Blogging Tory Justin "Raging Weightlifter" Hoffer can't wait to kick someone's ass with someone else's foot:
If Obama stands with freedom, he will order the US navy to send aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf. Those carriers will then strike down the Iranian air force and destroy the main military headquarters. Green Berets will be dropped in with weapons and ammunition to train the Iranian people how to fight. The Iranian people will do the rest.
Continued Justin, "But before the troops go in, they should find the Amulet of Yendor, which will grant the wearer 16 hit points of invulnerability. And the mystical cloak of Amon-Ra, which clouds the minds of one's opponents. With those, the invasion cannot fail. Dammit, Mom! We're out of Dr. Pepper again! And for the last time, it's Cheez-Its, not Cheez Nips! What's the point of making a list if you're not going to use it?"
I FEEL SUITABLY CHASTISED: Yes, perhaps it's a tad juvenile to be mocking someone who has publicly admitted to suffering from psychological problems. On the other hand, it makes one wonder whether someone like that is really the kind of person you want to be presenting as one of the public faces of a blogging aggregator representing the current governing party.
Is anyone actually running the Blogging Tories web site these days? And if so, are we allowed to ask if there is any filtering whatsoever being done on who gets to blog under that banner? I'm thinking that if someone publicly fesses up to not quite being all there psychologically and emotionally, maybe he needs a bit of a vacation from speaking on behalf of Canada's Conservatives.
It's just a thought. I'm trying to be helpful.
I'm sorry, but could you really stop picking on people who've admitted they have mental health problems?
Well, all right, but if I have to stop mocking people who simply have mental health problems, it's gonna be a mighty quiet blog.
Maybe I'd post recipes.
Just limit it to "mental health problems controlled by copious amounts of drugs" and you should be AOK. :)
I thought this was one of your best takedowns, CC. I suppose that means I need drugs. :)
wv="chieinte." OK, then, a bottle of that.
Cuddy: "I just want you to do your job without committing any more felonies!"
House : "Well, if you're going to tie my hands like that ..."
I think it's fair to pick on people with mental problems when they loftily accuse YOU of mental illness.
oh goodness me. from here on we shall have to restrain our critiques to those who refuse to admit to mental health problems. thankfully monsieur guy will be here to stay our hands, between bouts of screaming for re-education camps. that's just so fucking precious a lesson in temperance.
Its always amusing to see what the left has to say about me. Perhaps you could give a legitimate and logical reason as to why we shouldn't aid the Iranians in gaining their freedom?
Or are you just a racist who hates Persians?
I bet you're a racist, aren't you? Admit it.
Um ... yeah, Justin, I'm a racist. Let's go with that.
Why do you hate the Chinese so much, Julian? There are more of them suffering under the yoke of dictatorship than Iranians; China has nukes already, unlike Iran; and China poses a much greater economic threat to the US.
Of course, China isn't a threat to Israel. That wouldn't have anything to do with your priorities, would it?
OK, just checking. I figure since you are in favour of allowing the Islamic dictatorship in Iran to continue despite the wishes of the people, you must either be pro-terrorist or anti-Persian. I didn't think you were pro-terrorist, so we end with anti-Persian.
BTW, you really need to stop beginning your comments with "It's always amusing to me..." It's becoming a bit of a verbal tic for you.
The Chinese are not a current military threat, which rules out an attack, unlike with Afghanistan or Iraq.
The Chinese people are also mainly agreeable with their government, unlike the Iranians. If the Chinese were to rise up against their government the way the Iranians are, then I would be advocating military aid to the Chinese people as well. This, however, is not happening, so it is not feasible or even viable to topple the Chinese government. The Iranian government is a different story. That is simple and basic logic. I really don't understand how you can miss it.
When a lefty talks, it is always amusing. Their inability to speak without personal insult provides a rather detailed look into their psychological instability.
Oh, and to CC, who I suspect didn't notice, what I wrote to you was sarcasm.
If you have to identify something as sarcasm, it probably wasn't very good.
If you are incapable of identifying sarcasm (which is my suspicion), you probably shouldn't be running a political blog.
"When a lefty talks, it is always amusing. Their inability to speak without personal insult provides a rather detailed look into their psychological instability."
Justin - with all due respect - I wouldn't be talking about other peoples' psychological instability. Just a suggestion.
I'm not psychologically unstable, but thanks for your concern.
