kraychik

The assertions that those in Gazan are being shorted on calories and malnourished, let alone starved as a function of the blockade, is either a vicious lie from a malicious propagandist trying to smear Israel and Jews, or stupidity from an ignorant leftist who needs something to be outraged about on the internet. Either way, it's not serious conversation.

The article makes some worthy points. Assuming the MEK is still what it was in the past, the hypocrisy and/or stupidity of those who are now speaking out in favour of it now is clear. It seems like some of these characters advocating on behalf of the MEK (which the USA has delisted as a terrorist organisation) are simply aligning with it because of its opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is what I hated about Romney's statements during the debate about working with "democratic organisations" in Muslim-majority countries in order to bring about positive social change. People need to be very cautious about who they support when it comes to groups from Muslim-majority countries, because subscription to basic values of freedom is not widespread in these societies. Almost always, we are picking between one devil and another (or between two djinns). If these tyrannical societies are to join free civilisations, I'm not sure it can be done via the direction of America and the West. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a very shortsighted attitude.

It may be a lousy point, but your original grievance with the Romney statement was that Iran and Syria don't share a border, as if that was relevant to the point being made. Now you're attacking the value of the point rather than its accuracy, which was your original stupid retort. Even worse, here I am belittling myself by actually responding to this banality. "They don't even share a border! Hur hur hur!".

Classy and mature. Obama is clearly trying to appeal to the "Reality TV is awesome!" demographic with gems such as "Mittness Protection Program", "Romney Hood", and now, "Romnesia". They're going after Bill Maher's and Kim Kardashian's fanbases.

Except when they cross from absurd to outright destructive and dangerous. That's when you start the Tourette's syndrome-esque"Islamophobia!" episodes, right?

Of course, real geographical ignorance that we saw from Biden, claiming that Syria is five times larger than Libya, goes ignored. Why? Because you folks wouldn't be able to know any of these things without having a computer in front of you. That's why it takes you hours to find imagined gaffes (which require deliberate misinterpretations of outright stupidity to believe, as we see above) that you're regurgitating from Slate, HuffPo, and, MMfA.

Syria is Iran's route to the Mediterranean. The two countries don't need to share a border for that to be the case. It's the same as Poland being NATO's connection to the Baltic and a buffer to Russia. You three can't possibly be this stupid.

My advice: don't accept the false premise that exploitation of the oil sands wreaks environmental havoc. It isn't true, and it's just a false meme through which faux environmentalists like David Suzuki enrich themselves by producing dishonest CBC "documentaries", then parroted by communists like jacee and insufferable contrarians like BlackDog.

Romney's mistake was not being conservative enough, of course. "You can't kill your way out of this mess" was a silly line. This is a war, and it will be won through killing the enemy. What America and its allies need to be doing is killing MORE enemies, not less. Romney also tacitly accepted the leftist approach that begun with Bush and continued with Obama: "nation building". As long as America and the West commit themselves to this nonsense with long-term occupations in Muslim-majority countries with the belief that these societies can be reformed to join free civilisations, we're going to see a superpower like America entrenched in long-term conflict with a third-world trash bin like Afghanistan. Get in there, smash the enemy over an anvil until there's nothing left, and get out. Romney could've scored big points in the debate if he would have expressed that sentiment and built upon his "overwhelming force" argument from September 12. Conservatism always wins, if you actually stay true to it.

Anyone else completely unsurprised that that socialists in here claiming Obama was victorious are focusing on the superficial ("Romney looked agitated!"), which is much easier to spin? Nevermind the fact that if we go on the irrelevant superficial analysis alone, Obama lost this debate just as he did the previous two, and just as Biden lost in his debate. The primary advantage that the consensus media has been advancing for Obama is a false claim that he is superficially more appealing. He isn't. And once Obama's lost that edge, what's left?

Some do, some don't.

This is what we're up against, people who literally want to shut down the oil industry. Some can be shown the light, if they have the curiosity and honesty, but others are committed to their leftist narratives and faux environmentalism.

You gotta love it, idiotic semantics. I got more for you. It's the way OWS drug addicts speak. "You assassinated my pride" "Justice was assaulted" "My self-esteem was urinated upon" "They defecated on my history" ...and of course, "Raping of the earth". What else do you expect from a forty-something manchild who still plays video games?

The outcome is entirely up to Romney. Most of the media is doing everything it can to cover for Obama. If Romney loses, I will blame his lack of conservatism and attempt to be a "moderate". For example, he made several unforced errors in the last debate: he didn't reject the false premise of the "glass ceiling" and "pay inequality" for women, he didn't reject the false premise of greater restrictions on access to gun yielding lower rates of (gun) violence, and he didn't address how he would tackle inflation (a few examples). This race is Romney's to lose. The Republican party did something similar in 2008 with putting forth a faux conservative like John McCain. Conservatism always wins, but the Republicans buy into the false narratives concocted by the leftist media.

The polls are primarily conducted by organisations that are sympathetic to Obama's reelection campaign, and they normally oversample Democrats in their polling. Aside from the Huffington Post's overt leftism, they aggregate polls that are more often than not carried out with dishonest methodologies to parrot the narrative of Obama's dominance and inevitable reelection. The same thing has been true for every Republican contender since Reagan. Immigration in recent decades has destroyed New York and California, turning them into Democratic strongholds. The Republicans are always experiencing this disadvantage considering New York and California are the most populous states, and therefore have the mos electoral votes.

Sure you have. There you have it folks, most polls are intentionally trying to play down Obama's massive lead and inevitable victory. I guess PPP, CBS, the NYT, SurveyUSA and the WaPo are all in the tank for Romney. More amazing insights from another amazing socialist. Unreal....

What about Stephanie Cutter using Bill Burton's PAC ThinkProgress to parrot the narrative of Romney killing Joe Soptic's wife? Or her accusing Romney of being a felon, with tacit support from Carney (and I think Gibbs)? Obama's campaign is nasty. That doesn't bother you, though, since you're easily entertained with juvenile wordplays like Romneyhood and Romnesia. Talking to you about politics is like walking around the playground with kids in grade eight, and I'm not being hyperbolic.

...'round and 'round we go.

I don't think Romney's victory is inevitable. If he does win, however, it'll be entertaining to have punked take a six month hiatus from MLW. Perhaps I should get the administrators of this website to enforce this deal...

Oh, from the recent arming/training of local forces? How predictable. And then these new locals turn their guns on American soldiers in those "green on blue" attacks.

All they do is repeat headlines from Slate, Salon, Huffington Post, MMfA, ThinkProgress, NYT, Washington Post, and occasionally, counterpunch.org. There is no original analysis whatsoever with these folks, and it makes the political dialogue almost painfully boring. Next up, kimmy will share more economic nonsense from Robert Reich about how firms like Bain Capital "saddle new acquisitions with debt" and run off. I guess that's what they did with Staples, Home Depot, Burger King, Toys R' Us, Domino's, etc... nevermind the fact that credit access doesn't always transfer when you switch ownership. We must be really desperate to come to MLW for political discourse.

From supplies they acquired in the 70s/80s?

I'll bet you some honey garlic chicken wings that jacee doesn't know the difference between Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PA.

And cybercoma runs off into the distance. Anyone else completely unsurprised that a socialist like cybercoma reflexively using absurd anti-Israel rhetoric about non-existent "atrocities" and "starvation" in Gaza? Socialism and hating Israel seems to be a package deal.

Ah, I now see what you intended to say. Agreed.