« Kerry Has No Chance | Home | Make Room on The Book Shelf! »
Charlie Rangel
By Matt Margolis | July 23, 2003
I couldn’t believe it when I was watching Hannity and Colmes last night. This idiot, congressman, Charlie Rangel, a Democrat from New York, showcased the meaning of “liberal idiot.” This moronic ideologue couldn’t even commend the troops for killing two wastes of flesh and bones.
“We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody,”
We’re at war stupid!
“We tried to assassinate Castro and we paid dearly for it… And when you personalize the war and you say you’re killing someone’s kids, then they, in turn, think they can kill somebody.”
And what does that mean?
“How can you get so much satisfaction that two bums have been killed? We got bums all over the world and some in the United States.”
Okay, I know I don’t have to get into the details of the atrocities that Uday and Qusay Hussein have personally committed. He just belittles the significance of their deaths by calling them bums! They’re not merely bums, they’re the human equivalents of evil monsters. Charlie Rangel, on the other hand is a bum. One stupid worthless liberal bum.
“I personally don’t get any satisfaction that it takes 200,000 troops, 250,000 troops, to knock off two bums.”
He probably doesn’t get any satisfaction by the fact we liberated a country of people who would have otherwise ended up in mass graves if we didn’t step in. He probably doesn’t’ get any satisfaction that Saddam Hussein’s regime has been removed and he can longer pursue is WMD programs. He probably doesn’t get any satisfaction over the fact that many, many, many, lives have been saved because George W. Bush sent our troops over to Iraq.
He couldn’t even congratulate our troops. What an asshole. What a liberal idiot.
Welcome to the list…
Topics: Liberal Idiots |
Related Posts:
July 24th, 2003 at 2:45 am
Especially with such a wonderful guy like BUSH who was IN Vietnam, and FOUGHTthe enemy first hand!! An Incredible American HERO! I thought he looked SO sexy in his uniform when he declared the war OVER, and I am SO glad it IS over!! Arent YAll!
July 24th, 2003 at 8:30 am
Don’t forget there is a liberal idiot on Hannity and Colmes every night, his name is Colmes.
July 24th, 2003 at 10:27 am
isnt he a token liberal? they wouldnt actually have a REAL liberal on there, would they? icky poo!
July 24th, 2003 at 1:25 pm
Of course, when any liberal is on Fox that must mean they’re not a real liberal…
nevertheless, you chose not to even address Rangel’s stupid comments, you just chose to attack Fox’s inclusion of both conservatives and liberals.
To liberals, fair and balanced doesn’t mean the presence of both conservatives and liberals, it means only liberal views allowed.
July 24th, 2003 at 4:16 pm
To liberals, fair and balanced doesn’t mean the presence of both conservatives and liberals, it means only liberal views allowed.
That is so true…. of course, if you ask Al Gore, all TV news/Media has a conservative bias…. what else would you expect the inventor of the internet to say… what a dumbass.
July 24th, 2003 at 4:55 pm
> What a liberal idiot.
Redundant.
July 24th, 2003 at 6:29 pm
Al Gore never said he invented the internet. It’s just a convient meme that the media likes to trot out to advance the theme of the 2000 elections - Gore was a liar, and Bush was a straghit shooter.
Gore actually said said he “took the initiative in creating the Internet.” and, Vince Cerf, one of the fathers of the internet, agrees.
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg00052.html
PS: The rule against assinations applies during war also.
July 24th, 2003 at 6:56 pm
TruthInMedia–get a sense of humor re: Gore and the Internet.
Second, if you read the account of what happened in Mosul, you’ll see that this wasn’t an assasination. They asked for the suspects to come out, but they (U and Q) didn’t. Troops went in, were fired on, so they returned fire…it’s that simple.
July 24th, 2003 at 7:30 pm
Do you honestly believe that all liberals believe exactly the same things? To any rational mind, liberal or conservative, to make such generalisations about people who identify themselves with a philosophy so broad that it encompasses everything from radical socialism to anarcho-syndicalism is as inane as equating the militant right (Whether McVeigh or the former Ku Klux Klan) to the mainstream Republican party.
