June 9, 2008, - 1:56 pm

The Real “Indecision 5768”: Obama, the JOOOO-ish Lobby, and Anti-Semitism

By Debbie Schlussel
The Barack Obama official campaign website is also apparently the official website for anti-Semitic bloggers. A few days ago, Carl in Jerusalem detailed how one official Obama blogger wrote an anti-Semitic screed on “How the Jewish Lobby Works.” A must-read, it was about AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which–for the record–represents very few Jews.
As readers know, I am NOT a fan of AIPAC, for good reason. AIPAC is basically a self-selected few liberal, wealthy, unrepresentative Jewish 10,000-pound gorillas who try to impose their liberal territory-for-“peace”, pro-PLO policies on Israel. But even though it is a bloated bureaucracy that embodies all the negative aspects of a catty synagogue sisterhood which doesn’t represent the majority of American Jews, AIPAC has been used by anti-Semites as a symbol of the Jews and has become a convenient vehicle for their open anti-Semitism.

obamajewishlobby.jpg

That this baloney about “the Jewish lobby” was on the Obama site should tell you something, even if–a few days later–the B(Hussein)O campaign erased the blog, which had been very welcome there to that point.
On a very related note, I debated whether or not to link to this video, since I can’t stand Jon Stewart (he’s another American National IQ Test) and I don’t agree with the “points” that he makes. In fact, he, himself, doesn’t get his own points.
But, in the end, I decided to link to “Indecision 5768“* (tip to reader Michael and Zionist LapDog) because it shows–contrary to what Stewart is saying–that AIPAC, ie., “The Jewish Lobby,” is a platform for fraud. All of the candidates that spoke there, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Hussein Obama, all used it as a stage for their diplomatic photo op to the Jewish community. They all fell all over each other to out-Jew and out-Israel each other. As an American and a Jew, I’m as disgusted as anyone by their well-fertilized verbal gush over this staged gefilte fish buffet.

After all the electioneering is over–while self-hating Stewart and his fellow self-hating Jewish writing team decry that none attacked Israel–they will all be like Bush, regardless of whom is elected. Each will force Israel into more one-sided concessions and land giveaways. And none, in the end, will be the best President for either Israel or America or the Jews. Any one of them will be the worst for all three parties involved, though McCain may be slightly, barely palpably less worse than Obama. And not by much.
And, as we know, after his AIPAC speech, Obama already backtracked, er . . . “clarified” his position on Jerusalem, saying he didn’t really mean it should remain the undivided capital of Israel, when he said exactly that at AIPAC.
And trust me, Jon, when they go speaking to Arab groups, they aren’t going to be attacking Hezbollah, HAMAS, or Fatah. Where’s your commentary about that?
So glad Stewart is now the expert on what may or “may not be in the best interest of the world,” but we’re concerned here with what’s in the best interest of AMERICA, Jon. Though–Memo to Jon–attacking Israel is in the best interest of neither party.
While Stewart claims that none can “remotely criticize Israeli policies and expect to be elected President,” none can remotely expect to be President without completely betraying Israeli once they’re elected. Arabs and Muslims take heart.
So sad that Stewart–in his otherwise funny video–doesn’t get it, while he attempts to say, “Look at me, I’m an unbiased Jew.”
Oh, and BTW, lest you think otherwise, Jon Stewart is definitely voting for “Gadolph Titler,” er . . . Barack Hussein Obama. If you think he’s voting for McCain, I have some overly sarcastic but not very smart real estate (once owned by Bill Maher) at Comedy Central, to sell you.
Jon Stewart scores very low on the Kosh-O-Meter. And even lower on the far more important What’s-Good-For-America-O-Meter
* 5768 is the current year in the Hebrew/Jewish calendar.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email






26 Responses

I never heard of Stewart until I read about him on your post recently — I try to avoid almost everything about today’s ‘culture’. After watching the video, I agree he is totally obnoxious, but what disturbs me even more than his idiotic and anti-Semitic chatter, is the fact (if real) that people enjoy & are laughing at his idiocy. Really shows the degeneration of culture today. There are some talk show so-called comedians whose silly chatter is just as stupid. I wonder if Stewart will do a comparable monologue ridiculing Muslims. It was probably a good idea to link to this; I never would have watched Stewart on my own & become aware of his offensive behavior.

c f on June 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm

John Stewart is now considered one of the most influential journalists in the country.

