Quotes of the day

posted at 8:01 pm on September 2, 2012 by Allahpundit

U.S. intelligence analysts watching for indicators of Israeli military action recently reported that there are signs the Jewish state plans an attack against Iran in October.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is preparing to provide logistical support for a military strike but is pressing Israel to delay any action until the administration’s policy of sanctions have had more time to work, and that any attack would be put off until after the November presidential election…

Any Israeli military attack is expected to be carried out with little or no warning, which has meant stepped up monitoring of Israel by U.S. intelligence agencies for all indicators of an impending attack.

***

Israel’s prime minister on Sunday urged the international community to get tougher against Iran, saying that without a “clear red line,” Tehran will not halt its nuclear program…

“The [new UN] report confirms what I have been saying for a long time – the international sanctions are burdening Iran’s economy, but they are not delaying the development of the Iranian nuclear program,” Netanyahu said.

***

Iran dramatically increased its production of a more enriched form of uranium in recent months, U.N. inspectors reported Thursday, suggesting that the country’s nuclear facilities were ramping up their output even as Iran’s leaders engaged in international negotiations on possible curbs to its nuclear program…

The report, based on routine monitoring of Iran’s nuclear facilities, documented a sizable jump in Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent, a level that can be converted relatively easily to the more highly enriched uranium needed for weapons. The report said Iran has 255 pounds of uranium enriched at 20 percent, up from 159 pounds in May.

But the IAEA also found that Iran had converted much of the new material to metal form for use in a nuclear research reactor. Once the conversion has taken place, the uranium can’t be further enriched to weapons-grade material, Obama administration officials said.

***

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu got into a diplomatic shouting match with US Ambassador Dan Shapiro over US President Barack Obama’s handling of Iran’s nuclear program, saying “time has run out” for diplomacy, Yediot Aharonot cited a source as saying on Friday…

A source that participated in the meeting said that a particularly angry and stressed Netanyahu began a tirade against the US president, attacking him for not doing enough on Iran. “Instead of pressuring Iran in an effective way, Obama and his people are pressuring us not to attack the nuclear facilities,” the source quoted Netanyahu as saying…

The American ambassador is said to have responded politely but firmly, telling Netanyahu that he was distorting Obama’s position. Obama promised not to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, he explained, and left all options on the table, including military options.

***

Seven months ago, Israel and the United States postponed a massive joint military exercise that was originally set to go forward just as concerns were brimming that Israel would launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The exercise was rescheduled for late October, and appears likely to go forward on the cusp of the U.S. presidential election. But it won’t be nearly the same exercise. Well-placed sources in both countries have told TIME that Washington has greatly reduced the scale of U.S. participation, slashing by more than two-thirds the number of American troops going to Israel and reducing both the number and potency of missile interception systems at the core of the joint exercise.

“Basically what the Americans are saying is, ‘We don’t trust you,’” a senior Israeli military official tells TIME…

In the current political context, the U.S. logic is transparent, says Israeli analyst Efraim Inbar. “I think they don’t want to insinuate that they are preparing something together with the Israelis against Iran – that’s the message,” says Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. “Trust? We don’t trust them. They don’t trust us. All these liberal notions! Even a liberal president like Obama knows better.”

***

A senior [Israeli] government official on Saturday characterized as “strange” a recent statement by US military chief Gen. Martin Dempsey that he would not want to be “complicit” in an Israeli attack on Iran.

“Dempsey’s comments are strange in that they would seem to contradict the continual statements from the White House that the security and defense cooperation between Israel and the US has never been as close,” the senior official said…

Amid the disagreements between Jerusalem and Washington over whether Iran needed to be stopped before it had acquired all components for a bomb (Israel’s position), or only once it started putting the bomb together, [Israeli intel chief Dan] Meridor said US President Barack Obama’s statement that he was committed to preventing Iran from getting a bomb, and would not be satisfied by containment of a nuclear Iran, needed to be taken seriously.

***

Israel’s vice prime minister Moshe Yaalon said on Friday he feared Iran did not believe it faced a real military threat from the outside world because of mixed messages from foreign powers.

“We have an exchange of views, including with our friends in the United States, who in our opinion, are in part responsible for this feeling in Iran,” he told Israel’s 100FM radio station.

“There are many cracks in the ring closing tighter on Iran. We criticize this,” he said, also singling out U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for travelling to Tehran this week.

