Locrian on May 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Its a name he CHOSE, for political purposes. The facts shoe the man has had several personas.

He was Barry Soetoro for a while. We don’t know his actual birth name, but it may have been Barry Dunham. He has used the name Barry Dunham and Barack Dunham in the past. His name is a FARCE, so I refer to him as Hussein. He settled on that persona for political purposes.

What is the difference between referring to George Bush (43) as “W” and referring to Obama as “Hussein?” It is, in fact, his middle name.

kjl291 on May 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Honest answer: In one case, you’re referring to the full middle name of the president, and in the other you’re only using the first letter. Bush was rarely referred to as “Walker”. If that’s the rationale, then why aren’t you referring to him as “H”?

OK, so I am permitted to say “H” but not “Hussein?” Thanks for clearing that up. Any other rules you’d like to share Mr. Thought Policeman?

Ya, that is true to the extent we do not like anything he has done…

But, to be fair, even when Bush implemented liberal policies, the left dumped on him. Such as huge increase in education (doubled it from Clinton era) and No child left behind. Or just random spending Bush did that he got no credit for.

Now look at Obama, everything we disagree with him on, is merited. He is a socialist liberal, spending and taxing, and promoted abortions… in his first 100 days no less!. When Hussein decided to stay in iraq, we all cheered him, when he made time tables afterward, we boo’d.

So, conclusion
- Left hated Bush regardless of what he did or believed be it a liberal policy or conservative one.

–the Right – Hates obama because he is a radical Leftist that has not compromised or been moderate in any way. We will give credit when credit is due, we also actually went against a “republican”, yet Democrats find it impossible to criticize Obambi. to sum it up, we are smarter than liberals and can see more than just partisanship. A bad choice is a bad choice regardless of what letter is in parenthesis next to their name.

Donut on May 29, 2009 at 6:08 PM

Good point, well taken.

Who reads Fox Nation? And who cares?

Tempest in a teapot.

Donut on May 29, 2009 at 5:31 PM

FWIW, I never said that calling him by his middle name was not “fair game”, though that phrase holds a great deal of ominous terror for me given its context within Scientology.

I simply think that the usage of it merely to insult him is a full circle gesture – that some on our side have transformed into what we couldn’t wait to be rid of for the last 8 years.

yet, you can not honestly say the guy was never a muslim can you?

Donut on May 29, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Neither you nor I know the guy’s faith. The only Muslim connection he has is that his Muslim father wrote down the religion of his son as Muslim…when he was about 5 or 6.

We haven’t a bit of proof that he has taken to Islam throughout his life through his own choice. I simply advocate keeping an eye on the ball. The guy is a socialist creep who belongs to a black supremacist religion.

God-awful tripe for those on the edge – derange-ees. The Left was deranged over Bush and this current group is the Right Wing prototype of the same type of derangement – toward Obama.

These people, all of them collectively – are so unhappy you wonder what makes them tick in their real lives.

AprilOrit on May 29, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Ya, that is true to the extent we do not like anything he has done…

But, to be fair, even when Bush implemented liberal policies, the left dumped on him. Such as huge increase in education (doubled it from Clinton era) and No child left behind. Or just random spending Bush did that he got no credit for.

Now look at Obama, everything we disagree with him on, is merited. He is a socialist liberal, spending and taxing, and promoted abortions… in his first 100 days no less!. When Hussein decided to stay in iraq, we all cheered him, when he made time tables afterward, we boo’d.

So, conclusion
- Left hated Bush regardless of what he did or believed be it a liberal policy or conservative one.

–the Right – Hates obama because he is a radical Leftist that has not compromised or been moderate in any way. We will give credit when credit is due, we also actually went against a “republican”, yet Democrats find it impossible to criticize Obambi. to sum it up, we are smarter than liberals and can see more than just partisanship. A bad choice is a bad choice regardless of what letter is in parenthesis next to their name.

These people, all of them collectively – are so unhappy you wonder what makes them tick in their real lives.

No, of course not.
MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

:) yet, you can not honestly say the guy was never a muslim can you?

And with the same name as another Muslim who, by the way, murdered, killed, raped his own people and also openly denounced jews and gave money and support to Hamas…. SO I really don’t understand why it is not fair game to call him Hussein.

What i think is getting Madison so … angry? is the fact nobody will admit why they are calling him Hussein. Though i can honestly say that if his name was Barrack Mohamed Obama, we would all call him Mohamed, the fact his name is Hussein makes people use it less.

So – i guess the point to all this is, if the guys middle name was Frank, nobody would call him Frank. But because his name is insulting to him, we call him by it. There is nothing wrong with it. It is disrespectful yes, but the man has not earned respect… not mine at least .

O, and I might just be talking for myself, and not for everybody who calls him by his middle name.

I’m still waiting for citation of when Bush was called “Walker” endlessly by members of the Left.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM

No need to wait. During the Democratic convention leading up to the 1992 election, every Democratic candidate running for President referred to President Bush over and over again as, “George Herbert Walker Bush.” Granted, that was Bush 41 rather than Bush 43, but it certainly proves the point.

It also answers the question of when people use your name against you in politics: any time they perceive an advantage in doing it. In Bush 41′s case, the goal was to make him seem elitist and out of touch. In Obama’s case, the goal is to emphasize where he came from, and that he’s out of touch with the heartland. It’s basically the same thing.

