Marco Rubio Blisters The Traitor-In-Chief

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Marco Rubio Blisters The Traitor-In-Chief

  1. gator69 says:

    Obviously the NSA has nothing on Rubio.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Which is also why good people like him never get appointed. I mean elected, President.

      • nielszoo says:

        We don’t need another Senator in the WH, we need a Governor. I like Marco, I have some major disagreements with him on immigration and I think he’s a lukewarmer, but he’s better than most and he gets my vote. (Sorry we haven’t been able to get our other idiot Senator Nelson out. The Republican Party of FL gave him the job the last time with all their screw ups.) If Rubio wants to run for FL Gov. when Scott leaves office, get a couple of tours running Florida under his belt to get executive experience, then I’d consider him Presidential material. Right now I’d rather have Walker or Jindal on the ticket.

  2. SMS says:

    Obama is an out-and-out anti-semitic democrat. Unfortunately, the head of a party of idiots that throw their support behind the terrorists of the middle east.

  3. MrX says:

    It’s just amazing that Obama does all the things he does and his own party is not ashamed. I don’t think most people know 1% of what he does.

    • Our local Progressives tell me that Conservatives are evil and the Jews are after the money. They say this Israel thing makes just people angry the world over.

      This British is unhappy with the Jews and so are these lads:

      • Neal S says:

        I see that antisemitism is alive and well. Some Jews remember the Holocaust, so for some, the phrase ‘never again’ has some meaning. Only an idiot would continue to attack Jews until they are backed into a corner and are suffering a threat to their lives. There will come a time (if they are continually attacked and threatened with extinction) that Jews will act, and I would not want to bet against them.

        In the short history of Israel they have had war waged against them multiple times by their enemies all about them. Despite being outgunned and outnumbered, Israel has not been defeated.

        I don’t imagine any of Israels enemies having a lick of good sense, so I fully expect that one day there will be a ring of smoke and fire all about Israel where her enemies used to be. Nukes will likely be used and although greatly weakened, Israel will survive, but her adjoining enemies will not survive.

    • That should have said:

      This British wind power professional is unhappy with the Jews and so are these lads …

      • rah says:

        I have no idea what the hell is to be gained by anyone but the Muslims by hating and killing Jews.

        Why are people so immature that so many of them blame their own miserable conditions on a group of other people different from them? This Martini on crushed ice from Envious premium vodka with a couple of blue cheese stuff olives tastes very good right now. I’m mature enough to realize one reason it tastes so good is because I earned it.
        The center cut pork chops I will do on my new grill for dinner in a little while and the escaloped potatoes and freshly made salad we will have with it will taste good also. We earned them.

        Things that one earns have value and bring fulfillment and enjoyment. While those that receive their bread from the hands of others generally do not enjoy it nearly as much.

        Thursday I bought a 1999 Suzuki VS 800 Intruder. My nephew who owns a Motorcycle shop has been looking for what I wanted for a year now. A cruiser bike that is economical to own and run and in good shape. He came through with flying colors. The thing only has 7,280 mi on it and looks like it just came off the dealers floor. So for $2,500 I can take my lady and go cruise down to Brown County and run about having fun as I feel. I could buy it with ready cash, because we earned it and because I waited until I found the right deal on what I wanted.

        I had a short week last week but it was a hard one. Made harder by other people not doing their jobs. People that have no idea it seems how valuable a job is. People that never learned that like your current task or not, Ultimately, your own self esteem is at stake in how well you perform that job. I pity those that never learn the values of having a strong work ethic. But I have no sympathy for any of them.

        • gator69 says:

          When I worked as a repo man in E St Loius, it chapped my ass that about every 3-5 years the Housing Authority used to have to go in and renovate the PJ’s. I grew up in the very same buildings, except my PJ’s were located on military bases. Often the exact same floor plans. The DOD could wait 20-25 years in between renovations on the very same structures, and contrary to popular belief, base housing is not free.

          The same applies to our freedoms, those that do not pay for them, just don’t value them.

