dayman Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Tom Blummer, based on those two articles, appears to be just about the worst "journalist" there is in terms of covering this story. Of course, he isn't a journalist...he's a personal finance workshop guy who has a blog on a site dedicated to combating liberal media bias where he apparently opines on international relations in a retarded way...then B-man reads, ingests, and parrots....lol. Ya we should come out and make a public statement about how the Muslim Brotherhood is a bunch of murderous, Islamic jihadists and the military should just persecute, jail, and kill them all now. They should not be allowed to participate in any new government at all and because SEE: LINK TO SOME GUY ON THE STREET...they are all terrorists. Since they are terrorists, we should forget about our supposed position to urge peaceful self governance and we should signal that widespread disenfranchisement of Islamist groups is what we really mean when we say we support democracy in the Arab world! That will help the situation! Hell...at least is would produce more division and violence across the region proving us right for calling out Islamic groups...then we can crack down more! AFter all...history has shown that cracking down on this element is the way to go as opposed to trying to bring them into the fold... Get of the retarded kick you are on with this story B-Man...in all honesty...you couldn't be more retarded. Your Obama glasses have you completely on the fringe. Pure idiocy of the highest order and apparently I'm the only one on the board here to attempt to remind you that you are being stupid. Edited July 7, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 AP Updates White House/Egypt Situation With No Mention of 'Muslim Brotherhood' or 'Morsi' So !@#$ing what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Tom Blummer, based on those two articles, appears to be just about the worst "journalist" there is in terms of covering this story. Of course, he isn't a journalist...he's a personal finance workshop guy who has a blog on a site dedicated to combating liberal media bias where he apparently opines on international relations in a retarded way...then B-man reads, ingests, and parrots....lol. Ya we should come out and make a public statement about how the Muslim Brotherhood is a bunch of murderous, Islamic jihadists and the military should just persecute, jail, and kill them all now. They should not be allowed to participate in any new government at all and because SEE: LINK TO SOME GUY ON THE STREET...they are all terrorists. Since they are terrorists, we should forget about our supposed position to urge peaceful self governance and we should signal that widespread disenfranchisement of Islamist groups is what we really mean when we say we support democracy in the Arab world! That will help the situation! Hell...at least is would produce more division and violence across the region proving us right for calling out Islamic groups...then we can crack down more! AFter all...history has shown that cracking down on this element is the way to go as opposed to trying to bring them into the fold... Get of the retarded kick you are on with this story B-Man...in all honesty...you couldn't be more retarded. Your Obama glasses have you completely on the fringe. Pure idiocy of the highest order and apparently I'm the only one on the board here to attempt to remind you that you are being stupid. How fortunate for me, that your same, old opinion means little to me, and I daresay, most others. The less said about your misinterpretation of those links the better. You and other simple minds on the board always seem to assume that I am in complete agreement with all the articles that I post, this is not the case. As I have explained before, its obvious that many of the posters here do not read many of the conservative sites and are only aware of the simultaneous views of the networks , thus (IMHO) exposure to them helps move the conversation along. It certainly beats some of the silly back and forth nonsense by many here, but feel free to skip my posts if you find them too "different" for your taste. So !@#$ing what? Well Tom, it was a comparison to the press coverage of Bloomberg link right above it. Some of the media concentrate on the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood's representative, however it was noteworthy (except to you) that the Associated Press didn't even mention them in a story about Egypt........................................pretty straightforward observation. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Those articles are not different. A lot of hot blooded conservatives on this board have railed against a general false equivalence, or a lack of society judging or at least calling a spade a spade, and the like...you consistently post complete hot garbage articles. Period. It isn't that I don't agree, it isn't political, it is that it is utter garbage. Edited July 7, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 How's that "Smart Diplomacy" working out for us................... From the LA Times; Anti-Americanism flares in Egypt as protests rage over Morsi’s ouster: Both pro-Morsi Islamists and the anti-Morsi Rebel group accuse the U.S. of supporting the other and allege elaborate conspiracies against Egypt. CAIRO — As rival camps of Egyptians protest for and against the toppling of President Mohamed Morsi, there is a rare point of agreement: America is to blame. and from Walter Russel Mead; On Obama: Still Wrong About Egypt—and Wrong About the World. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Well Tom, it was a comparison to the press coverage of Bloomberg link right above it. Some of the media concentrate on the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood's representative, however it was noteworthy (except to you) that the Associated Press didn't even mention them in a story about Egypt........................................pretty straightforward observation.. It's neither noteworthy nor straightforward if you read past the headlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Commenting on Reuel Marc Gerecht’s thesis that having Islamists take power was probably a necessary step for political liberalization in the Arab world, Ross Douthat writes: As I said two years ago, I have serious doubts about whether Gerecht’s thesis — which sees Islamist rule in Middle Eastern countries as a necessary-if-fraught step on the way to any kind of liberal democracy in the region — can serve as a guide for responsible U.S. policymaking. But it has always offered the most plausible script for how the Islamic world might eventually escape from its current cycle of repression feeding extremism feeding repression and so on. The question is whether this week’s events in Egypt are following the Gerecht script or not. Is the failure of the Morsi government an example of how “time moves quickly now,” with the Egyptian public swiftly seeing Islamist rule for what it is and rejecting it decisively, opening the door for more liberal alternatives? Or is this a case where the process Gerecht hopes for hasn’t even had time to get