Rand Paul presidential hopeful and shameless plagiarist?

[Chad Sexington]

He pretty much proved that point with his 47% percent comment that basically cost him the election.

I really never understood the outrage here. I watched the video, and I feel like, uhm, wasn't he right? There are people who are going to vote Democrat no matter what, and Republican no matter what, and so you don't really need to campaign to them - now maybe the truer statement is therefore "94%" but I feel like all he said was "There are people out there who are just not going to change their minds about Obama, and it's nearly half the electorate. I have to reach the swing voters." Which... is true. Do you think Obama cared about the, I'll just say, 47% of people who wouldn't vote for him? No, he too needed to reach people who were unsure of how they were going to vote.

I mean, it's a long dead point now, so I suppose it's too late to understand, but I never got a clear answer then, either.

 

[GasBandit]

Then it should be easy to provide sources.

It's a little hard to source conversations in a forum-linkable format, especially when it never occurred to me there'd be a reason to document such an occurance. But a good example in pop culture, I'd suppose, is the republican backroom meeting scenes from the simpsons where Ralph Wiggum was a candidate.

Which part specifically?

The parts where we can get by on "alternative energy" sources without oil? The part where everybody gets health care without it bankrupting us? The part where if we're just nice and unthreatening on foreign policy, hostile elements will just leave us alone or talk out their differences with us?

Yeah but there was a week straight of it happening to everything Romney said and not just clarification.

Stuff like "I don't support Employer's being able to determine healthcare coverage based soley on religious beliefs" Romney

"The candidate absolutely supports the right of employers to determine healthcare coeverage based on religious beliefs.

I don't remember a week of such density of corrections. I'm not saying it didn't happen or that I don't believe you.

 

[Krisken]

I think it was more the 'I don't represent them' part of it.

 

[Tress]

I mean, it's a long dead point now, so I suppose it's too late to understand, but I never got a clear answer then, either.

If you watched the video, you should have heard his reasoning for why 47% of the country wouldn't vote for him:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

It's the characterization of almost half the country as leeches, followed with the comment "it's my job not to worry about these people" that caused the problem.

 

[Chad Sexington]

Hm, I agree the characterisation was mean-spirited (and wrong), but I think when he said "it's not my job to worry about..." he meant more in terms of inclining them to vote for him. Perhaps I am being to charitable. I had forgotten he described them as entitled "to you-name-it."

 

[Dubyamn]

The parts where we can get by on "alternative energy" sources without oil? The part where everybody gets health care without it bankrupting us? The part where if we're just nice and unthreatening on foreign policy, hostile elements will just leave us alone or talk out their differences with us?

Yeah but pushing alternative energy isn't a goofy idea. Hell George Bush often pushed for alternative energy sources. Now believing that we would be able to get off oil in X years is goofy but advancing alternative energy sources is a incredibly sensible idea.

And what are you talking about being nice and unthreatening? The Democratic party platform listed out how they were planning on countering the threats we face and how they plan on keeping the American military as the strongest on earth.

I don't remember a week of such density of corrections. I'm not saying it didn't happen or that I don't believe you.

I remember them coming pretty heavy.

 

[GasBandit]

And what are you talking about being nice and unthreatening? The Democratic party platform listed out how they were planning on countering the threats we face and how they plan on keeping the American military as the strongest on earth.

Much of the Obama charm was the thought that since he wasn't GWB, he could then magically bring our enemies to the table and talk peace with them, and unite us all for the grabl BLAH *cough cough* I can't even articulate it. A silly pie-eyed fantasy, but they did give him a Nobel prize for it.

 

[Dubyamn]

Much of the Obama charm was the thought that since he wasn't GWB, he could then magically bring our enemies to the table and talk peace with them, and unite us all for the grabl BLAH *cough cough* I can't even articulate it. A silly pie-eyed fantasy, but they did give him a Nobel prize for it.

Well to be fair it has kind of worked out in Iran and Syria. Where as GWB got us into Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[GasBandit]

Well to be fair it has kind of worked out in Iran and Syria. Where as GWB got us into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not so much Libya (GWB had Khaddafi pretty darn cowed), definitely not Palestine or Egypt, and Syria was more of a coup for Putin than Obama. Iran... we'll see. We're still in Afghanistan, btw.

