...because we have nothing else better to do...
Liberals proclaim to the unsuspecting masses how much they care for the little guy. Minorities don't need to stand up for themselves, for the liberal will fight their battles for them. I'm reminded of a very funny episode of All in the Family, where the Bunkers are robbed by two black men, played by Cleavon Little and Demond Wilson. When the Bunkers arrive back home, they find out they've been robbed and become hostages of the robbers. In a discussion that breaks out, the robbers discuss their upbringing and soon discover that Archie is a "dyed in the wool bigot," and that his son-in-law, Mike, is a liberal, who called on Archie to understand the underlying social causes. The robbers chided Mike for talking about a subject he didn't understand.
GayPatriotWest talks about liberals who refuse to understand the fact that people have sincere concerns about their policies. Since liberal groups and protests are funded by the Wizard, they believe everyone else does it. There is always an ulterior motive to the "Tea Party" movement, the "Birthers," the town hall protesters, and the "Deathers." It's like the positions held by conservatives since dirt was new are now deemed "racist," because heaven forbid, there's a black man occupying the Oval Office. Under the guise of making corporate CEOs aware of the programs on which their companies advertise, liberals use what they, and no one else, find offensive to portray a television personality they don't like in a bad light. It's kinda funny when Rudy Giuliani, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin protested "Piss Christ," and Verizon's sponsorship of Akon after his Trinidad incident, respectively, liberals claimed a "chill" was felt over their right to free speech...
Liberals are gleefully talking about companies jumping ship from Glenn Beck's Fox News program, in light of his assertion of calling President Obama a "racist." Usually, when someone's called a "racist," it is liberals who are demanding someone's head on a platter. It was a marked policy shift for liberals to come out against alleged false charges of racism, after parroting that very belief since the Civil Rights Era ended. I would like to ask those liberals who are excited about sponsors pulling away from Beck, "what type of boycott moves their ads to another show on the same network?" and "since liberals are so adamant against 'hate-speech,' when are they going to start going after Keith Olbermann?" Their answers will reveal more than what they'd be trying to hide. One liberal responded to a comment I made on The Reaction that my blindness is preventing me from calling on a boycott of Keith Olbermann, thereby tacitly admitting that this boycott, and his support of it, is because he doesn't like the fact that Beck is conservative (I never knew liberals could be hypocritical...I definitely gotta get out more!).
Gateway Pundit has a post concerning Kenneth Gladney, the black man who suffered a beatdown from SEIU thugs for straying off the plantation, and a protest in front of the St. Louis branch of the NAACP over their silence surrounding the incident. The branch responded that no one contacted them to investigate, which is kinda silly, since they didn't need anyone to contact them on alleged disenfranchisement, or calling on the Cambridge PD to change its policies after Skip-gate, or deeming ObamaCare protesters as "racists." They just turn a blind eye to actual charges of racism, in the hopes of preserving the Democratic Party and its ideals. For if the US truly became a nation that has moved past its racial divide, it'd mark the end of the Democratic Party.
Something tells me that liberals are always looking for someone to replace Emmanuel Goldstein...
Don't you dare tell them thar liburls they're not smart!
Have a great day...
Showing posts with label Glenn Beck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Glenn Beck. Show all posts
17 August 2009
James Carville: Hey, let's blame everything on Republicans and hope it works...
...that strategy helped us in '06 and '08, why wouldn't it work in '10 and '12?
James Carville was an integral part of the Clinton White House, so his latest claim, that forcing the GOP to filibuster ObamaCare would hurt them politically, is absurd. As I noted in a previous post, the 103rd Congress, that was debating HillaryCare, had more than enough votes to pass any and everything the liberal base wanted. No matter how many times Democrats tried to blame their failures on Republicans, the electorate refused to buy the spin. The major problem for HillaryCare lie in the former First Lady's refusal to listen to ideas that would make the bill better, the same is apparently true for Obama. His reliance on San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid to craft a "bipartisan" bill, knowing they're probably the most partisan people on the Hill, shows that he did not intend to compromise at all.
