Hell this country's government has turned into such a caricature that I could see it happening.

Prime time speech from the Oval Office. Obama bows to Mecca and converts to Islam live on TV. Michelle and the girls come out in hijabs at the end. After a few moments of slack-jawed silence, the media praises the conversion and declares a new era of Muslim dominance for the United States.

What are Republicans going to do, impeach him? It's so outrageous and typically liberal that it's bound to happen. Probably either on Christmas Eve or the 4th of July.

I don't know, being Caliph would mean he's only worshiped by Muslims. They are best buddies, but they are a minority worldwide and a tiny minority here.

I don't think he will be content to be the embodiment of God to only a small portion of the world.

Were this story to get wider play in the US media, that percentage of Americans who think Mr. Obama is Muslim would certainly rise, eh? Thankfully, the media seem to be as entrenched as ever in providing cover for Mr. Obama, so I don't think any real harm will be done.

I suppose in Mr. Durrani's mind, Mr. Obama has been engaging in concerted taqiyya for all these years and can be openly welcomed back into the Muslim fold once he delivers the US, lock, stock and barrel to the Caliphate, his sins of apostasy wiped away in that moment.

It would certainly be a Festivus miracle!

A Pakistani minister wants US President Barack Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero in New York and become the “Amir-ul-Momineen” or Caliph of Muslims.

So if he refuses, does that make him a bigot?

“Don't worry, the next generation will pick up the tab for everything.”

Just like the next generation will pick up the tab for President Bush's $trillion “adventure” in Iraq. How about an estimate of how much of that $trillion went to rebuilding Mosques in Iraq, Van Helsing?

Thanks for featuring this garbage non-story, Van Helsing. It seems to be circulating on every cite in the conservative blogsphere.

Just like the next generation will pick up the tab for President Bush's $trillion “adventure” in Iraq.

So Bush spent a ton of money liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, therefore it's okay for Obama to spend even more on useless pork projects?

How does that work, exactly? Seriously, how does that work? How do you idiots go from bitching and moaning day-in and day-out about the deficit during the Bush administration, then when Obama takes office and spends more in one year than Bush spent on the entire Iraq war you don't even raise a peep of protest?

Are you dumb enough to think we won't remember what you said for the last eight years, or do you not even remember yourself?

It's simple, Sam. Bush spent a lot of money protecting this nation from terrorism and freeing millions of people from tyranny. The Liberals saw this and said… “How DARE he spend more money than us? Who does he think he is. We'll show him how to really spend money!”

The trouble is, we have nothing to show for the money Liberals spent.

Being the intellectually inferior moonbat he is, he can't take what he dishes out, the left screamed all kinds of obscenities at GW Bush, including public calls for his assassination, and we simply dissent with his man-god Obama, and he goes to pieces like a toddler with a soiled diaper!!

Only until he engineers his election as Pope, UN Secretary-General, and President of the EU.

They'll all be racists if he doesn't win.

Yes Martin, but what Americans really want to know is does Obama eat pork? We know he never met a pork project he could veto, but does he like pork so much that he also eats it?

The answer to that question will determine if Muslims can accept him as Caliph in Chief!

Damn, I could really go for a pulled pork sandwich!

Alluah Akbar!

Mmmmm, pulled pork sandwich.

“…then when Obama takes office and spends more in one year than Bush spent on the entire Iraq war you don't even raise a peep of protest?”

You “forgot” the country was almost four months into the FY-2009 year when Obama took office. The estimate budget deficit was $one trillion by then – more than the Iraq war cost. Obama did increase the deficit by the stimulus, which isn't even spent yet. Are you so stupid th think that the proposed Republican tax cuts would not have increased the deficit. Yes, I guess so. Where do you think the lost revenue from a tax cut comes from? Trees?

I know this fact is way, way, beyond you, but one reason for the huge increase in the Buah FY-2009 budget was loss of tax revenue due to the rapidly increasing recession.

