Right-winger declares that Obama is really a Muslim

[Stranger in a strange land]

So says an uglier version of Ann Coulter

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No word on what the Arabic phrase is for "Call me, Barack"

What a ing nut job

This person has a weak understanding of Islamic law.

ITs not like Judaism where if your mom is a Jew you will always be a Jew case.

Once you convert to Islam, you discard you previous religion. Once you convert out of Islam, you discard Islam.

True, i'm sick of right-wing whackos making s*** like this up to somehow tie democrats to radical islamic terrorism. Barack Hussein Obama and "once a Muslim always a Muslim" and "B-iraq Osama" may play well in the deep south and great plains, but it's toxic on the coasts and in most of the midwest. I think one of the BEST things about having Obama as the nominee will be that the right-wing race-baiting will be so over-the-top that people will finally see it for what it is.

And it is true that once you abandon Islam, other Muslims no longer see you as a Muslim...just ask Aayan Hirsi Ali!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All the more reason to nominate Obama, the foaming at the mouth racist right-wingers will be out in force saying stupid sh**t.

[Rob]

All the more reason to nominate Obama, the foaming at the mouth racist right-wingers will be out in force saying stupid sh**t.

True; this kind of smear could really backfire.

[bullmoose88]

All the more reason to nominate Obama, the foaming at the mouth racist right-wingers will be out in force saying stupid sh**t.

True; this kind of smear could really backfire.

It could, but only if middle america in the swing states sees it for the bullsh**t it is...otherwise those blue states are just going to get bluer, and not much else.

[Deano963]

Lets lose 2008, and wait for 2012.

Brilliant strategy, james.

Do you say these kind of things just for the sake of having something to say? I'm starting to get the whole "attention whore" thing that's been directed at you lately.

[RBH]

Lets lose 2008, and wait for 2012.

Brilliant strategy, james.

Do you say these kind of things just for the sake of having something to say? I'm starting to get the whole "attention whore" thing that's been directed at you lately.

James seems more like "Mr. Irrelevant" to me. He's not really trolling or anything.

[GOP = Terrorists]

These rightwing theocratic terrorist warmongers are a million times closer to these Islamic extremists like Bin Laden than Obama is.

[Smash255]

All the more reason to nominate Obama, the foaming at the mouth racist right-wingers will be out in force saying stupid sh**t.

True; this kind of smear could really backfire.

It could, but only if middle america in the swing states sees it for the bullsh**t it is...otherwise those blue states are just going to get bluer, and not much else.

True, however after seeing what listening to these foaming of the mouth right wing nut jobs have led us to over the past 6 years (Bush( they might not be as willing to listen to these foaming of the moth pieces of dirt.

[Rob]

It could, but only if middle america in the swing states sees it for the bullsh**t it is...otherwise those blue states are just going to get bluer, and not much else.

To be honest, the GOP may profit from some subtle race-baiting (merely using his full name in press releases may be enough); but anything too over-the-top will be risky for them.

[Defarge]

It's things like this that will provoke a backlash against racism and push Obama into the White House.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I just wondering, Are there any sort of special "foaming right-winger" earplugs available on the market? You know, earplugs that only work once one is in the presence of a Coulterbot, Randroid, Daily Mail Guzzler, "Concerned Bigo..., I mean, Parent" and other types?

I'm tired.

I wonder if they have "left-wing earplugs" on the same aisle?  I'm getting sick and tired of extreme partisan bickering on both sides, the right and the left.  Why is it so impossible to ever return to civility in politics?  Do we elect men and women or do we elect boys and girls?  Whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or a third party, if its possible, let's put aside our party differences and work together.  I'm just as guilty as the next person, but let's get back to what the founding fathers really intended for this country.  I just hope this new Democrat-led Congress doesn't try to belittle the Republicans and their ideology, or vice-versa.

Oooohh.. Where can I get those? I'm a partizan hack you see, I hate both the mainstream left and right with equal passion. I just attacked the right as 1) their in power right now 2) the title of this thread referred to one said moronic 'right-winger'.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

I think Obama is doomed with that god-awful name of his.  First name that rhymes with "Iraq", middle name "Hussein", last name rhymes with "Osama"

...sorry, but I have a pessimistic view on human nature

[JSojourner]

He very well could be. From what I've seen, I'm impressed. Even if he is a democrat, and gasp...a populist leaner.