off the ground, and the military’s intervention will just return us to the same old cycle of secular dictatorships pre-empting democracy in order to keep the lid on fundamentalists, whose popular appeal endures and eventually prompts another upheaval down the road? The Morsi government was in power long enough to produce a mass protest movement against the Muslim Brotherhood, but was it in power long enough to actually discredit the Brotherhood (at least in its current form) as the most plausible alternative to military rule? If the military actually holds new elections now, will they produce anything like a viable third way between Islamism and dictatorship, Morsi and Mubarak, the minaret and the tank? If Douthat’s first possibility is correct, the swift failure of the Muslim Brotherhood was largely Morsi’s. Jeffrey Goldberg recalls: A few months ago, King Abdullah II of Jordan told me about his meetings with Mohamed Mursi, the now-deposed president of Egypt. The king wasn’t fond of Mursi, both because the Egyptian was a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and because Abdullah found Mursi exceedingly stupid. “I see a Muslim Brotherhood crescent developing in Egypt and Turkey,” the king said. He despises the movement, partly because it is revanchist, fundamentalist and totalitarian, and partly because in Jordan it seeks his overthrow. “The Arab Spring highlighted a new crescent in the process of development.” The saving grace in Egypt, he said, was that Mursi seemed too unsophisticated to successfully pull off his vision. “There’s no depth to the guy,” he said of Mursi. The king compared him unfavorably to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamist prime minister of Turkey. Like Mursi, the king asserted, Erdogan was also a false democrat, but one with patience. “Erdogan once said that democracy for him is a bus ride,” Abdullah said. “Once I get to my stop, I’m getting off.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I wonder how Teresa Heinz Kerry's recent rush to the hospital relates to her hubby's recent Cairo boating-on-de-Nile flap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I wonder how Teresa Heinz Kerry's recent rush to the hospital relates to her hubby's recent Cairo boating-on-de-Nile flap? The only reason I would even entertain a connection is because absolutely no one is saying 'why' she was rushed to the hospital in critical condition beyond the note of a seizure. And I suspect even that has something to do with the fact that she's a gajillionaire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 So is he still on his boat, or did he suddenly find something more urgent that he had to attend to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Good News....................... Jake Tapper ✔ @jaketapper .@JohnKerry spox says "doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital have upgraded Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry's condition from critical to fair." 12:13 PM - 8 Jul 2013 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Well, they would be hard pressed to ever state her condition as "Poor". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Good News....................... Jake Tapper ✔ @jaketapper .@JohnKerry spox says "doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital have upgraded Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry's condition from critical to fair." 12:13 PM - 8 Jul 2013 . For which Obama credits the ACA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) Commenting on Reuel Marc Gerecht’s thesis that having Islamists take power was probably a necessary step for political liberalization in the Arab world, If Douthat’s first possibility is correct, the swift failure of the Muslim Brotherhood was largely Morsi’s. I was actually opining on this earlier today: If Gerecht winds up being correct, it means that the neoConservatives actually won their geo-political battle rather than the Realists; and that hard Wilsonianism and the theory of democracy borne from the sparks of revolution predicated on American influence in new governments actually best served the goals of global freedom. God, that will be a tough pill for American liberals to swallow. Edited July 8, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I was actually opining on this earlier today: If Gerecht winds up being correct, it means that the neoConservatives actually won their geo-political battle rather than the Realists; and that hard Wilsonianism and the theory of democracy borne from the sparks of revolution predicated on American influence in new governments actually best served the goals of global freedom. God, that will be a tough pill for American liberals to swallow. Oh please. As if they would even try. As if some of them, even here, would even conceive, under conditions you describe, that the pill existed, or that decency, and intellectual honesty, requires that they at least try to to swallow it. Or, as if they wouldn't try to redefine the pill as not a pill, but merely, a gas? And as such, they do not have to swallow it, because, come on, how can anybody really swallow a gas, entirely? It's not their fault that gas is tricky, and, jeez, your insistence that they swallow this gas thing is really getting out of hand. Of course, you wouldn't be so crazy if it wasn't for Rush/Fox News. But, ultimately, all they want to do is seek the truth here anyway, so let's have a reasoned discussion about it...and we can explore the many points of view on the subject...and Rachel Maddow our way out of the entire thing. The fact that they have a pill to swallow, that they created, with the polar opposite of a reasoned or nuanced approach during the Bush years, and that if they want to be considered, reasoned, or intellectual, it's their duty to swallow what they created? Long gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Oh please. As if they would even try. As if some of them, even here, would even conceive, under conditions you describe, that the pill existed, or that decency, and intellectual honesty, requires that they at least try to to swallow it. Or, as if they wouldn't try to redefine the pill as not a pill, but merely, a gas? And as such, they do not have to swallow it, because, come on, how can anybody really swallow a gas, entirely? It's not their fault that gas is tricky, and, jeez, your insistence that they swallow this gas thing is really getting out of hand. Of course, you wouldn't be so crazy if it wasn't for Rush/Fox News. But, ultimately, all they want to do is seek the truth here anyway, so let's have a reasoned discussion about it...and we can explore the many points of view on the subject...and Rachel Maddow our way out of the entire thing. The fact that they have a pill to swallow, that they created, with the polar opposite of a reasoned or nuanced approach during the Bush years, and that if they want to be considered, reasoned, or intellectual, it's their duty to swallow what they created? Long gone. Regardless, I'm looking forward to hearing what they have to say... though I doubt few have any idea what the hell I'm talking about anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts