Re: “Hanna Montana is the filth of the planet, worse than animals,” says Muslim Brotherhood front group spokesman

Anyone have the heart to tell these idiots than Hannah isn't real?

On Dec 20, 7:25 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still keeps her above the sub-semian muzziesheets though.
>
> **
>            New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
> <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>  "Hanna
> Montana is the filth of the planet, worse than animals," says Muslim
> Brotherhood front group
> spokesman<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>by
> barenakedislam <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
>
> The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), satellite organization of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, deplores Disney and American culture in general. (So,
> how about getting the Hell out of our country? Nobody wants you here
> anyway.) The Islamic Circle of North America(ICNA) is preaching a global
> Caliphate and Islamic Shari'a law over America to its members, according
> [...]
>
> Read more of this
> post<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
>  *barenakedislam<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
> * | December 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM | Categories: Islam in
> America<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/?cat=52721>| URL:http://wp.me/peHnV-DSn
>
>   Comment<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
>    See all comments<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
>
>   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...
>     Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: For GOP, It's Paul or Obama

Ron Paul's base will not compromise."

That's because Crazy Uncle Ron's base consists of Crackpots!

 

 

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:15 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"Republican voters may not want to ever admit it, but the stance of voting for "anyone but Obama" regardless of that candidate's history or policy views is as narrow-minded and stubborn as the Democrat Party voters who have had their heads in the sand about President Obama and the fact that his spending sprees and foreign policy have made George W. Bush look judicious. But this is not a debate about the merits and flaws of strict party line voting. It is an allusion to a fact that is becoming increasingly clear to many as the fight for the GOP nomination pushes forward: Ron Paul's base will not compromise."

For GOP, It's Paul or Obama
Roderick Lovan
Dec 20, 2011

Hi Newt. Welcome to your first meeting as a member of the Former Frontrunner Club. Please have a seat in between Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Perry. Mr. Cain used to sit there, but he's decided he doesn't want to play anymore. Today we will be discussing how to best deal with the "anti-Romney" stereotype as well as Rick Santorum's request to join the club without possessing the proper credentials.

While that is just a comedic dramatization of the last six months of the GOP race, it's definitely not a dramatization that the Republican Party is begging for anyone but Mitt Romney to step forward. While Romney has certainly held steady at or near the top since the process began, his numbers have been anything but inspiring for likely voters. Virtually everyone not named Huntsman or Santorum has flirted with frontrunner status over the past six months, only to see the numbers crash back down leaving Romney on top again with his paltry 20%. Now, we receive word that Ron Paul, yes Ron Paul, has taken the lead in Iowa. So what does this mean for GOP voters as we approach Iowa and New Hampshire in the coming weeks? Simple. It's Ron Paul or four more years of Obama.

Republican voters may not want to ever admit it, but the stance of voting for "anyone but Obama" regardless of that candidate's history or policy views is as narrow-minded and stubborn as the Democrat Party voters who have had their heads in the sand about President Obama and the fact that his spending sprees and foreign policy have made George W. Bush look judicious. But this is not a debate about the merits and flaws of strict party line voting. It is an allusion to a fact that is becoming increasingly clear to many as the fight for the GOP nomination pushes forward: Ron Paul's base will not compromise.

Depending on which poll you use, Paul generally comes in somewhere in the high single-digits to the very low double-digits in the national polls. It doesn't sound like much compared to the numbers currently held by the falling Gingrich and the steady Romney, and it certainly doesn't lead one to believe that Paul should be the GOP choice. But when you take that 8-12% of the GOP base away from Romney or whoever becomes the final anti-Romney and put that candidate against the incumbent President, the incumbent President gets four more years 100% of the time. It is simply too much of a handicap to overcome.

Are Ron Paul supporters (or "Paulbots," "Paulites," and "Paulestinians" as they have been derisively called) really that staunch in their support that they would risk four more years of Obama just to make a point that they will not vote for whatever empty suit the GOP pushes out on stage? Unhesitatingly, yes. All you need to do to prove this to yourself is spend some time perusing the comment section of any story about Congressman Paul. His 8-12% belongs to him and him only, even if it means writing his name in on the ballot come November 2012. No other candidate can boast that type of support. The average Romney supporter will drop Mitt in a heartbeat and follow someone else if he doesn't get the GOP nod. In contrast, the typical fervent supporter of Paul is the type of person who truly believes that an establishment GOP candidate won't change the direction of the country anymore than Obama did when he took over for Bush. Thus, in the eyes of a Paulite, a vote for Romney is a vote for continuing the policies of Obama and Bush before him and might as well be a vote for Obama himself. At least with the re-election of Obama, you only have to deal with it as a GOP voter for four more years. If Romney or Gingrich were to win, you're stuck with him for eight. Paulites just won't have anything to do with that.