 

[Dubyamn]

Not so much Libya (GWB had Khaddafi pretty darn cowed), definitely not Palestine or Egypt, and Syria was more of a coup for Putin than Obama. Iran... we'll see. We're still in Afghanistan, btw.

Libya was one of GWB's few diplomatic victories though I think it had more to do with Khaddafi wanting to come in out of the cold than anything else. Of course it paid dividends during the Libyan revolution when we didn't have to worry about either Khaddafi using chemical weapons or the rebels getting their hands on those same chemical weapons.

In Syria we're getting what we want to get rid of their chemical weapons. Whether Putin or Obama gets the credit is a worthless argument because it fucking worked and worked out with exactly 0 American deaths.

Was Palestine particularly quiet during GWB's presidency? Cause that was when they elected Hamas to be their leaders. What current stuff are you referring to?

Egypt has nothing to do with fear or loathing of America. It does have much to do with the fact that GWB turned into a paramilitary organization rather than one that kept the president abreast of rapidly developing situations.

 

[GasBandit]

In Syria we're getting what we want to get rid of their chemical weapons. Whether Putin or Obama gets the credit is a worthless argument because it fucking worked and worked out with exactly 0 American deaths.

Uh, this discussion (as of the last 5 posts or so) is exactly about who is getting credit for what. Plus, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama was about ready to start droppin' bombs in Syria after his experimental gaffe into the realm of tough rhetoric painted him into a corner.

Was Palestine particularly quiet during GWB's presidency? Cause that was when they elected Hamas to be their leaders. What current stuff are you referring to?

The thing was that Obama's charisma and not-being-Bushness was supposed to bring all concerned to the table and improve things, not just leave them as awful as they are.

Egypt has nothing to do with fear or loathing of America. It does have much to do with the fact that GWB turned into a paramilitary organization rather than one that kept the president abreast of rapidly developing situations.

Yeah, it's not like he totally backed the wrong horse during that whole "arab spring" thing there or anything.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Personally I'm looking forward to a Chris Christie vs Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

 

[drawn_inward]

Personally I'm looking forward to a Chris Christie vs Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Cliched, but No Matter Who Wins We All Lose

 

[Ravenpoe]

Cliched, but No Matter Who Wins We All Lose

... I'd actually be ok with that matchup.

 

[GasBandit]

Christie will eat her alive.



Yes it's a fat joke.

 

[Dubyamn]

Uh, this discussion (as of the last 5 posts or so) is exactly about who is getting credit for what. Plus, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama was about ready to start droppin' bombs in Syria after his experimental gaffe into the realm of tough rhetoric painted him into a corner.

What are you going for here? Yes Obama was going to go dropping bombs like an idiot before he stumbled assbackwards into a solution to his Syrian problems. And honestly I'm okay with that. I'm okay with whatever Obama did or allowed to happen in order to remove Syrian's chemical weapons.

The thing was that Obama's charisma and not-being-Bushness was supposed to bring all concerned to the table and improve things, not just leave them as awful as they are.

So it was nonsense then.

Yeah, it's not like he totally backed the wrong horse during that whole "arab spring" thing there or anything.

I wasn't aware we had a dog in that fight.

 

[GasBandit]

What are you going for here? Yes Obama was going to go dropping bombs like an idiot before he stumbled assbackwards into a solution to his Syrian problems. And honestly I'm okay with that. I'm okay with whatever Obama did or allowed to happen in order to remove Syrian's chemical weapons.

What I'm "going for here" is a comparison of foreign policy efficacy.

So it was nonsense then.

Well, yes, but I'm a little surprised you agree with me so readily.

I wasn't aware we had a dog in that fight.

No dog in that fight? Egypt has historically been one of our most important allies in the region - a (until recently) stable secular arab government that served as an important moderating influence in a very volatile region. They are one of the 5 original "Major Non-NATO Allied nations" (the others being Australia, South Korea, Japan and Israel). Hosni Mubarak had been one of our best allies in the region, especially since 9/11.

And now half of Egypt thinks we threw him under the bus because our president wants the Muslim Brotherhood in control.