PrincessKaren on June 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm

“I never heard of Stewart until I read about him on your post recently –”
God, you’re such a liar, CF.

No Pasaran! on June 9, 2008 at 5:05 pm

How is Obama supposed to be so different? All I hear is how he’s above racism, supposed to bring people together, he’s a new kind of politician, he’s transcending our petty differences, or whatever…I don’t see anything about him that is above the fray. Never mind that he hangs around with some of the most virulent racists in the country, he throws his friends overboard like it was nothing, and then he pretends he had no idea what they were about. What are all these Obama groupies fainting over?

John Harper on June 9, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Believe it or not, No Pasaran, some people really try to insulate themselves from all the garbage that is out there. I never heard of you either until reading your garbage on this blog. Both of you are pathetic.

c f on June 9, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Dear Debbie:
As you know, I deeply admire you and the effort you put into your blog. I agree with so many things you write about, but I cannot endorse this column. AIPAC is routinely branded as a nefarious anti-American, “Israel-first” organization by people who hate Jews. If this perspective lacks any contact with reality, it also seems to me that branding AIPAC as a nefarious “anti-Israel” organization also lacks perspective.
While at the AIPAC Policy Conference, Ted Deutch, the sponsor of the Iran-Divestment legislation in the Florida legislature served on the panel of one of the breakout sessions. I think it’s fair to say that AIPAC is supporting Iran-divestment legislation in State governments and that there are always practical limitations on what can be accomplished. Ted speaks for himself in the following rebuttal to Caroline Glick’s column which you have linked. Here is Ted’s column:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202742139676&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Like you, I certainly wish AIPAC would be more aggressive and confrontational toward bad American policy. I found myself fully capable of expressing that view at the Policy Conference. That being said, AIPAC still draws a lot of attention and credit for being an effective lobby. Perhaps it is good that Israel’s enemies focus on AIPAC while the REAL work of advocating for Israel is done elsewhere.
After the AIPAC policy conference, Mrs. TINSC and I visited the Yorktown battle field. The battle begins by General Washington making elaborate plans to make the British believe that the bulk of his army is in New York planning to invade the British Army headquarters there. By the time the bulk of Washington’s army (over half of who were French) had marched south to Yorktown, Gen. Cornwallis found himself outnumbered, in big trouble with re-enforcements tenuously far away. The rest is history.
So it is with AIPAC. Let the “bad-guys” think that AIPAC is the all-powerful lobby representing America’s pro-Israel sentiments. The bulk of America’s pro-Israel supporters are, and always have been Christians. Together, we will continue to lobby directly. Nobody is going to stop that; certainly not AIPAC. Let AIPAC put on “the big show”. I’m happy to participate in it and let the bad-guys direct their attention at AIPAC while I pursue a more direct and confrontational pro-Israel policy with you and others.
2+2 may equal 4, but so does 3+1. There’s no single way to promote pro-Israel policy in Washington. And let’s not forget some of our corporations that have made significant investments in Israel. Warren Buffet isn’t exactly a conservative and he just plowed $4 Billion into Iscar. Liberals can, and DO advocate on behalf of Israel. Naturally, I wish we weren’t losing so many of them to peer pressure from the extreme left, but preventing that will require efforts on my part that are separate from those contained in this forum.
AIPAC isn’t the enemy. Like you, I don’t like the way they are intimidated by the State Department, the FBI and several presidential Administrations. Nonetheless, I find value in what they do.
You like CAMERA. Don’t you? CAMERA’S President Andrea Levin didn’t find AIPAC so objectionable. She ran one of the breakout sessions at the policy conference.
AIPAC has a place in pro-Israel advocacy, even for those of us who wish it would be more confrontational and plain-speaking about bad U.S. policy toward Israel.
I don’t think I have any illusions on this issue. I merely have a more balanced perspective on the issue and respectfully encourage you to re-evaluate yours.
Sincerely,
There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

There is NO Santa Claus on June 9, 2008 at 9:14 pm

“I never heard of you [Pasaran] either until reading your garbage on this blog.”
Those were the days, my friend …

