Coulter brings madrassa lie back to Fox News
December 31, 2009 6:12 am ET by Jeremy Schulman
In January 2007 -- in what can only be described as a stunning display of race baiting, religious bigotry, and outright dishonesty -- the hosts of Fox & Friends spent a substantial portion of a broadcast repeating an obviously false online claim that then-Sen. Obama had attended a radical Islamic madrassa as a child in Indonesia.
The madrassa lie was quickly debunked by CNN. Fox & Friends was forced to "clarify" its report. John Moody, who was a Fox News executive at the time, reportedly said that the Fox News hosts who ran with the false story "violated one of our general rules, which is know what you are talking about. ... They reported information from a publication whose accuracy we didn't know." Separately, Moody also reportedly wrote of the madrassa incident: "For the record: seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC."
But almost three years later, the madrassa smear has returned to Fox. On two shows this week -- both guest-hosted by Fox News' Eric Bolling -- frequent Fox guest Ann Coulter has claimed three times that Obama attended "madrassas" as a child. Bolling has yet to challenge Coulter's false claims.
Mediaite posted video of one of Coulter's comments here.
From the December 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor (as transcribed on Fox News' website):
COULTER: And I also would like say, especially with a former Obama advisor on the program, I mean, this is - this was part of the selling point of for Obama liberal. Andrew Sullivan pointed out, you know, what are these radical Islamists going to do when they look and see the president of the great Satan. And you know, he has brown skin. And he attended madrassas. And he talks about how he's so moved by the call to prayer five times a day. He used to hear in Indonesia. If anyone can say we're going to look for radical Islamists, it ought to be President Obama. If he does that, if he institutes racial profiling at the airports, I'll vote for him.
BOLLING: Matthew, would it be so bad?
From the December 30 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck (as transcribed in the Nexis database):
BOLLING: Ann, let me just talk to you about this for a second.
Since Obama has been in office June 2009, the Little Rock soldier was killed, August 2009; U.S. citizen born in Brooklyn, he's going to fight for the Taliban; in September, Talib Islam born Michael Finton wants to go fight for the Taliban; the Zazi brothers in Denver, they want to blow up the New York City subway; Nidal Hasan, the Army major at Fort Hood; and then this attack on Christmas.
You know, these incidences have definitely stepped up in the last 11 months.
COULTER: Right, I think they have. And that isn't a very long time for three actual attacks on U.S. soil. And I think the point is, these are two competing ideologies of how you deal with our enemies. And if anything, I mean -- I mean, they kept using it as a selling point that Obama would throw Islamic radicals on their hind legs when they look up and they see someone who studies with [sic: studied at] madrassas and they see the "Great Satan" has a president with a brown face and the world is going to love us.
Well, that clearly has not come to be the case. And moreover, you know, he is in a position even stronger than George Bush to do what ought to be done and that is to start looking for passengers who look like the last three dozen terrorists to attack airplanes. He could engage in -- whatever you want to call it -- racial profiling, ethnic profiling, looking for young Muslim males, foreign-born Muslim males. But no, to the contrary, what we have is his homeland security coming out and saying the system works.
BOLLING: Andrew, you're in the west coast. Are feelings changing a little bit? It's been a liberal left coast for a long, now they see all these attacks and potential attacks going on. Is the sentiment changing?
BREITBART: In Hollywood -- well, look, the thing is, what's happened over the last few years in Hollywood and as being a critic of Hollywood at large, I have to make an apology to the FOX audience because, for years, I thought it was a monolithically left-centered town. It's not. There are tons of right-of-center libertarian-leaning conservatives. It's just that there's a certain Stalinist bent to leftist where if a person were to peep, a conservative peep were to comes out of a Jon Voight, these people are merciless in getting rid of them.
There are a ton of people who would love to make movies that portray the threat of terrorism, to use Hollywood like Hollywood was used in World War II, to be part of the war effort, but Hollywood continues to still make anti-war movies at a time of war even with Obama in power.
BOLLING: Ann, what -- is it going to take a successful attack where, you know, a lot more Americans die for the sentiment to change? I mean, this whole, you know, it's a culture. This whole culture has to change. It has to be more -- hey, we better err on the side of safety, because if we don't, people die. If we err on the side of political correctness, people's feelings get hurt, right?
COULTER: Right. Right, well, I happen to think sentiment has changed. Maybe it didn't need to change. I think if you polled Americans after 9/11, they would have said drop the political correctness when it comes to boarding airplanes.
And like I say, Obama can be doing more than Bush. He is specially situated that way, as having gone to madrassas as a child, not being a white male, which is, you know, the height of political incorrectness, but just the contrary, we're moving in exactly doing the -- making -- repeating the worst mistakes of the Bush administration.
The response to this attack is -- is for Obama to take the bull's move, not to allow people to read magazines for the last hour of a flight, not to go to the bathroom for the last hour of a flight. I mean, the way of objective of airport security seems to be to just make it more and more unpleasant for Americans to fly and to make it easier and easier for radical Muslims to fly to the point that now they're talking about doing these full nude body scans for everyone boarding an airplane.
BOLLING: And, Andrew, Ann makes a good point. Have they won? Have they won? If they haven't won the war, has al Qaeda won a small battle just making, you know, our lives miserable every time we step into an airport?

















These guys aren't really helping their ideology regain power in 2010 or 12 like we did in the Bush years it seems that people tend to stay with the safety of its president (as long as unemployment is still at 8,9 or 10 percent) and has a distrust of the party out of power and its constant whinning and complaining.
If you think that President Obama wants more attacks and isn't doing his best to stop them, check into a mental asylum.
Fact Obama is droning them more intensly than Bush was and is probably why people are being recruited and we are seeing more attacks/plots. Not because the President is reaching out to the moderate factions within Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan in the hope we can turn people against its regimes. Engagement is ugly but necessary because not engaging didn't achieve alot in the last 8 years.
Fact Obama has just escelated a war to crush the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. So the idea that he is soft on this is ridiculous and righties don't do anything but hate the president. They live for it! No evidence or proof just beat the microphone and hope Fox and politico and all other right wing hack media echoes those charges
"The Democrats have moved to the right and the Republicans have moved into a mental hospital"
Coulter
You would think her Chicken Leggs would buckle but not Coulter's.
"A Madrassa This Is Huge"
That would be a Cheap Shot even for Ebenezer Scrooge.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Rush Limbaugh rushed to Honolulu hospital with chest pains
I offer him good wishes directly proportional to those he has offered to liberals over the years.
Well, NF, we know who'll be paying for Oxy Man's funeral--Perdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin...