But he's socially liberal!

First, if you have more than one Bullmoose...what's the plural?  Bullmeece? <grin>

Second, thanks for your points.  I really love your posts and they remind me why I so respect the original Bullmooser -- Teddy Roosevelt.  He's a Republican (or an Independent) I could vote for!
Come on man...you know I vote on economic theory (not practice) and thats the main reason for the color of my avatar.

[JSojourner]

Same old shit from the usual suspects. These people would never vote for any Democrat. And I hate to oversimplify, but most racists in general already vote Republican.

funny you say that because:
Democrats started the KKK

Let me respond.

You say the KKK was founded by Democrats.  I suppose Nathan Bedford Forrest and the other ex-Confederate officers might have been identified as Democrats.  But the Democratic party of the south was different from that in the north.  George McClellan was regarded as an appeaser of rebellion in some corners, but not as a racist.

And very early in the Klan's ascendency in the 20th century, it became clear that the KKK had many powerful Republican AND Democratic friends.  Governor Ed Jackson of Indiana was a Republican and a very good friend of the Klan and D.C. Stephenson.  Stephenson was a socialist and then a Democrat early on.  But he became enraged by those parties' support for poor and marginalized peoples.  He formally switched to the Republican Party because it's views were more friendly to the KKK, which he headed.  So Democratic ties to the Klan, while not completely cut until the 70's, were already dying off in the 1920's.  Harry Truman famous referred to Klansmen as Ku Klux Sons of B*tches.

And as an aside...where in hell did you get the idea Mel Gibson is a Democrat?

[AndrewTX]

Some people are just crazy. That is what makes me proud to be to the more moderate to liberal wing of the Republican party. I'm far enough away from those idiots, that I can just start calling myself independent.

[JSojourner]

Some people are just crazy. That is what makes me proud to be to the more moderate to liberal wing of the Republican party. I'm far enough away from those idiots, that I can just start calling myself independent.

The liberal and moderate wing of the GOP has a wonderful history and has contributed much to our nation.  I shudder to think of America without people like Jacob Javits, Margaret Chase Smith, Tom Dewey, Ike, Gerry Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, Nancy Kassebaum, Al Simpson and Mark Hatfield.  I am just sorry that there are so few of you in power!

[Gabu]

Here is what I mean,

With Candidates like Obama or Hillary (I like the former and do not like the latter), there is no way we would win the 2008 election with those two. Oh, and I have seen people metion Hillary-Obama tickets. Umm, that is a loser ticket. Obama would be a great candidate in the future, but 2008 is just to soon for him.

So please do not get an attitude with me you slut.

Anyway, that right-winger who said Obama is a muslim is irrelevant. Right-wingers will do anything to make any Democrat look bad.

His name may be similar to many creepy people in the mideast, but he has nothing to do with them.

If you had your way in 1990, I have no doubt that the Democrats would have been saying "Let's just lose 1992 and wait for 1996."

[Deano963]

Lets lose 2008, and wait for 2012.

Brilliant strategy, james.

Do you say these kind of things just for the sake of having something to say? I'm starting to get the whole "attention whore" thing that's been directed at you lately.

Here is what I mean,

With Candidates like Obama or Hillary (I like the former and do not like the latter), there is no way we would win the 2008 election with those two.

That may be the most naive statement I have ever read in this forum. You are really showing yourself to be completely and utterly clueless in respect to politics with statements like these james. You really have no, none, zip, zilch, nada grasp of history or politics if you think it is impossible for either of those two to win the Presidency. You honestly think that there is no way that Hillary or Obama (who is one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party, not to mention politics in general) would be able to win the Presidency on the heels of a Republican President whose approvals ratings will most likely be in the 30's as he is leaving office? And with the Iraq war likely still going on? I agree with Gabu, if it had been up to people like you in 1992, the Democratic Party would have sat out the election.

