Obama to Russian leader: I’ll cave after I’m re-elected

cave?

Flexibility does not mean cave.

Speaking of caving, you chose the newt who invented the mandate so you caved on the mandate kyle.

• Link
• Report this comment

obozo’s already been punked on missile defense so you can only imagine what major national security component he will imperil.

If he get’s the chance, just sayin…

• Link
• Report this comment

An honest reading of this exchange shows this could be interpreted in many ways. Kyle, you aren’t making yourself look good by putting the worst possible interpretation on these words. It is far from clear exactly what Obama means here.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is the plan to bomb Russia now?

• Link
• Report this comment

Regardless of Obama and his actions, it’s truly a sad day for America as we have implemented a “shove your compromise up yer butt” political policy, especially since politics REQUIRE compromise. Despite that moderates and centrists from both parties are being ousted via pressure from their peers and the vote of the intolerant populace. While this makes for great TV and lots of fuel for the melodramatic to throw upon the fire, it accomplishes NOTHING and slows any progress or improvement to a standstill or worse. It’s childish, it’s self-defeating and it’s pointless, yet this is the mindset that has overtaken a large portion of the voting populace and it is also the mindset that the media (on both sides) are all to eager to highlight, promote and profit from. This piece is a perfect example of that, and the comments will most likely illustrate my comments regarding voters quite well also.

Wake up America – While it’s probably fun and easy to embrace the demogogues and the melodramatics while amongst friends and peers, it is completely counter-productive in the stewardship of a country.. Can’t you folk just watch reality tv or something for your drama fix?

• Link
• Report this comment

To our foreign policy resume, which already includes war loser, islam enabler, iran sniveling coward, American troop disarmer, shrinker of the armed forces, Israel’s newest enemy, flower power punk, we can now add 2nd rate Russian stooge.

But hey, he gave the order to kill bin biden, while hiding in the White House, of course.

Wow, aren’t we impressed?

• Link
• Report this comment

The thought of Obama talking with Putin over a defense system in Europe is almost comical.

Putin, another strong man of old Russia with long tough experience and little charisma, meets with “let’s have a beer” Obama of little or no experience in defense or diplomacy. What a match! The community organizer with the Russian lion. Wow!

This is downright scary. I imagine the Europeans are somewhat dazed at that thought. Me too! Giving Obama any big problem to settle is pitiful. His Chicago crowd can’t handle a big one and he can’t either.

• Link
• Report this comment

To liberals, “compromise” means “give me what I want and you pay for it”.

• Link
• Report this comment

If Russia decided to put “missile defense” in Cuba, how would we feel about that? Isn’t that like the Poland, Czech…What, wait, that happened?

• Link
• Report this comment

Bernie, in case you missed it, Cynthia Tucker and Kyle were both here at the same time. He didn’t replace her.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If Russia decided to put “missile defense” in Cuba, how would we feel about that?”

A. This is known as a deflection. Used when people cannot argue the point at hand.

B. I suspect we’d say “Have at it”. It IS a “defensive” system, is it not?

• Link
• Report this comment

Bernie, 12:41

You can find Cynthia Tucker right over in Athens, Georgia where she helps journalism students learn how to write prejudiced political columns.

Obviously you do not like Kyle because he does not write prejudiced columns. Just sensible, reasonable truthful information which is not the kind of thing you like.

But shhh….don’t tell.. Bookman is trying to be just like Tucker. Go there and find what you seek. Bye bye….enjoy!

• Link
• Report this comment

Darwin, see my 12:49.

It applies to you as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cave in to what? Let’s hope that Obama abandons the crazy Bush-Cheney scheme to put a huge US missile base in the southern suburbs of St. Petersburg, just over the border in Poland. Yeh, it’s supposed to be a missile defense system against Iran’s nuclear-tipped missiles; actually it’s just the last gasp of the useless “Star Wars” military spending program started by the Reagan administration.

Putin objects to a US missile launch facility on the eastern border of his country, just as we’d object to a Russian or Chinese missile launch facility in Canada near Chicago and Detroit. And, any thinking person can figure out the futility of spending billions on an unreliable weapon system that may be able to destroy a few missiles, given plenty of advance warning.

• Link
• Report this comment

Funny how liberals like Any Rant who bow down to the altar of science (no problems there if your science is accurate, btw), yet decry a system as “unreliable” and we should therefore not do it.

In case you missed it, Ayn, every freakin’ rocket we tried to test during the early days of the Mercury program blew up spectacularly. It would certainly fall into your description of “unreliable”. Yet we continued on and the space program was a huge success.

You don’t avoid things because they are hard; in fact, that’s why you do them at all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle – 12:35

Well, let’s see. If he does not have to worry about re-election, he can take more decisive action without worrying about Republicans distorting everything he does. As for “more flexibility” on missile defence, you and I both know this could be taken in any number of ways.

• Link
• Report this comment

So worrying about his re-election takes precedence over the safety and security of the United States and their allies, carlos?

Got it.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Kyle,

We inspected Iran’s nuclear facilities and Saddam’s weapons caches. How did that work out for us?

Russia doesn’t trust us, and we don’t trust Russia (on nearly anything). I’m good with that arrangement.

• Link
• Report this comment

Describe for me a scenario

Obama said just last week we have way more missiles than we could ever use…

• Link
• Report this comment

Sounds to me like Obama is ready to give Russia control over our security if his is reelected. Imagine liberals running both houses and the white house completely disarming us. Amazing and very scary.

• Link
• Report this comment

“President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

THAT is the reprehensible part, MarkV.

Why would anyone concerned with the security and safety of America and her allies be concerned about their re-election more than doing the right thing for US first?

My God, man! This is the guy you libs think practically walks on water for crying out loud! The guy who got Bin Laden! The guy who saved the auto industry! The guy who pulled us back from the precipice of a Depression!

And he has to wait for re-election to make this next big decision? Who’s kidding who here? Surely you don’t think he’s going to delay his decision because he’s going to get tough with the Russians, do you? It’s not as if he’s going to lose any of the left-wing whack-jobs out there, even if he gets too tough for Pete’s sake!