The widely held belief on both sides of the political fence that the other merely toes the ‘party line’, so to speak, is just as much a falsehood.
Of course, I don’t kid myself into thinking this will make the slightest bit of difference in your viewpoint, as the world is undoubtedly safer and more importantly, easier to process when it can be simplified to the point of ‘Factual, logical, perfectly sane and correct conservatives vs. Emotion-driven, illogical, stupid and wrong liberals’.
July 24th, 2003 at 7:48 pm
Ian,
Although my comments sound like a generalization of all liberals, however, I am referring to the trend based on my experiences with liberals.
Certainly there is no justification in generalizing. However, I feel justified in my statement because in just about all of my conversations with liberals, they can’t even keep a straight face when you say FoxNews before going on about it being a biased conservative media source. So I consider that the trend is that liberals apply to my statement in question.
It would be absolutely wrong to say all liberals apply to my comment. Certainly Alan Colmes wouldn’t be on FoxNews if it were solely a conservative station, and certainly he must agree that the station is fair and balanced, especially since he’s proof of that.
I hope I’ve cleared up my point.
July 24th, 2003 at 8:10 pm
Okay, that works. I can agree with that. While I do think that FOXNews espouses a mostly conservative (making exceptions for the Alan Colmes’ of the station) viewpoint, I think the mass hysteria from many liberals is silly. FOX makes no attempt to hide that it is aimed at conservatives. Saying that, to dismiss the FOX presenters as ‘the PR wing of the Bush administration’ as many do is also false - as much as I despise Bill O’Reilly, he is far from a parrot of the Bush administration, nor is Sean Hannity or my hero, Alan Colmes.
If the militantly anti-FOX brigade could learn to either ignore the station or simply appreciate it for the station it is, the political battlefield would be a much more sensible place.
July 24th, 2003 at 8:19 pm
FNC caters to a certain market and they’ve been largely successful in doing so…as they have the highest ratings of the Cable News channels.
That’s all there is to it.
Now why (it seems like many, especially on the far, far, far) left consider FNC to be the root of all evil, etc., and the media monopolist beats me. They don’t have to watch it if they don’t want to…
July 24th, 2003 at 10:02 pm
Jaws,
FNC is a threat to the Left. Same behavior when Rush L. was rising to #1
July 24th, 2003 at 10:18 pm
ms. heather,
I can see where you’re coming from. I guess they don’t like competition…
July 24th, 2003 at 10:43 pm
It really is a pity these days that you have to go to at least 3 different news sources to get enough differently spun views of the story to actually get the “real” news.
Normally it is CNN or BBC for the “liberal” bent, FoxNews for the “conservative” bent and then the third choice, normally chosen in a “round-robin” or throw a dart at the list of sources, to see which of the two “heavy-weights” are closer to the story.
But I digress into media bashing (which could waste hours of everyones time). Actually I just wanted to say thanks to Matt for taking the time to have a looksie at the site where I fisked the same article he did here.
Keep up the good work, am sure this idiot will give us plenty more to Fisk about!
July 25th, 2003 at 12:32 pm
Cole dont forget his pathetic attempts to Bash Kerry by saying he “Looks French”.
July 25th, 2003 at 12:56 pm
[color=green][b]Cole, if you continue to make posts that are inflammatory, especially to me, I will delete them regardless of what else you say.[/b][/color]
July 25th, 2003 at 1:30 pm
MATT — you can dish it out but you can’t take it. What is so inflammatory about this?
Charlie Rangel served his country, fought in Korea, and was awarded the purple heart and the bronze star. He’s an American hero and you call him a bum.
Well shame on you, Matt Margolis. In the name of politics you have the audacity to disparage an American hero because he doesn’t agree with your war. Your undeclared war. Your “mass graves” rationalization is getting as tired as your pointless railing against liberals.
Rangel is absolutely in the right for making the comments he did. Iraq has been a disaster from the beginning, it is only getting worse, and it will ultimately make us less safe as a nation. There are no WMD’s, no link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, and no amount of your revisionist history bullshit will convince us otherwise.