Gary Rosen on June 10, 2008 at 2:38 am

I find it difficult to agree with Gary Rosen. In the linked rebuttal in the Jerusalem Post, the statement is made that divestment is working. I disagree strongly. First, divestment is scattered; many European, and some US companies (unfortunately with AIPAC’s help) are ignoring it; Iran is moving inexorably towards the bomb, is successfully destablilizing and taking over much of the Mideast surrounding Israel. Of course the fact that Andrea Levin takes a position on something tangential to her work does not validate that position. AIPAC supports the ‘peace’ process which anyone observing the last 15 years can see is not in Israel’s best interests. There were thousands of people there, and I’m sure a few of them understand these things, but the leadership seems so buried in day-to-day Washington politics that it is unable to separate itself from that framework and see what is really in Israel and the U.S.’s best interests.

c f on June 10, 2008 at 6:08 am

The smarmy self hating Jew Stewart is indicative of what is wring with the majority of American Jews today.
Assimilated, secular and ignorant about history.
This is the same ilk of “German 1st” Jew who thought they were exempt from persecution just prior to Hitler’s take over.
Stewart’s connection to Judaism is a corn beef sandwich and dill pickle.
This ilk of self hating Jew forgets he burns at 350 degrees-just like the Hassidic. Think I’m over the top? ask Barack and Pat Buchannan what they have in common…..

PeaceAtAllCosts on June 10, 2008 at 8:33 am

Just because a Jew doesn’t hold the same far-right views as you PAAC, that doesn’t make them self-hating. Many of Israel’s greatest heroes have been Socialists, for instance.

No Pasaran! on June 10, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Debbie, well said.But I take umbrage with PAAC and his/her ad hominum attacks. It’s like listening to Marnie Vander Helsing on one of her fatuous Air America appearances with Rachael Maddow. I’d rather choke on the aforementioned corn beef sandwich.

PhilEBinson on June 10, 2008 at 3:34 pm

GR — sorry, I meant my response for TINSC.

c f on June 10, 2008 at 6:11 pm

c f:
Hopefully, you noticed that I am critical of AIPAC.
My comments about AIPAC and sanctions is that AIPAC has supported sanctions against Iran and that the first advocate of sanctions by STATE governments was a presenter at the AIPAC Policy Conference. Debbie’s claim in one of her links claims:
>Great, but as Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick pointed out, the group he was speaking to–AIPAC–has been working (despite its public position for divesting from Iran) to stop ALL (emphasis mine) legislation around the country aimed at promoting Iranian divestment:<
I can tell you from personal observation that this is untrue. Whether AIPAC’s action is effective is certainly open for debate. However the claim that AIPAC is been working to stop ALL legislation around the country aimed at promoting Iranian divestment is quite inaccurate.

There is NO Santa Claus on June 10, 2008 at 9:48 pm

THINC, I understand what you are saying, but putting a damper on any legislation at all which promotes divestment is not helpful to Israel, even though I think the divestment campaign has inherent limitations. But my main concern about AIPAC is its support of the peace process and support of politicians both in the US and Israel, who do not act in ways that benefit israel’s inerests. In the 1930s, perhaps a weak argument could be made that the prevailing anti-Semitism made it difficult to advance jewish interests; this is much, much, less true today, and really was not true from 1942 on, when the facts of the Holocaust became known.
NP, there was a split in the early Socialist/Communist movement about Zionism. Communists/Marxists always opposed the idea and existence of a Jewish state, including ‘Jewish’ communists such as Trotsky and Luxemburg. Some Socialists who were affiliated with the Second International, did support Zionism, & presumably those are the ones you are referring to.
However, today, those types of socialists have slid over to a more Marxist type of position, and it is rare to find socialists outside of Israel who support the idea of a Jewish state. In Israel, itself, they work to de-legitimize it. Just as you don’t have pro-defense Democrats the way you used to, you don’t have pro-Israel socialists the way you used to.

c f on June 10, 2008 at 10:41 pm

C.F. you shouldnít pontificate about subjects you clearly know nothing about without doing even basic research first. It makes you look quite silly.
There has always been a long history of Jewish Socialist movements, both in Europe and America. Socialists played a key part in the resistance to Nazism ñ for instance in the Warsaw Ghetto. Socialist Zionism was developed by the Marxist Ber Borochov and Syrkin and Gordon. Socialists like David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir were amongst the founders of the Israeli nation. None Israeli Jews such as Albert Einstein were also keen supporters of the Labour Zionist movement.
The leadership of the Israeli Armed forces were dominated by the political Left for decades.
I could go on all day about the establishment of the Kibbutz movement, and a treatise on Britainís Jewish left movement & the signees of the Euston manifesto, Liberal Hawksí like Christopher Hitchens, etc etc, but my fundamental point is proven. To describe Jews who do not follow your narrow hard-right political ideology as ëself-hatingí is clearly idiotic and un-supported by any facts.

