Disastrous Commie Pope Now Calling Murderous Palestinians ‘Angels of Peace’

Every day this disastrous commie Pope gets worse for Catholics in particular and the west in general. This time this foolish man is lauding the so-called “Palestinians” a “angels of peace.” Nothing–absolutely NOTHING–could be farther from truth than calling Palestinians “angels of peace” unless you are referring to the relative peace of death because death merchants is all they are.

This weekend Pope Francis praised murderer Mahmoud Abbas calling him an “angel of peace” in a meeting held at the Vatican on Saturday.

Abbas presented the red pope with a medallion that supposedly represents the “angel of peace destroying the bad spirit of war.”

In reply this Marxist pope told Abbas that the gift was appropriate because Abbas is “an angel of peace.”

Add this weekend’s foolishness to this pope’s decision to confer statehood on the non-existent “country” of Palestine by signing a treaty recognizing the Palestinians as a state. The announcement for the treaty was made last week, but has been neither officially drawn up, released to the church nor signed.

All this glad handing for a man who represents a terror outfit that is based on murder and genocide. This pope is calling a terrorist state an “angel of peace.”

Just to remind you all, the so-called Palestinians still say that Israel has no right to exist and still maintain that their ultimate goal is to murder every Jew and push the state of Israel into the sea.

Catholics, your commie pope has just jumped sandaled feet first into becoming an advocate for terrorism. The meek criticisms of this pope from conservative-minded Catholics needs to rise to a roar, not the meek rumble it is today.

Just to name a few examples of this pope’s dangerous actions, he has chimed in on the side of global warming religionists, he has attacked capitalism and more than once, too. Francis has focused his criticism on America while ignoring the violence of Islam, and said that he wants a “redistribution” of wealth. And these are just a few examples of the horrible ideas built on his failed Marxist ideology.

This pope is a horrible man. He stands against the only economic system that brought billions of people out of poverty and improved the standard of living for the whole globe and he sides with terrorists who want to perpetrate genocide.

Catholics, you need to deal with this cretin and stop apologizing for him.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners May 15, 2015
OPEN THREAD: Remember When Big Donor to the Clintons, George Stephanopoulos, Said There's No Bias in the Media?
  • jim_m

    This is surprising from a man who grew up in a nation of nazis?

    • LOL, apparently not.

      • FrenchKiss

        Warner, you may want to check this out. Apparently the Pope did not say that Abbas was an Angel of Peace, but rather he hoped that Abbas would be an Angel of Peace. The translation from the Italian is quite different than what is being reported in the American media. And you know, the media has an anti-religious agenda. Just saying.

  • Brucehenry

    Warner Todd Huston, personal friend of Rodney G Graves, calls the Holy Father a “horrible man.” L. O. Freaking. L.

    • What do YOU call a person who supports terrorists? Oh, yeah, compatriots. Sorry, Forgot.

      • jim_m

        Friends? Fellow Travelers? Allies?

        Bruce loves those who hate America. He just cited on the other thread that anti-american protestors like Medea Benjamin agree with him. That should settle once and for all any dispute as to whether or not Bruce hates our country.

        • Brucehenry

          What a lying sack of shit. That name was never mentioned on that other thread.

          Besides I don’t even LIKE Tyler Perry’s movies.

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry, weren’t you just claiming that anti war protestors like Code Pink were right about the Iraq War? Or did I miss something?

          • Brucehenry

            If Code Pink said the sky is blue they were right. If they said the earth is round they were right. If they said the war was stupid they were right. But that doesn’t mean they’re right about everything.

            The Nazis were right about the autobahn and the Volkswagen, doesn’t mean I agree with them about the rest of their platform.

            Your McCarthyite tactics are laughably stupid. You are a buffoon and a dumbass.

          • jim_m

            Again, you side with people who worked to make the war a failure and then claim that it was “predictable”. You desired the outcome and you helped make it happen. It wasn’t predictable except that you are a traitor to your country.

            There’s a difference between inventing things that work and ideological policy. Unfortunately, you are too much of a fucking dumbass to tell the difference.