"The Chinese are not a current military threat"
They're not? Tell that to Taiwan. Tell that to the US 7th Fleet. And there are a large group of Tibetans (pretty much the entire population) who would disagree with your somewhat simplistic assessment.
Justin, you may be the guy to help me out here.
Kathy Shaidle has called for the deportation of Muslims from Canada, and I'm trying to find thoughtful conservative bloggers who'll explain to us exactly how that will work. Do you agree?
I figure since you are in favour of allowing the Islamic dictatorship in Iran to continue despite the wishes of the people
By all accounts, Karzai in Afganistan cheated and it does not represent the will of people. Will you lead the charge to have fair elections there?
Hamas was democratically elected, yet the Canadian government decided not to recognize them. Will you lead the charge to have that changed?
It should be easier to do that since this our government has a certain control (compared to Iran)...
What do you say? Or will this somehow be different?
The Chinese are making no move against the 7th Fleet or Taiwan at this time, nor will they in they in the foreseeable future. If they did, it would lead to war between America and China. China, however, does not want a full scale military conflict with America, as their numbers only go so far. America's missile shield, technological superiority and better training mean that Chinese forces would not be able to defeat them in battle.
As for Tibet, nothing can currently be done for such a small population against a power such as China. The Chinese occupation of Tibet happened in the heart of the Cold War, and the Chinese dominance of Tibet is fairly well complete. Unless the Chinese people as a whole rise up against the Chinese government, nothing can be done for the Tibetans.
As for Balbulican's claims about Kathy Shaidle wanting to deport all Muslims, I've never seen her make that claim, and require you to provide proof of said claim.
Don't bother, kids. It wouldn't matter if you gave Justin a link to where Shaidle wrote that. He'd simply find an excuse to re-interpret it.
Seriously. There's no point.
After the claims fraud in Afghanistan, the opposition stepped down. Yes, it was clear there was fraud, and yes something needs to be done about that. But the people in Afghanistan are overall happy with Karzai as President. Even with the anticipated vote fraud levels, well over 50% had still voted for Karzai.
As for Hamas, Hamas is a dictatorial terrorist organization with the backing of its people. I am actually in favour of recognizing the Hamas leadership as the government of Gaza. Doing this would make fighting Hamas easier for Israel.
CC, provide the link and I'll see what it says. If she indeed called for the deportation of all Muslims, I will speak publicly against her. However, seeking the deportation of all Muslims and the end of Muslim immigration in order to protect our civilization are two different things.
*Sigh*. Fine. Here. I eagerly await your tap-dancing and goalpost moving explanation as to how that doesn't count.
"The Chinese people are also mainly agreeable with their government, unlike the Iranians"
thankfully monsieur guy will be here to stay our hands, between bouts of screaming for re-education camps. that's just so fucking precious a lesson in temperance.
"As for Balbulican's claims about Kathy Shaidle wanting to deport all Muslims, I've never seen her make that claim, and require you to provide proof of said claim."
You've added the word "all" to my statements. CC has provided the link.
May I ask why you needed the authority of Kathy's post before responding to the point? The question is, do YOU support the deportation of Muslims?
Cameron, yes, there have been some protests and riots, but not on the scale necessary to make action against China realistic, considering its military strength. The free world has to pick and choose its battles. Aiding the opposition in Iran would be an easily won battle, which is why it takes a coward like Heir Obama to be against it.
As for the link, I've emailed Kathy, asking her to clarify what exactly she meant in that post.
As to my own beliefs... I believe anyone caught in connection with terrorists should be given a trial with a military tribunal as enemy combatants for war crimes and crimes against humanity. If found guilty, they should be killed, then buried after being drenched in pig blood and rapped in pig skins. No need to deport anyone.
It's like being in close company with Hannibal Lecter.
Enough of this.
I would invite all readers to compare the following two statements from Justin.
"I'm not psychologically unstable."
"I believe anyone caught in connection with terrorists should be given a trial with a military tribunal as enemy combatants for war crimes and crimes against humanity. If found guilty, they should be killed, then buried after being drenched in pig blood and rapped in pig skins. No need to deport anyone."
Thanks, J. However, I wasn't asking for your opinion about "terrorists", which I assume includes the FLQ and the Sikh perpetrators of the Air India murders (all of whom would be a bit nonplussed by your elaborate instructions for interment).
I was asking whether you thought "Muslims" should be deported. It's odd that you chose to view that as a synonym for "terrorists", but that may be one of the manifestations of the syndrome.