No Pasaran! on June 11, 2008 at 3:36 am

NP, if you read what I said, I did not deny there was an early Socialist tradition i favor of Israel. The Socailist opposition to Nazism, however, was inconsistent and sporadic. They spent more time fighting the Communists in pre-Nazi Germany than they did uniting to fight Hitler. Many of the people you named were aligned, either formally or loosely, with the Second International, again consistent with what I had said(eg Syrkin’s non-Marxist Socialism). Mentioning Einstein doesn’t refute me either; the Soviet Union (sic) did support the formation of Israel for a very brief period in the late 40s up to the beginning of the Korean war. Einstein was a fellow-traveler of the Communists. However, he died in 1955, prior to the real vitreal of israel by the left, which really started full force in the 1967 war. I did not use the expression ‘self-hating’ in any of my comments.
Your ‘long history’ of Jewish Socialism’ basically stopped in 1967. There may have been a few scattered Jewish Socialists since that time, or remnants of earlier Jewish socialists who hung on for a little while, but the movement itself stopped by the 60s.

c f on June 11, 2008 at 7:11 am

CF you just make this stuff up as you go along, don’t you?
The sentence “The Socailist opposition to Nazism, however, was inconsistent and sporadic” is bordering on the insane. Communists and Socialists were by far the best and most organised defence to the Nazis in occupied Europe, I notice also how you conveniently gloss over Socialists roll in the Warsaw ghetto.
The tragedy is that many of these heroic resistance leaders gave their lives so that schmuks like you could re-write history to their own convenience. You should be disgusted with yourself.
You complain that you haven’t used the phrase ‘self-hating Jew’, but that concept goes to the heart of what this thread was about, until you decided to hijack it with your bizarre brand of ‘EVIDENCE-FREE’ historical revisionism.

No Pasaran! on June 11, 2008 at 8:13 am

NP, you are now going off the deep end (as though you weren’t there before). This is what socialists/Communists generally do when they’re challenged about something. They lapse into invective and obscenity like the rabble-rousers they are beneath the thin veneer of intellectualism. You clearly do not know the history of left-wing groups in the Wiemer Republic. The conflicts between the Socailists and Communists during the 20s was legendary — they had separate political parties, labor unions, and peripheries. By the time of the Warsaw Ghetto, the damage was already done — Hitler was in power. By conflating two vastly different time periods, you are obscuring a central point I was making about the lack of effective left-wing opposition to Hitler’s coming to power. And after all, he had many Socialist characteristics himself, as pointed out once again in Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism.
When you’re wrong about the comments I made, don’t admit your mistake, just wrap your mistake in more invective. Like the left-wingers on camps who try for a couple of minutes to discuss intellegently with a pro-American speaker, and when they lose, start throwing eggs or bottles.

c f on June 11, 2008 at 9:41 am

AIPAC is generally a worthless organization. I don’t think they have ever won even a single contested vote. If anyone disagrees please let me know.
To the extent that AIPAC lobbies in support of aid to Israel, they are actually hurting the Jewish State. This aid is actually a hindrance. There are (at least) two reasons for this:
1) While Israel has made strides towards liberalizing its economy and becoming more of a market based economy, the “aid” allows Israel to keep making further strides towards becoming a true market based economy. Why should Israeli politicians have to make tough decisions to further free up its economy when the US subsidizes the current status quo?
2) It allows US administrations to pressure Israel into making decisions that are not in Israel’s interests out of fear of losing that “aid”. Israel would be more secure without the aid and the strings that go with it.