If we argue that the USA can't torture people because it's about who WE are, and that it's irrelevant that those terrorists might have tortured others, then we shouldn't use Pat Robertson's bad behavior, or Rush Limbaugh's bad character to justify our own bad behavior.
It's just not good form to wish for anyone's bad health. I understand it, but it's not good form.
It would be a shame about the piano, though.
Agreed, but I will spit and dance all over their grave.
If someone has been a provable jackass their whole life, they should be declared to be a jackass hours after their death, seconds after their death, on their deathbed, and throughout their whole life. Anyone who doesn't like that can simply avoid being a jackass.
I'd kick Rush Limbaugh in the sack if he was standing up in front of me. Limbaugh is an evil man...get it?
Now, isn't THAT calling the kettle black?
And I wonder if he inquired into political ideologies, loyalties, etc. of any of the health professionals who took care of him? After all, he wouldn't want to have put his life in the hands of a bunch of libs, would he?
And if he knew himself, i don't think he'd want 'libs' holding his life in their hands, tehehe
As for my own wishes for Limbaugh, I cannot wish him death or illness -- I can't do that to anyone, just not my nature. But a very long extended recovery period which keeps him off-air and silent, nothing wrong with that.
Rush Limbaugh rushed to Honolulu hospital with chest pains"
It's probably just an axiety attack. Seems that Olbermann may finally be getting to him.
"During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin’s call to evening prayer than she was with whether I was properly learning my multiplication tables."
Now for a definition:
Madrasah (Arabic: مدرسة, madrasa pl. مدارس, madāris) is the Arabic word of Semitic origin (viz Hebrew Midrash) for any type of educational institution, whether secular or religious (of any religion). It is variously transliterated as madrasah, madarasaa, medresa, madrassa, madraza, madarsa, medrese etc.
Looks like Coulter and anyone else who says Obama attended a Madrassa would be absolutely correct as Obama himself says he did and we see the definition of the word.
You betcha. Wouldn't want indoctrination of ANY indoctrination of ANY children now would we?
His mother believed that learning all types of religion was apart of eduacting yourself with the different customs around the world. I see no problem with that. If you have a problem with that then you need to address the issues you have with yourself.
I have the book, I read it. Try again if you are using it to smear. Obviously Anniepoo would not care about different customs around the world, since she beleives everybody should just only practice Christianity. SMH!
*Facepalm*
Looks more like once again, Cheney2012 is talking out his a$$. As usual...
Why don't you address the FACT that Obama said he attended a madrassa (in fact he claimed to have attended a couple of them)? Or is that too much for you to comprehend?
The simple fact is, the school in Indonesia that is being called a madrassa was a secular public school. Calling it a madrassa is a deliberate attempt to create an incorrect impression. It may not be a lie under a niggling, word-parsing standard, but it is certainly an attempt to deceive.
Sure, Ann only meant it in the limited way noted in your alleged dictionary entry. My name is also Alexnder Ovechkin and I just won two straight NHL Hart Trophies...
WHat Ann meant by using the word madrassa--and which you mean too, regardless of your third-rate word parsing--is school for Muslim terrorists. IOW, "see? Obama is a Muslim terrorist! Oh, I didn't exactly mean that--I just meant he pals aroujnd with terrorists! Or at least is a terrorist sympathizer"...
Off-topic much, Floyd? Maybe if I read closely enough, there might be something about Coulter's madrassa wisecracks in there...nope. Guess not. So what do we have here? Just another heapin' helpin' serving of Obama-hatred. Go throw yourself a teabag party Floyd, only preferably on Freeperville or RedState so we adults can have an adult conversation...
How is it that you repeat a debunked, off topic smear in the same thread that's about Ann Coulter repeated a debunked, off topic smear?
I mean, Obama's schooling had nothing to do with the topic they were discussing. It's not like Obama is TRULY associated with ANY terrorists, not even by the slender thread of his schooling in Indonesia - he's not guilty by proximity to lots of Muslims for 3 years of his childhood, which is Coulter's implication.
I mean, what a coincidence that two fools would participate in the same behavior!!!
Hmmm, dd thinks Obama going to a madrasah isn't the topic of this thread. She thinks the topic is 'Obama is a terrorist'. If you could show me an example of anyone calling Obama a terrorist in mmfa's story I would appreciate it. Also, while you're at it, stop with your inflecting and show me where (in mmfa's story) anyone says Obama went to a "radical Madrasah". That load of crap is an implication YOU and your cohorts are rehashing over and over again. No one says Obama went to a radical Madrasah, only you folk continue to claim that is what you hear. Then whine about something that isn't even said.
It's too bad for you that Obama going to a Madrasah (at some point), and learning multiplication tables IS THE TOPIC. If he wasn't learning mulitiplication tables, then what was he learning? I gleefully pointed out that he didn't do a very good job of learning. It's too bad for you that you can't accept what Obama said about that subject. However, for the rest of us, it is ON TOPIC to quote Obama saying he was schooled in a Madrasah.
I think you are the one making a fool of yourself, by claiming what is 'on topic' is being 'off topic'.
Hahaha. You know: you can't show us where Obama says, quote: "I went to a Madrasah." That's because he never said it.
We know you want it to be true, very badly, because then it infers that Obama sympathizes with, or has empathy for, Muslim terrorists. You're apparently confusing us with your stupid, dumba$$, dipsh!t wingnut pals.
So, what part are you missing? I never said Obama claimed he went to a madrasah, I said he was schooled in one. Which is factual.
nf-- You're apparently confusing us with your stupid, dumba$$, dipsh!t wingnut pals.
Are you related to wzwriter? Because he doesn't have the intelligence to carry on a conversation (without name calling) either.
"It is ON TOPIC to quote Obama saying he was schooled in a Madrasah."
"Why don't you address the FACT that Obama said he attended a madrassa."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2819634&page=1
Obama:"When I was six, I attended an Indonesian public school where a bunch of the kids were Muslim, because the country is 90 percent Muslim," "The notion that somehow, at the age of 6 or 7, I was being trained for something other than math, science and reading, is ludicrous."
I like his use of descriptive words: "bunch of kids" in a country that is "90% Muslim". Then the actual NAME of the school translate to 'government school'. Do you think the government would call it a madrasah? Even if Obama doesn't?
Which means, little genius, that it is not a madrassa! So, want to tell me again why Coulter's wisecrack was appropriate?...
The actual names of the two schools that Obama attended in Jakarta are "Besuki Public School" or "State Elementary School Menteng 01", and "St. Francis of Assisi School". Let me repeat that: St. Francis of Assisi School.
