Putin's Best Friend

I was wondering if other conservatives and/or Republicans feel the same way about Putin as does Stevan Seagal. And before we all dismiss Mr. Seagal as just another Hollywood nutcase, he is seriously considering running to be Governor of Arizona.
Here are the links to two articles. The first is from the Washington Times about Seagal's belief that Obama should be impeached. This is a position he shares with at least a few people who post here. The second is from USA Today about Segal's close friendship with Putin. I know that these two websites are run by far left Obama lovers, but I hope that the articles are accurate anyway.



No votes yet

official! U.S. Rep. Dan Rorabacher (from California, of course) is a friend of Seagal's AND a supporter of Putin. He's known Putin about 20 years. Read all about it!
Here's the link: (Sorry. This one really came from a left-wing source, the NY Times.)

Mr. Seagal is a citizen. He is as free to run for political office as is any citizen. I don't care.

Am I missing something here? Is there a question concerning Seagal's birthplace, citizenry authentication?

Maybe he was born in Hawaii, where, you know, there's always some question about nativity.

Yup, and where are you when the Birther wing of your "we're LLLLLibertarians, not Republicans" party starts up with its "where's the birth certificate?" crap?

Maybe if you guys kicked the nutjobs out and completely disowned them, you'd get some more respect and following.

Firstly I was being facetious. But since you're firing back, it's time for a bit of sparring.

Secondly, I have nothing to do with the "birther" movement. As soon as Hawaii supported the given BC, my interest in the affair came to an end. Since, you know, I'm rational.

Thirdly there are always nutjobs in any movement. You Liberals are full of them. Heck, you're one of them, AC. Your 'group' has gungrabbers and polygenders and multiculturalists and outright Communists. And none of you seem to understand the first thing about Capitalism (about your only common feature). And yet you don't understand why you Liberals are hated.

Finally, Libertarians can't get any respect and following since we live in an era where there's a wholesale collapse of a common morality. The tragedy of the commons is a constant play running in all the media. And yes, there'd be a commons in a Libertarian society... a commonality of respect for property and liberty. The biggest 'commons' is the CULTURE.

So you hate polygenders and multiculture. You homophobic racist.

and their feelings toward Putin. Mr. Seagal may run for any office he would like. I am merely pointing out that he hates Obama and loves Putin. Many others at this site have strongly expressed their extreme dislike -- even hatred -- of Obama. I am merely asking if they also, like Mr. Seagal, love and respect Putin.

The last time I checked Hawaii is a state in the United States equal to all other states since 1959. In addition, Hawaii was a United States Territory, and, thereby, sovereign U.S. property, going back to 1898!
BTW -- President McKinley used a parliamentary maneuver to annex Hawaii. His administration had negotiated a treaty to annex Hawaii with 3 representatives from Hawaii, but McKinley could not get the 2/3 votes necessary in the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. So, Rep. Francis G. Newlands introduced a joint resolution into Congress which gave the United States the authority to annex Hawaii. This resolution, only needing a simple majority vote to become law, was passed and signed into law by President McKinley in 1898. Just another example of a POTUS finding a way to get something done which he wants, but which he feels a minority of U.S. Senators are blocking. And this took place 116 years ago!!

Finally, there is NO constitutional requirement that, in order to be a citizen of the United States, one MUST be born in America. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. George Romney, Willard's father who also ran for POTUS, was born in Mexico. His parents were American citizens; therefore he was considered a "natural born American citizen" back in the 1960s. If George Romney and his wife had been on vacation in France when Willard was born, would that have disqualified Willard from running to be the POTUS? Of course not! Anyone who is born with at least one of her/his parents being an American citizen, is automatically considered to have American citizenship NO MATTER WHERE THAT PERSON IS BORN!!
During the Viet Nam War, thousands of Amerasian children were born. Whenever a soldier would claim the child as his own, that child had the right to come to the United States as a citizen of the United States. Most of the time, the U.S. soldier would deny parentage. In those pre-DNA testing days, without the declaration by the soldier that he, indeed, was the father, the child would remain in Viet Nam and was often subject to severe discrimination based upon her/his mixed race heritage. Yes, Virginia, Asians can be every bit as racist as can be those of European or African background.