 

[PatrThom]

It's the characterization of almost half the country as leeches, followed with the comment "it's my job not to worry about these people" that caused the problem.

Yes, it is the tendency of "haves" to dismissively write off the "have-nots" that tends to burn people's britches. Doesn't matter if it's money, land, bread, or even sleep...if you lack it, and someone else is going on about how they have so much of it that they don't know what to do with the extra, you tend to resent them a bit, especially when it becomes obvious they don't even know why you are mad at them.

--Patrick

 

[Dubyamn]

What I'm "going for here" is a comparison of foreign policy efficacy.

Yes George Bush was big on efficiency wasn't he?

What with the 2 wars of misadventure who's only real effect was sending all the newly drilled Iraqi oil going straight to China. Well besides the effect of thousands of dead Americans and trillions added to the debt.

What with allowing North Korea to go Nuclear.

What with turning the CIA into Pervez Musharraf's personal assassins.

What with the continual trade deficits with China.

What with the fucking Coup we attempted in Venezuala

And with Iran continuing their dash towards Nuclear weapons undeterred.

I'll take Obama efficiency every single day.

Well, yes, but I'm a little surprised you agree with me so readily.

I know you think you're being cute by acting thick. You really aren't.

No dog in that fight? Egypt has historically been one of our most important allies in the region - a (until recently) stable secular arab government that served as an important moderating influence in a very volatile region. They are one of the 5 original "Major Non-NATO Allied nations" (the others being Australia, South Korea, Japan and Israel). Hosni Mubarak had been one of our best allies in the region, especially since 9/11.

And now half of Egypt thinks we threw him under the bus because our president wants the Muslim Brotherhood in control.

Still not seeing our right or how we gain in supporting a dictator slaughtering his own people who have started a nonviolent protest to his rulership.

 

[GasBandit]

Yes George Bush was big on efficiency wasn't he?

I think you misread me, I said efficacy, not efficiency.

I know you think you're being cute by acting thick. You really aren't.

Well, then maybe I misread you, because I was certainly saying Obama's charm offensive was fluff and vapor, as it has proven to be.

Still not seeing our right or how we gain in supporting a dictator slaughtering his own people who have started a nonviolent protest to his rulership.

There was very little non-violent about the Arab Spring, and Morsi was going from bad to worse. Would you rather have a secular ally or a hostile islamist regime in control of one of the most strategically important nations of the globe?

 

[Dubyamn]

I think you misread me, I said efficacy, not efficiency.

Replace efficiency with efficacy and my point still stands. GWB was a terrible ineffective president on foriegn policy.

Well, then maybe I misread you, because I was certainly saying Obama's charm offensive was fluff and vapor, as it has proven to be.

Ah okay I was saying your "point" about Palestine was complete nonsense.

There was very little non-violent about the Arab Spring, and Morsi was going from bad to worse. Would you rather have a secular ally or a hostile islamist regime in control of one of the most strategically important nations of the globe?

Hostile islamist regime was never in the cards. The Egyptian military is too powerful and too deeply entrenched with American educated men to ever allow Egypt to be truly hostile.

And the thing is we tried the whole "Support a murderous dictator" thing. Look how well it turned out in Iraq and Iran.

 

[Krisken]

I admire your pluck, Dubyamn. I gave up smacking my head against that wall long ago.

 

[Dubyamn]

I admire your pluck, Dubyamn. I gave up smacking my head against that wall long ago.

They're a thousand candles in the night; one is blown out, another's lit. The hunter falls, the Vigil remains.

-Tvtropes

 

[GasBandit]

Replace efficiency with efficacy and my point still stands. GWB was a terrible ineffective president on foriegn policy.

He wasn't exactly a shining beacon, but compared to him, the only explanation for Obama's performance is either mindblowing incompetence or intentional treason.

Ah okay I was saying your "point" about Palestine was complete nonsense.

Not at all. These were actual expectations set by supporters and media lackeys at the time.

Hostile islamist regime was never in the cards. The Egyptian military is too powerful and too deeply entrenched with American educated men to ever allow Egypt to be truly hostile.

And the thing is we tried the whole "Support a murderous dictator" thing. Look how well it turned out in Iraq and Iran.