        • nielszoo says:

          Gator, you’re braver than I am. I did tow-offs in South St. Louis county in the mid 70’s and that was scary enough. Born and raised in St. Louis so I know the area you’re talking about. It was a war zone when I lived there.

        • gator69 says:

          I worked there at the worst time possible. They and no garbage company willing to do business there, and garbage was piled in the streets, piled 10-12 feet high, making many streets impassible. The police cars, what few there were, had no working radios (at least that was the official story). If you had a problem you were completely on your own.

          We used to do what are called ‘Emergency Replevin’s’ when we had enough invested in one residence (maybe 3-4 times per year), and that was done with the aid of a Sheriff or three. A Replevin Order allowed us to kick the door in if nobody answered, and the cops usually ended up pulling out more ‘merchandise’ than we did. I have seen things you would not believe, and my heart went out to the kids who were often locked in homes with barred windows and doors, and had no escape if a fire broke out. Fire trucks also were not terribly prompt, and most fires were complete guts.

          East St Louis used to be where the rich folks lived, before white flight. It should still be some of the most valuable real estate in the bi-state region, with grand views of the Gateway Arch, and less than 5 minutes from downtown St Louis, but it looks like Haiti on a bad day.

          My work involved actually getting into those hellhole houses (some doors had plywood to cover shotgun blast holes, at head height) and getting out with either money or merchandise, which made me a target both in and out of the house. I was shot at numerous times (bullet holes in the van and not me thank God) bum rushed a few times, and even had an old woman try to run me over.

          I’ve been told I should write a book, but I cannot imagine anyone would want to read it.

        • Hugh K says:

          You should get combat pay for that job Gator. My question is why in the hell anyone would give something on credit to anyone living in that war zone?

        • gator69 says:

          It wasn’t credit, it was rent-to-own, and both companies for whom I worked made a fortune. Some ‘customers’ were nothing more than thieves who would pay $15 to have a VCR delivered to their ‘home’, and then disappear. Others were truly needy, could not get credit, and could not save money for large purchases.

          The woman who tried to run me over was a major scam artist, and did so as I was repossessing half her household goods. Her son lived next door and pointed a snub nose .38 at me, until I informed him the police were already on the way (good bluff!) Years later a Secretary of State cop I knew came to me asking if I could find her (I was/am an excellent skiptracer). I grabbed his file and found her about an hour later. I first contacted a rental company she had skipped from and took my commission by once again emptying her house, then introduced her to my cop buddy as I was carrying out her fridge. She had committed multiple counts of felony mail fraud as well as ID theft and a laundry list of other offenses.

          Last I heard she was still in prison.

  4. Eliza says:

    If the GOP doesn’t not put up Rubio as next presidential candidate, they are toast. Romney has 0% chance.

    • rah says:

      Walker, and several others are acceptable to me. I’d vote for Rubio.

    • NavarreAggie says:

      You’re a fool. Rubio is an opportunistic amnesty shill of the left and squishy Republican elite. He’s got no moral standing except the one that is most politically expedient at this particular moment.

      And I’m from Florida, so don’t give me any crap about not knowing the “true” Rubio.

  5. pa32r says:

    When Al Queda attacked the USS Cole, it was in small boat. 17 sailors were killed, 39 were injured. A despicable act was perpetrated by a barbaric group. When the flagged and marked USS Liberty was attacked by Israel, it was with jet fighters and torpedo boats. 34 were killed, 171 were wounded. I guess that that was just “oops, sorry ’bout that.” Israel did pay some $13M or so, so I guess that it’s all good.

  6. pa32r says:

    My point is that “unconditional support” of any Country or group, no matter what, is foolish. My subpoint is that Israel is a friend to the US so long as we do what they want.

    • pa32r says:

      I suppose I should elaborate a bit. By no means am I saying that Israel is not our closest friend in the region, nor that I support PA or Hamas. But the idea that “if it’s Israel, we must always support them no matter what they say or do” is wrong.

      • rah says:

        Perhaps you should think about WHY Israel is our closest ally in the region.

      • Louis Hooffstetter says:

        The leaders of Israel have consistently done what was in Israel’s best interest. I remember when our leaders used to do that.

