Sean Hannity hosted David Limbaugh (brother of you-know-who) and Democrat Steve Murphy as part of a presidential debate fact-checking show. But, not surprisingly, Hannity accepted without question Romney’s debate accusation that President Obama went on an “apology tour.” Never mind that this accusation has been widely discredited. But the segment soon turned into a shouting match as Democrat Steve Murphy refused to be interrupted and silenced by the two loud-mouths who seemed to think that spewing hate about America was some kind of badge of patriotism.
It’s laughable that either of these two should be whining about anyone else putting America down. Has Sean Hannity ever gone a full segment – much less an entire show – without smearing President Obama, Democrats, liberals and anyone else he disagrees with politically? All in the name of freedom of course. And Limbaugh is about as like-minded as they come.
But with a straight face, Hannity asked, “Why doesn’t he (Obama) talk about America’s greatness?” For further hypocrisy, Hannity whined, “He called our country arrogant!” This, from the guy who regularly suggests on national television that our President is a racist, anti-American and in office fraudulently.
I wish Murphy would have thrown Hannity’s hatriotism in his face but he did not allow himself to be bullied by the bullyboys. “You asked me a question here, Sean. Do I get to answer or do you want to go on your own personal jihad here?” Murphy shot back at one point.
Murphy got in a few more zingers such as, “By the way, if you were descended from slaves, you might not think the Founding Fathers got everything right, either.” And “Just say it! Just say it! You think Mubarek should still be in charge, right? Why don’t you both just say that! We should have had a Tiananmen Square in Cairo!”
Sadly, Murphy is exactly right about that. And it proves that democracy, that distinctly American institution, is yet one more thing that those two "America lovers" hate.
Conservatives have bumper sticker slogans for both sides of any issue. “Cut & Run” changed to “fiscal responsibility” and may change back should Romney get elected. They have slogans for promoting democracy by force but if it happens peacefully they wet their pants.
That’s because for the most part — it is.
@Blind Sighted: “Anyone who reads all of Nobamaâs speeches abroad and who doesnât understand that it was an apology tour has lost the capacity for rational thought.”
You’re right, Blind — but only in the sense that President Obama wasn’t apologizing for America: he was apologizing for his PREDECESSOR.
“Our troops should all be brought home NOW not in 2014.”
Honestly, you teabagging rightwinguts have GOT to make up your minds how you feel about foreign deployment of US troops.
All during the Iraq War, the mere SUGGESTION that the troops should return was regarded as treasonous, and elicited cries of “cut an run” . . . even when Dumbya left office, the troops were making (RW-supported) videos “begging” President Obama to “let me finish my mission” . . .
And when it became clear that the wars were cost prohibitive — that is, when Obama actually put their cost on the nation’s budget sheet, unlike his predecessor — suddenly they were to be brought home NOW . . . and, when they actually left Iraq on 12/31/10, there was MORE criticism of “cutting and running” (even though that date had been agreed upon by the Iraqis and Dumbya himself) . . .
In any case, you’re gonna be disappointed about Afghanistan: as Romney made clear in the last debate, he agrees with the President about keeping troops there through 2014 . . . but why do I have the feeling that, if Willard somehow manages to buy/steal his way into the WH, Mr. Braille here will will be back in a few months (under a different sockpuppet name, of course), loudly trumpeting how much he agrees with the policy — since it’s coming from a white man, and all . . .
“The reality is that he is abiding by the treaty because it gets him $2 billion a year and he couldnât defeat Israel in a war and he knows it.”
Doesn’t that contradict your earlier, and recent, assertions he will cancel peace treaties?
“That will be the end of democracy because Islamic law is the antithesis of democracy. Under Islamic law, only Allah can make laws so that the very idea of man-made laws is antithetical to Islamic law and anathema.”
It’s not true because Islamic Law specifically requires that leaders are elected; additionally, Sunni and Shia differ on role of religion in government. Since the 7th century, Sunni scholars settled on secular societies with religious backbone (sort of like the US being a secular country but with Christian beliefs, culture, etc…) whereas Shia believe in theocracy. This also explains why ONLY Iran has the religious leader at the highest office (above the president) whereas in most Arab countries, the highest religious authority is at most a minister within the cabinet and reports to the prime minister. Additionally, Syria for one had Christians who held this post throughout their modern history (you can look that up since you pretend to be so knowledgeable).