***

“There is definitely a narrative in the media right now – I’d say an overheated one – about tension between the US and Israel over Iran,” [U.S. ambassador Dan] Shapiro said, adding that this narrative does not “reflect the very close coordination and very intense work we’ve done together to address an issue that we perceive the same way, which is the importance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Asked why the US did not give the Iranians a clear ultimatum – stop the nuclear program “or else” – Shapiro replied: “I think there is no mistaking what the US is prepared to do.” Shapiro said that Obama and Netanyahu, as well as their “teams,” speak regularly, and that the relationship “at the top” is “just what it needs to be.”

***

Mr. Dayan’s assessment seems to buttress the theory that the collective saber rattling is part of a campaign to pressure the Obama administration and the international community, rather than an indication of the imminence of an Israeli strike. Many analysts here believe that hawkish statements by Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak this spring led to the harsher sanctions now in place, and that this is essentially Round 2…

While Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak have been criticized as “messianic” in their thinking on the Iranian nuclear issue and are widely viewed as ready, if not eager, to take military action to stop it, Mr. Dayan said they would prefer that the United States led any attack, even if that meant waiting until after the November presidential election. But “they have to make the decision whether to strike or not before November,” he said, so they need to hear from Mr. Obama “in the coming two weeks, in the coming month.”

***

Almost four years into their partnership, the two most important players — Bibi and Barack — still seem out of whack with one another both personally and on some key policy issues.

What’s happening here? I’ve got a pretty simple diagnosis: Netanyahu’s policies and suspicions about American intentions have combined with Obama’s seemingly emotionless view of Israel to spell trouble. The absence of a common enterprise makes matters worse.

The Iranian challenge might still provide a grand reunion between the two parties. But if history is any guide, serious clashes between Israeli prime ministers and American presidents are not resolved by reconciliation but by the departure of one or the other. That may mean we’re in for an extended period of turbulence: I’m betting that in this case, both Bibi and Barack may be around for the long haul.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7

The Republican Party is the party of cheaters!

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 2:47 AM


See, petunia?
He’ll be stamping his foot and holding his breath till he turns blue any second now …

PolAgnostic on September 3, 2012 at 2:48 AM

I say go with primaries OR caucuses. Personally, I’d ditch the caucuses, but, whatever. Anyway, pick only one method per state. Why should people need to cast a vote/ballot twice?

4Grace on September 3, 2012 at 2:50 AM

It’s just a youtube video not to a private domain so you don’t have to worry about that sort of thing, but if you must have a summary then I’d be happy to:

You misunderstand. I am not worried about a computer virus. I am worried about the virus of stupidity. I do not have infinite time, and so asking me to interrupt the pleasant perusal of a hotair thread in order to listen to someone getting pissy about something that I’m not upset about is not something I’m inclined to do. You the fore need to convince me in your comment why it is worth my while. Vague cr@p like, “if you love liberty” or “if you hate the RINO establishment” doesn’t cut it.

The first link is a video of a Texas delegate at the Republican National Convention who who started a local Tea Party group, she gives her name so you can verify, and she is not a Ron Paul supporter if that helps. Please take a look, she seems like a good, well meaning and informed person who people should listen to.

I don’t care who she is. I asked you what the specific content was. What specific allegations is she going to make, and what makes her, in particular, particularly qualified to make them? Is she just going to give her opinion, backed up by facts that are in the public domain? If so, why don’t you just save me the time and tell me what the facts are yourself?

The fact that she “seems like a good, well meaning and informed person” doesn’t give me any basis for hearing her out – if she is saying something intelligent, her argument should speak for itself, and you should be able to make it here. The only reason to listen to this person I’ve never heard of would be if she were saying she personally witnessed something that can’t be verified otherwise. Why in gods name would I go visit a YouTube video just to hear someone talk about their opinions?

And if you watch the video and aren’t sure what she’s talking about, the second video is a news report from a local Fox News affiliate that provides background.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 2:17 AM

So, after making an extremely unpersuasive argument for why I should watch the first video, you now are telling me that I might not even know what this lady is talking about, and if so, I’ll need to watch another stupid video?