Ah.. goal posts.. shifted. Roger. Not enough unrest. People who are being oppressed not oppressed enough. Thanks for that clarification Justin.
Predictable but pathetic none the less.
I think I clarified exactly what I believe fairly well, Balbulican. You asked if Muslims should be deported. I told you what should be done with convicted terrorists. No one should be deported simply because of an ethnic or religious background. People should be judged by their actions, not their beliefs.
As for what I explained should be done with those terrorists, in Muslim belief, a Muslim who's body is drenched in pigs blood, rapped in pig skin, and then buried, will automatically go to hell. Using their belief structure against them in their religious war against the West is what will lead to us winning this war. If potential terrorists believe that dying will lead to hell instead of heaven, they will be less likely to commit acts of terror, and leave the rest of us safer.
The reason terrorism is automatically equated is Islam right now, amongst almost all people, is because Islamic extremism is basically the only form of terrorism existent at this point in time. As for the FLQ, the Weather Underground, and other terrorists, yeah, hanging them is just fine.
Interesting, Cameron... you link being realistic to being pathetic. I never said the Chinese weren't being oppressed enough. I said there simply isn't enough will among their population to revolt against their government to make any military aid to the Chinese people plausible. It is not possible to wage war against every single dictatorship in the world. It is only possible to aid those people who are trying to fight their government, and to fight those dictatorships that are military threats to the free world. That isn't widening the goal posts. That's simply realism. If you can't understand that most basic of ideas, you should think twice before you ever vote again.
At the rate China is going, it most likely won't be long before military aid to the Chinese people will be a possibility. But as is, there simply isn't enough political will among the Chinese populace to risk war with China.
then buried after being drenched in pig blood and rapped in pig skins.
But what if these terrorists are not followers of Judaism? Not everyone is religiously offended by contact with swine. Just look at all the people here still engaging you.
If Iran was such an easily won battle (compared with don't-try-it China), why didn't GWB take them out? He had carriers in theatre for years ready to go. Considering the way the US system works, if it was so important, he would have done it on his watch. The world would again forgive the US once he left office. That's the usual way. Is GWB therefore a coward by your definition?
The fact is that Iran obtained some nuclear weapons from the former Kazakhstan SSR during the chaos after the break up of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. They were also recipients of A. Q. Khan's proliferation from Pakistan's knowledge in the 2000s. They don't have good missile delivery systems that are adapted to these, and they understand that a few second hand units will degrade over time and not serve as a complete deterrent. So they continue to try to build the complete fuel cycle and are closing in on a home grown weapon and delivery system.
Viewed in that light, you can see why both Bush was and Obama is treating them exactly like they already are a nuclear power. Even Israel knows this, and hopes someone else will do the strike because of the inevitable retaliation. Yes, you can probably destroy much of their nuclear facilities, and you won't face the kind of massive response you would in a Cold War first strike scenario, but you would have to be prepared to a) lose a couple of cities and b) have it come out that you knew what they had.
Are you 14 years old? Fuck off and join the IDF or CAF or the French fucking Foreign Legion. You haven't got a fucking clue, about anything.
"As for the link, I've emailed Kathy, asking her to clarify what exactly she meant in that post."
Yes, Justin. When someone writes (in its entirety), "Stop Muslim immigration to Canada, then start the deportation process," you better write them to clarify what they really meant.
Get back to us when you've nailed that down. We'll be right here.
Well, "liberal supporter", thank you for clarifying that you have absolutely no clue when it comes to the Muslim faith.
"But what if these terrorists are not followers of Judaism? Not everyone is religiously offended by contact with swine."
Extremist Muslims, which make up just about all terrorists, will not even pass by lard. In the Islamic faith, having your body buried in pig blood and pig skin causes you to go to hell. Judaism has no such belief.
"He had carriers in theatre for years ready to go. Considering the way the US system works, if it was so important, he would have done it on his watch. The world would again forgive the US once he left office. That's the usual way. Is GWB therefore a coward by your definition?"
You clearly haven't been paying very much attention to what has been going on. Iran is an easy fight right now because the populace actively opposes the government. American troops would not be needed, besides possibly some Green Berets to train an Iranian rebel force. The Iranian people will be able to oust the dictatorship on their won, as long as they are supplied with weapons and ammunition, and the Iranian air force and military headquarters are destroyed.