His future position is either going to be weak, or appear to be weak, and as we know it’s so much better to sell out your country once you’ve been ensconced in your cushy chair for another 4 years.

“Reprehensible” is the current Disaster-in-Chief’s middle name.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle – 1:43

That’s apples and oranges. You know perfectly well Israel has a free hand to do whatever she wishes and the US must support her no matter what.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good topic today, Kyle. The libs on here are absolutely apoplectic!

• Link
• Report this comment

His meaning was clear. Aftter ther election, wink wink, he will give Putin whatever he wants. There is no way he means to do something that the american people would approve of or he wouldn’t have needed to hide his true intentions. Did you like the way he reached over and squeezed the Russians knee to assure him Obama was really on the Russians side. We can speculate as to why Obama feels a need to give Russia what it wants but there is only one conclusion. Unilaterally disarm without Senate approval or approval by the American people.

• Link
• Report this comment

T you should try out for a soap, you got acting down… for a rank amature.

• Link
• Report this comment

“cave” as noted by others, is a poor interpretation of “flexibility” loaded with negative connotation without cause. To put the shoe on the other foot, suppose a Republican president wanted to wait until after an election to push for huge budget cuts, which though possibly unpopular, would in his view be in the best interests of the U.S.

While many on the left might view particular cuts against the interests of the country, in what way would that president have “caved” by waiting until after an election to try and implement them?

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle owes the President an apology for questioning his patriotism.

• Link
• Report this comment

Perhaps Obama was just blowing smoke up Medvedev’s a@#. Politicians are good at that. They call it “diplomacy”.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle Wingfield @1:44 pm: “In other words, MarkV, you have “contempt” for what I write, but no rebuttal.”

Yes, and I confirm my contempt for you. You have chosen a particular, offensive interpretation of Obama’s words. Why don’t you give us your evidence that flexibility means caving in? There are many issues that a negotiation like the one with Russians involves, and flexibility only means that none of the options are off the table.

• Link
• Report this comment

“To put the shoe on the other foot, suppose a Republican president wanted to wait until after an election to push for huge budget cuts, which though possibly unpopular, would in his view be in the best interests of the U.S.”

Simple. First, no President worth his salt would say such a thing to another foreign leader, nor would they say it within earshot.

Second, budget cuts don’t directly affect the national security of ourselves and our allies, as this decision (or lack thereof) does in this case.

And third, this is a mild deflection from you, saywhat?

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, Obama doesn’t need an explanation, charitable or not. There is however, no charitable explanation for you on this matter. You libelled the President, plain and simple.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep looking MAYBE JUST MAYBE you can find a PROBLEM that most of you

would like to find.

SO FAR, I don’t see one.

But keep LOOKING.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, in your 2:02, you are assuming that the Republican President would be doing something he might ordinarily be against, much as you are ASSUMING that President Obama intends to do something he would ordinarily be against, or something not in the US’s interests. As you should well know, not everything in our nation’s interest is popular. And just because YOU think something is against our best interests, doesn’t mean the president agrees with you, or that you are necessarily right.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Kyle,

The inspection process can’t work because there is inherent distrust on both sides. That was my point. It led to war and poor relations. The strategy has not worked in either case, and would have failed with Russia.

Moscow did feel threatened. We are in their back yard, and in their sphere of influence. They were threatened by the potential loss of influence and force. We didn’t grant them a veto. We did the right thing. If Russia had put a “defense” system in Canada, Mexico and Cuba, we would be on the brink of war right now (or I would be campaigning against Obama).

• Link
• Report this comment

saywhat? @ 2:02 pm

Kyle may not have libeled the president, but he certainly insulted him and every rational person of this country.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Kyle Wingfield

March 26th, 2012
2:03 pm
Solution @ 1:56: If it’s mutually beneficial, why does he need to wait for the safety — that’s what he means by “flexibility” — of not having to be elected again?

***************************************

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you …

Duh…………..That is NOT OBAMA SPEAKING.

Those are the words of President Medvedev.

“that’s what he means by “flexibility” — of not having to be elected again? ”

So now YOU ALL can READ OBAMA’S MIND?

hmmmmmmmmmm

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle @2:03
Oh I don’t know- maybe because he has an opposition party whose primary goal is to make him a one term president rather than do whats best for the country? Surely you are not so blind as to not see this.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If Russia had put a “defense” system in Canada, Mexico and Cuba, we would be on the brink of war right now (or I would be campaigning against Obama)”

Neither intended to be factual statements.

• Link
• Report this comment

FICA is not a tax I guess.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle,

If you are so keen on others suggesting an alternative scenario, why don’t you start by suggesting yours. You have not presented anything yet, except the words “cave in.” So tell us how President Obama will “cave in,” what is he going to give up, and your evidence for it. It is easy to insult by inference, so put up now.

• Link
• Report this comment

All incumbents running for office try to push through popular legislation before an election while postponing unpopular legislation until after the election. In politics, just as in life, timing is everything. You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em… That’s why he’s president and you all are not.

And as others have said, just because a policy is unpopular doesn’t mean it’s not in the best interest of the country.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So tell us how President Obama will “cave in,” what is he going to give up, and your evidence for it.”

So tell us, MarkV, which Presidential Daily Briefings you attended during the Bush administration that caused you to determine that he “lied” about WMD’s in Iraq, and your evidence for that “lie”.

You see, MarkV, Kyle is an opinion writer, and you are a blogger of some disrepute. Neither of you have access to the information YOU are demanding of Kyle, yet you want him to tell you what is in the so-called “mind of the current Disaster-in-Chief as to specifics. Ain’t gonna happen. Kyle has formed a (rather informed) opinion regarding the President’s own words, and seeing no alternative, has shared that opinion with us and told us why he believes his opinion to be valid.

You, on the other hand (as is typical for you), have failed to provide an alternative argument to Kyle’s.

I suggest you try at some point.

• Link
• Report this comment

The utter disdain that Obama has for this country is disgusting. He is caught on an open mic telling the Russians he will give in to them AFTER THE ELECTIONS, and the libs are here trying to spin it. Unbelievable!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

And to change subjects, but to prove my point of the total failure of this presidency, where is Obama after the New Black Panthers Party issued a $10,000 bounty for the man who killed Trayvon Martin? I thought he was going to change the tone and civility, and bring the country together?