There is a brouhaha over former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey's assertion that the Soros-funded MoveOn.org ran two "Bush=Hitler" commercials in 2004. I would like to note that while MoveOn.org did not run the ads during Bushie's 2004 State of the Union address, they did condone them implicitly, since they did not condemn the comparison. With that said, I would like to focus on the ad that DID win the "Bush in 30 seconds" contest, which showed children who'd be stuck paying for the alleged $1Trillion deficit, created by the Bush Administration. As I type this, there is an "Obama in 30 seconds" contest (though I would like to assume that no "Obama=Hitler" connections will occur in the fuzzy minds of liberals). I am willing to bet that none of the winning ads will tie Obama to the skyrocketing deficit, if anything, they'll remind us how much in lockstep liberals are with Obama's wrongheaded agenda.
In fact, there are some liberals who are still excusing Obama for voting "present," when he should be out in the trenches, and blaming Republicans. Donny Shaw notes that the White House hasn't really put their full weight behind the "public option," and the president's reticence on it would make it that much more difficult to garner votes in the US Senate. The reason ObamaCare will fail will be the blame of Obama and Democrats, not Republicans and the Right. Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's The Daily Show pretty much sums up left-wing talking points thusly.
I don't think that Glenn Beck, nor any other prominent conservative, believes our healthcare system is not in need of reform, contrary to Jon Stewart's assertion. I believe our healthcare system is the best in the world, BUT it should not be subjected to the type of revolution Obama and his acolytes wish to foist upon it. Liberals believe everything about the United States is eeevil and corrupt, and must fall in line with European dictates. There is no proof given by ObamaCare proponents that this bill will tweak our system, it will only degrade it, as many opponents fear. As I've always said, if the system being detailed in HR 3200 is the best thing since the iPod, members of Congress and the White House should subject themselves to it...but none of the ObamaCare proponents are talking about that. Instead, ObamaCare proponents rely on demagoguery to silence the bill's critics.
It seems that while liberals are demonizing the GOP for going back to 1994, they need to save even more vitriol for Democrats who are taking the debate there...
Have a great day...
James Carville was an integral part of the Clinton White House, so his latest claim, that forcing the GOP to filibuster ObamaCare would hurt them politically, is absurd. As I noted in a previous post, the 103rd Congress, that was debating HillaryCare, had more than enough votes to pass any and everything the liberal base wanted. No matter how many times Democrats tried to blame their failures on Republicans, the electorate refused to buy the spin. The major problem for HillaryCare lie in the former First Lady's refusal to listen to ideas that would make the bill better, the same is apparently true for Obama. His reliance on San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid to craft a "bipartisan" bill, knowing they're probably the most partisan people on the Hill, shows that he did not intend to compromise at all.
There is a brouhaha over former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey's assertion that the Soros-funded MoveOn.org ran two "Bush=Hitler" commercials in 2004. I would like to note that while MoveOn.org did not run the ads during Bushie's 2004 State of the Union address, they did condone them implicitly, since they did not condemn the comparison. With that said, I would like to focus on the ad that DID win the "Bush in 30 seconds" contest, which showed children who'd be stuck paying for the alleged $1Trillion deficit, created by the Bush Administration. As I type this, there is an "Obama in 30 seconds" contest (though I would like to assume that no "Obama=Hitler" connections will occur in the fuzzy minds of liberals). I am willing to bet that none of the winning ads will tie Obama to the skyrocketing deficit, if anything, they'll remind us how much in lockstep liberals are with Obama's wrongheaded agenda.
In fact, there are some liberals who are still excusing Obama for voting "present," when he should be out in the trenches, and blaming Republicans. Donny Shaw notes that the White House hasn't really put their full weight behind the "public option," and the president's reticence on it would make it that much more difficult to garner votes in the US Senate. The reason ObamaCare will fail will be the blame of Obama and Democrats, not Republicans and the Right. Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's The Daily Show pretty much sums up left-wing talking points thusly.