To answer your question: no, the government wouldn't describe either of these schools as madrassahs, especially because the word madrassah is Arabic and the official language of the Indonesian government is Indonesian.
You better pace yourself, there's another 364 days left in the Wingnut of the Year competition.
What I WROTE was "Obama's schooling had nothing to do with the topic they were discussing".
Who's the "they" in my sentence? Coulter and the people she was talking to.
Obama's schooling had nothing to do with the topics that Coulter and the other people were talking about!
This is NOT rocket science, but you couldn't follow it?
Pack it in, Cheney2012. Once again, you have failed miserably at your feeble attempts to convince anyone here that you know what the f**k you're talking about. It's time for you to go back to Free Republic and give up.
(Not you, Floyd, I think you should rest).
Yah. Right. Tell it my Hart Trophies, tovarisch...
wz utterlay nailed it in the above post--when a conservative is using the word madrassa, he/she/it is using it as a pejorative to imply that the person accused is a terrorist. You're just pitching another hissy fit because you and Ann were caught out on it--again...
Never mind that it was when he wasn't even 10 years old.
Never mind that not all Muslims are terrorists, of course - only a tiny, tiny percentage are.
Never mind that the school he went to was not teaching any radical ideals while Obama was there, nor does it teach radical ideas now.
Never mind that Obama is a Christian now.
We all know that. Where is something different being said? What you liberals hear in your collective heads doesn't EVER seem to be what was actually said! Unfortunately, your OPINION doesn't create something out of nothing. Coulter, nor anyone else, is making any claim that Obama went to a radical Madrasah. Your perceived implication is only that... perceived. But, I guess you got to hold onto someting in your hatred of everyone different than you.
As you read the responses, keep this very essential question in your mind (if you're capable of keeping anything there for more than a few seconds);
Why did Coulter use a foreign word for "school" in the middle of an otherwise all-English rant?
Good luck, Floyd.
Since she was speaking English, I'd say she should say "school". Of course, that doesn't explain why she thinks it's relevant to the topic of racial profiling that Obama went to school. Can you explain that?
It's hopeless I suspect, and he's simply pulling our chains to derail the thread.
You see, that guy and Cheney2012 were arguing that the American English equivalent of "madrasah" was simply "school".
But you clearly don't agree with that guy, because today you're saying that a madrasah is "a Muslam [sic] place of learning." (What's this word "Muslam", by the way?)
And finally, of course, either way, Obama did not attend a "Muslam" place of learning: he attended a Catholic school and a secular public school.
It's interesting to note that you're claiming that "Obama admits" attending a madrasah, because yesterday some guy called "Floyd" was on this forum arguing with people and defensively sniping, "I never said Obama claimed he went to a madrasah". You should tell that "Floyd" character how mistaken he is, since you're arguing today that Obama "admits" attending such an institution.
Some people are just like that. Most of them choose to be.
By using the English word madrassa rather than simply calling it a school, Coulter is directly implying that Obama was, at the very least, educated by Muslims. He wasn't. She knows that.
Now, Dick Cheney has very close ties to Halliburton, and the executives who run that company. And, more importantly, Halliburton has, through shoddy fulfillment of no-bid government contracts, killed American soldiers. But, I'm not saying Cheney had a hand in killing American soldiers, Floyd. See how that works? Called 'guilt by association', and it's just one more rhetorical fallacy that those on the right use in place of actual facts.
Had Coulter been speaking Arabic at the time, I would of course defer to Cheney2012's Arabic definition of the word madrassa. What should she have called it? What it was: a public school. Why didn't she? I think we already covered that part.
Wow, I was dutifully admonished for talking "off-topic" while discussing what Obama learned in the madrasah. But, we get a complete rehash of Haliburton and nother in mentioned about going off-topic? Hmmm ...
Either way, you are epic fail, troll. :)
Right?
No it wasn't. It was a public school that happened to have a majority of Muslims in the student body. So frankly, little Floyd, you lose again...
And call a moron a moron, which you are right down to the ground, little Floyd, even if it's an intentional moron that you're being...
What truth would that be? A truth like, for instance, this sentence: "However, in contemporary English usage, the term most frequently refers to the Madrasah Islāmiyyah, or traditional Islamic school."
I mean, the way Cheney2012 left it out of a discussion of the word "madrassa" and its use in English does seem a bit odd, don't you think?
But hey, I'm sure it was an honest mistake. That's why I think you and Cheney2012 should put your money where your mouths are are do as Ann Coulter does: just replace the word "school" with "madrassa" whenever you speak. For instance, before your next high school reunion, why not mention to your coworkers how much you're looking forward to this trip to see your old friends from your madrassa? And at the airport on your way to the reunion, why not mention to the TSA personnel how the skills you learned in your madrassa really helped you in life and to prepare for your security screenings and flight. You can explain to these people -- and everyone else -- how you don't mean the word madrassa in its common contemporary English usage, but rather in its actual Arabic meaning. And then you can explain why you're so interested in learning Arabic words and using them in place of English words with identical referential meanings.
ma·dra·sah also ma·dra·sa or ma·dras·sah (m-dräs) n. Islam
A building or group of buildings used for teaching Islamic theology and religious law, typically including a mosque.
[Arabic madrasa, from darasa, to study; see dr in Semitic roots.]
------------------------------------------------------------
madrasah, madrasa [məˈdræsə ˈmɑːdræsə], medrese [məˈdrɛseɪ]
n
(Non-Christian Religions / Islam) Islam an educational institution, particularly for Islamic religious instruction
[from Arabic, literally: place of learning]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
There, that didn't hurt now did it? See, going to real sources as opposed to made up ones can be ... well... inspiring, can't it? Keep that in mind when you use wiki as a reference of FACT.
Do you understand that your preferred definition completely destroys your own silly argument that the secular school Obama attended would be called a madrasa by any honest and rational person?
Like colonel, I'm utterly mystified as to how your citation is supposed to support Cheney's argument. You seem to be wanting others to provide a definition which proves that Coulter was asserting Obama's Muslim roots (contrary to Cheney's argument), and then you post that definition yourself.
I think that's been known for quite some time.
You've been arguing that madrassah just means school with no religious connotations. As evidence, you just posted a definition stating that a madrassah is... "[a] building or group of buildings used for teaching Islamic theology and religious law, typically including a mosque."
You just totally obliterated your own argument and your defense of Coulter.
Now, if any of you have the b@lls to explain how, learning Muslim theology while in a Muslim controlled country in a government controlled school, that school would not be called a madrasah, I would like to hear it.