• Link
• Report this comment

“President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

sounds like politics to me. But the Conservatives are desperate for something…..give em this to gnaw on for a few weeks.

• Link
• Report this comment

“When say he wins back congress he will have more flexibilty to make policy that won’t be stopped in the congress on procedural votes. Just one explanation.”

Your failed Civics in school, didn’t you, Jefferson?

Congress doesn’t approve treaties or foreign policy initiatives. That is the purview of the Senate or the Executive Branch alone, depending on the type of agreement.

• Link
• Report this comment

Policies cost money, knowitall.

• Link
• Report this comment

It was half baked because I felt yours was. Mean spireted is all I heard.

• Link
• Report this comment

Damn straight Jefferson!! His policies do cost money!

My money!

• Link
• Report this comment

“my last election”

“Let me concentrate on getting this right. I can’t do anything if I’m on the lecture tour.”

??????

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree with Junior. He was BS’ing the Medvedev to get him off his back.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow, the libs are more upset over this blog than I’ve ever seen them. A couple of these little fellows are about to stroke out. I guess the truth is starting to get through those thick little heads of theirs, and what they are seeing is making them sick. obama is just a pretender in chief, a little boy sitting at a big mans desk. He could care less about the strength of this country, only in bringing it down. The majority of voters have seen through this frightened little man and a change will be made in November. obama is a four and out failure, maybe he can go out to Plains, Ga. and hang with jimmy carter and compare failed administrations.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not much of a scandal, by the way.

Oh how we pine for the weekly scandals of the Bush administration. “Quick Dick, notch up that threat alert color, we gotta cover our asses again.!”

• Link
• Report this comment

@Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!

March 26th, 2012
2:09 pm
“Keep looking MAYBE JUST MAYBE you can find a PROBLEM that most of you would like to find.

SO FAR, I don’t see one.”

Color me shocked!

**************************************************************

Color me NOT SHOCKED that you are shocked.

Are you shocked that I am not shocked that you are shocked?

• Link
• Report this comment

Bush did indeed begin the wall Street bailout. And the Bush TARP program was in fact profitable. Obama hijacked TARP to other purposes and lost his ( really ours, of course) rear end.

Obama did indeed inherit a very difficult economic situation from Bush. Obama set out to make a temporary problem permanent.

If you are going to espouse a massively larger federal role in the society, you must also offer basic competence. Obama has tried to offer the former without the later.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tibs- Bush may have started out looking for bin Laden, but he sure wasn’t a priority by the end of his administration. Bush’s own words. With us being in Iraq and the economy collapsing and all. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch and he had the gall to strut like a peacock in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier saying mission accomplished. If any of you repubs have a problem w Obama just take a minute and recall the Bush debacle. Kyle voted for Newt so his credibility is nonexistent. The rest if you voted for Bush twice and are in the same boat as Kyle.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Joe The Plumber Too

March 26th, 2012
3:25 pm
obama is just a pretender in chief, a little boy sitting at a big mans desk.

**********************************************************************************************

The ONLY thing LITTLE on Obama is his little finger.

WHAT’S Little about you? .

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Is that why you hate Obama because he is BIGGER than you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Solution goes on the urological attack?

The conversation at hand has to do with Obama not having a spine.

DUH…

• Link
• Report this comment

solution, sadly, obama got the parts your interested in from his white half…..lol

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah, I’ll bet Putin was asking obozo to carpet bomb Moscow, uh-huh.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle – 1:48

You have provided one interpretation of Obama’s remarks. Since this brief exchange between Obama and Medvedev is so nebulous, your drawing such a hard and fast conclusion suggests you simply are reading into these brief remarks what you want to believe. I really can’t tell exactly what he meant by these remarks. And, neither can you, with any certainty.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Joe The Plumber Too

March 26th, 2012
4:04 pm
solution, sadly, obama got the parts your interested in from his white half…..lol
*************************************************************************

Sadly, IT AIN’T A LIE IF YOU BELIEVE IT (heeheeheehee)

• Link
• Report this comment

“You have provided one interpretation of Obama’s remarks.”

And thus far, the ONLY plausible one.

• Link
• Report this comment

Strike one!

The Marxist didn’t win their 1867 tax argument on obumercare Kyle.

• Link
• Report this comment

Regarding today’s SCOTUS case – here is an international perspective:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9165629/Elderly-dying-due-to-despicable-age-discrimination-in-NHS.html

Elderly dying due to ‘despicable age discrimination in NHS’

Thousands of elderly people are dying unnecessarily early because ‘despicable’ age discrimination in the NHS is denying them treatment for cancer, a charity has warned.

“A lack of treatment or insufficient treatment is contributing to 14,000 deaths a year in people over the age of 75, Macmillan Cancer Support has found, in what it called an ‘unacceptable act of discrimination’.

Deaths from cancer are reducing in most age groups but at a slower rate in those aged 74 to 84 and are increasing in people aged 85 and over, the report said.

The report, The Age Old Excuse: the under treatment of older cancer patients, said treatment options are too often recommended on the basis of age rather than how fit the patient is.

Professor Riccardo Audisio, Consultant Surgical Oncologist at St Helens Hospital, said: “It is despicable to neglect, not to offer, not to even go near to the best treatment option only on the simple basis of the patient’s age.

“This has been a horrible mistake that, particularly in the UK, we have suffered from.”

Although it’s true that I am a liberal, I DO NOT want my health care to be decided by government bean-counters ….their idea of efficiency is letting someone else’s loved one die from lack of treatment, because ‘it’s for the greater good.’ Ugh.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Going into hysterics over Obama’s vague remarks only proves you have little or no skills in reading comprehension.”

Not really that vague at all, carlos. Especially considering there has been no viable alternative to Kyle’s opinion brought forth by any of you libs.

“Obama really doesn’t hate America and will not committ treason and sell us out to the Russians.”