          • Brucehenry

            Again, hamhanded illogical McCarthyite nonsense. People figured out these tactics in 1954, Jim. Pathetic, buffoonish bullshit.

          • jim_m

            Not McCarthyite. Just telling you that the war wasn’t going this way until your side took over and then it was a necessity to make it fail so your predictions of the previous 7 years could be fulfilled.

            You had an ideological necessity to make the war fail so you did. It is what you have advocated for and required. Your denying this is the lie and the more I say it the more desperate you get over it.

            I’ve nailed you on this truth and you know it (or would that be that you no it? I can’t tell, your knowledge is so limited.)

          • Brucehenry

            Tell yourself whatever it is that makes you feel OK, Jim.

          • jim_m

            Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Bruce.

          • Brucehenry

            Now THAT is pithy. Congratulations. Did you make that one up yourself?

          • jim_m

            I’m trying to use small words so you can follow along. And you are in deep denial of reality. You and your dem masters had an ideological need to have the war fail. They fought every inch of the way to make sure it happened. The current state was the goal of the left because it was ideologically necessary for it to happen.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I get what you are saying. You’ve said it several times. It’s fucking nonsense, but I believe that you believe it. Thank you. You are incredibly and obviously wrong, but thank you.

          • jim_m

            It is obviously right since the trajectory of the war was in the opposite direction when obama took office and turned on a dime once he did.

          • Brucehenry

            Please continue to tell yourself whatever it is that convinces you you are right. I can only thank God that the vast majority of American voters know you are wrong.

          • jim_m

            Here’s the thing: As I told your master, Chico, above, obama claimed that he had changed the direction in Iraq and in 2010 declared that his polices had made Iraq a success. He claimed that the state at that time was a success and that it was due to his policies.

            Now we come 4 years later and his policies have made a disaster. You want to claim that the problem was Bush, but that policy was no longer being followed and you are already claiming that the earlier success was due to abandoning those policies and that the present course of events in 2010 was not due to Bush but due to obama. You had already denied that Bush was responsible for Iraq in 2010.

            And with things now being a disaster you want to forget about your previous claims and push the blame back on Bush. It doesn’t work that way. Everyone sees the lies you are telling. Everyone sees the dishonesty of your arguments.

          • Brucehenry

            Is this the claim in question?

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/14/barack-obama-iraq-war-success

            Because I don’t see any claim that “it was due to his policies.” I don’t see any claim by Obama, and certainly not by me, that the “success” he is talking about was “due to abandoning those [Bush’s] policies.”

            He is claiming success in getting America out and turning over security to the SOVEREIGN Iraqi government who TOLD US TO GET OUT. In this speech he is trying to put the best face on the Iraqi government, his hopes and those of the world that it could handle the situation have since been dashed.

            Actually, HERE’S the thing: America elected a president who promised to end our involvement. Bush, on his way out, negotiated a SOFA agreement but could not get the Iraqis to agree to immunity for our personnel. Neither could Obama. So, we left.

            But the instability created by the invasion remained. The sectarian hatred, held in check first by Saddam’s terror then US bribes to Sunni sheikhs, remained. The sovereign Iraqi government, put in place by Bush’s elections, failed to govern effectively. All this was predicted by many many people before the invasion ever began. If Bush had listened to them instead of to Cheney and Feith and Wolfowitz, we would not be in this fix today.

          • jim_m

            Screw you Bruce. Do you honestly believe that obama was claiming that the “greatest foreign policy success” of his admin was due to George W Bush? You are just grasping at straws. You know that when obama claimed the success he was saying that it was due to his policies.

          • Brucehenry

            Well maybe you have a different speech in mind because in this one he is giving credit for the “success” to the men and women in uniform.

          • jim_m

            It will be one of the greatest achievements

            And what were the dems saying before the war?

            And what did obama inherit

            By the time the surge ended in 2008, violence in Iraq had dropped to the lowest level since the first year of the war. Sectarian killings had dropped by 95 percent. By 2009, U.S. combat deaths were extremely rare. (In December of that year there were no American combat deaths in Iraq.) Iraq was on the mend. Even Barack Obama, who opposed the surge every step of the way, conceded in September 2008 that it had succeeded in reducing violence “beyond our wildest dreams.”