Though this is a mute/dumb example; what isn’t mute is the fact we are fighting MUSLIM extremist, and the man in charge was at one point in his life MUSLIM, and has a Muslim name, and a Muslim father…

…So, im not saying the man is still a muslim…

No, of course not.

So – unless your a pansy…

Donut on May 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM

You heard it here. If you don’t refer to Barack Obama by his middle name, you’re a pansy.

Im sure if a senator’s name was Richard Fud Packer, i’m sure you’d find it odd the headline “Dick fudge packer wants to legalize homosexual marriage” . Though this is a mute/dumb example; what isn’t mute is the fact we are fighting MUSLIM extremist, and the man in charge was at one point in his life MUSLIM, and has a Muslim name, and a Muslim father, and is a democrat who are historically weak on defense.

So, im not saying the man is still a muslim, but Trinity united church is def not a “christian” church , and the left and church do not really mix well on a whole.

So lets review -
Its okay to call him Hussien for that is his name – regardless of your intention of it,
: be it you just innocently calling him his middle name;
:you think its funny he has the same name as a Dictator that murdered thousands of people.
:Be it you think he is still Muslim, or a Muslim sympathizer or just weak on terrorism who cares?

So – unless your a pansy , call the guy what ever you want, its meant to be disrespectful and as far as i know, its not illegal to be disrespectful.. especially to a man who is a radical and destroying our country … as we know it.

This problem can be solved by everyone just using the more respectful: “King Hussein”

econavenger on May 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Masterful

If O’Reilly had read that moronic BLOG POST on the air, that would have been a “smear” of HA.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 4:35 PM

You’re such a sweetheart.

Again, OReilly does NOT produce or direct the show. He almost certainly doesn’t choose the wording on the onscreen graphics.

TheBlueSite on May 29, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Uh huh. The guy is a confirmed megalomaniac with little patience for things not being the way he wants them. Hey though, you go ahead and love the guy. Send him a loofah.

The nation already had a federal cyber security chief designated by Bush, his second appointment in place whom Obama’s people aborted for not representing the Washingtonian Democrat socialist line, he having concerns with the direction of federal abuse of invasive and prosecutorial powers.

Obama is presently developing another layer, a new position as an internet Czar.

It isn’t as though the internet should be a “free” target for viruses and sabotage, as it is by nature of the beast.

However, the language of legislation and the protocol of this presidency leaves online users subject to abusive prosecution. I noted the other week the story regarding a North Carolina home schooled kid from a single parent (mom) Christian home, whisked away into federal confinement with no legal representation and no communication with his mother who claimed he was the victim of identity theft. The FBI Homeland Security raided their home and took him abruptly away, though there were no bomb making elements anywhere in his house. He was accused of having made a bomb threat, though evidently the threat was online and his online address had been hijacked. Maybe he is innocent. Maybe he left a very ugly comment, in which case, why not put the boy into therapy before throwing him into a juvenile federal prison–no bomb equipment was anywhere in his home.

The moral of the story, beware. Particularly right wing people, beware of being set up on false charges as a right wing extremist threatening violence.

Focus on HotAir since this is where we are. Given the real threat of prosecutorial abuse, there is the need to refine in order to steer clear of being a whipping boy or political scapegoat. That is understood and appreciated.

That there would be any here who would slander another in order to score either popularity or titular points is reprehensible. Making this point has nothing to do with “envy” and everything to do with security, a clean record and reputation.

Again, OReilly does NOT produce or direct the show. He almost certainly doesn’t choose the wording on the onscreen graphics. YOU are arguing semantics. It said “blog posting.” (which is an accurate description of a comment, but not the best choice of words.) He said, with his own mouth, “these are some comments.” Carpenter was talking specifically about comments and comments only in her snippet of the conversation. I didn’t hear the segment and take it to mean it came directly from the site author, but maybe that just makes me smarter than everyone else who seems to think that’s what he meant?

On top of all of that, he NEVER smeared the site. He never took shots at the comment for using the name Hussein. He said, and I quote, “Hussein, that’s the president,” and then moved right along. Smear? I can’t see how. Clarification, as many Factor viewers probably have no idea what Obama’s middle name is? Most probable.

Again you’re arguing semantics when all that matters was what the viewers thought he meant.

I’m a viewer and it was perfectly clear what he meant, which is not what the pantywastes, here, are screaming about. The way people are describing the “smear” makes me think that most of them don’t understand English.

This is far from the first time he’s presented comments on a site as representing a site. Hell, the guy admitted he’d like to legislate speech on the net.

MadisonConservative on May 29, 2009 at 4:30 PM

dogsoldier’s comment was certainly representative of the comments on this site, and it was a fine comment. Of course, it wasn’t reflective of the bloggers here, one of whom liked to assure people during the election that the idiot messiah “has brains to spare for the job”. Now, that was stupid. If O’Reilly had read that moronic BLOG POST on the air, that would have been a “smear” of HA.

TheBlueSite on May 29, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Exactly.

I won’t give it a rest. Just as I’d call Obama out for being dishonest, I’ll call out Ed and Malkin for being dishonest. It’s absurd. There was no smear whatsoever, and to post 4 times about this imaginary smear makes the entire site look stupid.

TheBlueSite on May 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Again you’re arguing semantics when all that matters was what the viewers thought he meant. This is far from the first time he’s presented comments on a site as representing a site. Hell, the guy admitted he’d like to legislate speech on the net.

http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2009/05/bill-oreillys-war-of-words.html

Mark