"I am merely asking if they also, like Mr. Seagal, love and respect Putin."

Well, the answer for this fiscal conservative is: No. The reason? A militaristic, lying asshole is still just a militaristic, lying asshole. That's also why I don't like Obama.

Ac will get his lawyers and Chris on you, you just dissed his Obama

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Understood. Just imagine how many times AC has called the Secret Service about something mean somebody said about Obama on some website. It must have been dozens of times in the last year alone.

For the record, I don't blame Obama for saying stupid shit about Putin, while not doing anything about the matter. What can he do? Nothing, that's what. Russia is perfectly free to invade a previous SSR, for geo-political reasons that should be perfectly obvious:

1. It's previous territory of Russia.
2. Russia is too powerful to clash with, over this matter.
3. National self defense is the defender's responsibility.
4. Who really cares about some Crimeans and Ukrainians anyway?

About the only thing I care about in this "crisis" is that Natalia Poklonskaya is a HOTTIE. 8^D

Oh look, trolling from DTOM.

Lots of us hate oppression and communism.

Yes, Dale, if one hates Obama, he consequently and automatically loves Putin. There are variations on this phenomenon. Some, for example, were ambivalent about Obama but developed a hatred after Putin reassumed his presidency. Their reignited love for the Russian caused this. Also of note, there are those who only dislike Obama. This is the result of their only kinda liking Putin.

Patience is a great virtue.

Dale, Don, you guys need to realize that DTOM, GZ, MikeyA, and the rest of the American right-wing all have a secret big gay man-crush on Putin.

Think about it.

Putin hates and oppresses homosexuals.
Putin is a big, strong leader (just watch the news and read the stories where they talk about how wimpy Obama is in comparison to Putin).
Putin's pushing Christianity on Russia.
Putin makes a big deal about how much he hunts, fishes, etc.

Putin is EVERYTHING the American right-wing want in a leader, except for the fact that he's the leader of Russia. If Putin wasn't Russia's leader, they'd be trying to run him for President of the USA, birth certificate and natural-born status be damned.

Putin hates ...
Putin is ...
Putin's pushing ...
Putin makes ...

Except that I don't admire or support any of that (not that I mind when a person hunts and fishes). Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

Old Russian proverb: If the shoe fits...

And the shoe isn't fitting. Once again, I don't support capitalist warmongers, like Putin or Obama. Should I use a larger font to make these points? You're just not getting it.

I would rather have a tiger of a leader, instead of a fuzzy soft bunny rabbit as one.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Feel free to move to Russia, you American-hating ass, since you don't have any respect for Obama the man, and refuse to respect the office or support the USA (as you just said, you'd rather have Putin than our current President, thanks for making America look weak).

A blond haired, blue eyed guy who's in charge of the Red Army, and thinks: my way, or the highway---what's not to like?

truly to be a libertarian and not a Republican apologist, no other conservatives who frequent this site will give a straight answer to this simple question.
G-MAN, with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, seems to express the feelings of Steven Seagal, and -- I am convinced -- a lot of those who post here, very well.
A Russian virtual dictator is lionized because he is decisive. Many conservatives are drawn to decisive leaders, even if they are evil. It's the type of top-down management style which appeals to most conservative ideologues. Remember, Henry Ford had a picture of Adolph Hitler hanging on the wall of his office. (And Hitler had a picture of Ford hanging in his office!)
Conservative Republican ideologues who hate Obama, and their hero Vladimir Putin. As Gene Rayburn used to say, "We've got a match!"

Are you channeling Bill Cullen?

Patience is a great virtue.

swamp's resident conservative Republicans!