You also claimed democracy cannot exist in that region. So explain to me: how come they toppled dictators and held free elections in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya (where secularists defeated MB). It’s clear this is what the people there want, and it’s creepy you are against their will. Who do you think you are to dictate your will on foreign people you never met?
“Brutality of Mubarak vs. Mursi: If Mursi fully implements Shariâa, as he and his Salfist partners”
So, you are using a hypothetical. The Salafis are not his partners; they ran against each other in the election. So, I ask for a factual statement, you reply with “if” and the likes, and add an incorrect statement to it, then want to be taken seriously? I am asking for REALITY not fears held by paranoid fear-mongers such as yourself.
Hamas is MB too but they are NOT the same organization; every country has “Liberal Party” or “Conservative Party” but they operate independently and are not necessarily connected even if they have the same name. Your play on words and names is cute if you’re 5 years old; past that it’s lame. Also, to suggest that Mursi will abide by what Hamas Charter says is hilarious, and you have no proof for it. You are just speculating.
Regarding what Bukhari said, this is a PROPHECY regarding end-times, just as Christians hold similar ideas on what end-times are.
Next, you claim Egypt under Mubarak is better than some other country with some other leader. That is one idiotic statement because I asked you to compare Mursi with Mubarak on the SAME country. Apparently, that is too much to ask from a person who can’t string up one factual statement. Also, did you ever live in Egypt to know what life is like now and before?
Regarding Quran quotes, you took them out of context. The verses you selectively cherry picked are in the LARGER context of what Muslims should do if attacked (they are entitled to self-defense). In Sura 2, the command is: Fight those who fight you and do not aggress for God does not like aggressors.
Your entire rant is either hypothetical or paranoia so when you are ready to have a serious conversation based on FACTS ON THE GROUND, we will be here. I am not interested in “if” and “may” because, honestly, I am not your therapist.
“Clearsighted, "This liberal fantasy that you can have Jeffersonian democracy spring up in a country which has never known democracy and in which the predominant religion considers democracy anathema and an insult to their god is delusional. "
So you are saying that George Bush and his neocon foreign policy advisors were delusional in their aims in that region? Keep in mind many of those same delusional advisors are now part of the Romney team. "
Actually, your reference to the American Revolution is an interesting one. The problem is that by that example you actually proved the truth of what I said.
You see, the essence of our Jeffersonian democracy is the rule of law together with an electorate which accepts the principle of majority rule while protecting minority rights. This takes a long time to develop.
These concepts are unknown in Muslim Brotherhood thinking. There is no respect for minority rights in the majority of the Egyptian population. Non-Muslims are being persecuted in every corner of Egypt and many are being forced to flee for their lives. The Muslim Brotherhood has stated its intention to implement Islamic law in Egypt. That will be the end of democracy because Islamic law is the antithesis of democracy. Under Islamic law, only Allah can make laws so that the very idea of man-made laws is antithetical to Islamic law and anathema.
To answer your points, one by one:
Brutality of Mubarak vs. Mursi: If Mursi fully implements Shariâa, as he and his Salfist partners have promised to do during the âelectionâ, then Egypt will have a death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy, and heresy. Saying anything negative about Islam, even if true, will also be punishable by death. Women will be reduced to second class status. Amputations will be imposed for petty theft and other crimes. Adulterers will be stoned to death or flogged. Just look at Mali today and Afghanistan when the Taliban were in power. While Mubarak was no angel, it is clear that life under Mubarak was far better for Egyptians than life under Mullah Omar was under the Taliban.
Israel Peace Treaty: Although Mursi tells gullible Westerners that he intends to abide by the treaty with Israel and just appointed an ambassador to Israel, donât ever forget that Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Hamas Charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. Therefore, no matter what Mursi says to gullible Western ears, his speeches in Arabic are different. The reality is that he is abiding by the treaty because it gets him $2 billion a year and he couldn’t defeat Israel in a war and he knows it.