I_am_me on June 11, 2008 at 1:40 pm

CF, you are a charlatan and an intellectual fraud. You post false statement after false statement without any attempt to back up your claim, excepting that you launch into ad hominum attacks on me when I call you out on it.
**
“They lapse into invective and obscenity like the rabble-rousers they are beneath the thin veneer of intellectualism.”
Pot/kettle/black
**
“And after all, he had many Socialist characteristics himself, as pointed out once again in Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism.”
yeah riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
Now you mention it, I’d forgotten all about old Adolf’s ‘Socialist’ policies. The way he gave workers control of the means of production, the way he caused the power of the central state to ‘wither away’. Forgot all that. I suppose the 400,000 Socialists, Communists and Trade Unionists that he murdered was just some kind of administrative error. I mean “murder all socialists” when you are supposed to “murder all conservatives” – it’s an easy mistake to make.

No Pasaran! on June 11, 2008 at 5:46 pm

NP, are you nuts? Do you think workers ever had control of the means of production in the Soviet Union (sic), Cuba or anywhere else? Dictators order everyone what to do & if you breathe the wrong way you are imprisoned or killed. Where has the state ever ‘withered away’? Certainly not in the Socialist Lands. Cuba? Venezuela? Get real. Stalin murdered socialists, communists, trade unionists, Castro did, all these socialist and communist scum did. Of course there are differences, but if your reading skills were greater, you would have seen that I said that Hitler had “many socialist characteristics”, not that he was a socialist.
I realize people in advertising are trained to mislead, obfuscate and deceive, but it won’t work here. Hitler’s welfare policies (if you were the right ethnic person), use of the state apparatus to control the country, were indeed characteristic of socialism/communism, as was his demagogy about taking from the rich & giving wealth to the people. Of course he didn’t do it, neither did any of the other socialists or communists.

c f on June 11, 2008 at 11:10 pm

“NP, are you nuts?”
Nope.
**
” Do you think workers ever had control of the means of production in the Soviet Union (sic), Cuba or anywhere else? ”
Nope
(that’s because they weren’t Socialist states in anything but the labels that were put on them.
**
“Dictators order everyone what to do & if you breathe the wrong way you are imprisoned or killed. ”
Correct but irrelevant.
**
“Where has the state ever ‘withered away’? Certainly not in the Socialist Lands. Cuba? Venezuela? ”
See answer to your first ‘point’.
**
“Get real. Stalin murdered socialists, communists, trade unionists, Castro did, all these socialist and communist scum did.”
As did your Conservatve scum like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Nixon etc.
” Of course there are differences, but if your reading skills were greater, you would have seen that I said that Hitler had “many socialist characteristics”, not that he was a socialist.”
I yes I did read that thank you very much, but it remains total and utter bollocks.
**
“I realize people in advertising are trained to mislead, obfuscate and deceive, but it won’t work here. ”
No, we are not trained to do anything. My job here is to inform, and your right that won’t work here. Because people like you are by definition uneducable. Your ‘minds’ are totally closed to such irritations as ‘facts’ or ‘history’.
**
“Hitler’s welfare policies (if you were the right ethnic person), use of the state apparatus to control the country, were indeed characteristic of socialism/communism…”
Total bollocks.
**
“.. as was his demagogy about taking from the rich & giving wealth to the people. Of course he didn’t do it, neither did any of the other socialists or communists.”
Too stupid to respond to.
You know this isn’t true as well as I do. Does inventing all these alleged ‘facts’ make you feel clever? You don’t see the need to provide any real world evidence for these deluded statements of yours?