For the "anyone but Obama" crowd, this is a harsh reality to deal with. Many of them refuse to take a second look at Paul because of reservations about his foreign policy. Many voters are coming around to Paul's message, as evidenced by his rise in Iowa and New Hampshire, but nationally it remains to be seen if this momentum will continue. Will the GOP accept the reality for what it is and throw their support behind Paul, thus giving credibility to their shouts of "anyone but Obama," or will they force the hand of the Paul supporters by pushing out Romney or another GOP suit? If they want the White House they will choose Paul. Otherwise they will live with four more years of Obama and have no one but themselves to blame.

http://voices.yahoo.com/for-gop-its-paul-obama-10713793.html?cat=9

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

For GOP, It's Paul or Obama

"Republican voters may not want to ever admit it, but the stance of voting for "anyone but Obama" regardless of that candidate's history or policy views is as narrow-minded and stubborn as the Democrat Party voters who have had their heads in the sand about President Obama and the fact that his spending sprees and foreign policy have made George W. Bush look judicious. But this is not a debate about the merits and flaws of strict party line voting. It is an allusion to a fact that is becoming increasingly clear to many as the fight for the GOP nomination pushes forward: Ron Paul's base will not compromise."

For GOP, It's Paul or Obama
Roderick Lovan
Dec 20, 2011

Hi Newt. Welcome to your first meeting as a member of the Former Frontrunner Club. Please have a seat in between Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Perry. Mr. Cain used to sit there, but he's decided he doesn't want to play anymore. Today we will be discussing how to best deal with the "anti-Romney" stereotype as well as Rick Santorum's request to join the club without possessing the proper credentials.

While that is just a comedic dramatization of the last six months of the GOP race, it's definitely not a dramatization that the Republican Party is begging for anyone but Mitt Romney to step forward. While Romney has certainly held steady at or near the top since the process began, his numbers have been anything but inspiring for likely voters. Virtually everyone not named Huntsman or Santorum has flirted with frontrunner status over the past six months, only to see the numbers crash back down leaving Romney on top again with his paltry 20%. Now, we receive word that Ron Paul, yes Ron Paul, has taken the lead in Iowa. So what does this mean for GOP voters as we approach Iowa and New Hampshire in the coming weeks? Simple. It's Ron Paul or four more years of Obama.

Republican voters may not want to ever admit it, but the stance of voting for "anyone but Obama" regardless of that candidate's history or policy views is as narrow-minded and stubborn as the Democrat Party voters who have had their heads in the sand about President Obama and the fact that his spending sprees and foreign policy have made George W. Bush look judicious. But this is not a debate about the merits and flaws of strict party line voting. It is an allusion to a fact that is becoming increasingly clear to many as the fight for the GOP nomination pushes forward: Ron Paul's base will not compromise.

Depending on which poll you use, Paul generally comes in somewhere in the high single-digits to the very low double-digits in the national polls. It doesn't sound like much compared to the numbers currently held by the falling Gingrich and the steady Romney, and it certainly doesn't lead one to believe that Paul should be the GOP choice. But when you take that 8-12% of the GOP base away from Romney or whoever becomes the final anti-Romney and put that candidate against the incumbent President, the incumbent President gets four more years 100% of the time. It is simply too much of a handicap to overcome.

Are Ron Paul supporters (or "Paulbots," "Paulites," and "Paulestinians" as they have been derisively called) really that staunch in their support that they would risk four more years of Obama just to make a point that they will not vote for whatever empty suit the GOP pushes out on stage? Unhesitatingly, yes. All you need to do to prove this to yourself is spend some time perusing the comment section of any story about Congressman Paul. His 8-12% belongs to him and him only, even if it means writing his name in on the ballot come November 2012. No other candidate can boast that type of support. The average Romney supporter will drop Mitt in a heartbeat and follow someone else if he doesn't get the GOP nod. In contrast, the typical fervent supporter of Paul is the type of person who truly believes that an establishment GOP candidate won't change the direction of the country anymore than Obama did when he took over for Bush. Thus, in the eyes of a Paulite, a vote for Romney is a vote for continuing the policies of Obama and Bush before him and might as well be a vote for Obama himself. At least with the re-election of Obama, you only have to deal with it as a GOP voter for four more years. If Romney or Gingrich were to win, you're stuck with him for eight. Paulites just won't have anything to do with that.

For the "anyone but Obama" crowd, this is a harsh reality to deal with. Many of them refuse to take a second look at Paul because of reservations about his foreign policy. Many voters are coming around to Paul's message, as evidenced by his rise in Iowa and New Hampshire, but nationally it remains to be seen if this momentum will continue. Will the GOP accept the reality for what it is and throw their support behind Paul, thus giving credibility to their shouts of "anyone but Obama," or will they force the hand of the Paul supporters by pushing out Romney or another GOP suit? If they want the White House they will choose Paul. Otherwise they will live with four more years of Obama and have no one but themselves to blame.

http://voices.yahoo.com/for-gop-its-paul-obama-10713793.html?cat=9

Re: Marines help Santa

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Coach <coachluc1@gmail.com> wrote:

so let me guess, charity work by the Marines is a zionist xian plot to
overthrow the military through toys for tots, right?