If he was being taught theology, why would he have to "puzzle out" the meaning, exactly? Did you notice the contrast between that and "learning the catechism"?
Yesterday you were arguing that Coulter used the word madrassa as a synonym for school, and that it meant nothing more than "place of learning". In fact, Floyd, you equated the words school and madrassa quite explicitly when you wrote this:
But that was yesterday and things change, right, Floyd? Today you're claiming that the word means an "Islam educational institution".
We can talk about how Obama actually attended a Catholic school and a secular public school in Jakarta later. For now, maybe you should work on maintaining a consistent position on something as simple as your definition of a word for more than 24 hours.
I identified him as a troll last week, but everyone (myself included on some occasions) keeps responding to him like he's actually trying to debate a subject.
What he's trying to do? Avoid the subject here give him the attention, and stop giving attention to the actual topic, to make US forget what the subject is - that Ann Coulter pushed a discredited rightwing talking point, over which there's actually NO DEBATE.
I am in awe.
A massive, 10.0-on-the-Richter-Scale fail at trying to read my mind, little moron. Although I'm sure that you, like most conservative "Christians," want liberals to go to hell. At which I would simply point out what Jesus said about those who judge...
Uhh, yeah, what does He say about those who judge? (as you judge me to be a moron). You're such a good Christian, explain what happens to those who make such judgements!
To explain slowly, since you obviously spend much more time thumping your Bible than reading it, "judgment" as used in the NT refers to condemning others to hell. As in, "if you proclaim that someone else is going to Hell, guess where you're going." Since I made no such judgment of your divine standing, my opinion stands. And BTW, perhaps you should decide which definition of madrassa you want to use today...
Cheney2012 lost his logic during his frontal lobotomy.
-----------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Absolutely, sir, with the rather obvious next step being, "well, that's why Obama let a Muslim terrorist underwear bomber get onto that flight in Amsterdam--because he went to madrassas and is one of them!"
The Deputy Headmaster of the school said...And a former schoolmate of the President who attended the same public school said...You are trying to use semantics to push a lie. You would have been better off trying defend Ann Coulter because she was not using this as a slight on the President. She was suggesting he use his supposed attendence to a madrassa as a way of connecting himself to the Muslim world. Her intentions were misguided, innacurate, and wrong. Any real Muslim would see right through the lie if Obama attempted to make this clam.
Looks like anyone who says Cheney2012 attended a seminary to become a Catholic priest would be absolutely correct as Cheney2012 himself says he did. Never mind that CNN and ABC say it isn't true.
Well, there you go. The ultimate hypocrisy. You are all claiming discrimination against Islam because terrorists are Muslim, yet you wallow in pride with the fact that a minor percentage of catholic priests are pedophiles and therefor claim all catholic priests are pedophiles.
Thanks for showing the hypocrit you and your friends are when discussing things you love (terrorism) and things you hate (Christianity).
yet you wallow in pride with the fact that a minor percentage of catholic priests are pedophiles
Please explain how I would feel pride in the perverted pederasty of Papal predators. Use quotes and examples to support your accusation.
and therefor claim all catholic priests are pedophiles.
PLease paste a quote from my comments where I wrote or implied anything remotely like what you're claiming.
Good luck, Floyd.
This could be very embarrassing to you, you really want me to do that? Well, ok. From your last 2 posts:
"Are you saying Cheney2012 attended institutions known for training countless pedophiles?" (December 31, 2009 1:05 pm ET)
"I'll have to assume it's true, that Cheney2012 did indeed attend a pedophile training seminary. That would make him perfectly suited for GOP Cult membership" (December 31, 2009 3:21 pm ET).
Are you talking about only 'some' seminary schools teach pedophilia? Or are you lumping them all together in a couple quick quotes? Because it seems pretty obvious that you are saying ALL seminaries teach pedophilia. And, if you try to deny you said all, you certainly implied all.
balls in your court ... Don't worry, I don't expect a return.
I should hope you don't expect a return. The expression is: "The ball is in your court" or "The ball's in your court". "Balls in your court" means something altogether different and hilarious.
Floyd, you're quickly becoming my favorite member of this forum for your amazing discursive pratfalls.
You wrote that I ;
" claim all catholic priests are pedophiles."
I was asking you to back up that claim, and you failed again. I never said, nor implied, that anybody taught pedophilia, only that these institutions have trained many pedophiles.
Balls on your face.
The solution is to be aware of them, notice the posts they make, look for patterns, like first posts or replies that aren't actually replies tagged to one of the first few posts on a thread, and nip it in the bud. Briefly explain why their post is off topic, briefly debunk their talking points, and then post a warning to others that it's a troll post. Posters making troll posts HATE it when their troll posts get pointed out. It stops them dead in their tracks. Now, they often tag team with another paid troll poster, and one or both of them will attempt another derailment on the same thread, but it hurts our national debate when we allow them that kind of traction.
So, please dd, post a warning about me trolling. It only makes you look like the miss-informed person that you are. But, you seem to like being miss-informed because you defend everyone who promotes that same miss-information. Well, that IS to be expected ... you are a liberal, after all, aren't you?
What I said was that Coulter's bringing up of Obama's schooling had NOTHING to do with the subjects that she and FoxNews hosts were talking about.
And I already explained this to you. That makes this a troll post.
And we can tell by the baseless personal attacks in YOUR post, claiming that I am misinformed (btw, how can ANYONE who got out of middle school NOT know that the prefix for "not" is "mis", not "miss-"), that you're really irked by my exposing you as a troll.
Too bad, so sad.
I don't quite go along with you there, DD. What (in this case) Floyd is demonstrating is the effect of the right-wing misinformation on substantial portions of the public. Nearly all of us have horror stories of trying to argue points with people who are bound and determined to parrot right-wing trash as if it was truth, and our thoroughgoing dismantling of Floyd and his game of musical madrassa definitions stands as a transcript of the very points we should be using out there in RL whenever we have to deal with RL Floyds. So, in a way, litle Floyd and his galloping idiocy (and our absolute rebuttal of him) actually perform a service...
You assume that Floyd actually believes what he's typed. But if that were the case, his 'beliefs' about how to argue this case wouldn't have switched 180 degrees in 24 hours. Only a troll could exhibit that behavior.
He wants attention and he wants to derail the conversation as often as possible in whatever way possible. You bought into his act - and that's exactly what his goal was.
Well, you admitted it again, during your denial of saying it. Are you saying all pedophiles are trained at Catholic schools and seminaries? Or, just assuming it. That sounds eerily familiar to the hated conservative statement that 'not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim'. Do you agree with that, also? Or does you mind only allow one type of hatred (of Christianity) but not of terrorism?
