the Iranians, the basic gist is true. It's not an apology they want...it's an acquiescence to their demands. The rub on Obama, according to Kraut, is that he's somehow not getting this.

-----------
"But when the State Department says that Hugo Chávez's president-for-life referendum, which was preceded by a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition, was "for the most part . . . a process that was fully consistent with democratic process," you have to wonder if Month One is not a harbinger of things to come."

I have a hard time taking seriously any critique in which missile shield arguments are given equal weight to outrage over the un-invitation of the U.S. women's badminton team. Krauthammer can go play with his shuttlecock.

thamike: Krauthammer

Ugh. Not clicking the link.

Krauthammer, Kristol, Rove, Cheney, et al. need to shut the fark up and fade into obscurity before people start thinking about holding them accountable for their warmongering.

depmode98: god dammit tricked into clicking a Krauthammer link.

I thought the samething, there really needs to be a warning of some kind.

Stay Cool Babylon: "But when the State Department says that Hugo Chávez's president-for-life referendum, which was preceded by a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition, was "for the most part . . . a process that was fully consistent with democratic process," you have to wonder if Month One is not a harbinger of things to come."

The problem is they believe this is a democracy, it isn't so it won't work. We're a Republic where Rule of Law prevails. The minute they cross the Constitution on some notion of "populist mandate", they have a very serious problem.

To the Republic!!!!

I think Krauthammer and Finklestein need their own tags.

ODDwhun: there really needs to be a warning of some kind.

I usually take this as my warning, and don't click:

I, for one, am shocked that Charles Krauthammer doesn't seem to think Obama's been doing a good job. Shocked! Next you'll tell me William Kristol shares those views or that Ann Coulter disagrees with Obama's domestic agenda.

Fark you for tricking me into clicking a Krauthammer link, subby.

GaryPDX: The problem is they believe this is a democracy, it isn't so it won't work. We're a Republic where Rule of Law prevails. The minute they cross the Constitution on some notion of "populist mandate", they have a very serious problem.

Yeah, we've had a lot of those administrations with a strict interpretation of the constitution lately...

These Pakistani capitulations may account for Obama's hastily announced 17,000-troop increase in Afghanistan even before his various heralded reviews of the mission have been completed. Hasty, unexplained, but at least something. Other than that, a month of pummeling has been met with utter passivity.

I would like to think the supine posture is attributable to a rookie leader otherwise preoccupied (i.e., domestically), leading a foreign policy team as yet unorganized if not disoriented. But when the State Department says that Hugo Chávez's president-for-life referendum, which was preceded by a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition, was "for the most part . . . a process that was fully consistent with democratic process," you have to wonder if Month One is not a harbinger of things to come.




Jeeez what is O doing !?

rohar: GaryPDX: The problem is they believe this is a democracy, it isn't so it won't work. We're a Republic where Rule of Law prevails. The minute they cross the Constitution on some notion of "populist mandate", they have a very serious problem.

Yeah, we've had a lot of those administrations with a strict interpretation of the constitution lately...

Indeed..The People, those free thinking Free Americans, are getting pretty pissed about that.

I wonder why this assclown wasn't crying when Putin repeatedly made Bush look like a fool.

Watching him verbally biatchslap Condi was an embarrassment.

Asshammer has nothing to contribute but sniping.

Kraut is hardly the worst of the 'opposing' POV. I don't mind his links. It's the links to the Malkins of the world, directly to her personal site, that make my balls flake. I'm pretty sure that Kraut doesn't directly benefit from a Washington Post hit the way Malkin benefits from hers.

Furthermore, Kraut has at times attempted to at least explain himself. This is a far cry from the ilk in the divide-and-profit secotr (e.g., Malkin).

He gives me nightmares, subby. Thanks.

DOW 2500 by end of year.

thamike: Krauthammer's off his meds again. What a load of tainted horsesh*t.

That nutbag? I'm glad I didn't click the link.

I know what you mean, Chuckles...the other day I ran over a rusty nail and my tire was punctured. Why the fark didn't Obama move that nail?

Total incompetent moron!

I say good on Obama!

Those little Palestinian kids with rocks are not Goliath, and the big bad Israelis in tanks are not little David!

FTFA:a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition

Thank God that never happens here.

thamike: I think Krauthammer and Finklestein need their own tags.

They do - it's called the FAIL tag.

So Krauthammer thinks Obama hasn't looked into Putin's very soul the way Bush did?