            But you ignore all these facts and make up your own reality where you think that the dems always opposed a war, where you predicted “exactly this outcome”, where the war was lost when he took over.

            The fact is obama inherited a war that was already won and he then lost it because that was what he intended to do.

          • Brucehenry

            You laugh at everything Biden says but this remark is imbued with all the gravitas of a pronouncement from Mt Sinai.

            I said there were many people who predicted that invading and occupying Iraq would have disastrous consequences. That many Dems were not among them is a fact I’ve never denied. Here’s a hint: Not every Democrat is required to justify and explain every remark by every other Democrat. Do you deny that many many people predicted instability, sectarian strife, an increase in the number of terrorist acts, and other unknowable dire consequences if the US invaded? Just because Albright and Biden and Hillary Clinton weren’t among them doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

            Likewise I don’t deny that violence had lessened partly as a result of the Surge and partly as a result of the bribing of Sunni sheikhs not to fight. But that was going to end sometime. Everyone knew in 2003 that the US wasn’t going to stay in Iraq forever. The presence of US troops in Iraq would sooner or later have provoked another round of fighting and suicide attacks and US casualties. The war, as you say, was basically over. The sovereign Iraqi government had invited us to get the fuck out. There was no SOFA. And the electorate in the US wanted an end to American participation.

            AND THEY STILL DO. Most Americans weren’t looking at the situation and saying, “hey, things have calmed down. We might as well stay another 10 or 20 years!” No, they were saying, “Hey, things have calmed down. Good time to end this godforsaken thing.”

            Which, by the way, was Bush’s plan with the surge in the first fucking place.

            The leadership of ISIS, it is reported, isn’t a bunch of fanatic Muslims at all, it’s a bunch of Baathist officers of Saddam’s army grifting in fanaticism to gain power. These murderous sociopaths were going to cause trouble even if John “What’s another 100 years?” McCain had won in 2008.

          • jim_m

            You failed to read the linked article:

            On the matter of the SOFA, this story by the New Yorker’s Dexter Filkins makes it clear that (a) the Maliki government (which is certainly problematic) wanted to maintain a U.S. presence in Iraq; (b) it would have made a significant difference in keeping Iraq pacified; and (c) the Obama administration was not serious about re-negotiating a SOFA agreement. In the words of Mr. Filkins:

            President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis—like how many troops they wanted to leave behind—because the Administration had not decided. “We got no guidance from the White House,” [James Jeffrey, the Amerian Ambassador to Iraq at the time] told me. “We didn’t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ” At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn’t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible,” Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said.

            And then there’s this:

            Ben Rhodes, the U.S. deputy national-security adviser, told me that Obama believes a full withdrawal was the right decision. “There is a risk of overstating the difference that American troops could make in the internal politics of Iraq,” he said. “Having troops there did not allow us to dictate sectarian alliances. Iraqis are going to respond to their own political imperatives.” But U.S. diplomats and commanders argue that they played a crucial role, acting as interlocutors among the factions—and curtailing Maliki’s sectarian tendencies. [emphasis added]

            To sum up, then: post-surge, Iraq was making significant progress on virtually every front. The Obama administration said as much. The president was not engaged or eager to sign a new SOFA. A full withdrawal was the right decision. His own top advisers admitted as much. The president had long argued he wanted all American troops out of Iraq during his presidency, and he got his wish. He met his goal.

            obama had a war won, the beginnings of a government that could have sustained a lasting peace, and could not be bothered to answer some of the most basic of questions to open up negotiations on the SOFA. It wasn’t that Iraq was unwilling to compromise, it’s that obama couldn’t be bothered. He had found an excuse and knew that his pig ignorant ass kissing sycophants, like Bruce, would fall for his excuse hook, line and sinker.

            Maliki was willing to sign an executive agreement bypassing his own parliament and obama still wouldn’t compromise. obama’s a megalomaniacal fool, convinced of his own infallibility. He doesn’t understand the concept of compromise because he has never done so with anyone.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah, U.S. troops subject to trial by the notoriously corrupt Iraqi courts. That would have worked out well.