Let’s see . . . scrolling back . . . . scrolling back . . . . scrolling back . . . . NOPE! Couldn’t find anywhere where I said he’d commit treason, carlos. Tell you what. I’ll write for me and you read it. Don’t try to write for me, OK?

• Link
• Report this comment

Sure you are hehe, that’s why you Marxist continually attempt to cover every negative comment and remark made about your dear ruler obumer and Socialism on these conservatives blogs – out of fear.

Strange how I nor any conservative to my memory, ever pitched whiny childish tantrum and called on bookman to take back anything negative he said about Bush?

• Link
• Report this comment

obozo Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court

The dummycrats sent in the klowns.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle has written today a contemptible, despicable article. It is one thing to criticize the President for a policy you disagree with. It is something else to take a few innocuous words, by which no promise is made other than not being rigid in future negotiations, and interpret that as having the intention to take a negotiating position contrary to the interest of this country. Kyle has disingenuously asked for “alternative scenarios,” as if he had presented any of his own. He has not. If his scenario is that “Obama intends to cave in,” than the alternative scenario is that “Obama does not intend to cave in.” By his article Kyle showed himself not better than those who use labels to besmirch the President, and about who he wrote in his blog rules:

“I will also have high tolerance for labels (e.g., socialist, fascist, wingnut) regardless of political orientation, if only because they reveal weakness on the labeler’s part.”

• Link
• Report this comment

What does this being his last election have to do with anything?

The only rational interpretation is that he’s intending to do something Americans oppose.

Democrats are probably for it though.

Democrats and Obozo: Why do they work so hard to weaken America?

• Link
• Report this comment

Waaaaaay back in ‘08, Obama told us to our faces what his destructive intentions were.
FOX News was never Obama’s worst enemy. His worst enemies are YouTube & search engines. I’ve been citing his very own words on this blog for 3 years.
Obama talked about “my first term” & is now taking about “my election.” There was no “IF I’m elected.” Will our votes count or will those counting the votes count?
If Obama is re-elected, he will no longer need to deny what he actually SAID & what he is actually DOING. He will no longer find it necessary to hide his true agenda. It will be apparent to even the least cognitive swappers of ignorance.
The Land of the Free will continue down this spiral to the Land of the Free Stuff, until there’s no more freedom & no more stuff. The money is already gone.
I have a shiver down my spine.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ever notice how these intolerant Marxist hate truth in advertising and proper labeling, Kyle? It is so telling, isn’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV, why don’t you stop whining and repeating your complaint and actually do as the host asks:

Provide a plausible alternative.

Or just head over to Bookman’s where you won’t get you a$$ handed to you so often.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Rafe Hollister

March 26th, 2012
4:52 pm
.

What is truly amazing are the same people that incessantly defend Oblamer can always be counted on to spin Russian actions, threats, and propaganda in the most positive (almost Orwellian, illogically comical) ways. Makes you wonder if there is a connection between loving Oblamer and loving totalitarianism.

**********************************************************************

What’s NOT surprising are the same people that incessantly ATTACK Obama can always be counted on.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Michael H. Smith

March 26th, 2012
5:05 pm
Go ahead Kyle, put all your Marxist readers in time out until after Nov. 6 – I mean, really, you can afford to lose two people
*********************************************************************************************

I DONT think I heard the FAT lady sing.

It ain’t over til its over.

• Link
• Report this comment

A leter to the president;

“Congress has made exquisitely clear to your administration and to other nations that it will block all attempts to weaken U.S. missile defense,” Turner stated in the letter. “As the chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee, which authorizes U.S. missile defense and nuclear weapons policy, I want to make perfectly clear that my colleagues and I will not allow any attempts to trade missile defense of the United States to Russia or any other country.”

Turner noted that during the December 2010 ratification debate over the New START arms treaty with Russia the president made specific promises that Russia’s opposition to U.S. missile defenses would not impact U.S. plans to deploy both short- and medium-range missile defenses in Europe and elsewhere.

Additionally, the president promised to make both “qualitative and quantitative improvements in its missile defenses,” Turner said.

“You have already walked away from detailed promises to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent; are you now planning to walk away from your promises regarding U.S. missile defense as well?” Turner asked.

Amid concerns that the administration planned to share highly classified missile defense secrets with Russia in an effort to assuage Moscow’s fears that U.S. defenses will target its missiles, the defense authorization bill signed into law by the president contains a provision that limits the president’s ability to share classified data with Russia.

“Congress took this step because it was clear based on official testimony and administration comments in the press that classified information about U.S. missile defenses, including hit-to-kill technology and velocity at burnout information, may be on the table as negotiating leverage for your reset with Russia,” Turner said, noting that the president said he may treat the limit as nonbinding when he signed the defense bill into law.

The comments in Seoul, in addition to the signing statement, “suggests that you and your administration have plans for U.S. missile defenses that you believe will not stand up to electoral scrutiny,” Turner said.

Turner said Congress has made clear to the administration and to other nations that it will block all efforts by the administration to weaken missile defenses.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Lil’ Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)

March 26th, 2012
5:21 pm
The lefties on this thread are noticeably less well-represented and more subdued than usual.

Very curious.
***************************************************************************

BOOKMAN got ‘em all booked on his blog. Over 500. COMPARED to Wingfield’s 171.

Hate ain’t as popular as you all THINK.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sam: who cares what those communists have to say
——————

Obozo obviously cares very much. So much so that he had to make a secret deal with the Russians to do their bidding, right after the election.

Your guy’s a traitor.

• Link
• Report this comment

“how many presidents have used a governing strategy of taking on politically touchy issues after their last election”

Probably a great many.

How many have articulated their future strategy to our biggest geo-political rival and within earshot of reporters?

Probably none.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, please out some speakers in the time out room so these Marxist can hear the FAT LADY warming up. Meanwhile, you two can FRET and resume confirming your fear of losing by continuing to spin every remark and comment we conservatives make after Kyle releases you two comrades on Nov 7 of this year.

Love it when these Marxist have to work so hard just to get a day pass to defend their failed dear ruler obumer mm, mm, mm.