Bill Cullen WAS the king of game shows. But Gene Rayburn did a great job, and had a wonderful pool of panelists, on "Match Game."

I loved Bill Cullen. Of course, that caused me to begin hating Gene Rayburn.

Patience is a great virtue.

"Many conservatives are drawn to decisive leaders, even if they are evil. "

OK, sure, now I'm a bit curious: What sort of leaders are Liberals drawn to?

Pacifists like Chairmen Mao, Trotsky, and Che Guevara


Equating liberal Americans to Communists is the same as equating conservative Americans to Fascists. Should I state that conservatives admire leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco?
Remember. I am not accusing Seagal of admiring Putin. THESE ARE HIS WORDS!! In one article, Seagal stated that he even might pursue Russian citizenship because he likes Putin so much! Now, if you're stating that you support Putin, too...all bets are off.

No Dale you are wrong.

Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were all socialists and were closer to liberals in ideology than conservatives.

Personally I don't care about Seagal. I don't think anyone else here does either.


I both respect your military service, and your expertise in areas such as weaponry. However, you really need to become educated about the differences between fascism and communism. Don't just blindly spout off right-wing misinformed propaganda!

Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco all rose to power as ALTERNATIVE CHOICES to communism in response to the worst economy in the industrial era. Hitler consolidated power after a fire which severely damaged the Reichstag Building supposedly started by one deranged communist. Of course many of Hitler's storm troopers were on the scene quickly, and the fire actually got worse upon their arrival. Hmmm...

It is also of more than passing interest that Hitler and his Nazi Party were ELECTED to power in 1933.
Mussolini was appointed by the President of Italy to be Italy's Prime Minister in 1922. Mussolini was supported by the Italian military, most Italian business leaders, and right-wing politicians.
Franco was supported in the Spanish Civil War by Hitler and Mussolini. Franco's main opponents in that war were communists supported by the Soviet Union.

Here are some links which you may find useful:
regarding Hitler: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm
regarding fascism: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
regarding Franco: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/spanish-civil-war-breaks-out

Dale, please reread my post. I didn't mention Communism, I mentioned Socialism.

And yes, their brand of socialism was closer to today's liberalism than anything else. Nothing in your post or in the links disproves what I said.

The closest you can say finding a positive correlation to both National Socialism and Facism to conservatism is that all are militaristic. However, conservatism is militaristic but with a limited decentralized government. National Socialism and Facism both support a rapid expansion of a centralized government. The National Socialists went so far as to nationalize whole industries, something conservatism is profoundly against. Additionally, conservatives try to downplay race as a factor in society. Liberalism and Nazism both try to formulate race as a central argument to policies.


Guevara." The last time I checked, these were all communists.

Fascists form partnerships with industrial giants. Pure socialism doesn't believe in private ownership of ANYTHING. Both Mussolini and Hitler took power by promising to "protect" Italy and Germany from communism.

The United States isn't even CLOSE to being a "socialist" nation. Statistically, the United States is moving further and further away from the total economic equality which would be the primary signature of a pure "socialist" nation. Our nation is coming closer to resembling a "banana republic" than it is to pure socialism.

I am not an ideologue. I do NOT believe that liberals have the only effective answers to the problems plaguing America. I am willing to compromise. I have stated before that government governs best from the ideological center.
I want an intelligent visionary, who can be tough when necessary; such as, JFK or Bill Clinton.

"I am willing to compromise. I have stated before that government governs best from the ideological center."

Hilarious. The one thing you refuse to compromise on, is the staggering size of Liberal government. Does this sound at all familiar? ...

The government that governs best, governs least.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Sparky. The self-effacing lies of the vocal Liberal (i.e. you) can be counted on as reliably as the rising and setting of the sun.

The government that governs best, governs least.

How's that working out for Somalia?

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Somalia has no government. And no rational person believes that "least" means "zero".

Put another way, even a laconic answer is still an answer.