            Just shows how much you care about American troops. Let them stay in Iraq, be imprisoned in Iraq, keep dying in Iraq.

            Chico’s rule is: if the natives won’t fight for their government, why should Americans?

          • jim_m

            So you didn’t even bother to read my comment which states quite clearly that Maliki was willing to sign an executive agreement with obama , which would allow him to bypass the parliament meaning that he would not have had to ask his government for immunity for US soldiers.

            Your whole premise was that US soldiers would have had to have been subject to the Iraqi courts and here we have proof that your contention is a lie.

            Like everything you post here the facts militate against every single position you claim, yet you insist that your ideology is correct even when every fact is against you.

          • Brucehenry

            It seems to me that, as the Iranian mullahs and their allies the 47 GOP senators told us, “executive agreements” are subject to change when the particular executive who signs them leaves office. If we had signed an executive agreement with Maliki, left troops in place and then saw Maliki overthrown or un-elected, our troops would be subject to kangaroo Sharia Shia courts right now. Of course, a guy who has no shits to give about the lives of our troops — a guy who has no use for the troops unless they’re vicariously making him feel like a tough guy — doesn’t care about that quite likely possibility.

            So what if some “US diplomats and commanders” thought US troops should stay? “US diplomats and commanders” also thought 50 years previously that US troops should stay in Vietnam and 58,000 died as a result.

            Yes, Obama HAD “found an excuse” — it was called a “mandate” of 10 million votes to get the US out of the stupid mess Bush had created.

            Zarqawi — remember him? — was the godfather of ISIS. It was he who brought the al Qaeda franchise to Iraq — in response to the invasion and botched occupation. had there been no invasion, there would have been no al Qaeda in Iraq. Had the been no al Qaeda, there would have been no ISIS.

            You are an ignorant dumbass. No memory of history. Everything seen through a prism of hate for Obama and Democrats in general. No ability to see a situation without your idiotic prejudices and assumptions.

          • jim_m

            Remind me: Was Zarqawi a problem in Iraq BEFORE obama? Nope. obama has create more problems than he has solved.

          • Brucehenry

            Like I said you have no concept of history. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You are a ridiculous buffoon, and if this comment of yours doesn’t prove it I don’t know what would.

            Zarqawi was killed in 2006. But it was he that brought Al Qaeda to Iraq, and “Al qaeda in Iraq” has since morphed into ISIS/ISIL.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

          • jim_m

            I think you will recall that the plan was to fight the terrorists overseas. Given that obama just sent warnings out of increase terrorist risks here I think we can conclude that he would rather civilians be dying here. I take it that you would too.

          • jim_m

            I’ll also note that I’m not in the habit of tracking every terrorist we kill great and small. But cleaerly you are remembering them in your daily prayers of praise and remembrance. Got to keep on lifting up our enemies right?

          • Brucehenry

            Good try, you pathetic ignoramus, but your comment reveals your willingness to distort history to fit your preconceived notions.

            Zarqawi was in all the papers for a while, there, sport.

            You don’t know what you are talking about because you can’t see past your blind hatred of Obama in particular and Democrats in general. You’ve concocted a crackpot version of history in which every bad thing that has happened is somehow the fault of Democrats and liberals, and every good thing that has ever happened is the result of Conservative Moral Virtue and Steely Eyed Realism, and have internalized it as Gospel Truth.

            Then you regularly blurt out nonsense like this one — Zarqawi was Obama’s fault. Or your other favorite trope of recent weeks, that a “thriving vibrant black middle class” was flourishing up until dastardly LBJ fucked everything up with the Great Society.

            But really, thanks for finally making it crystal clear how your tiny little mind works. How it can bend time and space to make Obama responsible for the atrocities of a terrorist who died 3 years before he took office, and LBJ the murderer of hope for all those black professionals and business owners who were doing so great during Jim Crow.

            Buffoon. Ignoramus. Know-Nothing. Lunatic.

          • Commander_Chico

            Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and of course Bush and Cheney made the war a failure.

            Right from the looting at the beginning.

          • jim_m

            I never claimed that the prosecution of the war was perfect. Far from it. But only a fool ignores the fact that we had pacified the country and our military losses were single digits. But once obama took over everything changed. You of course, being a fool, do deny those truths.