        And I find it shockingly ironic that people who were horribly abused and dispossessed could turn right around and commit similar acts.

        It’s sad to realize that for most of my life I have given the majority of humanity far more credit than they deserve.

        • rah says:

          When the treaty of Paris was signed ending the Revolution the US screwed France. France had more combatants at Yorktown than the colonists. The colonists had agreed not to sign a treaty with Britain without the consent of France. They did it anyway. When Benjamin Franklin informed the French representative of it Comte de Vergennes of it he said he understood that each nation must work in it’s own self interest. Not only did he accept it, he supported the granting of an additional loan to the Continental Congress from France.

      • pa32r says:

        But the idea that “if it’s Israel, we must always support them no matter what they say or do” is wrong.

        There is a difference between the “unconditional support” , on one hand, of a strong American ally with a democratic, free enterprise system of government, an ally under daily assault and under threat of nuclear annihilation, in a region full of governments ranging from undemocratic autocrats to homicidal thugs, surrounded by enemies who officially deny her very right to exist and would destroy her immediately if they had the opportunity and the means, and, on the other hand, a support of some nation “no matter what they say or do”.

        Don’t you see that these two things are not only different but mutually exclusive?

        • pa32r says:

          They are a strong American ally…. etc. so long as we act in their interest 100% of the time without exception, support them financially and militarily, toe their line in the UN without exception, etc. Yup, they’re surrounded by all the things you say. As to her right to exist, Netenyahu’s support of the right of a Palestinian state to exist is tepid on its best day, absent on its worst.

          One of the hallmarks of maturity is the ability to see how another views a situation, regardless of how strongly you may disagree. Many Palestinians regard the entirety of what is now Israel as having been stolen from them in the 1940s after already suffering occupation under the British. YMMV. While the events of the 60 years leading up to 1948 are open to a spectacular array of interpretations and nuance, nevertheless, that’s how it’s seen by many Palestinians. Sort of like, oh, some Mexicans might see the southwestern US.

          Do I agree with the Palestinians or the Mexicans? Categorically, I do not. Nevertheless, I understand what leads them to think this way. Would I support an armed insurgence from Mexico into the US (albeit, many on this site no doubt would claim it’s happening already and I can understand that too)? No. Do I support any PA, Hamas, etc. effort to destroy Israel? I do not. Do I have utter disdain and revulsion for ISIS/ISIL/ISLAMIC State? For Iraq? Yes. For Iran? In the so-called leadership, yes though the people are deserving of respect. But do I think that Israel can do no wrong and must be supported always, categorically, and without exception? I do not. Marco Rubio, whose views are clearly simplistic, does.

        • gator69 says:

          When I was young and naive, I used to wonder why the Israelis were so mean to the ‘Palestinians’, then I studied ancient history and stopped watching the alphabet channels and got over my naivete.

          BTW – ‘Mexicans’ are Spanish descendants who conquered the indigenous peoples, and are no more the rightful owners of the Southwest than we are.

        • @ pa32r:

          You make a lot of reasonable points that suggest to me our positions could be closer than it may seem to a casual reader of our discussion.

          I thought a lot about Rubio’s “unconditional support” statement and while I won’t discount an argument that it is a rhetorical excess I would point out that his is a polemic with an Administration that is showing open hostility to the just reelected likely Prime Minister of an allied nation, after having engaged in very public efforts to defeat him. Our President doesn’t question the validity of the Israeli elections—he just seems to dislike the results*) to such a degree that he sends signals by violating usual diplomatic procedures.

          I think, though, that your first paragraph is a rhetorical excess of its own. To demonstrate, I’ll ask just two questions:

          Were the United States and Great Britain strong allies in WWII? Did these two allies act in each other’s interest 100% of the time without exception, toe each other’s line in the international arena without exception, et cetera, et cetera? I’ll leave it at that. You know how to use rhetorical devices so you also understand where I’m going with it.

          You are absolutely right on what you call “hallmarks of maturity” but you leave the conclusion for a reader to interpret. It is impossible for me to tell but if you are suggesting that the Israelis or Netanyahu himself are “immature” I strongly disagree. There is a long history of discussion in Israel of what they called the “Arab Question” going back to before the country’s official founding. You may want to look up what Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion thought and said about it as early as June 1919:

          “Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews. But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can bridge it … We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs.”