/lol

baah its farking Krauthammer, thanks for fooling us subby!

A Dark Evil Omen: t's like a Rickroll, except instead of 80s dorkpop it's an assault on rationality and sanity.

It's a Dickhole.

GaryPDX: Stay Cool Babylon: "But when the State Department says that Hugo Chávez's president-for-life referendum, which was preceded by a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition, was "for the most part . . . a process that was fully consistent with democratic process," you have to wonder if Month One is not a harbinger of things to come."

The problem is they believe this is a democracy, it isn't so it won't work. We're a Republic where Rule of Law prevails. The minute they cross the Constitution on some notion of "populist mandate", they have a very serious problem.

To the Republic!!!!

Nice to know that all those pesky elections mean nothing.

Farkomatic: They do - it's called the FAIL tag.

Too broad. Maybe a SPECTACULAR FAIL tag.

GaryPDX: rohar: GaryPDX: The problem is they believe this is a democracy, it isn't so it won't work. We're a Republic where Rule of Law prevails. The minute they cross the Constitution on some notion of "populist mandate", they have a very serious problem.

Yeah, we've had a lot of those administrations with a strict interpretation of the constitution lately...

Indeed..The People, those free thinking Free Americans, are getting pretty pissed about that.

Statistics show otherwise.

Bucky Katt: GaryPDX: Stay Cool Babylon: "But when the State Department says that Hugo Chávez's president-for-life referendum, which was preceded by a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition, was "for the most part . . . a process that was fully consistent with democratic process," you have to wonder if Month One is not a harbinger of things to come."

The problem is they believe this is a democracy, it isn't so it won't work. We're a Republic where Rule of Law prevails. The minute they cross the Constitution on some notion of "populist mandate", they have a very serious problem.

To the Republic!!!!

Nice to know that all those pesky elections mean nothing.

Wut?

NYZooMan: DOW 2500 by end of year.

I love your Reaganesque optimism.

thamike: Krauthammer's off his meds again. What a load of tainted horsesh*t.

depmode98: god dammit tricked into clicking a Krauthammer link.

palanthos: Fark you for tricking me into clicking a Krauthammer link, subby.

SeismicJizzer: baah its farking Krauthammer, thanks for fooling us subby!

Other than "CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER! AVERT YOUR EYES!" can you people offer any actual refutation of what he says?

Bucky Katt: GaryPDX: Stay Cool Babylon: "But when the State Department says that Hugo Chávez's president-for-life referendum, which was preceded by a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition, was "for the most part . . . a process that was fully consistent with democratic process," you have to wonder if Month One is not a harbinger of things to come."

The problem is they believe this is a democracy, it isn't so it won't work. We're a Republic where Rule of Law prevails. The minute they cross the Constitution on some notion of "populist mandate", they have a very serious problem.

To the Republic!!!!

Nice to know that all those pesky elections mean nothing.

What they mean is circumscribed by the constitution. In America, if Bill Clinton wants to run again, he needs an amendment to the constitution to do it. So he is governed by rule of law, or more accurately the constitution. As was Bush (even thought he sometimes tried to wriggle out of it) and as is Obama.

rohar: Statistics show otherwise.

This is a Republic dude, NOT a Democracy. It's a Representative Republic where Liberty and Justice for All prevails. This is NOT Venezuela.

To The Republic!!

jjorsett: Other than "CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER! AVERT YOUR EYES!" can you people offer any actual refutation of what he says?

Well, the fact that his assertions are based on a false and biased premise is a good starting point. His track record speaks for itself, but I always give him the benefit of the doubt and read his op-eds. Then I make my decision. His point of view is so skewed that his conclusions are baseless.

GaryPDX: This is a Republic dude, NOT a Democracy. It's a Representative Republic where Liberty and Justice for All prevails. This is NOT Venezuela.

To The Republic!!

What's your point?

Bucky Katt: Nice to know that all those pesky elections mean nothing.

That's right, you can have a 99% majority and it means nothing if what that 99% wants goes against the Constitution. Then again, that's the way we're suppose to work: Majorities may decide who is elected, but the law is in place to protect us no matter how the majority rules... But of course, politicians long ago figured out that they could run on "Elect me and I'll change the law so we can do what you want"

Want somebody else to pay for your house? Just elect Joe Democrat. Want somebody else to pay for your medical care? Just elect Joe Democrat. Nothing should be your responsibility because the government should write laws that allow them to take money from people who earned it so they can pay for theirs AND yours... And provided you're the one that is getting things paid for that you didn't earn, why wouldn't you vote for Joe Democrat?

thamike: GaryPDX: This is a Republic dude, NOT a Democracy. It's a Representative Republic where Liberty and Justice for All prevails. This is NOT Venezuela.