Your defeatist attitude is irresponsible and disturbing as well. How the hell can we sell ourselves as a party to the American public if we just say "Oh, we have no idea how to fix the country''s problems, so we're just gonna sit this one out and try again in 2012"

S-T-U-P-I-D.

So please do not get an attitude with me you slut.

wtf?

I am coming to regard you more and more as the Democratic version of DWTL every time I read one of your unintelligible posts.

[Democratic Hawk]

Deano, James, cool it . Why don't you just agree to differ on whether or not 2008 is an right time for Obama to run?

Getting back to the article, it's a load of crap

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Deano, James, cool it . Why don't you just agree to differ on whether or not 2008 is an appropriate time for Obama to run?

Getting back to the article, it's a load of crap

Dave

Well Deano started it.

Then you can be a grown-up and finish it

Dave

[Deano963]

you better quit your nasty attitude with me

Nasty attitude? Asking you to explain your reasoning and your positions is a "nasty attitude"?

omg you you are the Democrativc version of DWTL.

[Deano963]

you better quit your nasty attitude with me

Nasty attitude? Asking you to explain your reasoning and your positions is a "nasty attitude"?

omg you you are the Democrativc version of DWTL.

1) You are rude to a lot of people on this forum.

1 - DWTL does not qualify as a "a lot of people".
2 - Simpling asking you to provide the reasoning to one of your statements is not rudeness.
3 - I sure as hell hope you do not plan on attending college, james. Profs are going to ask you constantly to back up what you say with something intelligent, and they're not going to think it's funny when you tell them they are being "rude" b/c you can't think of anything.

2) How the hell am I the democratic version of Downwiththeleft? I am the least partisian poster on this forum.

1 - B/c you throw out factually incorrect, blanket statements and then later either:

A) retreat from them,
B) refuse to elaborate and become defensive when asked why you feel that way or
C) become childish and start name-calling when someone challenges you to debate (calling me a "slut" b/c I asked you your reasons - LOL! - what are you, five?)

3) Please explain to me why you think a Senator from the Blue State of Illinois will make inroads with red states?

First of all, I asked you multiple times to explain your earlier statement that it is impossible for either Hillary or Obama to win first.....

Second of all.....

OMG. So that's your reasoning? Are you kidding me? Your reasoning is that b/c he is from a "Blue State", it is impossible for him to win a Presidential Election on the heels of George W. Bush?

 I guess that means his personal politics, stands on the issues, stance on the war, his ability to connect with voters, his high popularity among women voters, his charisma, his story, his star power, his ability to speak eloquently and passionately about religion - all of that matters nothing b/c he is from Illinois? That logic is wrong for a million reasons.

Now I really regard you as knowing nothing about politics.

[Boris]

Bill Clinton was a good candidate. He was a governor and that is a better qualification for the top executive office then a Senator.  In 1990 I surely would have been a Clinton support and would have looked foward to his 1992 election victory.

No you wouldn't have. First of all, Clinton didn't make an announcement that he was running until well into 1991, and without the internet, it's doubtful you would have even heard of him in 1990 (unless you lived in Arkansas). Secondly, President Bush had extremely high approval ratings throughout 1991 and polls showed him with a commanding lead over both Bill Clinton and Ross Perot until July 1992. When you add in all of Clinton's baggage (the adultery rumors, etc.), he looked like a loser all the way up until the Democratic National Convention.

The point that I'm trying to make is that it's silly to make these judgments two years out. A lot will change in two years. Hell, this time in 2002, it looked 2004 would be a landslide GOP victory, not the close race it turned out to be.

[Gabu]

Bill Clinton was a good candidate. He was a governor and that is a better qualification for the top executive office then a Senator.  In 1990 I surely would have been a Clinton support and would have looked foward to his 1992 election victory.

Given that Clinton was a total unknown who came out of nowhere to win the primary and then the general election, and given the fact that Bush seemed absolutely unbeatable in 1990, no, I somehow doubt that you would have.

...which is exactly my point.  You're suggesting that Democrats should just give up on 2008 two years before the election?  No political party ever rose to prominence by simply ignoring every single race in which their candidate would not have been a sure bet.

[TheresNoMoney]

Jamespol is way, way off on most of his statements in this thread.