I guess the proof is in the pudding that you're right about the Egyptian military - after all, they stepped up and deposed Morsi. The thing is, thanks to Obama foreign policy, now the Egyptian man in the street thinks the whole mess is America's fault and that we backed Morsi's play and support the Muslim Brotherhood, which greatly complicates our relationship with them.

 

[Krisken]

We should go back to giggling at the idea of Rand Paul being a presidential hopeful. That was fun stuff.

 

[Dubyamn]

He wasn't exactly a shining beacon, but compared to him, the only explanation for Obama's performance is either mindblowing incompetence or intentional treason.

How exactly? He wasted more blood and treasure and had worse outcomes.

I mean sure you can and do claim that all that blood and treasure was worth it because the world was "afraid" or "gave us proper respect" But clearly that wasn't the case.

North Korea went Nuclear under Bush. Venezuala resisted our coup attempt and we lost nearly all influence in South America. Russia regained a great deal of it's power despite Bush's attempts to cut them off from their power.

Not at all. These were actual expectations set by supporters and media lackeys at the time.

Your point is still nonsense.

I guess the proof is in the pudding that you're right about the Egyptian military - after all, they stepped up and deposed Morsi. The thing is, thanks to Obama foreign policy, now the Egyptian man in the street thinks the whole mess is America's fault and that we backed Morsi's play and support the Muslim Brotherhood, which greatly complicates our relationship with them.

Actually it's due to Louie Gomert and Michelle Bachmann's traitorous foreign policy that people believe that we backed Morsi.

The fact remains that had we backed Musharef in killing nonviolent protestors all that we would have gained is the same problem that Russia is having in backing Syria.

 

[Bubble181]

Okay....Dubyamn? I'm a leftie bleeding heart pacifist commie European, but even I have to concede Obama's foreign policy hasn't exactly been spotless.
In Syria, if anyone from the US deserves any credit for any small part of that fuck-up, it's Kerry - and even so, there're still WMDs in Syria, they've only given up (supposedly, according to NATO visitors) their ability to produce more. There are still 2 million civilian deaths and, oh yeah, the war is still going on. Saying it's a victory because no Americans died is easy - you can count Eastern Congo as a major victory too, then, because there're currently approximately 48 rapes per hour going on, but none of them are American.
As for Egypt - this was handled badly, perhaps even more so by the EU than by the US, but ineptness and "wrong" responses from the American diplomacy have definitely made things more difficult. GB is right (shudder) that, where Egypt was one of the most pro-American countries in the Middle East (along with Turkey), it's now much more a hotbed of anti-Western sentiments. Nobody deserves any kudos whatsoever for what happened and is still happening there.
Lybia....eh, that went ok, I guess. It's still a miserable hellhole with people dying left and right, but at least the current government - insofar as they have any power - is only moderately anti-Western and theocratic.
Iran and Iraq...Well, both were horrible, but neither's really gone down-hill since GWB.

Gas, the "Nobel Peace Price Winner" bit is useless. I don't know anyone - anyone - from the far left to the far right who thinks that prize was in the least bit deserved. "Not being GWB" was a great platform to start your foreign policy, it shouldn't be a reason to get a prize. He definitely hasn't done anything afterwards to merit it. And GWB really was much, much worse in relation to allies, especially.

 

[Dubyamn]

Okay....Dubyamn? I'm a leftie bleeding heart pacifist commie European, but even I have to concede Obama's foreign policy hasn't exactly been spotless.

We live in dark times indeed when somebody saying that better than GWB is spotless.

Dark times indeed.

In Syria, if anyone from the US deserves any credit for any small part of that fuck-up, it's Kerry - and even so, there're still WMDs in Syria, they've only given up (supposedly, according to NATO visitors) their ability to produce more.

Okay so let's go over Bubble's understanding of things.

1. Apparently the Secretary of state is somehow different than the president's foreign policy. The success of one can be separated from the other.

2. Until you reach your goal 100% you can't claim any sort of victory no matter how far you've come or how successful you have been in following the timetable you set out.

Both are obviously ridiculous.

There are still 2 million civilian deaths and, oh yeah, the war is still going on. Saying it's a victory because no Americans died is easy - you can count Eastern Congo as a major victory too, then, because there're currently approximately 48 rapes per hour going on, but none of them are American.