I don't think that Glenn Beck, nor any other prominent conservative, believes our healthcare system is not in need of reform, contrary to Jon Stewart's assertion. I believe our healthcare system is the best in the world, BUT it should not be subjected to the type of revolution Obama and his acolytes wish to foist upon it. Liberals believe everything about the United States is eeevil and corrupt, and must fall in line with European dictates. There is no proof given by ObamaCare proponents that this bill will tweak our system, it will only degrade it, as many opponents fear. As I've always said, if the system being detailed in HR 3200 is the best thing since the iPod, members of Congress and the White House should subject themselves to it...but none of the ObamaCare proponents are talking about that. Instead, ObamaCare proponents rely on demagoguery to silence the bill's critics.
It seems that while liberals are demonizing the GOP for going back to 1994, they need to save even more vitriol for Democrats who are taking the debate there...
Have a great day...
13 August 2009
Jon Taplin: Limbaugh and Beck may not know much about history...
...but I don't know much about anything else...
In the liberal mind, we're supposed to believe everytime they protest against some agenda, we're supposed to applaud them for their spontaneity. We were reminded throughout the Bush Years how everyday men and women were protesting the powergrab of the Bush Administration, but were supposed to ignore the Wizard behind the curtain funding all the protests. A recurring theme in liberal circles is the idea that granny and gramps protesting provisions in ObamaCare that limit their choices in advance care planning, are under a "Vulcan Mind Meld" instituted by talk radio titan, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News personality, Glenn Beck. I had hoped liberals had learned not to attack Limbaugh, since Obama's numbers continue to fall despite them trying to tie Rush to the GOP, but it would be out of character for liberals to learn important lessons such as that.
Jon Taplin, at the liberal blog Talking Points Memo, goes after Limbaugh and Beck for their alleged "puerile" understanding of history. Taplin claims that National Socialism and socialism are not the same thing, and that Limbaugh and Beck should have attended more history lessons, instead of boozing. Taplin cites a passage from Richard Evans' The Coming of the Third Reich that the Nazis were indifferent to the inequalities of society and sought to remake German character by using the radio, and bitches that these hosts use call screeners to maintain the "echo chamber." That would be a clever assertion, except that all talk radio shows, right and left, use call screeners (Thank you, come again).
Both fascism and socialism are similar in the idea of spreading equality from the greatest to the least, and all must serve the almighty state. One of the symbols from Mussolini's Italy shows a fasces, a bundle of rods tied around a cylinder, which also included an axe, with the bundle showing how the people are one in support of the state. Nazism is similar to fascism in believing that democracy and capitalism were failures. Both Mussolini and Hitler wanted all the state to serve them, as they were authoritarian. Hardly different from what Obama and Democrats demand of the electorate today, by projecting their feelings about themselves on protesters to their agenda. In fact today, my friend Zandar, decided to post an article by Sara Robinson, of AlterNet, which has the gall to say the rise of the Birthers/"Teabaggers"/"Healthers" is indicative of the rise of the fascism phoenix or something.
One of the ways Sara calls on people to slay the Fascism Phoenix is to "shut down the hate talkers," which in laymans terms means, write letters to CEOs with edited clips of audio the person objects to in the hopes the CEO will pull their advertising, like Spocko did to Melanie Morgan. She also insists the "teabaggers must not win" the debate, because she views their protests as bullying (something tells me she didn't view the antics of liberals during the Bush years the same way...). It doesn't take Robinson long to invoke the "Conservatives = Nazi" card, which was off-limits when used on Obama, while calling on her readers to engage in civil debate. The problem, as I see it, is that Obama and Democrats expected no resistance to their agenda, and as they were when McCain announced Palin as his running mate, they were caught flat-footed...they don't like it one bit. As she's encouraging her readers to shut down the debate on ObamaCare, I call on mine to keep the pressure on legislators to explain why this is the best plan to reform our healthcare system, especially since the Congresscritters don't want any part of it.
Oh yeah...now Media Matters (when?) is up in arms about companies supporting Beck, Limbaugh, and Dobbs, while pulling their support from Err America Radio (Apparently in their search for so-called "hate-speech" from talk radio, they never bothered to tune in to Err America Radio. Do they not remember the good ole days of Randi Rhodes advocating the shooting of President Bush, or how Mike Malloy hoped conservatives offed themselves on live TV? Guess not...).
