Michelle Malkin » “Comrade”

“Comrade”

By Michelle Malkin • April 3, 2009 01:43 PM

Feeling warm and fuzzy all over. How do they translate “Yes, we can” in Russian?:

Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as “my new comrade” Thursday after their first face-to-face talks, saying the US president “can listen” — even if little progress was made on substance.

The Russian president contrasted Obama as “totally different” to his predecessor George W. Bush, whom he blamed for the “mistake” of US missile shield plans fiercely opposed by Moscow.

I have a feeling our friends at The People’s Cube are going to have a ball with this! Speaking of which, check out their new Zazzle store. Commie mockery for every occasion!

Posted in: Barack Obama

Printer Friendly

comments (99)

trackbacks (20)

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

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On April 4th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, zyzzyg said:

On April 3rd, 2009 at 10:29 pm, Flyoverman said: #81

My point is you are not wrong at all in anything you said, nor I believe am I. It is a balancing act based on several factors. The best thing these systems can do is serve as a deterrent. The best weapons systems are the ones that do their job without ever having to be used.

Fair enough. And, I am certain we would agree that redundant systems, also serve a purpose. Notwithstanding the cost, it would be wonderful to have missile defense systems everywhere we could. Yet, cost being an issue, where would a missile defense system against Iran best be placed?

As a personal note, please know that I am not a liberal, as Corkie suggests. In fact I am extremely offended by his suggestion.

More often than not, I take issue with how issues are presented, and am concerned about being consistent.

Actually, I am more angered when someone on the ‘right’, my side, is disingenuous, misrepresents the truth, or falsely characterizes an issue. It is like family, and yes, I am concerned about what the other side says, but I am FAR more concerned when a member of my family strays.

I expect the ‘left’ to be knuckleheads, but when you represent me and what I believe in, and then stray, that becomes too much. Yep, I am harder on my family than I am on the neighbors children.

I simply expect more from my own.

Though subtle, we responded directly and immediately to one anothers questions in a respectful manner. And, that is unlike what Corkie does.

Thank you,

Z
#102

On April 4th, 2009 at 3:10 pm, zyzzyg said:

Flyoverman,

Just for emphasis, Corkie said the following -

Flyoverman, aren’t you a tad bit surprised that zyzzgy and the other liberals on here aren’t claiming that missile defense is a Reagan fantasy which will never work?

I defy anyone to find where I said the missile defense is a Pres Reagan fantasy.

Because I have questions about the best placement for a missile defense system does not mean I oppose it. Based on the mere question somehow my position is mischaracterized, and that is offensive. Corkie is offensive, and I am less likely to ever respond directly to anything said by Corkie. [NOTE: Thank you for the opportunity to do so indirectly. Tongue in cheeck. LOL.]

Again,

Respctfully,

Z
#103

On April 4th, 2009 at 4:02 pm, corkie said:

You think I’m offensive??? HA!

You shouldn’t be hypocritical. I never claimed you were against, or skeptical of, missile defense systems. I stated my surprise that you’re not.

In fact, I clearly stated that your criticism of the placement represents progress! Why would you imply the opposite?
#104

On April 4th, 2009 at 6:30 pm, conservative in europe said:

Zyzzyg and Flyoverman, sory to break in to your conversation but there are a coupld of points I think need interjecting:

1. Whay not place the missiles in Turkey? Because a prior Democrat in the White House promised the Soviets (Russia, same thing today) that he would remove missiles already there so we have the precedence of no US ballistics in Anatolia.

2. Why Poland? Because Western Europe screwed us on Iraq. You see, since 1917, we have been jumping to the military needs of Western Europe spending blood and money (lots of both) to clean up the messes they made. However, the first time we actually ask them for the slightest bit of assistance, they call it an “illegal” war. Well, no Bosnian or Serb ever attacked America – but it was OK for us to come to their rescue because they needed it. They didn’t need us invading Iraq because Saddam owed them money – that they knew would never be repaid.