As for Iran's nuclear capability, they are still months off, at the minimum, from having any form of nuclear weapon. Israel is watching closely. They were the ones that in 2003 said America should have attacked Iran and not Iraq for WMDs, I think they know what they are talking about when it comes to coming up with a date for Iran getting nuclear weapons.
To "s": classic liberal response. You don't have any logical way to defeat the argument, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. Congratulations.
i can't tell the crazy ones from the "sane" ones.
for what it's worth, you all are giving crazy justin the time of his life.
and for crazy justin: china executes more people annually than all of the rest of the world combined. if that's not love, i don't know what is.
Extremist Muslims, which make up just about all terrorists, will not even pass by lard. In the Islamic faith, having your body buried in pig blood and pig skin causes you to go to hell. Judaism has no such belief.
So Mohammed Atta, who flew a plane into the WTC, was not "just about all terrorists", since he was know to eat pork in strip clubs?
You will not scare off religious fundamentalists, or even religious people in general by desecrating their faith or their bodies. Centuries of pogroms against Jews which did exactly these things did not work, so why would you expect this pork wrapping to terrorize terrorists? A silly premise.
You clearly haven't been paying very much attention to what has been going on. Iran is an easy fight right now because the populace actively opposes the government.
They will rally behind their government if they are attacked. About three quarters of Israel did not vote for the current government party there, and worldwide, a similar ratio should hold, yet 100% will support Israel if attacked. The same is true of Iran.
American troops would not be needed, besides possibly some Green Berets to train an Iranian rebel force. The Iranian people will be able to oust the dictatorship on their won, as long as they are supplied with weapons and ammunition, and the Iranian air force and military headquarters are destroyed.
They will not oust their government after the acts of war you describe. First they would expect the invaders to finish the job, and many would defend the country, regardless of the internal politics of the moment.
As for Iran's nuclear capability, they are still months off, at the minimum, from having any form of nuclear weapon.
Then why didn't Bush attack? He knew they do in fact have a few, enough to take out half a million Americans or Israelis.
Israel is watching closely. They were the ones that in 2003 said America should have attacked Iran and not Iraq for WMDs, I think they know what they are talking about when it comes to coming up with a date for Iran getting nuclear weapons.
They only have one major city, so the nuclear response would be catastrophic, which is why they want someone else to do the attack. They know Iran can do them great harm, so it is not simply a matter of squashing Iran like a bug. Only after a real and major attack on Israel would the Samson option come into play. Such an attack could come as retaliation for attempting a pre-emptive strike.
The same people calling for what you call for in Iran thought it could be done on the Soviets as well. The "winnable" nuclear war.
"No one should be deported simply because of an ethnic or religious background. People should be judged by their actions, not their beliefs."
Good. So we agree that Shaidle is a batshit crazy racist.
Unfortunately, I now have to look for someone else willing to defend her psychotic position.
Yo, Justin! Any news from Kathy Shaidle on what she meant when she used the word "deportation?" As in, "start the deportation process?" I'm just curious.
Why, yes, CC. Shaidle did Justin the honour of replying to him on her blog, where she:
- confirmed (albeit obliquely) that she meant exactly what she said, and that all REAL conservatives would agree with her:
- noted that conservative "men" (her quotation marks) were an "endless source of misery":
- mocked the name of his blog
- called him a wimp
- told him he had no balls
- raved for multiple paragraphs about her martyrdom.
Not quite the response Justin was hoping for, I'm guessing.
Don't feel too bad, Justin. When she's not raving about Evil Muzzies, it's murderous blacks or lazy, drunken Indians. SUZANNE once pointed out with disarming candour that you can't really call Shaidle a racist, since she hates pretty much everybody.
I will end with simply this: Kathy Shaidle is not a racist, nor bat shit crazy.
I've looking at a lot of bat shit crazy people, posting here, though.
Anyway, you've all satisfactorily entertained me, so I'll stop tormenting the animals.
I guess he didn't actually read her response. Probably just as well.
I'm sure this exchange with Justin will help his previously stated aspirations for a future political career. Especially the very reasonable comments about executing people, drenching them in pig's blood, and 'rapping' (sic) them in pig's skin. That always gives voters a warm and fuzzy feeling. Say goodbye to future public office, weirdo.
It's incredible how stupid people become once they sit down in front of a computer.
I know. It's great fun coaxing them onto the record like this, isn't it?
Post a Comment