If you have a point to make, just make it! List the exact, precise allegations of what malfeasance was done by the evil rino establishment, and give me a very compelling reason why I should care. Because the republican primary electorate sent a pretty clear message:

1: we’re very “meh” about Romney and we’d love to have an alternative. We’re so desperate for an alternative that we’ll even take a look at Santorum and Gingrich and Paul.

2: *takes look at Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul*
Good God no, what were we thinking? *sigh* guess we’re stuck with Romney. Too bad no one more conservative who didn’t suck ran.

So I really hope you are not going to claim that someone was cheated out of the nomination.

RINO in Name Only on September 3, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Alinsky tactic … I’d classify him as a moby.

PolAgnostic on September 3, 2012 at 2:47 AM

He’s actually not. There are a couple of subjects where his oars just don’t reach the water, but for the most part he is a fairly intelligent and reasonable kid.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 2:50 AM

The Republican Party is the party of cheaters!

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 2:47 AM

Hmmm, I thought there was no difference between the 2 parties. Guess I misunderstood. Good to see a clarification/admission of where exactly you stand.

4Grace on September 3, 2012 at 2:53 AM

He’s actually not. There are a couple of subjects where his oars just don’t reach the water, but for the most part he is a fairly intelligent and reasonable kid.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 2:50 AM

.
Well, he’s getting pretty close to personal attacks so you might want to talk him off the ledge if you can …

PolAgnostic on September 3, 2012 at 2:54 AM

for those who will vote against Romney, here is what you are supporting

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/with-landmark-lawsuit-barack-obama-pushed-banks-to-give-subprime-loans-to-chicagos-african-americans/

a long article. Munro is the guy that pissed off barry before, this isn’t going to help

this is the ugly history of the left…clinton, barry, cloward, piven et al.

and guess what, they still aren’t done. Romney has a chance to stop this…but only if he’s elected, else everyone will have a barry house

r keller on September 3, 2012 at 2:56 AM

You misunderstand. I am not worried about a computer virus. I am worried about the virus of stupidity.
RINO in Name Only on September 3, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Haha. I am so going to steal that.

4Grace on September 3, 2012 at 2:58 AM

FloatingRock, do you believe that the federal government should be forced to answer more questions about 9/11?

blink on September 3, 2012 at 2:30 AM

Second request.

blink on September 3, 2012 at 2:44 AM

Don’t try to smear me with that truther BS, I’m not and have never been a truther. My record here is searchable on Google, I’m not sure how far the record goes. There are only a small number of Ron Paul supporters that are truthers, and Ron Paul isn’t one of them. There is no evidence that anybody has provided at HotAir to the contrary. But 9/11 was a big deal, IMO, and I’m not apposed to more investigation into the details as long as they’re science/reason based. I think that’s reasonable enough if that satisfies some conspiracy nuts. As long as it’s not a railroad job like the Republican National Convention then why not?

But I’m not a truther. You are revealing an understandable prejudice but it is still not an excuse for cheating.

Has the government only done one study of Pearl Harbor? Maybe so, but I doubt it.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 2:58 AM

Has the government only done one study of Pearl Harbor? Maybe so, but I doubt it.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 2:58 AM

He’s a truther, and he is your evidence. Just asking questions, yea… we know.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 3:02 AM

This is cracking me up. Did FloatingRock think that Reagan stole the nomination away from Ford in 1980 via the same process that Paulnuts tried to use this year to steal the nomination?

blink on September 3, 2012 at 2:58 AM

You are misapplying the word stole. No, Reagan didn’t try to steal anything, and neither did Ron Paul. They both used the caucuses and the delegate strategy to challenge Ford in the primary. Reagan was much more successful, admittedly, but the level of success does not alter the fact that in neither case does the word “steal” apply.

That is your own prejudice speaking. You are so caught up in your delusional hatred that in your mind you can you justify vote rigging and cheating. But in the real world you are one of the bad guys, the liars and cheaters.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:05 AM

to challenge Ford in the primary convention

fix

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:06 AM

Say no more…just asking questions, right? Oh wait, that’s the exact definition of a Truther!

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:05 AM

You are such a liar. I’m not a truther. I don’t believe that George Bush or the US govt was involved or anybody but Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to name the biggies, were involved. You are just trying to smear me with something that I obviously don’t agree with, something you are falsely trying to project onto me, because you are a lying cheater SOB!

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:08 AM

So, our vocabulary words for this evening were:

Liar (Liars, Lying)
Cheater (Cheaters, Cheating)

All in all, the lesson went very well. One student in particular was able to use both words in most every sentence he posted. Well done.

4Grace on September 3, 2012 at 3:15 AM

Ron Paul uses the caucuses and the delegate strategy to challenge Ford?

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:09 AM

No, against Romney, obviously.

I’m I causing you to have a nervous breakdown or something?

No, you are the one fighting for the moral low ground and exposing your irrational hatred to any objective readers, not I. If either of us is having a nervous breakdown it is you, as evidence by:

Now I’m getting embarrassed for you. How was Reagan more successful? He failed to get the nomination the same way Ron Paul failed to get the nomination. How was Reagan more successful?

Reagan was more successful because, uh, he was more successful than Ron Paul. He came closer to unseating Ford than Ron Paul did Romney. Although it could be that there was just a lot more vote rigging this time.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:20 AM

Would you support investigating Apollo 11, too?

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:12 AM

You must remember that Ronulans are uber smart enlightened ones while the rest of us are foolish sheep. The simple fact that you were incapable of grasping how Only Ron Paul could save us is evidence that you are a foolish sheep. Now that America has rejected Herr Doktor the only thing left we can do is vote for Gary Johnson that Obama can win reelection and the civil war which will cleanse the land can begin.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 3:20 AM

So, our vocabulary words for this evening were:

Liar (Liars, Lying)
Cheater (Cheaters, Cheating)

All in all, the lesson went very well. One student in particular was able to use both words in most every sentence he posted. Well done.

4Grace on September 3, 2012 at 3:15 AM

I don’t know, I kind of think he might have been cheating.

RINO in Name Only on September 3, 2012 at 3:21 AM

I have no doubt that a Paulnut would attempt to call me a “bad guy”, a “liar”, and a “cheater” because . . . well . . . for no reason whatsoever.

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:17 AM

LOL! You are such a pu$$y, you didn’t even have the brains to watch those videos I linked to above that proves how wrong you are!

Here it is in writing from a reliable source. If you could just pop your head out of the sand for a few moments and come to terms with reality perhaps you can avoid making such a fool out of yourself in the future.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/can-teleprompters-count-votes/article/2506556

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:24 AM

4Grace on September 3, 2012 at 3:15 AM

I don’t know, I kind of think he might have been cheating.

RINO in Name Only on September 3, 2012 at 3:21 AM

What kind of crazy talk is this? Ronulans never ever lie or cheat, if you weren’t so obviously a mentally defective sheepeople you would see this.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 3:25 AM

Would you support investigating Apollo 11, too?

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:12 AM

No, I think the Mythbusters did a great job and I would leave it up to the private market. Perhaps they’ll do a sequel.

But Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are a lot more similar to each other than they are to moon landing conspiracies, dontcha’ think? Would you only have allowed a single investigation into Pearl Harbor?

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:29 AM

4Grace on September 3, 2012 at 3:15 AM

Some folks are rolling in it!!..:)

PS..I think you know what I mean!..:)

Dire Straits on September 3, 2012 at 3:30 AM

I’m like really, really like confident that the objective readers know which one of us is desperately trying to spin this in order to get converts to his way of thinking.

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:27 AM

I don’t need to spin, I am not the one defending cheating.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:32 AM

I don’t need to spin, I am not the one defending cheating.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:32 AM

BWAHAHAHAH…….. Says the person actively defending lying and cheating…

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 3:33 AM

Some folks are rolling in it!!..:)

PS..I think you know what I mean!..:)

Dire Straits on September 3, 2012 at 3:30 AM

Haha, perfect! I swear I almost posted that song for you earlier. :)

4Grace on September 3, 2012 at 3:35 AM

I un-spin. I just want to get America back on the right track and am sick and tired of all the irrational hatred on both sides. The Bush Derangement Syndrome was despicable but the Obama Derangement Syndrome is just as bad and irrational. And while the overreaction to BDS was Obama, which is bad, the overreaction to OBS is Romney, which is bad. Both Parties and their cronies are responsible for crashing our economy and outsourcing so many jobs and effing up our country, and the thugs on the far left and right are part of the problem.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:35 AM

Says the person actively defending lying and cheating…

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 3:33 AM

What the heck are you talking about, how am I doing that?