• Link
• Report this comment

Looks like HATE ain’t that popular over here
—————

Bingo.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Michael H. Smith

March 26th, 2012
5:34 pm
Kyle, please out some speakers in the time out room so these Marxist can hear the FAT LADY warming up. Meanwhile, you two can FRET and resume confirming your fear of losing by continuing to spin every remark and comment we conservatives make after Kyle releases you two comrades on Nov 7 of this year.

Love it when these Marxist have to work so hard just to get a day pass to defend their failed dear ruler obumer mm, mm, mm.
**************************************************************

You working pretty hard there yourself MIKEY.

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee

• Link
• Report this comment

IT AIN’T A LIE IF ALL OF YOU BELIEVE IT (heeheeheehee)

March 26th, 2012
5:29 pm

I am MOVING ON to Bookman’s.

THANKS

……
IT AIN’T A LIE IF ALL OF YOU BELIEVE IT (heeheeheehee)

March 26th, 2012
5:34 pm

There are over 500 BLOGGERS over at Bookman’s.

ONLY 176 over here.

Looks like HATE ain’t that popular over here with ONLY 176 comments.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

——————

Well, at least you are as good as your lying PreZ’dent at keeping your word!

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius, Kyle has a blog. The other one is a cult, an exchange of ignorance. When the opinion writer went on vacation & left up a mural, there were 5000-6000 comments.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obviously the Obama Administration got caught with their pants down and are now using the tired old communist tactic of mocking their opponents because the don’t have facts to support their cover up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah your getting your head handed to you on a platter and your arse planted like a fence post.

Yo, obumer, you better call in reinforcements. You’re losing turf and getting hammered brutally over here on Wingfield’s blog.

• Link
• Report this comment

more flexibility = a secret deal? my goodness you folks do let your imaginations run wild. like i said to kyle, i dont expect his readers to be smart enough to understand how governing works. i’m old enough to remember when questioning the president was equated to being a traitor. that would be the last administration and his followers…so maybe you’re the real traitor.

• Link
• Report this comment

i also seem to recall the former president having looked into Putin’s heart and having a wonderful trusting bond with the man, meanwhile he got his hat handed to him. maybe obama is playing the same game and after the election he’ll tell russia to go f themselves…i know its a 24/7 election these days but this is really a non-issue..you can do better kyle, or can you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Some people never were old enough or wise enough to remember the history of this country as others do, to the times when many have often raised questions about and even against a President. In fact Teddy Roosevelt went so far as to imply that it was unpatriotic and treasonous to not speak against a President because of respect for the office when one felt it needful to do so against the holder of the office.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hi Kyle, not sure if you’re still reading comments. Since you asked, “Suppose Obama were to be caught on a hot mic asking Netanyahu for “space” until his re-election so that he had more “flexibility” regarding Iran. How many of you would think he meant something Netanyahu would not like and which would be popular here in the U.S.?”

I would assume Obama was asking Netanyahu to hold off on military action against Iran. Having the U.S. (or an ally) engaged in another Middle Eastern conflict would be unpopular with Obama supporters, but it does seem likely that Israel will want action. I don’t see the connection between your hypothetical and the Russia quote though (it seems like you were fishing for a different response).

As for guessing at the president’s meaning (and Mr. Tapper’s explanation), I’d assume that with both Obama and Putin consumed with domestic affairs (Obama is in the middle of a re-election year; Russians are still rioting over the results of their election), they have not had time or space to work on missile defense or other issues. Even on internation affairs, Russia is a lower priority for Obama than Afghanistan, China, Israel, our Middle Eastern allies, or the economic problems in Europe.

All I take away is that after the election, both leaders will have more breathing room to work. It’s probably not worth reading too much more into it. In general, we haven’t had a strong Russia policy since Bush senior left office, and I don’t figure much will change twenty years later.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty @ 5:20 pm

Dusty,

Do not start today by being ridiculous. Not to mention irrational. Why don’t you start by explaining your following sentence?

“Now some of you need to go back and see that the president said “cave” and why he would wait to say it after the election.” Is that supposed to mean something?

And while you are it, explain how you know that Obama “would yield or submit to Putin now.. “

I do not owe Kyle any apology, and what you write is again irrational. I never wrote that Kyle did not have the right to say what he did. I also had the right to say what I did. As a blinded view of the President, I can say the same about you. And where did I demand unavailable facts? It was Kyle who demanded them.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

You’ve really become THE most useless blogger on the planet.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow, it’s obvious that Obama was telling the guy that he couldn’t do what he wanted to do without risking making the voters angry before the election. I guess that’s why so many of his supporters on this blog are upset. They hate it when his mask slips. Makes it too hard to defend him (which seems to be a full-time job).

• Link
• Report this comment

Another deep statement by John, with absolutely NOTHING to back it up or to add to the conversation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thanks to Obama, Libs need bibs.
Is there is pill for frothing?

• Link
• Report this comment

Daniel: Suppose Obama were to be caught on a hot mic asking Netanyahu for “space” until his re-election
——————–

Democrats tend to forget this, but Israel is our ALLY. Big difference. We work WITH Israel. When we work behind the scenes with our allies the intention is that it will strengthen us. When Obozo has to keep secrets from the American people when negotiating security issues with an adversary, it’s because he’s weakening us.

Obozo: Weak. Coward. Traitor.

• Link
• Report this comment

Somewhere above I read: It’s far from clear exactly what Obama means here. I read it twice and I still can’t believe that kind of immaturity exists.

• Link
• Report this comment

Perhaps you should stop whining john and actually post something to the topic rather than complaining about everything else but the topic.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Do you plan to continue your idiocy into and through President Obama’s second term or are you going to quit wasting your time on Kyle’s playground when he wins in November?”

John, you’re great at whining and cutting and pasting, but do you have any specific comment to make regarding my alleged “idiocy” or to the actual topic at hand, which you STILL haven’t posted anything about despite numerous attempts to get you to show some type of intellectualism.