Mursi and extermination of Jews: Just last week, Mursi was caught on film on Egyptian TV in a mosque praying for the destruction of all the Jews, not just Israel, mind you, ALL of the Jews. www.memri.tv Also, do you deny the hadith of Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: âNarrated Abu Huraira: Allahâs Apostle said, âThe Hour of Remembrance will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: âO Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.â
Hating the United States based on his religion: You may be able to get away with that kind of sophistry with the gullible politically correct, multicultural types but I know that you know better. Here are my sources: Qurâan Sura 9:29: âFight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.â Also Sura 9:5: âKill the unbelievers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.â Since the United States is 98% non-Muslim, hence 98% âunbelieversâ or âkuffarâ, the requirements of Sura 9:5 and 9:29 applies to the United States.
You really want to continue to challenge me on this?
Average American Patriot is right. The ads are placed automatically on the page. It’s also based on text on the page and where you’re from. I see a lot of ads for a candidate in my state.
AAP is also right that it’s a useless proposition to ban all the right wing ads. However, I am very against concealed carry so if you see the ad again (I have not seen it at all), please get me the url of the ad if you click through, the name of the ad and tell me where it’s placed on the page because there are a few different ad networks. And i’ll block it.
Well, Donna (and fellow dead-minded Foxites), you have the right to judge any words by anyone any way you please. But, that ‘right’ doesn’t necessarily make your opinion (which is really just the Fox opinion) true, does it? However, it it makes you happy then we’re all happy for you! In fact, we’re some damn happy that we may appear to be laughing at you!
Well guess what, buddy? Guess where this “liberal fantasy” actually did happen IN SPITE of there not being any real democracy and in which the area’s “predominant religion considered democracy anathema and an insult to their go?”
Give up? The US. You may not realize it, but before John Hancock and company set forth that little document called the “Declaration of Independence,” our country was a series of colonies controlled by England. We had NO representation in the British Parliament and all the colonial leaders took their orders from London, and King George. There’d been several years in which British troops were stationed in people’s homes—without their consent or approval; the King decreed it, and it was so.
As for the religious deal, you might want to read how—even AFTER the First Amendment declared the people had “freedom of religion”—the vast majority of American citizens were subject to religious beliefs to which they did not adhere (just because you were a “Christian” didn’t mean that your particular church believed all the same tenets that the STATE-approved church did; even your choice of Bibles was subject to what the State backed). But, prior to the Revolution, the simple fact is that “democracy” is TOTALLY anathema to “religion.” Plain and simple. The concepts on which democracy is founded rely on the inherent idea that (as the Declaration of Independence states) “all men are created equal.” Democracy mandates that leaders be selected from one’s peers—NOT “divinely selected.” Churches operate on the basis of hierarchy and failure to follow the rules results in shunning or expulsion from the community (even the Southern Baptists, which purport to believe that member churches are independent to follow the Bible as they see fit, actually demand loyalty of their members). Go back and read how the CHRISTIANS of the early New England colonies treated those who didn’t “conform” to the community’s standards. Why, those folks sound positively “savage” by today’s standards; you could almost confuse them with “Muslims.”
So you are saying that George Bush and his neocon foreign policy advisors were delusional in their aims in that region? Keep in mind many of those same delusional advisors are now part of the Romney team.
or is it enough that Fox simply inserts those words based on their own subjective understanding of an objective statement?
I know. It’s a silly request because I already know where your shit is coming from. It’s already been proven to be lies. You dumbass trolls are incapable of learning.
Any proof you have that Mursi is more brutal than Mubarak? Also, any proof he is a dictator not a democratically elected president?
Any proof he swore to cancel the peace treaty?
Any proof he wants to exterminate anyone?
Any proof “they are commanded by religion” to hate the US? Last I checked, Islam pre-existed the US by like 1200 years, so would be hilarious if it did.
Clearly short sighted
Yet you expressed your support for DICTATORS feeding their populace the same tripe.
Are you going to denounce Zionists any time soon?
If the president had the interests of the United States at heart instead of those of the Muslim Brotherhood, he would want Mubarak to still be in power.
- Clearly short sighted
Why would a democrat, or republican for that matter, want to support a DICTATOR?
The new-clown vision of imperialism in the Middle East was predicated on the turd of “freedums and chimpocracy” spraying like wild fire.
Paraphrasing your battle worn hero, mAnn Coulter:
“Our DICTATORS are better that YOURS”