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:35 AM

Says the guy that refused to learn anything about the 1976 Republican primary/convention but instead choses to rely on Ron Paul website talking points.

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:31 AM

How am I wrong. It’s me against many here, I’ve probably missed plenty of responses to me, for which I apologize, but I can only read and type to respond so fast.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:37 AM

DIRE:

After 200 posts of this stuff, I’m beginning to change my way of thinking. ;)

P.S. Don’t you wish you had an outfit like that??

4Grace on September 3, 2012 at 3:40 AM

Btw, are you also implying that you think the US government caused the Japanese to attack?

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:36 AM

Who are you, Joseph McCarthy’s ghost? You Romney supporters are scary, cheating SOB’s. If Gary Johnson doesn’t surge I’m voting for Obama. You guys are nuts, you are unprincipled d-bags.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:43 AM

Says the person actively defending lying and cheating…

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 3:33 AM

What the heck are you talking about, how am I doing that?

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:35 AM

Your fellow Ronulans lied and cheated to secure delegates for Ron Paul. You continue to insist that they did no such thing, when in fact their doing so is exactly the reason that the Romney people changed rules 12 and 15. The Tea Party delegates were pissed off at the changed rules because those rules affected than as well.

You and your fascist Ronulan buddies attempted to steal the nomination, you knew damned well that Ron Paul didn’t have even remotely close to enough delegates to receive the nomination so you tried to force a brokered convention where your fellow Ronulans fully intended to use blackmail to attempt to force a Ron Paul nomination against an electoriate that wanted nothing to do with Ron Paul.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 3:43 AM

Big surprise.

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:44 AM

Yes, but with the qualifier “if Gary Johnson doesn’t surge.” So, there’s that.

4Grace on September 3, 2012 at 3:48 AM

If Gary Johnson doesn’t surge I’m voting for Obama.
FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:43 AM

Duh… We have known you intended to vote for Obama all along. Gary Johnson doesn’t and never did have even half the chance that Ron Paul had, and Ron Paul never had a prayer in hell. Yet you actually dare to call anyone else an unprincipled douche bag. Go look in the mirror to see what a real unprincipled douche bag looks like.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 3:48 AM

Btw, it’s funny that the only reason you don’t support investigating Apollo 11 is because Myth Busters was able to convince you that NASA didn’t fake the moon landing.

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:47 AM

ROTFLMAO… Read his response again more carefully, he is not saying that Mythbusters convinced him of anything.

I would leave it up to the private market

his obvious belief is that the private markets will eventually prove that Apollo 11 was a fraud.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 3:51 AM

Nevermind. I know you’re a huge conspiracy theorist.

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:45 AM

You are a dishonest, lying POS!

I’ve been writing here at HotAir for many years and you cannot possibly have any evidence to back that up. In fact you will find that I’m the opposite.

Your allegations are false, you are a lowlife troll who should be banned, IMO, unless you can provide some evidence of your false, malicious allegations or else make a correction.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 3:52 AM

Yup. He knows that Gary Johnson would never surge, and he knew that Obama was his second choice all along.

I’m shocked…

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:49 AM

It’s an attempt at emotional and intellectual blackmail, if you don’t give me ice-cream I’ll hold my breath until I turn blue. It’s exactly the same tactic his fellow Ronulans attempted to use to force a brokered convention. Romney’s people not only saw through it, but shut them down by refusing to be blackmailed. Yes, the Tea Parties probably got hurt because of it, and I can pretty much guarantee you you that my friends in the California Tea Party movement are not going to forget or forgive the Ronulans for this.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 3:57 AM

blink on September 3, 2012 at 3:58 AM

Don’t forget, he’s way uber smarter than you and all he has to do is claim that he doesn’t believe in any of the conspiracy theories and anything that he says otherwise magically disappears. Cause remember, Ronulans are way smarter than us poor foolish sheepeople who couldn’t understand that only Herr Doktor Ron Paul could save America and since we rejected the one and only true savior of America we all deserve to live to see America destroyed because of our stupid and evil decisions.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 4:03 AM

You must remember that Ronulans are uber smart enlightened ones while the rest of us are foolish sheep. The simple fact that you were incapable of grasping how Only Ron Paul could save us is evidence that you are a foolish sheep. Now that America has rejected Herr Doktor the only thing left we can do is vote for Gary Johnson that Obama can win reelection and the civil war which will cleanse the land can begin.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 3:20 AM

Dude, you are such a liar, (just like always), I’ve been supporting Gary Johnson for at least a couple of months now. The cause of freedom and liberty is bigger than any single man. I’m not a cultist, you are full of crap.