BARK, BARK, MEGA MOONBAT!

You “forgot” the country was almost four months into the FY-2009 year when Obama took office.

Doesn't matter when Obama took office. His first major piece of legislation, the so-called “Stimulus”, cost more money than the entire Iraq War. Obama spent more in one day on one single bill than Bush spent on six years of rebuilding in Iraq.

But apparently that's okay with you.

Are you so stupid th think that the proposed Republican tax cuts would not have increased the deficit.

Again with this fallacy?

The fact that you keep repeating this is really all I need to know that you don't understand what you're talking about.

Listen carefully. The Bush tax cuts led to record tax revenues. When people are allowed to keep more of their own money they're more likely to spend and invest it rather than hoard it, which not only stimulates the economy but increases the overall revenue collected by the government.

Your inability to comprehend the simple concept of a Laffer Curve is quite sad. I'm not sure if it's due to ignorance or idiocy, but either way I pity you for it.

January 2007, Democrats take the purse strings.

And the Bush tax cuts led to record revenue.

Baby Backs.

Tax cuts never lead to increased revenue, jackass.

They did under Bush… And Reagan, and Kennedy.

Oops…

Under Bush they did. Flagged for blatant lying.

They increased under bush but it is the tax fairy that has convinced you the increases revenues were a result of the tax cuts. It's a nice hopey changey idea for cons to propagate, but there is no economic proof of a direct correlation between the tax cuts and the improved revenues. There were too many factors to explain the increased revenues from tax cuts alone.

The total cost of the Iraq war is not final. We will be paying for the war for years to come. Your claim about the stimulus is hollow.

And even if the stimulus did cost more than the Iraq fiasco, so what? It was spent on us, our infrastructure, to strengthen our economy. It's called an investment, rather than money burned like it was in Iraq.

Starting a war in Iraq was the biggest mistake a president has ever made. It's about time your side owned up to it.

So you admit that tax cuts did not cause a decrease in tax revenues. Thank you for conceding the argument.

Then go back and look at the increases in revenue that were a DIRECT result of the Kennedy and reagan tax cuts.

Your claim about the stimulus is hollow.

So it didn't cost us more money in a single day than in six years of nation-building?

And even if the stimulus did cost more than the Iraq fiasco, so what? It was spent on us, our infrastructure, to strengthen our economy.

Ten percent unemployment. Double-dip recession. Great job. Moron.

Starting a war in Iraq was the biggest mistake a president has ever made. It's about time your side owned up to it.

We would, but y'see, we on the right have this problem with “lying”. I guess that's the difference between you and me.

So, first the stimulus didn;t cost more than the war, but then it did and so what? You are arguing yourself in a circle little boy.

The Iraq war was not a mistake. It is time your side owned up to it. Oh, that's right, Obama already did! hahahahahahaha!

Please provide a link to your claim. Otherwise you are lying.

Do your own research, you moron. Revenues increased under the Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts, just like they did under Bush!

There is no proof that tax cuts did anything, much less what you claim. It's nonsense.

Lower tax rates on the rich leads to more savings by the rich, not more investment. Why should they invest when you lower their income tax rates? Investments are made to avoid income tax, so a higher income tax rate is what fuels the economy, not gifts to the wealthy.

There is no proof of what you claim, so why would I want to look for it?

If what you say were true, you would have plenty of evidence to support your position. That evidence doesn't exist. It is a figment of your feeble imagination.

Tax cuts are not responsible for increased revenues. You may as well believe in a non-existent god as believe such economic malarky.

Did you even complete high school, Stain? There must be an explanation for your level of stupidity. Religious parents? Self-loathing gay? Tell us so we can understand the roots of your idiocy.

Are you going to change names every time to post to disguise who you are?

register a name and stick with it, and MAYBE your have enough credibility to respond to. As of now, you are nothing but a buzzing insect that deserves to be swatted.

Stick with it, Stain, and that GED will be yours someday.

Type your reply…

Ah, a new name. Imagine my surprise.