Bullshit. You and your fellow LLLLLibertarians are the ones who want to shrink government down to a size where you can "drown it in the bathtub". Which is zero.

You guys want no government, or so close as to no government as to make no difference, provide said government does whatever you want it to (again effectively being no government).

A kid can do work around the house, but still can drown in a bathtub. Much bigger than zero.

You Liberals can't admit that minimal government is the best government. That's why you constantly say or imply that Libertarians are for NO government. It's a tactic of demonizing your opposition. After all, less government terrifies you. Government is the only means of obtaining or using power, for Liberals. They sure as heck don't know how to obtain or use power economically.

And in the LLLLLLLLLLibertarian view of things, said kid better get his ass down to the workhouse and work, since public schools and public education are evil things.

When you LLLLLLLLLibertarians can agree on exactly how minimal government should be and convince me it'll work, then I might believe you're onto something.

The first step is to remove all the progressive Dem's and Repub's. Will work on it from there..

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}


Or http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif as it's probably cut off.

We already agreed on a minimal government. Read the US Constitution, which is a blueprint for it. But that wasn't enough for you Liberals. You broke the agreement. You cheered while the federal government became a monster, doling out welfare and warfare almost whimsically. Now it's destroyed the nation, and it's time for you to take responsibility for it.

Both womanizers, one of whom liked getting blow jobs from 18 year old interns, the other who popped "dilaudeds" every chance he got. There must be thousands of these types visionaries in Toledo alone.

JFK faced down Khrushchev.
Bill Clinton gave America BUDGET SURPLUSES!! And surging stocks.
May I add that Obama got Osama killed. And stocks have surged again.

I suppose you liked Mr. Malaprop, the admitted alcoholic and suspected druggie? And what did HE give us? A stock market crash and turning budget surpluses back into budget deficits.
I'll take the womanizers who produce, over the alcoholic who turns wine into vinegar.

"And surging stocks."

Correction: Surging stocks was an indicator of capital formation from cheap energy.

Cheap energy is over, forever... as far as Humans are concerned.

You Boomers will never understand, since it's against your highly selfish personal interests to understand. None of that matters, since petroleum only continues to deplete, drying up the most effective energy source ever found, and ever findable, for that matter. Once world petroleum production peaked around 2005 and 2006, then the world's economy had to start seizing up. And what do you know? The next Great Depression started in 2008, and we're still in it, and in fact it will never end. There's no cheap, dense and practical energy source to fuel continued capitalistic growth.

The future must involve the concept of LESS. Fortunately, time will erase you Boomers, and that's a good thing since you're a primary barrier against downsizing our culture to prepare for a return to the old ways of doing less with less. Ultimately men will make do with horses and oxen, labor-intensive agriculture, and passive solar heating. The Fossil Fuel Age is ending.

Allowing wine to turn into vinegar will NEVER happen in your house. Turning wine into urine, now that's far more likely.

with my drinking one glass of red wine per day on the advice of my doctors, including 3 different primary care physicians, and 3 different cardiologists?
Should I not drink the wine?
Should I also not cook with olive oil?
Should I drink whole milk?
Should I eat lots of rich desserts?
Should I throw my cholesterol pills away?
Should I stop taking my blood pressure medication, too?
These are also recommendations of my physicians.

Wow! Are you attacking me in this way to hide a problem you have?

If you hate Obama, do you also love Putin? Seagal, and most of the conservative Republicans and libertarians who post here, consider themselves to be patriotic Americans. I just want to know if these self-proclaimed patriots prefer the Russian President to their own President, as Seagal has made clear about himself. Remember, before this whole man-crush on Putin became public, Seagal was considered a serious Republican candidate for the nomination to run for Governor of Arizona! He may still be. I don't live in Arizona. I'm not in touch with the polling there.
One does NOT have to love Putin, just because one hates Obama. I'm just asking. And I have received no direct replies yet from any conservative Republican. Talk about "playing politics!" Are you all running for elective office or something? Why no direct answers?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.