Our cause, opposing ObamaCare and his wrongheaded agenda, is just...don't let the intimidation by leftists force you to give up the fight in holding him and our legislators accountable...
Have a great day...
In the liberal mind, we're supposed to believe everytime they protest against some agenda, we're supposed to applaud them for their spontaneity. We were reminded throughout the Bush Years how everyday men and women were protesting the powergrab of the Bush Administration, but were supposed to ignore the Wizard behind the curtain funding all the protests. A recurring theme in liberal circles is the idea that granny and gramps protesting provisions in ObamaCare that limit their choices in advance care planning, are under a "Vulcan Mind Meld" instituted by talk radio titan, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News personality, Glenn Beck. I had hoped liberals had learned not to attack Limbaugh, since Obama's numbers continue to fall despite them trying to tie Rush to the GOP, but it would be out of character for liberals to learn important lessons such as that.
Jon Taplin, at the liberal blog Talking Points Memo, goes after Limbaugh and Beck for their alleged "puerile" understanding of history. Taplin claims that National Socialism and socialism are not the same thing, and that Limbaugh and Beck should have attended more history lessons, instead of boozing. Taplin cites a passage from Richard Evans' The Coming of the Third Reich that the Nazis were indifferent to the inequalities of society and sought to remake German character by using the radio, and bitches that these hosts use call screeners to maintain the "echo chamber." That would be a clever assertion, except that all talk radio shows, right and left, use call screeners (Thank you, come again).
Both fascism and socialism are similar in the idea of spreading equality from the greatest to the least, and all must serve the almighty state. One of the symbols from Mussolini's Italy shows a fasces, a bundle of rods tied around a cylinder, which also included an axe, with the bundle showing how the people are one in support of the state. Nazism is similar to fascism in believing that democracy and capitalism were failures. Both Mussolini and Hitler wanted all the state to serve them, as they were authoritarian. Hardly different from what Obama and Democrats demand of the electorate today, by projecting their feelings about themselves on protesters to their agenda. In fact today, my friend Zandar, decided to post an article by Sara Robinson, of AlterNet, which has the gall to say the rise of the Birthers/"Teabaggers"/"Healthers" is indicative of the rise of the fascism phoenix or something.
One of the ways Sara calls on people to slay the Fascism Phoenix is to "shut down the hate talkers," which in laymans terms means, write letters to CEOs with edited clips of audio the person objects to in the hopes the CEO will pull their advertising, like Spocko did to Melanie Morgan. She also insists the "teabaggers must not win" the debate, because she views their protests as bullying (something tells me she didn't view the antics of liberals during the Bush years the same way...). It doesn't take Robinson long to invoke the "Conservatives = Nazi" card, which was off-limits when used on Obama, while calling on her readers to engage in civil debate. The problem, as I see it, is that Obama and Democrats expected no resistance to their agenda, and as they were when McCain announced Palin as his running mate, they were caught flat-footed...they don't like it one bit. As she's encouraging her readers to shut down the debate on ObamaCare, I call on mine to keep the pressure on legislators to explain why this is the best plan to reform our healthcare system, especially since the Congresscritters don't want any part of it.
Oh yeah...now Media Matters (when?) is up in arms about companies supporting Beck, Limbaugh, and Dobbs, while pulling their support from Err America Radio (Apparently in their search for so-called "hate-speech" from talk radio, they never bothered to tune in to Err America Radio. Do they not remember the good ole days of Randi Rhodes advocating the shooting of President Bush, or how Mike Malloy hoped conservatives offed themselves on live TV? Guess not...).
Our cause, opposing ObamaCare and his wrongheaded agenda, is just...don't let the intimidation by leftists force you to give up the fight in holding him and our legislators accountable...
Have a great day...
11 August 2009
Meggie Mac: Why's everybody always pickin' on me?
Dr. Asten: Because you try to portray yourself as a serious political analyst, but you come off as a whiner...