This is incredibly cold but is America supposed to step in to stop every killing and rape? Do we even have that power? Do we even have that fucking right with our murder and rape rates?

We had a clear gain from stopping the use of chemical weapons from becoming an acceptable line to cross and we were able to stop it from becoming that.

Us being able to step into Syria to stop the killing or into Congo to stop the rapes? I'm less sure of our power to do that.

As for Egypt - this was handled badly, perhaps even more so by the EU than by the US, but ineptness and "wrong" responses from the American diplomacy have definitely made things more difficult. GB is right (shudder) that, where Egypt was one of the most pro-American countries in the Middle East (along with Turkey), it's now much more a hotbed of anti-Western sentiments. Nobody deserves any kudos whatsoever for what happened and is still happening there.

Please indicate where I thought what is happening in Egypt deserves any kind of kudos.

It's a clusterfuck. But one that wouldn't have been helped by us propping up an unpopular and unsustainable dictator. Musharef had to go. And I'm sure that the Obama administration

Lybia....eh, that went ok, I guess. It's still a miserable hellhole with people dying left and right, but at least the current government - insofar as they have any power - is only moderately anti-Western and theocratic.
Iran and Iraq...Well, both were horrible, but neither's really gone down-hill since GWB.

Iran and Iraq have both been Obama success stories. We're currently in talks with Iran about how to dismantle their nuclear weapons programs with all indications from Iran being that the new president has the supreme leader's blessing to put the nuclear program on the table. Sure it's not a guaranteed thing but if you had told me last year that these talks would even be happening I would have called you simple.

And Iraq we're out of Iraq. We're no longer pouring blood and treasure all over that country just so that the oil can flow into China to power their rise.

 

[GasBandit]

How exactly? He wasted more blood and treasure and had worse outcomes.

Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it. The actions of the Obama administration have emboldened enemies of the US to the point that they attacked one of our embassies on the anniversary of 9/11, killed the Amabassador and his staff, and got clean away with it - and he tried to blame it on a youtube video. He nearly botched his way into the Syrian civil war, but luckily for him Putin was there to throw him a lifeline. Our relations with Russia took a nose dive after 2009 after a huge hullaballoo about a "reset" button Obama was supposed to provide. Even our allies don't like us these days. And Afghanistan continues to grind away at our "blood and treasure" but because a democrat is in the white house the media has switched from gleeful daily body counts to quietly pretending it's just background noise.

North Korea went Nuclear under Bush.

And who gave them the tools for that, I wonder?

Venezuala resisted our coup attempt and we lost nearly all influence in South America.

How exactly did we "lose nearly all influence?"

Your point is still nonsense.

Sigh. "No U." Your turn.

Actually it's due to Louie Gomert and Michelle Bachmann's traitorous foreign policy that people believe that we backed Morsi.

Obama called for Mubarak to step down, but declared Morsi legitimate.

 

[Dubyamn]

Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it. The actions of the Obama administration have emboldened enemies of the US to the point that they attacked one of our embassies on the anniversary of 9/11, killed the Amabassador and his staff, and got clean away with it

And during the Bush administration there were at least 10 attacks on our embassies with 60 deaths. Obama has 1 attack with 4 deaths so apparently our enemies were far more emboldened under Bush.

- and he tried to blame it on a youtube video. He nearly botched his way into the Syrian civil war, but luckily for him Putin was there to throw him a lifeline.

Still not understanding the outrage over us accomplishing our goals without spending trillions and killing thousands of Americans.

Our relations with Russia took a nose dive after 2009 after a huge hullaballoo about a "reset" button Obama was supposed to provide.

That is actually a good point. Unfortunately relations with Russia are in shambles right now.

Even our allies don't like us these days.

Amazing how leading them into 2 pointless wars would cause problems for our relations with them. And how those problems wouldn't be immediately cured with a new president's election.

And Afghanistan continues to grind away at our "blood and treasure" but because a democrat is in the white house the media has switched from gleeful daily body counts to quietly pretending it's just background noise.

When on earth did America ever give a crap about casualties in Afghanistan? Before Iraq we were still angry about 9/11, during Iraq Afghanistan remained the "good war" the "war we have neglected" and after Iraq we should care all about the casualties in the war.