          • Commander_Chico

            Single digits? US military deaths in Iraq were over 4000 when Bush left office.

            Plus the tens of thousands maimed and disabled.

          • jim_m

            on a monthly basis idiot. We have gone over this time and again. I recall reading an article that claimed there were more people being shot in Philly each month than in Iraq.

          • Brucehenry

            There were more people being shot in Philly than US troops were being shot in Iraq, but Iraqis were killing each other right steady. US troops were hunkering down in their bases per the agreement Bush reached with Iraq to get the fuck out.

          • jim_m

            There were more people dying under Saddam’s rule than there were after.

          • Commander_Chico

            That is false.

          • jim_m

            An average of 125 Iraqis were murdered every day during Hussein’s rule

            In 2008 there were 10,268 civilian deaths, meaning an average of 28 civilians dying per day.

            So we see once more facts are meaningless to you and your ideology informs you about what the truth is. Go STFU now and crawl back under your rock.

          • Commander_Chico

            So you get to pick one year, 2008, and compare it to a number which includes war deaths with Iran?

            I guess you never took statistics.

            There are hundreds of Iraqis still dying every day because of Bush’s fuck-up.

          • jim_m

            Dumbass. 2008was one of the higher years for civilian losses. The point being that Hussein slaughtered civilians indescriminately. The statistics show that he killed more civilians on a daily basis than died during and after the Iraq war.

            And if you want to claim that because Obama abandoned Iraq that civilians are dying at a higher rate then that is on Obama and the fascists that voted for him.

          • jim_m

            Liar. My number did not include military war deaths with Iran. Read the link it explicitly says civilian deaths. The number would nearly double if we included military deaths.

          • jim_m

            Remember – In 2010 obama declared the situation in Iraq an emblem of the success of his policies. He owned Iraq at that point. He claimed that his policies had changed the course of events in Iraq from where Bush had been going. He was totally right. The subsequent failure is his and his alone.

          • Jwb10001

            There were hundreds of Iraqis dying every day that Saddam was in power too do they count for less because Saddam isn’t Bush? How many of your hundreds of Iraqis would still be dying if that SOB were still there or worse yet his sadistic sons were in charge. I have zero problem with a principled objection to the war in Iraq but this line of reasoning isn’t that.

          • Commander_Chico

            The principle is: it’s not America’s business to prevent every dictator killing his own people.

          • jim_m

            No. You claimed that our soldiers were dying. I proved that they no longer were. You claimed that civilians were dying and I proved that there were fewer dying than before.

            Your argument has always been that since we cannot stop all dictators we should stop none. You are an apologist for evil and genocide. (but then what else should we expect from our resident Holocaust denier?)

          • jim_m

            It’s been 4413 days since the first day of the invasion of Iraq. Had we left Hussein in power he would have killed 551,625 civilians by now. Iraq war civilian casualties from 2003 to 2013 were 157,525.

            Chico is in favor of killing each and every one of those 400,000 additional people. Chico is in favor of genocide because he finds opposing it inconvenient.

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            Why is it when someone from the Tea Party brings up a point about something you generally have someone from the left (cough Cheeko cough) do the left decide to call them racists? Even when what they are saying doesn’t mention race at all?

          • Brucehenry

            “I” have someone call them racists? When have I done that?

          • Retired military

            I didn’t say you bruce. But a lot of the left in general do. When I say you generally. I was not speaking specifically of you but in general.

          • Commander_Chico

            They were right. Even Jeb Bush now acknowledges that.

          • jim_m

            Sure Chico. Prove to us once again that there is no enemy of the US or its policy that you will no align yourself with.

          • Commander_Chico

            Who hurt America more? Code Pink or the assholes, greedheads and foreign-agent traitors who got us into war with Iraq? Who’s the enemy?

          • jim_m

            You are

          • Retired military

            I actually like the Madea movies.

          • Brucehenry

            To each his own. I didn’t like Martin Lawrence’s Big Momma’s House either.

          • Retired military

            Havent seen any of those and don’t want to

      • jim_m

        What do YOU call a person who supports terrorists?