Liberals, and some conservatives, hammer former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, for whatever reason. They dismiss her views as illegitimate and claim her rhetoric bars her from being a serious political analyst. Usually, the same group of people who demean Palin for some of her less than stellar comments, are the ones who've engaged in rhetoric that would make Idi Amin blush. Keith Olbermann's latest Speshul Komint, much like the one he gave after the passing of Prop 8, is being lauded by the usual groups as a takedown of Palin, as well as Glenn Beck. Olbermann went after Palin and Beck for using "dangerously irresponsible" rhetoric, yet remained mum on his "dangerously irresponsible" rhetoric that occurs daily on his show. Olbermann, and the liberals who believe he's "speaking truth to power," and have engaged in their own irresponsible rhetoric have no authority to counsel others about theirs. The sentiment shared by Palin, and several elderly members of the electorate, is not unfounded. They're being told that ObamaCare will create a new bureaucracy, which I erroneously said it wouldn't, and that it would have specific powers in determining which insurance policies qualify as Qualified Health Benefits Packages (QHBP). I should also note while Olbermann was giving a tongue lashing to Palin and Beck about reading the bill, he hasn't read it either...stating that there would be no Health Choices Commissioner, but he didn't read page 41. Say what you will about former Governor Palin, but at least she contributes something substantive to the debate, unlike Meggie Mac, who whines about not being taken seriously.
Meggie Mac writes in a post on The Daily Beast about a statement made by Michelle Malkin about which conservative personality should "shut up." I have said at least once that Meggie needs to stop engaging in catfights with people who are her ideological supporters and take her fight to her ideological enemy. It does her no good to engage in public spats with women who can mop the floor with her in an argument. She doesn't recognize her role as the Obamedia's real life Stephen Colbert, as evidenced by her appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. The entire conservative movement, save Kathleen Parker and David Frum, welcome moderate conservatives into the debate to counter Obama and his acolytes. The problem with Meggie Mac stems from her idea that she's smarter than the rest of the people in the room, when she's clearly in over her head. Throughout the article, where she's bitching about Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter for not being civil, the girl doesn't mind being a little snarky herself, taking shots at Malkin and Coulter's publisher, Regenery. Someone needs to tell her, AGAIN, that taking pot shots at prominent, and attractive women on the Right, to cater to the Left is not going to build trust among the conservative base that really don't trust McCains anyway...except for The Other McCain.
Have a great day...
Liberals, and some conservatives, hammer former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, for whatever reason. They dismiss her views as illegitimate and claim her rhetoric bars her from being a serious political analyst. Usually, the same group of people who demean Palin for some of her less than stellar comments, are the ones who've engaged in rhetoric that would make Idi Amin blush. Keith Olbermann's latest Speshul Komint, much like the one he gave after the passing of Prop 8, is being lauded by the usual groups as a takedown of Palin, as well as Glenn Beck. Olbermann went after Palin and Beck for using "dangerously irresponsible" rhetoric, yet remained mum on his "dangerously irresponsible" rhetoric that occurs daily on his show. Olbermann, and the liberals who believe he's "speaking truth to power," and have engaged in their own irresponsible rhetoric have no authority to counsel others about theirs. The sentiment shared by Palin, and several elderly members of the electorate, is not unfounded. They're being told that ObamaCare will create a new bureaucracy, which I erroneously said it wouldn't, and that it would have specific powers in determining which insurance policies qualify as Qualified Health Benefits Packages (QHBP). I should also note while Olbermann was giving a tongue lashing to Palin and Beck about reading the bill, he hasn't read it either...stating that there would be no Health Choices Commissioner, but he didn't read page 41. Say what you will about former Governor Palin, but at least she contributes something substantive to the debate, unlike Meggie Mac, who whines about not being taken seriously.
Meggie Mac writes in a post on The Daily Beast about a statement made by Michelle Malkin about which conservative personality should "shut up." I have said at least once that Meggie needs to stop engaging in catfights with people who are her ideological supporters and take her fight to her ideological enemy. It does her no good to engage in public spats with women who can mop the floor with her in an argument. She doesn't recognize her role as the Obamedia's real life Stephen Colbert, as evidenced by her appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. The entire conservative movement, save Kathleen Parker and David Frum, welcome moderate conservatives into the debate to counter Obama and his acolytes. The problem with Meggie Mac stems from her idea that she's smarter than the rest of the people in the room, when she's clearly in over her head. Throughout the article, where she's bitching about Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter for not being civil, the girl doesn't mind being a little snarky herself, taking shots at Malkin and Coulter's publisher, Regenery. Someone needs to tell her, AGAIN, that taking pot shots at prominent, and attractive women on the Right, to cater to the Left is not going to build trust among the conservative base that really don't trust McCains anyway...except for The Other McCain.