Any moral person should be properly horrified with the blatant cheating at the RNC, which was caught on video for the whole world to see. But there are a few lying scumbags on the Internet who will stoop to lies and smears in order to justify their cheating.

It’s on video! There is a lot of video evidence that I’ve posted links to over the months, as they occurred, of cheating by the establishment against Ron Paul supporters, but there is no such evidence of the reverse. Instead the GOP establishment pretends that somehow participation in the process by young people and minorities that support Ron Paul, showing up and having their heads counted, is somehow a form of cheating, even when the rules are followed to the letter and they’re copying Reagan’s strategy.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:03 AM

Floating Rock, how about you just answer point blank:

If the Ron Paul voters had, through grassroots activism, gained enough power to prevent Romney from receiving the nomination, even while Romney was the one with vastly more votes, would that mean that Ron Paul should be the nominee?

You speak about someone “cheating” as though this is a game or contest between the RINO Establishment™ and the Grassroots™. It’s not. Neither the Grassroots, not the Establishment, is supposed to determine the nominee. The republican primary electorate is. And the republican primary electorate made it pretty damned clear who we wanted.

Do you think Ron Paul supporters should be able to use parliamentary procedures to override that fact?

RINO in Name Only on September 3, 2012 at 4:08 AM

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:03 AM

Did you know that the hardest people to convince that they have had a psychotic break from reality, are those who have had a psychotic break from reality? Invariably they are utterly convinced that there is something profoundly and seriously wrong with everyone but themselves. It’s why practitioners in the medical profession have such a difficult time getting those individuals who have had a psychotic break from reality to take and remain on their medication.

It’s always everyone else that has a problem, not them.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 4:09 AM

Blink and SWalker have both falsely accused me of believing in conspiracy theories, which is totally false. SWalker started making false allegations months ago, and in all this time I’ve been commenting here somehow he still hasn’t managed to catch me in the act, and if it were true it would be so easy to search google and find the evidence in five or ten minutes—but they can’t, because their search will turn up nothing.

They are both, literally, guilty of making false allegations against me that they should be able to prove, if true, but can’t. People who do that sort of thing in person are lowlife scumbags in real life. Right? Well the same thing applies when they do it on the Internet. You won’t find me smearing people on this web site. When I criticize other people it’s based on their own words which I typically quote so that it’s all honest and out in the open.

Not lowlifes like blink and SWalker.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:11 AM

You can’t seem to keep your story straight.

blink on September 3, 2012 at 4:11 AM

The point is that the rule change neuters all of the grass roots, not just the Ron Paul supporters. This rule change would even have neutered Reagan! How can you call yourself a Republican and not care about that?!?

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:15 AM

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:11 AM

1) you are not as smart as you think you are
2) just because you claim something does not make it true
3) you are not fooling anyone here but yourself
4) you have made it manifestly evident that despite your assertion otherwise that you are in fact a truther and conspiracy theorist.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 4:17 AM

Well, I’m just a dumb ol’ country boy, but I’ll be shocked if Obarmy doesn’t pull some kind of disastrous October Surprise out of his vainglorious ass in an attempt to retain his job, which, by the way, he has not attempted to do except between golf matches and campaign swings.

Color me unimpressed with The One Who Will Fix The Planet And Shit.

hillbillyjim on September 3, 2012 at 4:20 AM

How can you call yourself a Republican and not care about that?!?

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:15 AM

Because we refuse to submit to blackmail. Which is what you and your as$hole fascist buddies attempted to do after lying and stealing delegates.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 4:20 AM

Oh, by the way:

Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater, please.

I know we’ve all got our differences, but now is the time to come together in order to take our country back from the semi-communist redistributionist Internationalist anti-American shitbrains who hold 2/3rds of the reins.

Let’s win this thing; then we can hash out the rest.

hillbillyjim on September 3, 2012 at 4:23 AM

Wow, I can’t believe that you continue to lie about this.

