See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Fiscal Suicide: #biteme « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
2. Testing GOP “Leadership” « The Forum
3. GOPers Gush Over Obama After Meeting | The American Pundit
4. Shut Up Hippy » Blog Archive » Some B.O. Republicans gush over Obama meeting; Update: Say cheese!
5. What’s Wrong With the Obama Economic Stimulus? « Peace and Freedom Global Future
6. Steynian 317
7. The Wide Awake Cafe » Eight Days of Silence
8. Steynian 317 « Free Canuckistan!

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #101
   On January 27th, 2009 at 8:33 pm, love2rumba said:

   We have far to many McCains in congress

   ..Had McCain won, this situation be even worse since many Congressmen/Senators get their cues on what to do from the President…this is why we have TARP/Crap Sandwich I today..thanks to George W. bush’s socialist moment.

2. #102
   On January 27th, 2009 at 8:36 pm, tbear44 said:

   “One term president” ? Sounds good to me.

3. #103
   On January 27th, 2009 at 8:40 pm, bear1909 said:

   LittleGreenMeat says: Oy! (as they say where I live) An engaging conservative (Reagan, for example) is good. An engaging liberal is Hitler.

   Did Reagan have designs to set up his own “domestic security force” that is “as strong as the US military, funded as well as the US military…”????

   Well, did he? And for as engaging as both Hitler and Reagan were, there was a serious point of departure in similarity with regard to DEEDS.

   Reagan defeated the Soviet Union.

   The constant pointing out of trivial inconsistencies between liberals like yourself and conservatives on this blog is very tiring.

   What do you think about BHo’s pandering to Muslims in his first Presidential interview on Arab television?

   Let’s stop whistling past the graveyard shall we?

   Bear1909 out.

4. #104
   On January 27th, 2009 at 8:55 pm, jjmurphy said:

   Though I hope you are not suggesting that Pres Obama is the enemy.

   Yes

   (I love these easy questions.)

5. #105
   On January 27th, 2009 at 9:01 pm, Jeff2161 said:

   Any congress-critter with more than 8 years in Washington is lost to the process. Scary as it sounds…We need to organize a level playing field for everyone. Term limits and ban on lobbying forever is a good start.

6. #106
   On January 27th, 2009 at 9:03 pm, Jeff2161 said:

   Want to scare a politician? Tell them they have to find a job not related to the public sector.

7. #107
   On January 27th, 2009 at 9:16 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

   On a slightly off topic: why has there been no discussion or thread about BHo’s first interview as Prez going to El Arabiya where he outs his family’s Islamic line?

   I’ve been wondering the same thing. Especially, since this interview gave us this gem: “All too often the United States starts off by dictating.” Nevermind, the fact that this has been precisely his approach with Israel.

   A man of contradictions … hoping no one will notice.

8. #108
   On January 27th, 2009 at 9:26 pm, chapoutier said:

   where he outs his family’s Islamic line?

   OMG I was sooooo shocked! I mean wow! He has Muslims in his family?

   I can’t believe he didn’t write a book about his Muslim father!

   And where were all the spam emails detailing every Muslim connection he had in his family?

   And where were all the right wing blogs pointing out the fact that he went to a Madrassa in Indonesia?!?

   I mean wow. Knock me over with a feather. I would have never voted for him had I known he had Moslem blood coursing through his veins.

9. #109
   On January 27th, 2009 at 9:47 pm, PKAmmoTroop said:

   On January 27th, 2009 at 9:26 pm, chapoutier said:

   I mean wow. Knock me over with a feather. I would have never voted for him had I known he had Moslem blood coursing through his veins.

   You wouldn’t have voted for him if you had half a clue as to what the Moslem world thinks of apostates.

10. #110
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:49 pm, realitycheck said:

    Looks like a few of the House Republicans are afflicted with the often fatal Matthews Leg Thrill Syndrome.

11. #111
    On January 27th, 2009 at 10:00 pm, chapoutier said:

    I try not to let my opinion be so easily manipulated by Moslems. Why do you?

12. #112
    On January 27th, 2009 at 10:03 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Bear asks lgm:

    What do you think about BHo’s pandering to Muslims in his first Presidential interview on Arab television?

    Common Bear. Have you missed every post where lgm defends the terrorists at GITMO and claims he is jewish?

13. #113
    On January 27th, 2009 at 11:39 pm, feebiebabe said:

    I mean wow. Knock me over with a feather. I would have never voted for him had I known he had Moslem blood coursing through his veins.

    pfffft.

    Here I thought liberals were constitutionally incapable of making any decision based on self-preservation.

    I’m shocked! Just shocked you were able to recognize that B. Hussien Obama was by far the worst case of liberal fatalism seen to date.

14. #114
    On January 27th, 2009 at 11:49 pm, chapoutier said:

    Here I thought liberals were constitutionally incapable of making any decision based on self-preservation.

    Not incapable, just confused. Half the time we are told not to vote for Obama because the Muslim world loves him and thus he is obviously soft on them and then the other half of the time, we are told not to vote for him because he is so hated by the Muslim world for being an apostate that it puts us in more danger.

    Y’all should really get together and compare notes sometime. You know…get on the same page.

15. #115
    On January 27th, 2009 at 11:54 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    I am on neither. I am of the thought: Why vote for the enemies favorite pick?

16. #116
    On January 28th, 2009 at 12:02 am, feebiebabe said:

    Y’all should really get together and compare notes sometime. You know…get on the same page.

    Ya, that Mohammed dude really messed things up when he told those followers of his that it is permissable to use deceiption against the infidels; not limited to but including – disavowing his “holiness” and/or their so called re-lleeegion if it is beneficial for “Allah” and the cause.