July 25th, 2003 at 1:44 pm
Cole, if you ever say “fuck you” to me, I don’t care what you think, your posts get deleted. This is my website, you want to play tough-guy, that’s fine, but you’re posts will be deleted. I am the boss here. You don’t like it? Go somewhere else.
Now, to address your relevent comments.
Charlie Rangel is an idiot. His military service does not grant his immunity from being criticized for his being an idiot. He’s repeatedly said ridiculous things that only embarress his political party.
You can have your own opinion on the war in Iraq. I ain’t stopping you. However, there has already been evidence collected that suggests an Iraq/Al Qaeda link, and regardless, such a link was neither required/demanded/necessary for us to go into Iraq.
And your confidence in the lack of WMDs is just reflection of what you hope is the case.
July 25th, 2003 at 1:56 pm
No there hasnt, and how about a link between Al Qaeda and Saddams regime?
July 25th, 2003 at 2:12 pm
No Matt- its painfully obvious who is playing the tough guy. You pretend that you are this educated conservative mouthpiece (pardon the oxymoron), but you are nothing but a walking identity crisis. Anyone who can toe the party line as well as you do is obviously much more comfortable being a follower. Look at your reading list for fuck sake.
And c’mon man—you want to talk about repeatedly saying ridiculous things that embarrass (please note the spelling) his party. The word “Bushism” wasn’t created by accident. If that’s your criteria, you might as well just pack it in right now. Game, set, match.
Where is the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. One shred of evidence? If you are going to take Bush’s word for it, what do all his flip flops regarding the SOTU address say about his credibility? The buck stops anywhere but here.
And really, who’s hoping about the WMD’s. Tony Blair’s administration is already conceding that they don’t expect and WMD to be found. So we are left, again, with your revisionist history as the lone rationalization for the war and your sole basis for bashing an American hero.
July 28th, 2003 at 9:36 am
I’m a first time visitor, but just an observation. Matt seems to throw out a topic, and the conservatives seem more than happy to discuss it. Then some liberal chimes in, and in typical liberal fashion they start pummeling Bush, Fox News, conservatives, the military, drilling in ANWR, and the environmental disasters wrought by Republican policies, such as a reduction in the suckerfish population. Then, unfortunately, the conservatives get caught up in the sidetracked discussion. It might be better to ignore anything but well thought our, relevant arguments by liberal contributors. Of course, I’ve yet to see one by any liberal in any medium, but that’s beside the point.
July 28th, 2003 at 9:42 am
good point…. well taken. we’re certainly falling into the trap of arguing with liberals….
July 29th, 2003 at 6:11 am
Asshatology rule #3- Endlessly parrot slogans. Example: BUSH LIED, BRAAAAAAAAWWK, THERE’S NO WMDs,BRAAAAAAWK, IT’S ALL ABOUT OIL, BRAAAAAAAWK. Charles Rangel has mastered this perfectly thus having a high annoyance factor.
August 12th, 2003 at 9:12 pm
^^^^
Ugh
January 25th, 2004 at 5:20 pm
Ahh Charles Rangel. His bio says he received the Bronze Star and Purple Heart (one report says 3 purple hearts)in Korea. I am doing some research on the “actual” military service of our respresentatives and no matter how I search I can find no documentation that substantiates his claim that doesn’t go back to his own bio. I am doing this research after finding the numerous board postings of the military services records of our representatives posted by what appear to be left wingers. Actually the numbers seem to show that the Republicans outnumber the Democrats, with respect to military service, in both houses. I would also like to know the circumstances under which Ted Kennedy served in the Army.
January 25th, 2004 at 6:56 pm
Ted Kennedy was Commander-In-Chivas
November 20th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Charlie Rangel is an idiot. He wants ti reinstate the draft. As soon as liberals get a majority they want to change everything for the worst.
October 25th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I’d liike to start a new website
http://www.fuckyoucharlesrangel.com
I would like to see his personal financials, and see where he hides his money. I love these jerks that want to raise everyone elses taxes and they’re hiding all their money in tax exempt accounts.