CHS-- Balls on your face.
Obviously, you don't mean YOURS. You don't have any to put on anyones face. Maybe you'll let dd or vosky do your fighting for you. What hole did you hide in during VietNam? Or was it behind a typewriter that you spent your fighting career that you so quickly promote to anyone who doesn't ask! No wonder we lost that war, we had people like you fighting there. People like you who run and hide at the first sign of danger or conflict. Stand up like a MAN and admit what you said! Or, continue being the pu$$y that you are.
But you are anonymous here, so settle down. For all any of us knows, you're just a lefty with a sick sense of humor playing an idiot.
If you are for real, you seem to be desperate and resorting to insults and fabricating completely ridiculous strawmen. You may feel that you've made such an idiot of yourself already that you have nothing to lose, but keep in mind, there's no bottom to the stoopid pit.
I was in elementary school during the Vietnam war.I never served in the military, so I'm not sure what "fighting career" you think I'm promoting. Please tell me you're not referring to my screen name and rank, because I think that would out you as a satirist.
Now , back on topic. Why don't you try to address things that people actually write, as opposed to thing you imagine or misinterpret that they're saying? That might send the message that you really want to have a discussion, and are not just a brainwashed and dishonest zombie.
Also note: sometimes what may seem "off-topic" to you is in reality another poster helpfully providing an example or analogy to help you understand something that you're confused about.
Very valuable tip: And again, I'm dead serious, not being snarky- if you've got a rational adult or a bright child anywhere near you, have them go over this entire comment thread, slowly and in detail, with you. Have them explain just how badly you've failed at understanding and arguing, let them explain where you're confused, really focus on your flaws in reading comprehension and logic.
Until you do that, there's no point in trying to have a conversation with you.
Best of luck, Floyd.
Just made me wonder, what does Stephen Colbert's writing crew do during their 'vacations'? "Poe" various websites to keep in practice?
ME: Floyd, I was only noting the fact that many priests have been guilty of pedophilia, and I assume they all were trained at Catholic school and seminaries.
FLOYD: Well, you admitted it again, during your denial of saying it. Are you saying all pedophiles are trained at Catholic schools and seminaries?
I've bolded some areas to help you along. If you can figure out where you made your mistakes in this short exchange, and post a comment demonstrating that you understand your mistake before comments are closed, you may be ready to move ahead.
Good luck, Floyd. I'm rooting for you, little feller.
He's ignoring the first part of your sentence, and by cropping your comment, he's pretending that you claimed that ALL pedophiles are priests!
What he's "admitting" is that he's a troll, intent on garnering attention, no matter that it's negative attention, and he's trying, and succeeding, in derailing what should be the topic of conversation.
Obama didn't even say "I attended a Madrasah" to begin with, so your argument falls flat on its sorry, wingnut a$$ right there.
You're being disingenuous. True, that definition exists, but it's not the commonly understood meaning of madrassa.
From the same source as your definition: However, in English, the term madrasah usually refers to the specifically Islamic institutions.
We are communicating in English here, aren't we?
Come on, I don't expect that anyone on this site would be suprised that any troll wasn't being disingenuous, when they weren't spreading outright falsehoods.
madrassa: a Muslim school, college, or university that is often part of a mosque.
So, no. Public schools like the ones that Obama attended in Indonesia cannot be labelled as a madrassa. In all fairness, the word I was defining was an English word, rooted in Hebrew and Arabic. The word you are defining is an Arabic word, and if we accepted that it was your definition that she meant, she could just as easily have claimed that Bush attended a madrassa, couldn't she? But she was speaking English, not Arabic, so your definition is moot.
Even if you mean what you say sincerely, there are two big problems with your argument. The first is that if you had copied one more sentence from the Wikipedia entry (that you didn't cite) after the other transliterations you would have found this:
That's a fairly significant detail to leave out of your "definition", don't you think?
Furthermore, even if you believe that Coulter wasn't using it in its common contemporary English sense but rather just dropping it in for fun, your belief runs contrary to linguistics. When an English speaker uses a markedly foreign word in place of an English word, regardless of whether or not the substituted word has an identical dictionary definition in its respective language, the marked word calls attention to an additional layer of meaning beyond the dictionary definition: at the very least, to its foreignness, and more often to the word's additional associations in the speaker's native language. Comprende?
Any ideas, Cheney2012?
Now, you can continue inserting your personal opinion into her statements, but that changes what she said into what you hear. Which, considering this is all in print, it changes what your read into what you think you read. I think you need to go back to 1-3 grade school (madrasah) and relearn how to read.
You're ignoring a question that more than one person has asked;
Do you think it's reasonable to believe that Coulter suddenly lapsed into a foreign language for no reason at all in the middle of a sentence?
Actually "school" is an English word, not a specifically American "version", and has been explained here before, the words "school" and "madrasah" aren't perfectly interchangeable because the common English use of "madrasah" does not mean an unqualified "place of learning" as you claim. (This is not my "personal opinion", this is a linguistic reality noted in the same article that Cheney2012 used to define "madrasah".) The word in common English usage refers to a specifically traditional Islamic school, not just any school.
As for your example involving the abortion bomber's school history, do you even recognize that you're now arguing against Coulter's point? Did you even read what Coulter said?
If "madrassa" and "school" were identical in English usage (as you claim in contradiction to observable fact), why would Obama's school attendance be expected to earn respect from Islamic radicals? As you yourself just pointed out, why wouldn't Obama's school attendance be expected to endear him just as much to radical Christian abortion bombers who also attended school?
I'm impressed: in an attempt to defend Coulter, you're now undermining her argument completely. Well done, Floyd.
Utter cr@p, little Floyd. It's been pointed out all over this board that when used by an English-speaker in English conversation, madrassa is a very loaded word implying at the very least Muslim indoctrination, if not outright terrorist associations. Even you have noted that madrassa means school, so there is no possible purpose for someone speaking English to other English-speakers to use the word madrassa other than its loaded meaning. I suspect you know this, but want to "have your cake and eat it too," pretending to us that the word has no loaded meaning while being fully prepared to go back to Freeperville and crow that you proved to us that Obama is a raadical Muslim terrorist...
In fact, somebody called "Floyd" offered this authoritative definition for madrassah from the American Heritage dictionary: "A building or group of buildings used for teaching Islamic theology and religious law, typically including a mosque."
I hope Floyd can resolve this disagreement with Floyd.
Wait a minute on second thought it's really not an "educational" institution.
