I've made a whole new wtf for exactly this situation.Macbeth wrote:
I saw some Glen Beck last night. Apparently the Egyptian revolution is the first move of the alliance between the communist and Islamic fundamentalist for the purpose of a global Islamic Caliphate.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-02-12 19:16:26)
Earlier in this thread I copy/pasted some articles from the wsj. Within those articles it was said that the MB could garner perhaps 20% of support among the populace at the most. It was also stated that Mubarak allowed them to survive as a party because they acted as a counterweight when any pressure from the West came in that asked him to cede power. He would just point to the MB and say that they were the group that would replace him so they were better off with Mubarak. It certainly seems to have done the trick because the MB are the focus among the reactionary types in this country (read: people with a vested interest in opposing anything Obama/Democrats favor ).Kmar wrote:
The Egyptian military vowed to honor all existing treaties. One thing these people that dwell on the MB don't understand is that there really hasn't been opportunity for other major parties to develop under Mubarak's rule. I can sort of understand how they might think the MB will exploit the vacuum.. but I don't see the Egyptian people allowing that. I can only hope that they end up better than the Iranians. For their sake.
You are worried about a commentator's opinion more than the people in power?Dilbert_X wrote:
I've made a whole new wtf for exactly this situation.Macbeth wrote:
I saw some Glen Beck last night. Apparently the Egyptian revolution is the first move of the alliance between the communist and Islamic fundamentalist for the purpose of a global Islamic Caliphate.
http://i.picasion.com/pic38/2555670bb9d … 79e29d.gif
Glenn Beck is funny, the sad thing is how dangerous he is.
Hold on a second John, you do not see me engaging in personal attacks, even in response to them. I have my opinions and I argue them. Which is what the section is about. I have tried to remain respectful in my postings even when reading posts like this, so don't lump me into what you think is wrong with this forum without including your attacks and abuses among them.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you enjoy talking to yourself? Your stupidity has driven away what was left of the people that chatted here. It's now dominated by you and lowing arguing all day with Dilbert. It's not because the rest of us are too stupid to keep up, it's that you are the consummate bore. You're a boring dude with a boring life and you have nothing of value to say. None of us like you. We all wish you would go away. How has this not gotten through to you yet? There was a time when this section was halfway active and the same three topics didn't sit at the top of the forum for weeks at a time. Hell, I've seen the same closed topic near the top for a week now. That's how dead this section is and it mostly has to do with your idiocy. Again, I beseech you, go away.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Seems you changed your tune huh. " Take a man, take away Reason and Accountability " and you have ... A women.
That is why I started calling you a bitch. Its not personal. You have no Reason or Accountability!
You don't think he wields vast political influence?lowing wrote:
You are worried about a commentator's opinion more than the people in power?Dilbert_X wrote:
I've made a whole new wtf for exactly this situation.Macbeth wrote:
I saw some Glen Beck last night. Apparently the Egyptian revolution is the first move of the alliance between the communist and Islamic fundamentalist for the purpose of a global Islamic Caliphate.
http://i.picasion.com/pic38/2555670bb9d … 79e29d.gif
Glenn Beck is funny, the sad thing is how dangerous he is.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102100007Spark wrote:
Nonsense IMO. The absolute reverse is true. Why else would the GOP higher ups have been so thoroughly blindsided by the Tea Party?
It's hard for me to believe that Palin was thoroughly vetted prior to joining the ticket with McCain.AussieReaper wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102100007Spark wrote:
Nonsense IMO. The absolute reverse is true. Why else would the GOP higher ups have been so thoroughly blindsided by the Tea Party?
Fox is completely run with a Conservative spin, the spin has been arguable righter than the Republicans in some cases. But the Tea-Party movement has been promoted by major Republicans. Namely Palin. She did make it to VP nominee...
nope, not any more than any other entertainer.Spark wrote:
You don't think he wields vast political influence?lowing wrote:
You are worried about a commentator's opinion more than the people in power?Dilbert_X wrote:
I've made a whole new wtf for exactly this situation.
http://i.picasion.com/pic38/2555670bb9d … 79e29d.gif
Glenn Beck is funny, the sad thing is how dangerous he is.
I am encouraged by the actions the military has taken in this, and somewhat surprised. So no, not much anymore. In my defense however, the only thing I said about them was, "charming group", based on their previous actions and current posturing. THe rest was assumed by various members involved in the thread.AussieReaper wrote:
Hey lowing, still worried about the Muslim Brotherhood in Eygpt?
Hahaha. You sounded pretty worried from posts like these:lowing wrote:
I am encouraged by the actions the military has taken in this, and somewhat surprised. So no, not much anymore. In my defense however, the only thing I said about them was, "charming group", based on their previous actions and current posturing. THe rest was assumed by various members involved in the thread.AussieReaper wrote:
Hey lowing, still worried about the Muslim Brotherhood in Eygpt?