Have a great day...
30 July 2009
Congressional Democrats on firing nine US Attorneys: Politization of the Justice Department!
Congressional Democrats on the dismissal of charges against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation:...
My, how times have changed. Democrats charged the Bush White House for politicizing the US Department of Justice for firing nine US Attorneys in 2006. Besides the continual, stomach-churning apologies emanating from the White House for exercising its constitutional power, the only other bothersome thing about the entire matter was Democrats' ignorance of Clinton's unprecedented firing of US Attorneys, one of which, Jay Stephens, was investigating one of Clinton's friends in Congress, Dan Rostenkowski. No hell raising from Democrats occurred, even after Rostenkowski was indicted and convicted during the House Post Office scandal. It's helpful to note that Rostenkowski was later pardoned by the Clenis in 2000.
Even Jonathan Turley sees a problem with the Obama Justice Department's rationale behind dismissing these charges. So far, the administration's silence on this issue makes it seem that it's perfectly fine for voters to be intimidated by thugs with nightsticks, or any other weapon of choice. I seriously doubt that if the suspects had been members of white supremacy groups, the Justice Department would be so lax in enforcing provisions of the Voting Rights Act against them (and Obama's handlers love to remind me that he doesn't have it out for "whitey").
Also puzzling in this is the fact that the Obama Administration has stonewalled any attempt by Congressional Republicans to get an explanation of this action. The decision, an overrule of career civil servants at Justice, was made by Obama campaign donor, and number three at Justice, Thomas Perrelli. Dan Riehl believes this Perrelli fella shouldn't be the only one being subject to our concern. Glenn Beck is raked over the coals for suggesting that Obama's been the racist the entire time, but the rakes aren't paying attention to the evidence. They, instead, wish to focus on how the Right has supposedly increased its "racist" rhetoric since a black man took the presidency.
Let us wait to see how many Democrats cry "Polarization" at this travesty of justice...
Have a great day...
My, how times have changed. Democrats charged the Bush White House for politicizing the US Department of Justice for firing nine US Attorneys in 2006. Besides the continual, stomach-churning apologies emanating from the White House for exercising its constitutional power, the only other bothersome thing about the entire matter was Democrats' ignorance of Clinton's unprecedented firing of US Attorneys, one of which, Jay Stephens, was investigating one of Clinton's friends in Congress, Dan Rostenkowski. No hell raising from Democrats occurred, even after Rostenkowski was indicted and convicted during the House Post Office scandal. It's helpful to note that Rostenkowski was later pardoned by the Clenis in 2000.
Even Jonathan Turley sees a problem with the Obama Justice Department's rationale behind dismissing these charges. So far, the administration's silence on this issue makes it seem that it's perfectly fine for voters to be intimidated by thugs with nightsticks, or any other weapon of choice. I seriously doubt that if the suspects had been members of white supremacy groups, the Justice Department would be so lax in enforcing provisions of the Voting Rights Act against them (and Obama's handlers love to remind me that he doesn't have it out for "whitey").
Also puzzling in this is the fact that the Obama Administration has stonewalled any attempt by Congressional Republicans to get an explanation of this action. The decision, an overrule of career civil servants at Justice, was made by Obama campaign donor, and number three at Justice, Thomas Perrelli. Dan Riehl believes this Perrelli fella shouldn't be the only one being subject to our concern. Glenn Beck is raked over the coals for suggesting that Obama's been the racist the entire time, but the rakes aren't paying attention to the evidence. They, instead, wish to focus on how the Right has supposedly increased its "racist" rhetoric since a black man took the presidency.
Let us wait to see how many Democrats cry "Polarization" at this travesty of justice...
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)