You should publish cites for your quotes, even when it is inconvenient to your falsehoods. Otherwise, you are just another plagiarizer attempting to spin the truth by cherry picking phrases from other sources.
As so often is done by cherry picking plagiarizers, you leave out the very important qualifier, to wit, from the next sentence of your selectively quoted source:
"HHowever, in contemporary English usage, the term most frequently refers to the Madrasah Islāmiyyah, or traditional Islamic school"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasah
As Coulter was speaking contemporary English to a primarily contemporary English speaking audience, not an Arabic one, your weak argument becomes completely specious.
IOW...you lie.
I understand you are charging someone (the Republican Party? Dick Armey?) to post nonsense here and try to derail the discussion, and I am trying to break into the gig you have. Just a few questions:
1. Did you charge extra to read Obama's book? (Even if you misquoted the book).
2. Do they pay you by the word or how many responses you get?
3. Do your posts have to make sense in order to get paid? (Could you just post a bunch of random letters and still get paid?)
Since you only give half the argument (the implication by Ann that Obama is a Muslim is left out) do they pay your only half?
I really want to know.
When will these yokels stop fearmongeing on people that practice Islam. The flight started in Europe not here in the U.S. The wingnuts will instill fear on the American people to get what they want.
Listening to Ann Coulter talk is like getting a lobodomy from Hannibal Lecter - You will not have a brain afterwards!
How many Muslims threw bombs at each other in Northern Ireland? None - again, all Christians.
Take your anti-Muslim hatred elsewhere, Floyd. It's not welcome here.
BTW - liberalism always wins when there are losers like you on the other side.
True, but I have seen them blow up federal buildings, abortion clinics and the 1996 Atlanta games, deny people equality under the law, lie us into a war of choice, and gun down doctors that practice legal medical procedures in their own churches. Other than that, they've been hunky-dory.
Answer--plenty. Maybe if you stopped getting all your beliefs about "liberals" from Fox News and RedState and AM talk radio, you might have something useful to say. As it is...
Boy, you do love your straw men, don't you Floyd?...
Reference the entire history of the Crusades, Floyd. And what was that little bit about Charlemagne's "baptism with the sword?"...
Moral: engage brain before putting keyboard in gear, little Floyd...
How about Pat Robertson, Randall Terry, and other right-wing fundamentalist "Christians" openly praying for the death of liberal justices and politicians? That was the 1980s and 1990s--recent enough for you, little Floyd?...
Go ahead and pick them nits, Floyd, but to people who believe in the efficacy of prayer, as Paddy and Randy ostensibly do, praying for death--and asking their flocks to do so--is equivalent to trying to kill them, and asking their followers to kill them. And let's not even get into the whole O'Reilly/Tiller deal...
If she meant school, then she should've said SCHOOL.
Oh yes, there are "Christians" actively praying for Obama's death, "pro-life" people ready to kill abortion providers....
As Darth Cheney likes to keep reminding us...
P.S. I am not a liberal, I am a progressive.
Let's see...'muslim terrorism' brought 9,600,000 hits on google, while 'christian terrorism' brought 2,000,000 hits on google. I wonder which one the liberal fears the most and will demand they be segregated out of public view?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
I don't think that anyone here is trying to make the argument that Christian terrorism and Muslim terrorism are equal threats, or are responsible for an equal number of deaths or anything like that. I think the point mostly being made here is that any religion, regardless of what the true message of that religion is (because, obviously, most Christians, including myself, would say that their religion carries a message of love) can be perverted and manipulated to support terrible violence and promote hatred.
Think about it this way: In America, a teenager from a fundamentalist Christian home could decide one day that he/she wanted to go to the library and check out a book on Islam, because they were just curious to see what it was all about. It's not as if a Muslim teenager in a village in some poverty-stricken, war-ravaged village in the middle east could one day say, "I think I'm gonna check out Mere Christianity cuz I kind of want to see what this whole Christian thing is about".
Because we had the great fortune to be born American citizens, we have the freedom to make up our own minds. We are not forced to believe anything. We gather the information from books or television or individuals of different faiths or whatever, and then we make up our own mind. A child born into a radical Muslim family in the Middle East doesn't have that opportunity. They are fed, from birth, a distorted version of reality that feeds the message of hate. And that is all they ever know. They never have true freedom.
Imagine if America was not a free country, don't you think that radical Christians could much more easily force their message of hate on others?
It's the moderate Christians and atheists who protect our religious nuts from themselves.
I'm going to give Floyd a pass here, though. While I believe Cheney2012 knows he's lying, and is just insulting people here by playing dumb and thinking he can fool us, Floyd seems to actually be pretty stupid. Floyd thinks Cheney2012 makes sense.
This is because we enable immigrants and their families to become a part of the system. They can become full-fledged citizens with a voice and rights. And, once you are a part of the system you may rail against its faults, you may speak out against its shortcomings, but you do not want to destroy it. This is a valuable lesson we should keep in mind when comparing our immigration laws with the rest of the world. There are some things about immigration that we do better than anyone else and always have.
Of course, the dilemma for them is in trying to destroy America while defining themselves as the only Real Americans. That's why they need to pretend some radical change has taken place over the past year, and frame their America-hating as wanting to restore the country to some mythical historical utopia.
Enter Glenn Beck and the teabaggers....
That is exactly why these tools aren't conservatives, but rather, radical reactionaries; they want to turn back the clock, so to speak, when men were men, women were chattels, and blacks were 3/5 of a human being...
For me, the icing on that cake was the hiring of Blackwater/Xe. The allegations about Eric Prince being a "Christian" soldier are just that, allegations, but I would not be surprised one whit to definitively learn that the man felt called to eliminate Islam from the world. And that company was AND IS operating IN MY NAME, but does not answer to the Chain Of Command?
SO WRONG...!!!!!!!
Why is it so hard for the Conservatives to admit that our foreign / military policy is beyond counter productive...? Is it because they actually lust for war, and what could be better than Holy War (since god is on your side)...?
Sounds like the ideology of another radical group...
Can we just give them all explosive underwear and send them off somewhere safe to a big circular bed for an orgy of death?
I appreciate what you're saying, ruby. However, in your analogy you said an American teenager could do what they want, but then compared that teenager to an impovershed, war-ravaged Muslim teenager. If you had said any Muslim teenager in the middle east didn't have that opportunity then I could see your point (but that would prove mine to be correct). If the fundamentalist Christian teenager had grown up in an impovershed/war-ravaged village, do you think they would be allowed the same freedoms as one who didn't?