    Really hard to fashion a consistant argument around that type of crap policy.

17. #117
    On January 28th, 2009 at 12:09 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    Hey Feebz! AJ says “do the poll – be the poll” yung-yung-yung-yung

18. #118
    On January 28th, 2009 at 12:24 am, feebiebabe said:

    Spelling errors detected.

    Ya, that Mohammed dude really messed things up when he told those followers of his that it is permissible permissible to use deceiption deception against the infidels; not limited to but including – disavowing his “holiness” and/or their so called re-lleeegion if it is beneficial for “Allah” and the cause.

    Really hard to fashion a consistant consistent argument around that type of crap policy.

    

19. #119
    On January 28th, 2009 at 12:24 am, feebiebabe said:

    Ha! Hiya Soap.

20. #121
    On January 28th, 2009 at 8:57 am, chapoutier said:

    Really hard to fashion a consistant argument around that type of crap policy.

    Hence my suggestion to ignore them, and just go ahead and have an election rather than trying to discern the pulse of the jihadis and do the opposite.

21. #122
    On January 28th, 2009 at 9:09 am, Trollman said:

    chapoutier said:

    Hence my suggestion to ignore them [Muslims]

    Democrats are very good at ignoring the Muslims, which is why they still live in a 9/10 world.

22. #123
    On January 28th, 2009 at 9:14 am, chapoutier said:

    Democrats are very good at ignoring the Muslims, which is why they still live in a 9/10 world.

    Well, I am not going to try to discern which presidential candidate they love or hate more and then slavishly choose my guy based on that.

    If that makes me a 9/10er, so be it.

23. #124
    On January 28th, 2009 at 10:03 am, Savage24 said:

    Remember how Pelosi dogged Bush to get in photos, well now it’s the RINOS’s turn.

24. #125
    On January 28th, 2009 at 11:39 am, feebiebabe said:

    Hence my suggestion to ignore them, and just go ahead and have an election rather than trying to discern the pulse of the jihadis and do the opposite.

    Not taking into consideration “who’s bad for the terrorists” when choosing to elect perhaps the most powerful man in the free world – leaves us with Jimmy “panty waste” Carter II.

    Makes me wonder, if the Iranian hostage crisis were happening today who would those 52 diplomats want as their POTUS? Tic tock.

    Yes, I’m quite sure that the terrorists and their leaders are now shaking in their boots at our new Presidential pick (“I’m sorry, I don’t eat romaine, do you happen to have any arugula on hand”)…so much so, I hear tiny bearded men wearing Italian table cloths for hats are popping up from under rocks all over the dry countries across the Atlantic for a chance get their pictures taken with America’s latest mistake (with fingers crossed behind their backs).

    I just hope in four years this means we’ll get the real deal, our Reagan Conservative –furthermore, just hoping this choice isnt at the heels of another “crisis” like let’s say, in response to 250 former Gitmo detainees unleashed on our streets who decided to blow themselves up in and around the general population.

25. #126
    On January 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am, chapoutier said:

    Not taking into consideration “who’s bad for the terrorists” when choosing to elect perhaps the most powerful man in the free world – leaves us with Jimmy “panty waste” Carter II.

    I did not say do not take into consideration who is bad for the terrorists. I said we should make our own determination about who is bad for the terrorists, rather than 1) assuming there is any such consensus in the “terrorist world” about such a thing 2) trying to discern their motives (are they motivated by fear of being killed by an aggressive President or motivated by a desire to pick a fight, engage us and become martyrs?)and 3) even if 1 and 2, taking their word for it. It is an exercise in futility.

26. #127
    On January 28th, 2009 at 12:04 pm, feebiebabe said:

    I did not say do not take into consideration who is bad for the terrorists. I said we should make our own determination about who is bad for the terrorists,

    Yes, which leaves us with half the country who is missing the self-preservation chip we spoke of earlier.

    Personally, I dont think this even made the top five reasons most of his supporters (oh, my g-d look at his pecks)chose him…they were two busy repeating those creepy two words (i cant even bring myself to say them) ad nauseam and spitting venom on Palin (distraction) to even stop and take it into consideration… Remember folks, his best weapon for the foreign policy experience was Joe “Verbal Diarrhea” Biden, who has asks us to “Gird our Loins” for his Presidency.

    OY.

27. #128
    On January 28th, 2009 at 12:14 pm, DBNinKY said:

    On January 27th, 2009 at 4:12 pm, eaglehaslanded said:

    It just kills you that there’s somebody smart in the White House now instead of a stupid republican.
    
    Wait, that’s redundant.

    The last line of your quote shows your invective isn’t genuine and that you are only here to instigate, something many of us have suspected for a long time now. Thank you for proving it.

28. #129
    On January 28th, 2009 at 1:39 pm, FirstSkirt said:

    CNGERMS #53. Ding, ding, best post today on this topic. Pretty obvious, isn’t it? So-called Republicans are now drinking the Kool-Aid. Since we can’t ever get them to legislate term limits, we will just have to NOT ELECT ANY INCUMBENTS PLEASE. I’m sure there are a few who care,but they are silent. The GOP has become drunk with power and money. It’s time to say, (just like those rude people did at the Obama coronation), “na, na, na, na, hey, hey, Goodbye.” AND MEAN IT.

29. #130
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, cngerms said:

    Thanks FirstSkirt! I, too, would like to see a total turnover of the GOP. They are far too entrenched. It will take larger voices than ours, however, and I really have no idea as to how one goes about initiating what would amount to a national movement. You’re smart! Get the movement launched and I’ll help.