Here, read this, and let us know is you have any problems with the big words…
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Things would have been so much worse under McCranky and half term, we are lucky unemployment didn't go higher.

Nation building? What a hoot. Nice way to create more enemies, you retard.

“would have been so much worse under McCranky and half term”

Maybe.

And maybe unicorns poop gold.

Who knows and what's the relevance of either?

McCranky and half term eh? Ok, you're a sheep with talking points.

So if Obama didn't wreck the defecit and the economy, unemployment would have been higher than it is now? And you have proof of that?

Yeah, sure you do!

Things would have been so much worse under McCranky and half term, we are lucky unemployment didn't go higher.

McCranky and half term? You mean Biden and Obama?

Oh wait, I get it. You're making a pathetic personal attack against McCain and Sarah Palin to cover for the fact that you have no argument.

So, you say things would have been worse if McCain had won in 2008. Okay, and your evidence for this is…what exactly? You realize that the CBO has said, both before and after the Porkulus was passed, that we would have been better off if we had done nothing at all, right?

You know, in the history field we call claims like this a “counterfactual”. It's basically when people dream up “what if?” questions and try to bullshit them into credible theories.

Coincidentally, it's also rejected by mainstream scholars.

Nation building? What a hoot. Nice way to create more enemies, you retard.

Yeah, all those Iraqis laughing and smiling as they get the chance to vote for the first time instead of being fed feet-first into plastic shredders by Saddam Hussein just hate us to pieces.

Moron.

P.S. Exactly how many times do you plan on changing your username?

“Bush spent a lot of money” I agree with that portion, but it ended at that point. He protected us from an imaginary threat. 8 years later, and you still haven't figured out Iraq was not threat, wow! You really have your head in the sand. Bush has provided a pathway to power for anti American extremist through elections, disbanded Iran's closest foe, and in turn empowered Iran. Bush took resources from our actions in Afghanistan, lengthened our conflict and colapsed our economy. Unbelievable choice of idols stanley.

Iraq was not a threat? If you are serious about that statement, then there is no room for further discussion here.

There is no proof that tax cuts did anything, much less what you claim. It's nonsense.

Setting aside the fact that there IS proof of precisely what I claim (your inability to recognize it is not my problem), where is YOUR proof that the tax cuts did what YOU claim? I don't recall you ever providing any proof that the tax cuts went only to the rich or that they caused the deficit.

So I'll tell you what. I'll toss you a few links proving that tax cuts lead to greater tax revenues when you prove any of the claims you have made about the Bush tax cuts.

Lower tax rates on the rich leads to more savings by the rich, not more investment.

Oh for…

What exactly do you think banks do with their customer's money, you silly child? Shove it in a coffee can and bury it in the yard? They INVEST IT. THAT IS HOW BANKS MAKE MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU CLOD.

And even if your incredibly stupid notion of how banks and savings work were accurate, the idea that the rich wouldn't try to invest if they had more money is completely ridiculous. Laughable, even. It not only shows a stunning lack of understanding of how the economy works, it shows you don't even understand basic human nature. The only thing better than having money is having more money. Investing your money gets you more money. Punishing the rich for having or gaining more money only discourages them from investing their money. Much smarter for them to hide it away overseas tax shelters where your grubby, greedy little hands can't get to it.

Investments are made to avoid income tax

Monetary investments are covered by federal income taxes, you fucking moron.

If it exists within the borders of the United States and you draw an income from it, it is taxed by the federal government. The only way to legally avoid paying income taxes is by sending your money overseas (which is what corporations and the rich usually do when people like you stupidly decide to raise taxes on them) or by putting your money in something that doesn't provide you any regular income, like land or a house (and even then you're still hit with property taxes). Or by putting it into a non-taxable 401K or IRA plan. (But feel free to campaign on the promise to outlaw retirement plans. I'm sure that'll be an election-winning strategy.)

You really need to stop flapping your gums on things you know nothing about.