Time for you to “man up” John.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow, I read the essay, posted my snarky comment and left. Looks like Kyle touched a raw nerve among our leftist friends. Ok, maybe he used a taser on a raw nerve, but the leftists here today look almost like they do everyday on Bookman’s blog. Well done, Kyle. We’ll have to remember to use that verb “cave” on a regular basis.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey, ragnar. Heard you were getting everybody over at Bookman’s all hot and bothered this afternoon.

Slumming?

• Link
• Report this comment

Id, you have engaged in a deflection, commonly used when one doesn’t have anything to defend the actual topic at hand.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV 6:20

I would have replied sooner but I have been busy tonight.

Anyway, I think I made myself very clear. I believe President Obama was trying to get word to Putin that they could make agreements after he was sure he had won the next election. Since he used the world “cave” , it means that Putin could guess that he could get any results he wanted.

Who else could Obama”cave” to? He was sending a message to Putin.

It is my conclusion that President Obama did not want to speak publicly because he thought it would influence his re-election badly.

I know you disagree because you want all of us to think highly of President Obama. I do not think he is an above average president. As a person, I think he is a fine “family man”. But the leadership of our country has not ben stellar under his direction. I will not vote for him because I think we need a change.
———-

Glad to hear about your bluebirds. That’s exciting! I saw a cardinal today and heard a lot of singing so there are birds around. I was getting worried.

.

• Link
• Report this comment

Evidentially flexibility means cave to the rigidly inflexible. I can hardly wait to see what you guys are wildly indignant about tomorrow. It’s never boring when your mission in life’s finding new stuff to be outraged about. If Obama tells you to have a nice day, you’re pissed because you don’t like being told what kind of day to have. Boy is life tough.

• Link
• Report this comment

Anybody who has killed 5 of the top terrorist around the world, and who has kept American safe for the last 3 years has a right to say anything.
This country went from being scared to board airplanes , code alerts to no fear thanks to President Obama so for any right wing nut jobs to question this President judgement shows what a bunch anti Americans we have in this country.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Anybody who has killed 5 of the top terrorist around the world”

Really? And what gun did he use to accomplish this?

Don’t confuse policy with performance, gm.

• Link
• Report this comment

When a moderate like Olympia Snowe gives you an “F”, you know you’ve failed.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html

Kinda puts to lie the whole “willingness to compromise” mantra by the current Disaster-in-Chief and his left-wing loonies who constantly claim that, when he and the most moderate Republican in the Senate haven’t spoken in over 2 years, doesn’t it?

When are those on the left going to see this guy as the unmitigated failure of a President he truly is?

• Link
• Report this comment

Hate, gm? No. I hate no one.

Loathing. Disdain. Embarrassment at growing up in a once great country that could produce such a useless and laughable “leader”.

All those things, gm, but never hate. Your simple mind cannot understand the subtlety of the emotions and thoughts of an intelligent man.

• Link
• Report this comment

Poor MarkV!

Kyle has left him wanting for more . . .

Again.

Of course, this gives MarkV the perfect excuse for not having to comment on the topic, as he can claim that all the T’s aren’t crossed and all the I’s aren’t dotted so that he can continue to avoid the tough answers until they are.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle:
I didn’t realize among your talents, was the ability to read minds, in this case the President’s. Before reading his mind how about showing him the basic respect he deserves as President and an American, and which you and the rest of your Right Wing, bigoted, insecure cohorts have never shown.

• Link
• Report this comment

One does not have to be a mind reader to know this president operates in total secrecy. His actions don’t match his words. His “unaffordale healthcare destruction’ program was sneaked through in the middle of the night out of sight hidden from scrutney. It is well know he already tried to make verbal agreements with Russia regarding missiles which we wouldn’t know about had Russia not told us. This is a man who claims credit for increased oil production which he doesn’t control because it is on private land while stopping oil production on public land. Now he wants to hide his true intentions regarding our national defense from us? He wants it to be secret because he knows the majority would disapprove. The most “transparent administration” is in reality the most secretive. What does he say when the mike is not on? Scary. It is clear this president and his sychopahntic followers do not believe in the meaning of Republic. This is a wannabe dictator fololwed by his lemmings.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV

I’m afraid you have gone to rediculous ideas here because the reality of this encounter is not to your liking.

Obama indicated ,in what he thought was a private conversation, that he would be more flexible in his decisions with Putin after he was into his second term. Quite obviously, he did not wish to be seen by Americans as complying with anything that Putin would want. NOt before the upcoming election.! Obama knows that Americans do not trust the over powering Putin . He does not wish to be seen as a “buddy in compliance” with Putin. Not about European defense or Iran.& Syria.

It was not a straightforward statement from Obama but one showing his independence from American opinion. In other words, he is acting more like a ruler than a president.

I hope you can see the clay feet of your idol. He is neither perfect nor terribly successful. To extend his power into another term is a very scary thought as he loads our country with more debt and unpopular policies. Based on the history of his first term, I will not vote for him. I care too much about this country to vote for poor leadership.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Dusty @ 10:25, you are too soft on friend MarkV. There is nothing this president would do that would affect the attitude of the cultists, but what Obama proposes has no less sinister effect than the actions of the Rosenbergs. He believes he is above the law, and can do as he wishes – sort of an American Putin. The coward is unwilling to be honest with Americans about his intentions, and it is only as a “thief in the night” that he can accomplish his agenda. Not only the worst president in American, but perhaps the most traitorous leader of a country in history. Unworthy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good job Obummer. I wonder what he is telling Iran when the microphones are turned off.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty,

I have replied to your late night post earlier today, but Kyle so far has chosen not to publish it. That creates a disconnect, which I can only try to overcome.

In your two posts about the subject yesterday, you wrote that Obama used the word “cave …,” which he did not. It appears that by now you have realized it. Now your new interpretation is the following: “Quite obviously, he did not wish to be seen by Americans as complying with anything that Putin would want. “ There is nothing obvious to deserve that kind of slander.

At the risk of repeating something that may still to show up (I do not have a copy), what you are implying is the same insulting, offensive misinterpretation of Obama’s words. Tell me where you get you clairvoyant view that Obama would comply with Putin with anything Putin would want. Just as Kyle, you are making the insulting conclusion that President Obama would do something against the interest of this country, that he is unpatriotic, wants to harm the US. When Kyle wrote “Obama to Russian leader: I’ll cave after I’m re-elected,” it was a fabrication, a lie.