Excuse me, Floyd, but you said
(my emphasis)
When midnight posts a counterexample, he's not being a hypocrite, he's simply shooting down your argument. In short, you lost. If you can't deal with it like an adult, then pack up and try harder on a different thread.
I defy you to say that this was not a Christian terroist group.
And I thought you were the little one to the right of the leader.
I wonder how many inncoent Muslims have been killed in the MidEast in the name of Christianity?
If you have information as to the criminal behavior of Senator Byrd's activities as they relate to the Klu Klux Klan I would be happy to hear them.
He was never leader of the KKK. He was voted the leader of his chapter. He has also denounced his ways as youthful stupidity, regrets his involvement with the group, and has served his community and the people of his state and this country in a manner befitting a Senator.
More to the point, RK, if he actually had any such information, he would be more than happy to tell you...
(Also considering professional athletes who have made some truly dumb statements...)
Didn't answer the question, I see, little Floyd--just deflected it to another stale old reference about someone who has been vocally and repeatedly repentant about his association with the Klan back in the day. You still have time to actually answer the question, little Floyd...
With Floyd, it's the same difference, ain't it?
You're out-FAILing Cheney2012 here, and that's no easy feat.
And instead of admitting that is an example of terrorists of the Christian persuasion, you bring up Sen. Byrd, who renounced that lifestyle decades ago.
You don't debate, you deflect or change the subject. Fail.
P.S. Yes, I'm a liberal and I refuse to accept that every Muslim in the world is "directly linked to terrorism", because it's not true. What of it?
Way to go, Floyd. You've just personally prevented Sean Hannity from mentioning William Ayers ever again.
You wrote: "Because liberalism refuses to accept that Muslims are the ones (the only ones) directly linked to terrorism."
The only ones. That claim can be tested easily. So: is William Ayers a terrorist, and is he Muslim?
Hence, little Floyd, since you also claim that Ayres is a terrorist, you must also be claiming that he is a Muslim, since you yourself said above that only Muslims are terrorists. You really do need that nap, little Floyd...
Two marks of being a total loser on these boards:
1. You move the goal posts, and still can't score;
2. Even none of the other neocons will support you.
Honestly, Flawed, if you aren't man enough to admit you goofed with that asinine statement of yours ("Muslims are the only ones..."), then why do you think you should harbor any credibility around here at all?
Your idea of who is a terrorist are similar to your opinion of what liberals believe.
In both cases, you allow your ignorance to trump reason.
Now, this is a perfect example of the special kind of stupid that endangers us all.
Floyd, "that guy"'s own father tried to warn officials that his son should be considered a legitimate threat, and his name got dumped into a pile and lost with all the people who matched a "profile".
And your brilliant solution is to add EVERY Muslim's name to the list.
"Singl[ing] out THAT group" at airports means scrutinizing about one quarter of the world's human population, which will do nothing to help a situation like this one.
This has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism. You're indignant at the idea that grandma's privacy will be violated, but only if your grandmother isn't Muslim, yeah? Consider how much more anger you'd feel if your mother happened to be wearing a burqa out of religious custom when she was being patted down and scanned -- all the while knowing that she's harmless and only being subjected to additional scrutiny because of political pressure to target her religion rather than individuals?
I thought that conservatives believed in individualism rather than collective categories of identity, yet you're arguing for treating all Muslims identically. Now why would that be?
Well, the problem we have is that terrorists also dress up in burqas to gain entrance where they usually would not be allowed to go. When terrorists start dressing up like my grandma in N. Dakota then I'll say; start watching old-Christian-grandmothers-that-are-obviously-not-terrorists. However, in the current situation, grandmothers are considered equal to terrorists and scanned and patted down just as (if not more) frequently. Uhhh, what are the odds of catching a terrorist dressed as a grandmother from N. Dakota? So, yes, it has everything to do with liberalism. That is the group that cries "foul" whenever a Muslim is looked at 'crooked-eyed' by authorities looking for terrorist who always happen to be Muslim. How do you feel about 'profiling'? Does it work or not?
If my grandmother wears a burqa into an airport I would be more angery if she wasn't scrutinized. At least then I'd know the airport security are doing their jobs to prevent another terrorist plot. It seems they will be 'patting down and scanning' the same number of people, at airports. Why would 'patting down and scanning' only those who fit the profile slow anything down? As you suggest it would. I would suggest it would actually speed things up, unless you're flying out of Iran or Pakistan or Yemen or Somolia or Saudi Arabia, ect.. Do you think we should watch for grandmothers from N. Dakota at those airports?
And while security is focused on targeting a specific group based on a "profile" the enemy has hired and/or recruited members who do not fit that profile to carry out their plots. And terrorists from other groups who are not being targeted baecause they do not fit a "profile" enjoy less scrutiny when going through security.
Your attempts at closing a security gap leaves gaping holes elsewhere. I also believe that you are not interested in making travel safe. I think you are trying to make things so difficult for muslims to travel that they will just avoid it all together or at the very least limit it to necessity.
I am guessing that you would probably be happiest if Muslim travellers had their own airline... or better yet their own airport.
Well, let's see if that is true. The latest event (Christmas day) the suspect is mid-20's? No luggage? Middle easterner? Does he fit the profile? Well, who else is going to travel to another continent without luggage? Sorry, your excuses for terrorism fall flat this time.
RKA-- I am guessing that you would probably be happiest if Muslim travellers had their own airline... or better yet their own airport
It wouldn't make a difference, they blow up their own stuff too. The thing about terrorists is they think the world is against them and are out to destroy it. You liberals are fighting harder against global warming than you are against terrorism. In fact you support terrorism by your very nature. You must be proud to be an American ... you and your freinds (here) are free to support terrorists at all opportunities.
Wow.
Well, Floyd, let me be the first to inform you that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab if from a country called Nigeria, and that Nigeria is located in West Africa, not the Middle East.
Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", was born in South London. (You should know that South London is in a place called England, which is not in the Middle East either.)
While we're speaking of terrorist profiles, Jose Padilla -- the so-called "dirty bomber" -- was born in Brooklyn, which is in a country called "The United States of America", which is also not in the Middle East.
As for flying without luggage, not only have I flown without checking luggage in the past, but I try to do so whenever possible. In fact, it's common practice for business travelers to ship their luggage to their destination rather than check it.
What little Floyd's saying, of course, is that he wants everybody profiled but the white folks. Nigerians, Caribbean islanders, and Hispanic-Americans don't look like little Floyd, so he's just hunky (or is that honky in his cse?)-dory with profiling them...