          Now, you’ve demonstrated you follow the Middle East so it is quite likely you were not trying to suggest Netanyahu or the Israelis are ignorant about something that has been broadly discussed long before the founding of Israel and long before the Arabs in the territory started calling themselves Palestinians.

          But then I must ask what is it you are trying to say? Were you making a general point to the broader readership? Or were you trying to educate me? I’m fine with that, too. I think I know a lot about the positions of the various “Palestinian” factions and while you barely scratched the surface I also know there is way more what I don’t know. I don’t get excitable when somebody tries to give me a little well-intentioned primer.

          So, unless you want to address it further, the real question that remains for me is not what you were trying to say, but what do we think the Israelis, the Palestinians and we as Americans should do.

          I can go along with some criticism of Rubio’s “unconditional support” though it must be said that he qualified it by saying that allies are expected to have differences but such should be handled more diplomatically and not in the open. He was clearly focusing on the President’s very public actions aimed at Netanyahu and by definition the Israeli voters.

          You made it clear that Rubio’s “unconditional support” rubbed you the wrong way. I think we understand each other.

          What did you think about the rest of the young Senator’s position? What should we as Americans actually do? What kind of “support” should we give Israel? And what do you think of Mr. Obama’s handling of this?

          *) Interestingly enough, some pro-Palestinian analysts prefer this election result. Their point is that a Netanyahu government would be checked by the opposition, whereas a Herzog government could move against the Palestinians much harsher without a criticism from the right. They also say that the hopes for Netanyahu’s defeat were naïve and not grounded in understanding of Israel’s politics. That would include our President, would it not?

        • David A says:

          “While the events of the 60 years leading up to 1948 are open to a spectacular array of interpretations and nuance, nevertheless, that’s how it’s seen by many Palestinians. Sort of like, oh, some Mexicans might see the southwestern US.”
          I think it would be simplistic to take a comment about unconditional support of Israel completely literally , as opposed to in the context of the current geo-political situation of Israel dealing with disparate groups, both terrorist and terrorist states, committed to the destruction of Israel. This was Netanyahu’s point when he said the current issue with a Palestinian state is basically untenable. IMV he is absolutely correct.

          Because it is possible to understand how someone can have a uninformed prejudicial view of a situation, is not a reason to support that view, but to try and correct it. California had multiple international interests, all of which had dominated the “Native Americans”.
          The “Califorininos” wealthy Spanish landowners had already kicked out the Mexican Government. The British had naval vessels off the coast, observing these events with interest. These landowners for the most part were very willing to accept the stable US government, as opposed to a highly dysfunctional Mexican government, or other International interest more capable then the Mexican Government.

  7. pa32r says:

    @ gator69: Of course what you say about the Mexicans is accurate but not relevant to the point.

    @ Colorado Wellington: I want to take the time to respond thoughtfully, as you said (more or less), I don’t see us as yelling at each other across the room. That’s not a statement I’d have expected to make here and yours is not a response I’d have expected to see.

    I definitely wouldn’t presume to accuse Lekud, Netenyahu, or the Israeli populace of ignorance of their history or that of the region they’re in. The post that resulted in our conversation and the string of comments is entitled “Marco Rubio Blisters the Traitor-In-Chief” which is, in my opinion, way over the top in hyperbole, even if Mr. Heller believes it (which I’m fairly sure that he does).

    Politics as a branch of philosophy must encompass history, but politics as a principle of action is of the moment. That’s what I’m trying to express. Of note, Britain wasn’t our only WWII ally, the Soviet Union was as well. Israel is reliant on the US politically and economically, that is a fact. And Israel is quite happy to exert its influence on our actions, both internally and externally.

    Their friendship and support is of the moment and their moments are short. I understand that and the reasons for it. Our friendship and support needn’t be of moments as short as theirs, but it also should come with expectations. I certainly don’t like Obama’s half-hearted behavior in support of Israel, but neither would I support silence when Israel does things that are against our interest or against the principles in which we profess to believe.