And who gave them the tools for that, I wonder?

Don't see how that effects the fact that they went Nuclear under Bush.

How exactly did we "lose nearly all influence?"

When Hugo Chavez effortlessly regained power there was a wave of anti americanism that swept over South America saw numerous South American presidents elected who won because they bad mouthed America.

Sigh. "No U." Your turn.

Still trying the purposefully thick route huh? It's really not working for you.

Obama called for Mubarak to step down, but declared Morsi legitimate.

Yeah recognizing a democratically elected prime minister while condemning an unpopular dictator who is clearly on his way out is unconscionable and a truely stupid move in foreign policy.

 

[drawn_inward]

I really never understood the outrage here. I watched the video, and I feel like, uhm, wasn't he right? There are people who are going to vote Democrat no matter what, and Republican no matter what, and so you don't really need to campaign to them - now maybe the truer statement is therefore "94%" but I feel like all he said was "There are people out there who are just not going to change their minds about Obama, and it's nearly half the electorate. I have to reach the swing voters." Which... is true. Do you think Obama cared about the, I'll just say, 47% of people who wouldn't vote for him? No, he too needed to reach people who were unsure of how they were going to vote.

I mean, it's a long dead point now, so I suppose it's too late to understand, but I never got a clear answer then, either.

 

[Krisken]

Already asked and answered?

 

[drawn_inward]

Already asked and answered?

It was a plagiarism joke. That's @Chad Sexington's post from the top of the thread.

 

[Krisken]

Blast! I fall on my sword in shame!

 

[GasBandit]

And during the Bush administration there were at least 10 attacks on our embassies with 60 deaths. Obama has 1 attack with 4 deaths so apparently our enemies were far more emboldened under Bush.

There have been more attacks during the Obama administration than just Benghazi (at least 9 so far, just barely into the start of his second term), that was just the one that displayed the most (possibly willful) incompetence.

Still not understanding the outrage over us accomplishing our goals without spending trillions and killing thousands of Americans.

What goals would you say have been accomplished? The weakening of our standing on the global stage?

That is actually a good point. Unfortunately relations with Russia are in shambles right now.

Well taken. We'll just put that aside because things we agree on are no fun.

Amazing how leading them into 2 pointless wars would cause problems for our relations with them. And how those problems wouldn't be immediately cured with a new president's election.

Actually, what I was saying was they had gotten worse. Especially with all the NSA issues coming to light. And before you say it, yes, Bush spied too. I'm not here to defend Bush. But Obama has continued or exacerbated every bad policy that was already active under Bush.

When on earth did America ever give a crap about casualties in Afghanistan? Before Iraq we were still angry about 9/11, during Iraq Afghanistan remained the "good war" the "war we have neglected" and after Iraq we should care all about the casualties in the war.

Afghanistan was going swimmingly through most of the Bush years. It wasn't covered because bloody Iraq headlines got so many more viewers and clicks. But since 2009, Afghanistan has suddenly taken a turn:

And yet the only time we hear about Afghanistan is when Obama is firing a general.

Don't see how that effects the fact that they went Nuclear under Bush.

You think it's more important when the Norks finished building their bombs out of the parts Clinton provided them than the fact that the parts were provided by Clinton?

When Hugo Chavez effortlessly regained power there was a wave of anti americanism that swept over South America saw numerous South American presidents elected who won because they bad mouthed America.

I don't remember this happening. But for the sake of argument, I'll assume it did - so what? The opinion of South Americans on the US is about as influential on the world stage as the forest creatures' opinions of motorbikes.

Still trying the purposefully thick route huh? It's really not working for you.

Why am I obligated to do more than say "Yeah huh" to your "nuh uh?"

Yeah recognizing a democratically elected prime minister while condemning an unpopular dictator who is clearly on his way out is unconscionable and a truely stupid move in foreign policy.

If only it was as simple as that. Obama all but took credit for the "Arab Spring" movement that swept Morsi into power. Then trumpeted his "legitimacy" while his own electorate rose up against him. And don't kid us that Morsi isn't every inch the bloodthirsty tyrant - if not more than - that Mubarak ever was.