I used to know a guy who worked with a 'transportation' company from the airport, carrying either passengers to various areas (hotels, etc.) locally, or delivering luggage. The luggage was either 'lost' luggage (the old joke of 'your luggage is en route for Paris' e.g.) or 'shipped' luggage. Often the 'shipped' arrived before the 'lost' (there's actually some sense there...) and the person would be reunited with their luggage long before the 'lost' luggage turned up.
clarification below: by 'last' war, the meaning is 'previous' and should have been worded that way.
1) you are saying you know for a fact that "terrorists" are not using people who appear to be your grandma (or planning to use such)?
2)So, only after we lose (or nearly lose) a planeload of people to a pseudo-grandma, we should consider checking for pseudo-grandmas?
Reminds me of the saying that The Military Is Planning For The Last War.
If you can invent a Radical Muslim Terrorist Detecting Machine, by all means, be my guest. But until the invention of such a device, I should remind you that Islam is a religion, not a physiological feature, and most Muslims are not terrorists. To put it bluntly: your grandmother looks no more like a Christian than she does like a Muslim, because no one looks like a religious affiliation. Keep in mind that Richard Reid, the 2001 "shoe bomber", was born to English and Jamaican parents, and he didn't exactly fit the profile or "look the part".
How I feel about it is absolutely irrelevant. This isn't a question of my opinion: it's simply an irrational practice and demonstrably ineffective in this case. Here's the "profile" you offered:
"Mid-20's"? Define "mid-20's". Mohamed Atta was 33 years of age on September 11th, 2001. Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed Ibrahim al-Haznawi and Salem al-Hazmi were all 20 years old.
"Middle easterner"? Richard Reid -- the 2001 shoe bomber -- and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab were not from the Middle East.
"No luggage?" As I pointed out in an earlier comment, many fliers frequently travel without baggage. It's not the norm, but it's hardly a proxy for terrorism.
The effectiveness of profiling pales in comparison to real intelligence: like, for example, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's own father informing authorities that his son might be a threat.
If there were a market for that type of movie, they'd be making pro-war movies.
During WWII the nation was united. America knew who their enemies were. We were at war with Germany, Japan and Italy. Every family had a stake in the outcome.
The movies made during WWII were certainly propaganda, but it's what the country wanted. In 1941, most abled bodied men either volunteered or were drafted into the fight.
Today's wars effect very few families. There are no enemy countries to invade and no enemy camps to attack. We're fighting religious fanaticism.
If the country believed in the wars we're fighting, all of us or our children would be involved in the fight and Hollywood would make the type of movies they made in the early forties.
The last time I checked, young bedwetters like Breitbart are not themselves suiting up for the wars they sell. His older sycophants, like Coulter and Drudge, all talk a good game, but have never done anything except cheer from the sidelines.
Reminds me of another famous cheerleader and evader.
Or at least transcribed to a third grade reading level.
Happy New Year to you and everybody at MMFA, even the trolls, upon whom I wish a clearing of the fog in 2010, and a jump start to the grey matter.
Tak a right guid-willie waught for me.
Happy New Year to all!
And may...
She was out there right away to prove she can be the best hater the Regressives have. They'll all be making their pitch for the number 1 slot.
When are you leftist liberal going to get it? People don't like the liberal media. Thank goodness FOX is there to tell it like it is. President Obama was not elected because everyone thought he was qualified. He was a elected by default. As intelligent as he is, the country would have voted for anyone else but BUSH (or anyone associated with him). It does not matter what kind of attack the left throws out or hide from the public, this country has never lean towards the left, nor it will ever lean completely to the RIGHT. It is obvious that America definitely VIEWS FOX as the source of Fair and Balanced news reporting. BTW, O'Reilly is not a conservative. Ha ha Eric Boehlert is an idiot for making such a dumb prediction. I am going to make a prediction that FOX will dominate the ratings again in 2010.
These folks are sick. They are hypocrites who behaved in a similar way to Obama over the shoe bomber. They are liars who try to tar Obama with the stigma of 'associating with terrorists' by saying that he was close friends with Bill Ayers and that he attended a madrassa, neither of which is true. They are dishonest when they attack Obama for waiting 3 days before commenting on this event, when Bush waited twice as long with the previous aborted shoe bomber terrorism attack.
Ann Coulter's baseless smear collapses, as Rachel says, in the "face of even rudimentary fact-checking!" But Coulter and Cheney don't seem concerned by that, because they've been given credibility they don't deserve on national security matters.
And that's why MMFA covers these kinds of comments - because journalists and others GAVE credibility to Republicans when they haven't proven they deserve it! And they continue to prove that they don't LEGITIMATELY deserve it now even more now!
I'd encourage you to listen to Rachel Maddow's commentary from last night. It's 10 minutes or so, but it's worth it. The link at the top of this post is video and audio, and this link is the full transcript and the video.
"To put it simply: This President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric. He is focused on action," Pffiefer wrote. "Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from Al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies {my edit - and the rightwing hacks who dishonestly promoted them}to be attacking the President."
Dan Pfeiffer also said in that same blog post....
"There are numerous...public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered."
Coulter falsely implies with her Madrassa remarks that Obama has a close relationship with radical Muslims because of the school he went to as a young child. He doesn't. He has a close relationship with reality, and diplomacy, and logic, and processes that will work to lessen the risk to our nation.
If we are a student of politics over the last 2 decades, what is clearly obvious is that the Republicans have learned to attack their opponent's strengths and try to turn them into weaknesses.
One of Obama's strengths is that he didn't have a perfect, easy childhood. Despite some things that could have put him off track, he is very level-headed and a very patriotic American. Despite the fact that he had a muslim-by-birth father and an agnostic mother and a Muslim stepfather, as an adult, he CHOSE to become a very active practicing Christian!
Getting exposed to a variety of types of people at a young age, like at the school he attended in Indonesia, does nothing but GOOD for someone!
They are desperately trying to turn this advantage into a disability.
Mistakes? You mean like invading Iraq for no reason while ignoring the Taliban in Afghanistan, secretly detaining people without charge for indefinite periods while ignoring their civil rights, and stealing two elections? Those mistakes? Or were there some other, worse mistakes you were referring to Ann? Oh, you must have meant the who sub-prime mortgage mistake. The one that collapsed the house of cards Bush was calling an economy. Yeah, that was a pretty big mistake.
Too bad for you Obama hasn't repeated any of those mistakes, Ann. Now look sad and say: "Buh?"
All idiots are welcome to reply.
The tragedy of it all is that those who salivate for this tripe don't know that they're being played like a fiddle. I guess that's why they're called "nutbags."
Coulter and Hannity and the like know exactly what they're doing. They're generating income. Because in their eyes, it's all entertainment.