As I wrote before, there is one thing to disagree with a President, any President, on any policy. Something else is this insulting his patriotism. From a journalist, writing to a major newspaper, what Kyle wrote is stooping too low. And while I am not putting you in the same category as the usual fools on this blog, who I mostly ignore, I am disappointed that you defend him.

• Link
• Report this comment

“but Kyle so far has chosen not to publish it.”

First, you’re just not that important, MarkV, to get Kyle’s undivided attention.

Second, he likely hasn’t even read your post, as he is usually penning today’s column and isn’t focusing on the blog comments as closely as he might be later.

Third, why should he pay any attention to you when you contribute nothing to the discussion?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Kelly @ 11:22, good morning, your argument errs in that the language selected by Obama conveys intent to sell out, rather than the traditional diplomat’s “we look forward to working with you.” His history of caving to Putin does not give any support to your specious interpretation, either.

• Link
• Report this comment

…but Obama went ahead and made it quite explicit that he would cave to Putin once he’s safely ensconced in his second term.

Quite explicit?

Methinks you do not know the meaning of the word, Kyle.

explicit -adjective
1) fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied

Having read them for a considerable period of time, it is obvious that much of your base has a vocabulary befitting a seventh grader. But now you choose to start using their Republican Dictionary of Made Up Definitions too?

I think that overall you do a decent job in this role, sir. But today I say shame on this yellow journalism…

• Link
• Report this comment

More complaints from the left (that means you, AmVet) without a shred of an alternate meaning to the comment.

How will he have “more flexibility” (his words) after the election? What will change regrading Russia if he is re-elected?

The answer is that NOTHING is going to change with Russia. The ONLY change is that the current Disaster-in-Chief will no longer have to try to appeal to ANYONE but his left-wing base and his obstructionist Senate (if he still has a majority there), because he will never have to run for office again.

Do you really think he’s going to get TOUGHER on Russia if re-elected? Why? To appeal to the people who didn’t vote for him anyway?

Asking some of you to think this through is an exercise in futility.

• Link
• Report this comment

How will he have “more flexibility” (his words) after the election?

He’ll be free to operate as he needs to without worrying about how what he does – or doesn’t do – affects the election.

Is it really that hard to understand, folks? I mean it’s much easier to understand when Fox News spoon feeds you folks but I mean………jeez.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, MarkV, Finn, AmVet,

I see that you are going to support the President who thinks of himself as KING no matter what he does.. Obama has shown that he thinks he will have more power (space) with a second term. He does not seem to realze that he is only one third of our government and we don’t give super powers to any president.

Obama obviously thought he was in a private conversation because he said things that he knew Americans would not like to hear. He did not want them to hear his amenaties to Putin before election day.

President Obama has long moved past his capabilities and all the little liberals in the world cannot give him more. I will do all in my power to see that he does not gain more power by way of a second term. He is a weak leader and Putin knows it and so do most Americans.

I will not play your game of blind man’s bluff to our present lack of leadership. I care too much about our country.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bottom line is that Obama expects everyone to gamble on his re-election. I don’t think Russia OR Iran can afford the risk…from Carter to Reagan.

• Link
• Report this comment

But W looked into Putins soul… all was well…

• Link
• Report this comment

“President Obama has long moved past his capabilities and all the little liberals in the world cannot give him more. ”

Says the wingnut who supported Shrub not once, but twice… and has proclaimed him as one the “greatest presidents ever”…

Maybe all the “little” liberals can give Obama as much power as all the “little” “conservatives” gave to Shrub…

• Link
• Report this comment

a PRESIDENT is elected and as such must actually LISTEN to others to be successful.

Funny, JDW should mention that. Olympia Snowe gives him an “F” when it comes to listening.

Snowe said that if she had to grade the President on his willingness to work with Republicans, he would “be close to failing on that point.” In fact, Snowe, who was first elected to Congress in 1976, claims that her meetings with President Obama have been less frequent than with any other President.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, Dusty,

Not surprisingly, you play your usual game of ignoring arguments. Never bother to answer them, never present any evidence in favor of your views. If only you read and thought about what you were writing. Obama is a weak leader, but he acts like a KING. He is a third of the government, but you are assuming that he would do something he does not have power to do. Why not spend some time thinking?

I look forward to your posts, but often despair at your responses, because there are so few people on your side that are worth even paying attention to. You once wrote that I should read all the comments rather than ignoring some, which I find incomprehensible. Do you really read them? Do you know why I ignore most of them, unless I am in the mood of amusing myself by provoking someone to show his/her foolishness? It is because they are wrong? No. Because they are so obnoxious? In part, but it is not the main reason. The main reason is that they are so BORING. You look at posts by LBB – they are so predictable, so boring in their repetitiveness, mindlessness. I glance at them, but not really read them, because there is never any intellectual content. Same for Tiberius, when he is in his attack mode, which is most of the time, I Report …., some others. BORING.

You are not obnoxious or boring. You are just wrong too often.

Off until late afternoon.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, I thought you were better than this.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just another bucket of slop to the hogs in Kyle’s little hog pen here. Kyle has stooped lower and lower in his efforts to garner favor from the ultra-right-wing zealots who inhabit his little forum, spewing their increasingly vile hate and lies and bigotry. What a disgusting pool of human filth Kyle and his minions have become.

• Link
• Report this comment

rightwing troll

Shush your mouff!! George W. Bush WAS a great president and I realize it more every day.

Washington is so full of weakness now, leadership is a wink, a wobble or a vacation. Phew! I miss Bush’s firm foundation. The country had an anchor when he was president.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, because this is an election year, Obama knows he could not get any kind of missle defense bill thru Congress, since all members of the House and a goodly number of Senators are up for re-election. Therefore, he must wait until after the election to do anything. Of course you know this but, like most Republicans, you think this election is pretty much a lost cause for your party and will grasp at any straw you can to hurt Obama.

• Link
• Report this comment

rightwing troll.