How many more times will you make this FALSE claim?

blink on September 3, 2012 at 4:12 AM

I’m not lying at all. I haven’t said anything about the Reagan/Ford race that is incorrect. The fact is that Reagan fared better against Ford than Ron Paul did against Romney, (which I first informed you of as I recall), but that in no way de-legitimizes Ron Paul’s less successful attempt nor does it magically transform it into some form of cheating.

The rules are the rules. You have provided no evidence that Ron Paul cheated. Ron Paul exceeded the number of states required and the rules should have been followed at the convention, but the GOP changed the rules by fiat at the last moment and moved the bar, shutting young Republicans and minorities out of the party by force. It is indefensible and immoral and un-American!

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:25 AM

The point is that the rule change neuters all of the grass roots, not just the Ron Paul supporters.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:15 AM

Yes, it’s a shame that Paulnuts ruined everything for others. Frankly, Paulnuts have done quite a bit to ruin the Republican party. They’ve caused three times as much damage as what the Tea Party is blamed for.

blink on September 3, 2012 at 4:24 AM

At this point, this is simply a point of order.

Do y’all want to stick to your miniscule points and give the Destroyer four more years?

If so, your no friend of our Republic.

Let’s rid ourselves of this pestilence, then we can hash out the details.

This one is too important to lose, period.

hillbillyjim on September 3, 2012 at 4:27 AM

But the rule change I referred to above is not the same rule change mentioned in the videos earlier. Most of my earlier discussions about the rule change was about a different rule that neuters the entire grass roots, not just Ron Paul.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:28 AM

This one is too important to lose, period.

hillbillyjim on September 3, 2012 at 4:27 AM

If it’s so important than we can’t replace Obama with somebody just like Obama, can we? If we are in such dire straights then surely we need to make a drastic change of course, not just adjust it a smidgen to one side. Right? You contradict yourself.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:31 AM

At this point, this is simply a point of order.

Do y’all want to stick to your miniscule points and give the Destroyer four more years?

If so, your no friend of our Republic.

Let’s rid ourselves of this pestilence, then we can hash out the details.

This one is too important to lose, period.

hillbillyjim on September 3, 2012 at 4:27 AM

W@hat part of FloatingRock is voting for Barack Obama out of spite have you not gotten?

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 4:32 AM

Not lowlifes like blink and SWalker.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:11 AM

FloatingRock is wrong.

I think we should just have all the delegates bound to vote for a particular candidate. The nomination should be based on the primary voters’ decision, not on arm-twisting or anarchy at the convention.

I’m happy the party showed zero tolerance for people who just want to stir up trouble.

but the GOP changed the rules by fiat at the last moment and moved the bar, shutting young Republicans and minorities out of the party by force. It is indefensible and immoral and un-American!

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:25 AM

Ok, now you’re just being silly. You’re breaking out the race card? So, now it’s anti-minority to want to make sure that primary voters get the nominee they voted for?

bluegill on September 3, 2012 at 4:35 AM

I say:

Let’s take the White House and the Senate, keep the House, and then we can beat ourselves to death for a year or so on small-ball policy.

If we don’t do the first two, then the rest will necessarily be moot.

Be sensible and practical, and for FUXX sake, successful.

Then we can get all philosophical and nit-picking.

Get your priorities right, people, or get used to the U. S. of Used-to-Be.

THINK with your brains and leave your hearts a close second, please. We’ve only got so much time before our Republic is destroyed by the current bunch of redistributive would-be commie/socialist America-hating Alinsky/Ayers/Obarmy loving anti-capitalist DESTROYERS OF PROGRESS, PERSONAL GROWTH, AND AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM.

Now IS the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party.

hillbillyjim on September 3, 2012 at 4:37 AM

THINK with your brains and leave your hearts a close second, please. We’ve only got so much time before our Republic is destroyed by the current bunch of redistributive would-be commie/socialist America-hating Alinsky/Ayers/Obarmy loving anti-capitalist DESTROYERS OF PROGRESS, PERSONAL GROWTH, AND AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM.

Now IS the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party.

hillbillyjim on September 3, 2012 at 4:37 AM

^YES. This hillbilly has a good head on him.

bluegill on September 3, 2012 at 4:38 AM

If it’s so important than we can’t replace Obama with somebody just like Obama, can we? If we are in such dire straights then surely we need to make a drastic change of course, not just adjust it a smidgen to one side. Right? You contradict yourself.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:31 AM

Yeah, because Romney is EXACTLY like Obarmy, right?