OK, what does this have to do with Poland? Well, Western Europe screwed us so President Bush turned to those Europeans we had most recently liberated, the Eastern ones. Poland was more than willing to help us. However, they aren’t stupid and they understand that the Uncle Sam gravy train comes with very few strings attached so, what do US Military bases bring to Poland? Jobs and Polish spouses of US Citizen Soldiers who move to the US and send money home.

That is really why Poland was considered. I like to think the fact that it torqued Russia’s nuts was a factor too but the payback angle is the most plausible.

Sorry, it was either that or feed the troll (lgm) and I promised not to do that any more.
#106

On April 4th, 2009 at 8:50 pm, Dandapani said:

This STICKER is going to look great on my Russian Ural Sidecar Motorcycle!
#108

On April 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am, zyzzyg said:

On April 4th, 2009 at 6:30 pm, conservative in europe said: #93

You made several points, and I have questions.

Any conversation is good conversation.

Not placing a missile defense system in Turkey, why couldn’t that be changed? Treaties are modified all the time. Apparently we understood, and accepted, that the Russians felt unease about having our missile intercept system in Turkey. If that was the logic then, it is easy to believe the Russians would expect to be equally uneasy with the missile intercept system in Poland, the Czeck Republic, etc.

A missile system in Western Europe to defend against Iran does not sound as effective because of the distance any rocket will travel before it is actually intercepted.

Yes, Western Europe had thier reasons for not supporting our actions in Iraq, but the failure here is to understand that the missile system is meant to deal with Iran. That, unfortunately, is short sightedness on their part.

OK, I accept your suggested reason for placing the missile system in Poland, though I still remain skeptical of it’s effectiveness so far away from Iran.
#109

On April 6th, 2009 at 10:49 am, zyzzyg said:

To everyone -

It is about reading comprehension. I challenged another poster for calling me a liberal. And, yes that is offensive.

Reading comprehension is also a function of reading your own statements. In one single sentence by another poster it was suggested that I was liberal and that liberals thought the missile defense system was a fantasy and would never work. Yet, the same poster, now claims that they did not say that I thought the missile defense systems was a fantasy and would never work.

It is called reading comprehension. Reading comprehension of other’s posts, and your own posts.

Then an accusation is thrown out, that I might be hypocritical. OK, . . . then provide some details. Back it up.

I am prepared to accept acknowledgement that other posters have made mis-representations or, mistakes. In fact I have made them, and have accepted being corrected.

Respect is earned – Mischaracterizing the facts is no way to earn respect, casting perjoritives is no way to earn respect, and having reading comprehension is one way of earning respect.

Everyone, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to get this out.

Z
#110

On April 6th, 2009 at 12:00 pm, corkie said:

You darned hypocrite. Don’t you dare lecture me about poor reading comprehension while you clearly engage in the same practices!

Reread my comment carefully.

Flyoverman, aren’t you a tad bit surprised that zyzzgy and the other liberals on here aren’t claiming that missile defense is a Reagan fantasy which will never work?

Clearly this merely asks Flyoverman if he was surprised that missile defense wasn’t being called a Reagan fantasy (by you or by others).

Now, my next comment was;

zyzzgy’s criticism of the placements demonstrate considerable progress with respect to the liberal psyche.

This merely states that your current criticism should be considered progress compared to the previous claims which were typical of liberals (that missile defense was a pipe dream).

All you got is that I did imply that YOU were a liberal.

I don’t blame you for hating that label. So feel free to disassociate yourself from it via the content of your future comments.
#112

On April 7th, 2009 at 1:00 pm, tiredofit08 said:

On April 3rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm, cpodug said:

When does “Chairman Barack’s Little Red Book” hit the stands?

it won’t be sold it will be provided to you on the day you’re born and it will be required reading on a daily basis…or provided to you in the gulags….
#115

On April 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm, rightisright said:

I predict that Israel will be striking Iran within the year.

I believe that will happen, as soon as Israel, feels Iran is ready to fire…they have no choice, they have no more friends…it’s a fight to the death for the Israelis, thank to that spineless, pinko, American hating Great Impostor.