To The Republic!!

What's your point?

Too many people think otherwise. People need to sit back and rethink what is happening. There's no such thing as a "populist mandate" in a Republic. This basic confusion is getting a lot of people very edgy. America's temperature is rising.

randomjsa: Bucky Katt: Nice to know that all those pesky elections mean nothing.

That's right, you can have a 99% majority and it means nothing if what that 99% wants goes against the Constitution. Then again, that's the way we're suppose to work: Majorities may decide who is elected, but the law is in place to protect us no matter how the majority rules... But of course, politicians long ago figured out that they could run on "Elect me and I'll change the law so we can do what you want"

Want somebody else to pay for your house? Just elect Joe Democrat. Want somebody else to pay for your medical care? Just elect Joe Democrat. Nothing should be your responsibility because the government should write laws that allow them to take money from people who earned it so they can pay for theirs AND yours... And provided you're the one that is getting things paid for that you didn't earn, why wouldn't you vote for Joe Democrat?

What's fun with that statement is that you can replace Joe Democrat with Joe Republican and it's still true.

randomjsa: Want somebody else to pay for your house? Just elect Joe Democrat. Want somebody else to pay for your medical care? Just elect Joe Democrat. Nothing should be your responsibility because the government should write laws that allow them to take money from people who earned it so they can pay for theirs AND yours... And provided you're the one that is getting things paid for that you didn't earn, why wouldn't you vote for Joe Democrat?

Want to send Americans to die in a 1-2 trillion dollar war which we don't need to fight? Elect Joe Republican.

I can use asinine stereotypes, too!

GaryPDX: Too many people think otherwise. People need to sit back and rethink what is happening. There's no such thing as a "populist mandate" in a Republic. This basic confusion is getting a lot of people very edgy. America's temperature is rising.

Apperently you need some attention, and I'm bored so I'll help you out. How do you feel about government regulation of the financial markets?

randomjsa: Bucky Katt: Nice to know that all those pesky elections mean nothing.

That's right, you can have a 99% majority and it means nothing if what that 99% wants goes against the Constitution. Then again, that's the way we're suppose to work: Majorities may decide who is elected, but the law is in place to protect us no matter how the majority rules... But of course, politicians long ago figured out that they could run on "Elect me and I'll change the law so we can do what you want"

Want somebody else to pay for your house? Just elect Joe Democrat. Want somebody else to pay for your medical care? Just elect Joe Democrat. Nothing should be your responsibility because the government should write laws that allow them to take money from people who earned it so they can pay for theirs AND yours... And provided you're the one that is getting things paid for that you didn't earn, why wouldn't you vote for Joe Democrat?

Nice to see you take such a principled and non-partisan approach. I'm sure you simply forgot to condemn the GOP for its massive bailouts and subsidies for the banks, hedge funds, and automakers.

Bucky Katt: Nice to see you take such a principled and non-partisan approach. I'm sure you simply forgot to condemn the GOP for its massive bailouts and subsidies for the banks, hedge funds, and automakers.

Don't even bother, dude. You'll have better luck with NYZooMan.

randomjsa: Bucky Katt: Nice to know that all those pesky elections mean nothing.

That's right, you can have a 99% majority and it means nothing if what that 99% wants goes against the Constitution. Then again, that's the way we're suppose to work: Majorities may decide who is elected, but the law is in place to protect us no matter how the majority rules... But of course, politicians long ago figured out that they could run on "Elect me and I'll change the law so we can do what you want"

Want somebody else to pay for your house? Just elect Joe Democrat. Want somebody else to pay for your medical care? Just elect Joe Democrat. Nothing should be your responsibility because the government should write laws that allow them to take money from people who earned it so they can pay for theirs AND yours... And provided you're the one that is getting things paid for that you didn't earn, why wouldn't you vote for Joe Democrat?

Don't forget all of your talking points and stereotypes. Dems are also elitist millionaires in addition to being moochers and welfare collectors.

I know it gets complicated if you think about it, so just repeat it and don't think.