C’mon dude, even you can admit that this thesis is bullshit on the face of it.

Romney isn’t my ideal either, but he is by a looooooong shot exponentially better than The One we’ve got now.

If you can’t admit that, then I posit that you’re just bitter and disillusioned because you invested yourself too much for one man.

This is too important for anyone who loves this country to be so small-minded. This is for the marbles, dude.

Come on and join in the retaking of our Republic; then we can bicker about the rearrangement.

hillbillyjim on September 3, 2012 at 4:43 AM

How many more lies do you plan on telling here tonight?

blink on September 3, 2012 at 4:33 AM

As many as it takes.

It’s not out of spite. It’s because Obama appeals to FloatingRock much more than any non-Ron Paul Republican candidate ever could.

blink on September 3, 2012 at 4:34 AM

He and his fellow Ronulans are little removed from their Skinhead/Neo-Nazi White Supremest roots. Oh, they have learned to not admit knowingly in public to who and what they are, but, well, they just aren’t the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

One of my brothers was a Aryan Brotherhood White Supremest up until just before he died. Back during the 80′s and 90′s he used to deluge me with Ron Paul’s news letters and the Turner Diaries crap. The Ronulans learned from the Tom Metzger/David Dukes disasters not not make certain admissions in public.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 4:44 AM

You tried to claim that Paulnuts tried the same thing that Reagan tried. That is a lie. I’ve explained why it’s a lie, yet you continue to tell the lie. That makes it a blatant lie. That makes you a blatant liar.

blink on September 3, 2012 at 4:31 AM

No you didn’t. You said that because Reagan fared better against Ford than Ron Paul did against Romney, that therefor it was OK for your side to cheat in various ways, including rigging a vote on national TV, and change the the rules and disenfranchise all those young and minority Republicans and their efforts entirely, in retribution for your hatred of them.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2012 at 4:48 AM

I say:

Let’s take the White House and the Senate, keep the House, and then we can beat ourselves to death for a year or so on small-ball policy.

If we don’t do the first two, then the rest will necessarily be moot.

Be sensible and practical, and for FUXX sake, successful.

Then we can get all philosophical and nit-picking.

Get your priorities right, people, or get used to the U. S. of Used-to-Be.

THINK with your brains and leave your hearts a close second, please. We’ve only got so much time before our Republic is destroyed by the current bunch of redistributive would-be commie/socialist America-hating Alinsky/Ayers/Obarmy loving anti-capitalist DESTROYERS OF PROGRESS, PERSONAL GROWTH, AND AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM.

Now IS the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party.

hillbillyjim on September 3, 2012 at 4:37 AM

I know, I repeat myself….

I just had to try one more time; I remember when Floating Rock was halfway sensible, and I hate to concede even one vote to the Destroyer.

It’s worth a try, no matter.

We’ve got to win this one, even if you dislike Romney. Good Effin’ Gravy, look at what this joke of a president (small “p”) has already done to destroy our economy, our credit rating, our standing in the wider world, and on, and on, and on……………

This one is too big to get all bent about a perceived snub of a dolt like Dr. (heh) Paul.

Come on, F. R., you used to be better than this. Get past your fixation and see the real world.

This is for keeps.

hillbillyjim on September 3, 2012 at 4:52 AM

Yeah, because Romney is EXACTLY like Obarmy, right?

C’mon dude, even you can admit that this thesis is bullshit on the face of it.

Romney isn’t my ideal either, but he is by a looooooong shot exponentially better than The One we’ve got now.

If you can’t admit that, then I posit that you’re just bitter and disillusioned because you invested yourself too much for one man.

This is too important for anyone who loves this country to be so small-minded. This is for the marbles, dude.

Come on and join in the retaking of our Republic; then we can bicker about the rearrangement.

hillbillyjim on September 3, 2012 at 4:43 AM

No, he cannot and will not under any circumstances concede that Romney is not an equal threat to the Republic as Obama is. While there are some folks here who were diehard Romney supporters from the get-go, for the most part the majority of us are exactly like you. Romney was not our first, second or in many cases even our third choice. Romney was however overwhelmingly the choice of the vast majority of the Registered Republican base.

Most of us do in fact understand what a threat to our Republic Obama represents and we are in fact engaging in the act of trying to retake our Republic.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 4:53 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7