They've no choice, really. They have to go with the flow or get steamrolled.AussieReaper wrote:
Hahaha. You sounded pretty worried from posts like these:lowing wrote:
I am encouraged by the actions the military has taken in this, and somewhat surprised. So no, not much anymore. In my defense however, the only thing I said about them was, "charming group", based on their previous actions and current posturing. THe rest was assumed by various members involved in the thread.AussieReaper wrote:
Hey lowing, still worried about the Muslim Brotherhood in Eygpt?
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p3449706
Arguing that Varegg was downplaying their presence, etc.
I only mention it because the MB have stated that they are not going to put forward a candidate for the Presidency and are not planning on putting for many (if any) members into Parliament.
"The Muslim Brotherhood ... are not seeking personal gains, so they announce they will not run for the presidency and will not seek to get a majority in the parliament and that they consider themselves servants of these decent people," a statement read.
"We support and value the sound direction that the Higher Military Council is taking on the way to transfer power peacefully to create a civilian government in line with the will of the people," the statement continued.
Hardly seem like the evil group some of your sources were touting...
how the fuck could you not consider their influence? fuck sake shut the fuck upAussieReaper wrote:
Hahaha. You sounded pretty worried from posts like these:lowing wrote:
I am encouraged by the actions the military has taken in this, and somewhat surprised. So no, not much anymore. In my defense however, the only thing I said about them was, "charming group", based on their previous actions and current posturing. THe rest was assumed by various members involved in the thread.AussieReaper wrote:
Hey lowing, still worried about the Muslim Brotherhood in Eygpt?
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p3449706
Arguing that Varegg was downplaying their presence, etc.
I only mention it because the MB have stated that they are not going to put forward a candidate for the Presidency and are not planning on putting for many (if any) members into Parliament.
"The Muslim Brotherhood ... are not seeking personal gains, so they announce they will not run for the presidency and will not seek to get a majority in the parliament and that they consider themselves servants of these decent people," a statement read.
"We support and value the sound direction that the Higher Military Council is taking on the way to transfer power peacefully to create a civilian government in line with the will of the people," the statement continued.
Hardly seem like the evil group some of your sources were touting...
11 Bravo wrote:
how the fuck could you not consider their influence? fuck sake shut the fuck upAussieReaper wrote:
Hahaha. You sounded pretty worried from posts like these:lowing wrote:
I am encouraged by the actions the military has taken in this, and somewhat surprised. So no, not much anymore. In my defense however, the only thing I said about them was, "charming group", based on their previous actions and current posturing. THe rest was assumed by various members involved in the thread.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p3449706
Arguing that Varegg was downplaying their presence, etc.
I only mention it because the MB have stated that they are not going to put forward a candidate for the Presidency and are not planning on putting for many (if any) members into Parliament.
"The Muslim Brotherhood ... are not seeking personal gains, so they announce they will not run for the presidency and will not seek to get a majority in the parliament and that they consider themselves servants of these decent people," a statement read.
"We support and value the sound direction that the Higher Military Council is taking on the way to transfer power peacefully to create a civilian government in line with the will of the people," the statement continued.
Hardly seem like the evil group some of your sources were touting...
no i dont think they would have the power but i dont think you could dismiss their chance of grabbing some powerAussieReaper wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
how the fuck could you not consider their influence? fuck sake shut the fuck upAussieReaper wrote:
Hahaha. You sounded pretty worried from posts like these:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p3449706
Arguing that Varegg was downplaying their presence, etc.
I only mention it because the MB have stated that they are not going to put forward a candidate for the Presidency and are not planning on putting for many (if any) members into Parliament.
"The Muslim Brotherhood ... are not seeking personal gains, so they announce they will not run for the presidency and will not seek to get a majority in the parliament and that they consider themselves servants of these decent people," a statement read.
"We support and value the sound direction that the Higher Military Council is taking on the way to transfer power peacefully to create a civilian government in line with the will of the people," the statement continued.
Hardly seem like the evil group some of your sources were touting...
Anyone with a shred of an understand would know that, as Spark said,
They've no choice, really. They have to go with the flow or get steamrolled.
To think the MB stood a chance of taking power is crazy.
Fox is entertainment, nothing more. They found their niche as the anti-Democrat news agency. If a Democrat says the sky is blue, Fox will lead off with a story describing the color of the sky as multi-spectrum. Fox is nothing more than a vehicle to generate ad revenue. They will publish what they think their audience wants to see and hear. They do not create policy, they merely give the people the populist message they desire.AussieReaper wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102100007Spark wrote:
Nonsense IMO. The absolute reverse is true. Why else would the GOP higher ups have been so thoroughly blindsided by the Tea Party?
Fox is completely run with a Conservative spin, the spin has been arguable righter than the Republicans in some cases. But the Tea-Party movement has been promoted by major Republicans. Namely Palin. She did make it to VP nominee...