        Mr President.

  • Paul Hooson

    I’m one of few resident Jews here. I’m ever mindful of what I believe to be in the best security interests of Israel. Unlike the Arabs living in Israel with full voting, legal and human rights, the Palestinians who live or who choose to like outside of Israel, which present a serious diplomatic as well as security problem for Israel. Pragmatically speaking, some political solution needs to address this. However, problems with terrorism and arms importing, especially with Hamas continue to slow and obstruct any political settlement of this issue.

    • Commander_Chico

      Also Israeli land-grabbing for settlements on the West Bank.

    • fustian24

      My understanding is that the Pope did NOT call Abbas an Angel of Peace. It supposedly went more like this:

      As is tradition with heads of State or of government, Francis presented presented a gift to the Palestinian leader, commenting: “May the angel of peace destroy the evil spirit of war. I thought of you: may you be an angel of peace.”

      http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/05/16/contrary-to-popular-outrage-pope-francis-didnt-call-mahmoud-abbas-an-angel-of-peace/

      • jim_m

        I had read that earlier and meant to post it. Seems like the Italian media likes to be accurate with their quotes whereas the US media likes to quote what they think the Pope should have said.

      • I was aware of Kruiser’s point of view before I posted this. I don’t agree with him. He is a Catholic who is only trying to cover for the church. He is utterly ignoring all the comunist and near communist things this pope has done and said and if someone other than the pope would have said the things he has said, conservatives like Kruiser would be all OVER them as apostates. This pope is a disaster. Kruiser and those like him who want to protect the church are just sticking their heads in the sand.

        • Brucehenry

          It’s not a matter of opinion, Warner. If Kruiser’s quote is accurate your assertion is INaccurate. And your headline is false.

          • Kruiser’s apologia has no bearing on what I wrote here.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually it does. If Kruiser’s quote is correct the Pope did NOT call Abbas an “angel of peace.” But your headline says he DID.

            One or the other of you is wrong, either you or Kruiser. Either the Pope said a thing, or he didn’t say a thing. You say he said it. Kruiser says he didn’t.

          • jim_m

            Actually, Kruiser isn’t making any claim he is only relaying the report of another media source.

            I think there are two issues: 1) the correctness of the quote – which I am more willing to believe the Italian source rather than US sources based on the past history of US sources being crap with facts. and 2) the sense of meeting with Pali terrorists and playing along with the charade that they are interested in peace rather than genocide.

        • fustian24

          I’m not saying that the Pope isn’t a raging Marxist. He’s clearly at least a person of the left.

          I’m hot high on him meeting with Abbas at all, but one can at least make an olive branch/turning the other cheek argument for it.

          But calling Abbas an “Angel of Peace” would be offensively stupid.

          It may be that he didn’t do that.

  • Commander_Chico

    Even though the Catholic Church is one of the most conservative institutions on earth in attempting to preserve traditional morality and the family, it must be destroyed by the neoconservatives.

    This is because Francis opposes the rapacious aspects of globalized capitalism and acknowledges that the Arabs of Palestine are humans with rights, too.

    • jim_m

      No one said anything about the Catholic Church. In fact the complaint is that the Pope is putting the Church in an untenable position. Indeed, the article is more out of concern for the Roman Catholic Church than a polemic of condemnation against it.

      I would say that you are just projecting.

    • GrimmCreeper

      Well, when you continue to elect a terrorist government the outcome is fairly predictable.

    • Retired military

      And the left has nothing to say about the church and its’ policies on abortion? Nope n that matter the left simply wants the church disbanded, outlawed and thrown in jail. Hell anytime someone mentions something positive about the church cheeko brings up the priests scandal.

      • Brucehenry

        And the right has little to say about Church teachings on the death penalty and preemptive war.

        • Retired military

          Actually Bruce. The folks I talk to that are Catholic are in general conflicted about both. Myself included. As fro the preemptive war the first Iraq war never really ended. Sorta like the Korean war. We just had a long ceasefire.

        • jim_m

          You see that is the difference between the left and the right. The left believes that politics should dictate what churches are allowed to say. The right believes that the two issues are separate and should stay that way.