No Pasaran! on June 12, 2008 at 2:59 am

NP, first a general comment about your methodology: preferably should have been made at the beginning of a thread so more people would read it but —
by dividing a person’s comments into sentences and responding to each one, your level of distortion is raised. You can distort each sentence. This gives you an advantage of increasing the number of distortions, making it harder for someone to respond, and finally, compounding the amount of distortion. i.e. one distortion builds on another, so there are so many distortions by the time you finish that wading through each one, as well as the compound distortions is a Herculean task.
It looks intimidating to respond to, but when someone looks at it, they see that none of these one-sentence clips actually have any substance — they are “too stupid to respond to”, “total bullucks”, “you know this isn’t true”, “irrelevant”,”yeah, right” etc. Of course Hitler and Mussolini weren’t conservatives. No conservative associates with them.
The lack of any substance in this reply once again shows the utter poverty of your mental processes. A quick epithat, a few insulting comments.
Two other asects of your methodolgy: first, always try to have the last word. Typically of socialists and commies, try to wear the enemy out. That’s how these little bands of misfits take over larger groups of people. Second, always change the subject. Typical of liberals, socialists and commies. If you can’t answer a point, switch to something else — “but what about so and so”.
Oh, one more thing: like dyed in the wool comomie misfits, you won’t take resposibility for any of the commie states in existence. Cuba, Soviet Union (sic); every time the commies have tried to run a country it’s been a lousy dictatorship that has messed up completely. So what’s the answer? Oh, they were’t really Communist. This response shows at least, that you’re really a Commie. You always call yourselves Socialists because you know how much everyone hates Communism since it has been such a terrible form of Government. So call yourselves Socialist, and try to dissociate yourselves from all the Commie dictatorships.

c f on June 12, 2008 at 6:35 am

C F – poor deluded C F.
The whole entire point of this debate (before you hijacked it) was on the nature of Conservatives describing non-Conservative Jews as ‘self-hating’. I demonstrated quite convincingly I think that this was idiocy. So though I appreciate that you were not involved in that debate, I won that one – as usual.
Now we come to your ‘Straw Man’ diatribes.
I don’t take responsibility for Stalin or Kim il Sung, in exactly the same way that you refuse to take responsibility for Hitler and Mussolini. For the same reasons, though ostensibly of the far right, Hitler was a despot and a murderer. Ditto Stalin, labelled far-Left was also a despotic killer. So Hitler was not a Conservative and Stalin was not a Socialist. Even so, your attempt to label Hitler as having left wing tendencies is just so idiotic, it’s difficult to know what to say in response. It’s the sort of level of debate I had to put up with in high school.
Amusingly, you then attempt to criticize my debating style! But what to make of your style, which involves inventing ‘facts’ about (say) Socialist resistance to Hitler, ‘facts’ not garnished with anything as crude as ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’.
Like most Conservatives you are incapable of nuanced thinking. For every complex social or geo-political problem there is a conservative solution that is blindingly obvious, simple, and completely wrong.
Need oil? invade Iraq! Middle East spiraling out of control? Bomb Iran! – that’ll solve everything!!!
As for your juvenile labeling exercise, I don’t much care, though I know you conservatives love labels. It makes the world so much easier to understand doesn’t it? If everyone who has the temerity to disagree with your infantile analysis is a ‘commy’ or a ‘terrorist’ I mean heaven forbid that your rightist analysis might be wrong.
For the record I am not a Communist at all, I am a fairly bog-standard Western European Democratic Socialist. But you know what? I would be much prouder to wear the label ‘Communist’ than I would ‘Conservative’. Ultimately, Communism – though naive in its analysis of the human condition, and using a model of society that is 100 years out of date – is still a philosophy based on love. Conservatism is based on hatred, it’s about the survival of the fittest, sink-or-swim, exploitation of your fellow man, destruction of resources. Conservatives love freedom. The freedom to hang people, the freedom to shoot people, the freedom to exploit the poor and the dispossessed.
Your welcome to it.

No Pasaran! on June 12, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Here we go again with the name-calling, Juvenile, infantile. Communism based on love? Ask Joe Stalin, Fidel Castro, Mao tse-Tung and the other Commie butchers. Your name-calling about conservatism has no specific examples, typical of the liberal/socialist/commie hacks. Labels make people accountable for their positions and actions. Nothing wrong with calling something what it is. Conservatism rises out of the English democratic tradition of the 17th century, a tradition that overcame hanging, shooting people and exploiting the poor. Taxpayers are beat down all the time giving welfare to the lazy poor, illegal aliens, people gaming the system. There is free health care & education. You sound like someone who has sunk; I recognize this type of bitterness from the types of maladjusted people who are not successful & blame everyone but themselves.
Your last comment is really silly — of course no examples, but of course, Joe Stalin’s philosophy is based on love, or Chavez, or Castro.

c f on June 12, 2008 at 2:21 pm

” Conservatism rises out of the English democratic tradition of the 17th century, a tradition that overcame hanging, shooting people and exploiting the poor.”
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Seek psychiatric help dude.

No Pasaran! on June 12, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field