It's kind of how liberals feel about the Jews.

Oh they won't say it aloud, they'll even claim they know a few. But they're sure as shit hoping they'll all go the fuck away to Jewistania at the bottom of the sea.

blank

This is a new line of thought, blank. I thought Jews were in the forefront of liberalism. Could you explain this further so someone like me, who is not so fast on the pick-up, could understand it? I mean, you may have something here. Something.

As a white man and recovering racist, watching Instapundit and Buchanan racism in action can give those of us who recognize the tyranny for what it is, added incentive to get Barack elected. Michael Jordan when outplayed by an opponent, used his anger in a positive way to play smarter and better. The best way to say no to all the racist and political tactics crap is to increase our motivation to bring real change to our nation. The chance for real change clearly lies with Obama over the other two candidates regardless of how much change you believe Barack can bring about.

There is no special significance to the recently concluded Pakistani elections - it has not shifted the ideological basis of the Pakistani state, and it is therefore going to continue going around in the circles of elections that seem to restore democracy, but it is only a temporary retreat into the barracks for the army. This is not one of those pastel revolutions that some countries in East Europe have had that changed the structure of governance in a significant way.

I say this with the authority of a inveterate Pakistan watcher, and the backing of an indefinite number of others like me, who have a special interest in Pakistan because we are of Indian origin or are Indians; and where at any time some one we know may be called upon to combat the Jihad that emanates from Pakistan.

As to Tibet, if I missed something, do tell me what it is.

The chance for real change clearly lies with Obama over the other two candidates regardless of how much change you believe Barack can bring about

RMP

Very well put. I think that is a very good assesment.

Flame me for it, but I think this is one election where a person doesn't need a whole lot of information to know what their best choice is.

Instapunk... And did we mention right-wing? But not slavishly so. We also like to trash Hannity, O’Reilly, George Will, Hugh Hewitt, Neal Boortz(!), Ron Paul, etc, etc. You know. The Punk Right.

This seems ripe for contextual analysis.., 'splain, William.

He just thought he'd give us the heads up that Freepers don't have a monopoly on hateful delusion.

"Flame me for it, but I think this is one election where a person doesn't need a whole lot of information to know what their best choice is."

Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks who will vote for McCain who won't need a lot of information either and never have when it comes to voting for thugs.

Glad you are feeling better.

I don't know, Paul, much as I respect your reasoning and your ability to express yourself, I don't know if the paragraph following Mr. blank's allusion to "Jewistania" (if I have that correctly) is susceptible of such facile explication.

It's way, way deep, man. Only a blank mind could explain it.

Mr. blank, we're waiting.

In a perfect world, presidential candidates (and everyone else) would be judged only by their own words and actions, with a primary focus on what they will do in office. --Glenn Greenwald

Okay, first words. Obama said he was unaware that Wright was so inflammatory and was not in church those days when the inflammatory sermons were preached. Had he known, he would have denounced them.

Then the NYTimes reveals that Obama disinvited Wright to the ceremony announcing his candidacy, citing specifically that Wright could get "pretty rough" sometimes in his oratory. He wanted to keep Wright in the attic.

Now, for actions. Obama continued to attend Wright's church for 20 years even though he knew full-well that Wright preached race-baiting sermons and anti-American screeds. Fine, if Obama wants to believe that stuff, but he can't now turn around and tell us he had no idea.

In short, Obama is a liar and a hypocrite who would have gotten no where as close to the nomination had the MSM not kissed his ass for six months.

Don't expect a scathing expose on the MSM from Greenwald on that one. He so in the tank for Obama he's revealed himself to be nothing but the political hack he's always been.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks who will vote for McCain who won't need a lot of information either...

RMP, thanks for the good wishes, but I think I just relapsed. I'm gonna go fill that second pain-pill prescription I didn't think I was going to need. To think about a President McCain, I'll probably need a morphine-drip.

RMP, do you think the troops in Iraq will be just as inspired to patriotic valor by a Commander-in-Chief Obama as they were by President Bush? Will the young Marine manning the machine gun at a traffic control checkpoint be less, shall we say, decisive, with an Obama in Office than Bush? Will the C.O. be just as eager to condemn the driving habits of "hajis" and smooth over any little friction concerning the ROEs?

I'm hoping not, but you have a whole lot more experience in that. What do you think?

He so in the tank for Obama he's revealed himself to be nothing but the political hack he's always been.

-- T. Suarez

Looks like it's time for another one of those disclaimers, Glenn.

I don't know what you're waiting for. I don't respond to loaded questions. And as for Paul Dirks, your resident moral arbiter on all things he know nothing of, personally (perhaps he could tell us what 'freeper' is, I don't know) I would suggest that his automatic response to namecall, insult and generally attack any point of view that deviated one iota from the 99% mainline doctrine of Salon, make my case for me. There's clearly a realm of acceptable hate speech and unacceptable hate speech. One need only read the Salon comments having anything (or more often nothing, it's just injected into the conversation for fuck's sake) to with Israel, or Joe Lieberman and the discussion immediately goes in the gutter. Oh it's politer words than what the Nazis, and Henry Ford and the KKK used but it's the same sentiment. That's the nature of modern hate speech, it's more refined (after all you you see David Duke wearing a suit, not a hooded robe)

By the way political Black activism has been vocally antisemitic for years and years and few call them on it, or, if they do, it's pushed aside and ignored as quickly as possible. But that's the great dichotomy isn't it? On the one hand Jews in America are part of some massive powerful conspiracy, so even not saying something about the Jews is clear indication that they 'run everything', and on the other hand they're just a tiny weak minority too big for their britches who need to be knocked down a peg or 10. We control the bank, and yet we need massive handouts, we control the media yet the media is almost universally against us. We're part of this super secret plot - - that everyone knows about.