  • Beth

    This is so non-informative. It leaves out so much. Mahmoud Abbas was a leader in trying to create peace with Israel, and worked with a governmental organization to see this occur. He was praised by many Israeli’s and American’s alike for his efforts to help their long-standing enemies, and his efforts to stop terrorism. He was very UN-popular for his views in Palestine, because of his views and “radical” ideas.
    Also, the current pope grew up in Argentina, Mr. Jim, not “the land of Nazis”, which is also inaccurate.
    President Obama does not support terrorists, he just doesn’t do anything against them either…also, congress has STATED when he first won office that they would do absolutely everything in their power to keep him from passing anything of significant value.
    Also, Mr Paul, all you just said is that they have trouble dealing with their people. Don’t use a bunch of fancy words if they don’t say anything of importance, it makes you look like you don’t know what your talking about. You did bring up one point though – Israel is a 1st-world country – on par with the US, most of the UE, and Japan..etc. Palestine is a 3rd-world. Never am I going to say that it’s right for Palestine to kill Israeli’s, but even you privileged people who’ve never had to look across the street -a STREET, and see people with better food, actual clothing, and a better life in general, as opposed to having your last meal being last week and consisting of bread and water…wouldn’t that grate on your nerves a little tiny bit?
    Before and after you read a news article, make sure you know what the subject is taking about, why their saying this, their stance on the issue, and WHO’S DOIN WHAT! Because, this author just fed you several lies, and you did’t even stop to think about if he might in fact, be wrong!

    • jim_m

      LOL. So you never heard of all the nazis who took refuge in Argentina after the war? Go read a little history and get back to me.

      • Commander_Chico

        Many Nazis took refuge in the USA after the war, too. Ever hear of Wernher von Braun?

        • Brucehenry

          Plus Jim had no issues with Der Popenfuhrer Benedict XVI who had actually belonged, albeit unwillingly, to a Nazi organization.

          • jim_m

            Really, You can’t tell that my original comment was a joke? That pretty much sets a new record for obtuseness.

            Warner got that it was a joke. You are too much of an intolerant ass to notice.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh yeah some of these are jokes funny how that’s an argument when you use it but a dodge when I do.

            Also it’s belied when you come back to defend your “joke” and tell the commenter to “go read a little history [OH THE IRONY] and get back to me.”

          • It’s what you do.

          • jim_m

            Rodney has a point. My comment on the nazis was obviously a joke. You present arguments and then call them jokes when people get in your face. Warner laughed at my joke 16 hours ago. You still failed to get it.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I thought it was too until you came back to defend it as a valid point. “Go read a little history and get back to me” seems to me to be defending what Warner and I thought was a joke as NOT a joke but a rhetorical thrust. It would hardly be the first time you spouted irrelevancies and claimed them as valid arguments.

          • jim_m

            Please. It was a joke. The other idiot made a comment like they never heard that scores of Nazi war criminals fled to Argentina and other SA nations. They DO need to educate themselves. And like you they need to get a sense of humor.

          • Brucehenry

            Well like I said I didn’t make fun of your “joke” until you made a followup comment to make me suspect that perhaps you actually didn’t mean it that way. But sure, since you said “please,” I’ll take your word for it.

        • 914

          I’ve heard of seed of chuckie.

      • Beth

        I have read about that, thank you. I also happen to know that many nazis ended up going to other countries leaving Argentina after Peron’s government fell, for Chile and Brazil, for example. I also know that Argentina declared war on the Axis powers a year after WW 2 ended, and finally, over time (by now) the fact that they hosted so many Nazis has became an embarrassment to that country. Some were even arrested, sent back to Europe, and convicted. Therefore, your comment about Argentina being the land of Nazis IS inaccurate, and not a valid point for this debate.

    • jim_m

      On a serious note: Congress never stopped obama from passing anything since 1) the President does not vote on legislation, and 2) the dems controlled the Senate for the first 6 years of obama’s Presidency and failed to pass just about anything other than obamacare.

      Please explain how the GOP is responsible for Harry Reid’s failure to pass legislation through a Senate that he controlled.

  • 914

    The Dope is about twice as dumb as box of community agitators.