    Obama certainly did the US no favors, let alone Israel, by his actions leading up to the Israeli elections, and I wouldn’t refrain from criticizing them either. But criticism of Obama isn’t lacking on this web site. Rubio, were he to become President and keep that rhetoric, would license Israel to anything and everything that they might choose and that’s also not constructive.

    Would I vote for Rubio should he become the Republican nominee? I don’t know. I didn’t vote for Obama and wouldn’t vote for any Democrat I’ve heard of. It doesn’t matter who I’d vote for though – I live in California and our 55 electoral votes are going to the Democrat, whomever he or she may be.

    • @pa32r: Thanks for your reply.

      First some housekeeping:

      … yours is not a response I’d have expected to see.

      Just curious. What did you expect?

      Of note, Britain wasn’t our only WWII ally, the Soviet Union was as well.

      I know but I don’t understand how it is relevant to my point. Why did you bring it up?

      And Israel is quite happy to exert its influence on our actions, both internally and externally.

      Well, yes, that’s the very purpose of politics and diplomacy. Do you know of any nation that is not happy to exert its influence internationally?

      Now to the core:

      … neither would I support silence when Israel does things that are against our interest …

      Rubio … would license Israel to anything and everything that they might choose …

      Do you really believe this? I know you have some conditional qualifications there—I used ellipses to pull out and juxtapose what I think are the substantive parts—but do you really think President Rubio would license Israel to act against American interests? That would be treasonous rather than “not constructive” as you called it. Again, I am not sure if that’s what you are saying, or if you just let your dislike of Rubio’s “unconditional support” verbiage carry you too far afield.

      Then again, if you mean it then I’m quite sure you know you are not alone. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt say basically the same thing about others in their 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. I’d also expect you would know that Alan Dershowitz thought of their thesis as anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing and the arguments about it were raging for some time. Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, endorsed the book in one of his videotaped messages.

      So what is your thinking? Are you just a mildly cranky about Rubio’s rhetoric or do you think the “Israel Lobby” has too much influence on American foreign policy, steering it away from American interests, and as Mearsheimer and Walt also claimed, harming even Israel’s interests?

      P.S. Sorry about that California electoral thing. I feel your pain. I live in the People’s Republic of Boulder, or more precisely, in the occupied territories.

    • @pa32r:

      One more thing. I deliberately skipped over your “hyperbole” charge yesterday to think about it some more. David A below has a question about it. I find this hypothetical useful:

      If, for whatever reason, a President of the United States were in fact trying to cause harm to the country, in a gradual and doable way that could build political support and pass through our institutions, what would he do differently than the current occupant of the White House?

      Here is one of the many estimates of the many costs of the Obama presidency:

      The Many Costs Of Obama’s Executive Amnesty

      Rector told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week that the lifetime costs of Social Security and Medicare benefits paid to the millions of immigrants to whom Obama is granting legal status will be about $1.3 trillion.

      One can argue about the details and the size of the price tag but one thing is certain. There is nothing hyperbolic about the article and the Heritage Foundation numbers—it’s just a patient, green-eyeshade-and-sleeve-protectors kind of report about the financial threats to the country.

      Then, if one accepts even a discounted total from this report, there are more questions to ask:

      Does the President know about these numbers? If not, it would be fair to call him incompetent and grossly negligent. If he does know—and one should expect it considering his “first-class intellect”, “superior temperament” and his self-proclaimed mastery of policy subjects—we must ask the next question:

      Why is he doing it?

      What do you think?

    • gator69 says:

      pa32r says:
      March 24, 2015 at 3:45 am
      @ gator69: Of course what you say about the Mexicans is accurate but not relevant to the point.

      You brought it up, as if it were a point. Maybe you should have left it unsaid?

  8. David A says:

    Why do you suppose some consider the POTUS to be a traitor in chief? Can you write a decent post on his past and current actions and statements that indicate he neither loves America, or the ideals America has always represented, if not perfectly manifested? In other words do you know the counter argument before you call it over the top hyperbole?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s