On Dec 20, 5:50 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> in
> 1995, the Secretary of Defense approved Toys for Tots as an official
> activity of the U. S. Marine Corps and an official mission of the
> Marine
> Corps Reserve:
> ---
> he also released DoD's 1995 base realignment and closure (BRAC) plan,
> recommending 146 actions. He estimated that implementing BRAC 95 would
> bring one-time costs of $3.8 billion and net savings of $4 billion
> within a six-year period.
>
> What could possibly be wrong with this?
> ---
> he could have started with important national defense priorities as
> it's not their job to do charity work
>
> The US military is not a charity organization.
>
> On Dec 20, 3:06 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Marines have been doing the Toys For Tots campaign since 1948, and in
> > 1995, the Secretary of Defense approved Toys for Tots as an official
> > activity of the U. S. Marine Corps and an official mission of the Marine
> > Corps Reserve:
>
> >http://www.toysfortots.org/about_toys_for_tots/toys_for_tots_program/...
>
> > What could possibly be wrong with this?
>
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > the U.S. Marines that are stationed at the embassy
> > > in Ottawa, the capital of Canada for the geographically challenged,
> > > have
> > > been collecting toys for the local Ronald McDonald house
> > > ---
> > > since when are US marines supposed to be working for a charity
> > > organization?
>
> > > On Dec 20, 12:10 pm, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *for the last few years the U.S. Marines that are stationed at the
> > > embassy
> > > > in Ottawa, the capital of Canada for the geographically challenged, have
> > > > been collecting toys for the local Ronald McDonald house. *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *Even when they are at a soft posting these great guys are still looking
> > > > for ways to help out. *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *Good on 'em *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *Damn cute bunch too. *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *Bear*
> > > > *
> > > > *http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Santa+lands+Ronald+McDonald+House+w.
> > > ..
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Dick Morris Says American Troops Are Not “True Patriots”

Dick Morris Says American Troops Are Not "True Patriots"
Posted on December 20, 2011

"NO TRUE PATRIOT COULD BE FOR RON PAUL" – Dick Morris 12/19/11 on Hannity radio.
by Nick Allison, U.S. Army

Recently, Dick Morris made comments on Sean Hannity's radio show stating that anyone who supports Ron Paul and his campaign is unpatriotic. There's nothing quite like a couple of chickenhawks who never served their country sitting around defining patriotism. While I am not easily offended, I nonetheless found Mr. Morris' statements to be slightly disturbing and seriously hypocritical.

Ron Paul enjoys strong support among members of the military and veterans. He receives more campaign contributions from active duty troops than all of the other Republican candidates combined. Is Dick implying that we, the people who have actually fought in America's wars, are somehow less patriotic than people such as himself simply because we disagree on foreign policy? His remarks have insulted thousands of military personnel and veterans.

The sad part is that Dick has no idea what he is talking about. He has no personal experience on which to base his opinion. You see, Mr. Morris was too much of a coward to put his own ass on the line by volunteering for the military during the Vietnam War. He was twenty years old in 1968- prime fighting age. Some other poor kid fought and died in his place. He should be ashamed of himself. Not for dodging service in Vietnam, mind you, but for espousing his current hawkish attitude toward foreign policy despite his reluctance to serve in his own war. You can talk the talk, Dick, but you never had the balls to walk the walk.

I would like to see him tell a veteran to his face, a soldier or marine- someone who was wounded in Afghanistan, who lost buddies in Iraq, who spent years of his life away from his family, who came home with mental as well a physical scars from fighting an immoral and unnecessary war with one hand tied behind his back with red-tape and bureaucratic bullshit- that he is somehow not a true patriot, simply because he supports Ron Paul for President.

I would like to make it clear that I don't claim to speak for all veterans. I never have. But I do speak for a large and ever-growing number of us. We have fought your dirty little wars. We have killed for our country. Many of us have died. And we don't all share the same views as Dick Morris. And, according to him, this alone makes us "unpatriotic."

Even my brothers who don't necessarily share all of my ideas wouldn't take such an un-American stance as Mr. Morris has in calling anyone, including the members of the military who disagree with him, unpatriotic.

Dick Morris is a coward, a chickenhawk, a disgrace and a hypocrite. His name doesn't even deserve to be mentioned next to the names of the brave men and women who have fought and died for this country, regardless of their political, moral or personal beliefs.

CVRP

Nick Allison served as a squad leader with 1-21 IN, 25th ID, US Army from 2001-2005, including a 14 month combat tour in Northern Iraq. He lives in Austin, TX with his wife, son and two dogs.

nick.cvrp@gmail.com



http://cvrp2012.com/2011/12/20/dick-morris-says-american-troops-are-not-true-patriots/