I prefer being tied to an anchor. Now we are attached to a hot air balloon who can’t even get off the ground.

• Link
• Report this comment

Carlosgvv,

Please lay off the drugs. Lost cause? R U kidding? The president is slipping around whispering in a Russian’s ear he’s so afraid he’ll lose the election. And he oughta be. With his record, Obama should be running for travel agent. He is at his best on vacation.. .

• Link
• Report this comment

The count on obumerCare is now at strike 2 1/2, Marxist.

The FAT LADY’S rehearsal is getting clearer and louder everyday.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gator Joe: how about showing [Obozo] the basic respect he deserves as an American
————————

Have you confused having a birth certificate with being an American?

• Link
• Report this comment

Finn: [Obozo will] be free to operate as he needs to without worrying about how what he does – or doesn’t do – affects the election.
—————–

Obozo puts his election ahead of negotiating (away) our missile defenses?

Thanks for the confirmation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty
George W. Bush WAS a great president and I realize it more every day.

Hey Dusty do you think the 4500 families of American troops that died in Iraq under his watch or the 3500 people in Ny that also died under his watch becaue Bush national security was joke miss him?

Maybe you missed he caused the worst economy crisies in the history of our country I guess you miss that also, where do you people come from?

Do you think the 4500 Americans

• Link
• Report this comment

Steaming pile at 5:04. Don’t get any on your shoes as you step over or around it.

Thanks.

• Link
• Report this comment

Where’s John with his rules checking when we really need him?

• Link
• Report this comment

“3 years ago you hypocrites on the right were afraid to board air planes in this country,”

I’m more afraid of the TSA than I am terrorists. Always have been.

So you’re wrong again, gm

• Link
• Report this comment

Is Mr. obozo also concealing unpopular domestic policies he’ll spring on the country in a second term? What the president calls “flexibility” with Russian autocrats, Americans voters will likely view as a lack of candor with them. -Rove

Well of course he is, Karl, duh.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!

So you would take the terroist over the TSA(Americans) now thats funny, I needed a laugh

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty @1:31 pm

You have given me a perfect opening:

“Anyway, we are all wanting the best for our country, don’t you think? Even when we disagree?”
I could not agree with you more. Naturally, different people have different ideas what is best for the country. But let’s apply what you just wrote to the discussion we just had.

Do you exclude President Obama from those “we … all?” If you do, tell me why. If you do not exclude him, however, why do you claim not only that he would “cave in” to Putin, but even that he is promising he would do it, especially when there is no evidence for that? That was the essence of my critique of Kyle’s article. He not only implied, he openly accused the President of just that, that does want the best for our country. Furthermore, if you do agree with that accusation, please answer my question about what you think Obama’s motive is.

If, on the other hand, you would say that Obama does mean well, but does or intends to do wrong things according to your judgment, then my question to you is: What makes you an expert on the subjects of those negotiations? As I reminded you, we have a republican form of government. We elect our representatives, including the President, and we entrust them and him with many things, including negotiation with the Russians. We can criticize what they do, but we not only cannot demand that the President goes into such negotiations based on opinion polls, we even less should prejudge how he will negotiate.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So you would take the terroist over the TSA(Americans)’

No, gm, I would get rid of them both; one through legislation and the other through extremely painful death.

Both are terrorist organizations. One just happens to use violence as their means to an end.

• Link
• Report this comment

What is pathetic, John, is that you continue to complain and whine without addressing the topic at hand.

Man up. Stop whining. Give us a reasonable alternative.

Otherwise, leave.

• Link
• Report this comment

John: It is pathetic – really, truly, pathetic – how much time you spend spouting the same senseless, meaningless, puerile, hateful drivel, from early morning until late at night, day after day after day.
————-

And yet you feel you must comment on it.

• Link
• Report this comment

John@8:17, Pitiful, absolutely pitiful, that you can’t contribute one iota to the discussion at hand.
Your pain is evident. Poor thing!
Obama is a failure in every sense of the word. What do you not understand?
Obama is a punter, a carver, a never-ending campaigner, a liar, a radical, the worst spender in the history of our country, a socialist/Marxcist, a racist, an appeaser, a progressive, a Keyensian, a taxer, a class warfare abdicator, a divider, etc.
What he is not is a leader.
If you don’t get it now, you will get it after/if he’s re-elected, which will be too late.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Obama is a failure in every sense of the word. What do you not understand?
Obama is a punter, a carver, a never-ending campaigner, a liar, a radical, the worst spender in the history of our country, a socialist/Marxcist, a racist, an appeaser, a progressive, a Keyensian, a taxer, a class warfare abdicator, a divider, etc.
What he is not is a leader.”

Hyperbole much???

Supporting facts please?

• Link
• Report this comment

Notice how Rightwing Hole sides up with the filthy tramp filming enemy propaganda while sitting on a gun used to kill soldiers of the United States.

I can’t even imagine being a liberal.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lol! John exits by complaining about Linda’ s spelling, then can’t anti-Christ !

• Link
• Report this comment

Not from someone as stupid as you have shown yourself too be, John.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Obama is a punter, a carver, a never-ending campaigner, a liar, a radical, the worst spender in the history of our country, a socialist/Marxcist, a racist, an appeaser, a progressive, a Keyensian, a taxer, a class warfare abdicator, a divider, etc.”

Kyle Winfield: I will also have high tolerance for labels (e.g., socialist, fascist, wingnut) regardless of political orientation, if only because they reveal weakness on the labeler’s part.

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2009/11/11/some-rules-for-this-blog/

• Link
• Report this comment

I see Kyle didn’t use quotes in his headline, how fox news of him. You just built a story on words the pres never said.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, I read several alternate interpretations. Perhaps you are too narrowly defining an acceptable interpretation as one which must be based on all of your own unstated prejudicial beliefs?

• Link
• Report this comment

Out with Obama in 2012 and his “FAILED” policies!!! Can’t believe the pitiful souls who voted for someone with absolutely NO experience!! Oh! I’m sorry he was a very good “Community” organizer . . . certainly gives some credit to the saying . . that ANYBODY can be President!!

• Link
• Report this comment