...and the Easter Bunny is real...
The collective senior fellows at Hillary Clinton-George Soros backed Media Matters for America have determined that the time for talking about ObamaCare has passed. Eric Boehlert compares the town hall protesters to the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Jamison Foser claims that public policy is too complex for the ignorant masses, and John Santore whines about Sarah Palin evoking nuance in calling HR 3200, Section 1233, a prescription for "death panels." It must be hard to level criticism at people who are to blame for this mess, it's easier to project feelings onto someone else, not that it's a strange and new phenomenon coming from liberals.
Boehlert complains that the media is giving too much air time to the town hall protesters in the same way they gave the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans (SBVT). First off, I'd like to make it clear that to liberals, the SBVT has been discredited, everyone else realizes Senator Kerry embellished his record during the VietNam Conflict. He says that the media never gave the same airtime to the anti-war movement during the Bush Years, but meanwhile back on Earth, there have been several times when the Obamedia scrubbed the radical positions of anti-war groups such as, Code Pink, I-ANSWER, World Can't Wait (Don't you all miss Sunsara Taylor?), to portray demonstrators as frustrated everyday Amuricans...and it was top news. Speaker Mimi chastised "disruptors" at health care town halls, clearly showing she had an epiphany in 2009, like other liberals who now view dissent as manufactured, but was essential in 2006.
Foser, like Yael Abouhalkah, shows his frustration over the Democrats' inability to win the debate on ObamaCare. Though he does level some blame on the Obamedia's unwillingness to tell the public about what's in the bill, his contempt for the town hall protesters is evident throughout his post. I admit, Foser is correct when he says the average person doesn't know much about history, science book, or the French they took, but I think Amuricans are smart enough to know a sham when they see one. Obama and Democrats took a great risk to ram this bill through Congress, with all its problems and expected no resistance. They expected Obama's flowery rhetoric and his "leadership" to bedazzle the electorate into believing that this plan would solve their healthcare woes. It's disingenuous to claim town hall protesters don't want debate, when Obama expected this bill on his desk before Congress broke for recess this month. h/t: Jonah Goldberg
Santore rounds out the trifecta by taking a swipe at Sarah Palin for her description of Section 1233 as a "death panel." Toeing the liberal belief that since the media and they, said it's not in the bill, let the issue rest, he goes after several prominent conservatives for pushing what he sees as misinformation and fanning the flames of fear, a tactic that was routinely used by liberals for the past eight years. Obviously, in Santore's world, not to mention in the minds of other liberals, it has been only been conservatives who are spreading so-called "lies" about ObamaCare and shutting down town halls and engaging in violent rhetoric. It should be clear to the rest of us that these liberals have been living in a bubble, or at best, don't believe their own words. It seems liberals are hellbent on continuing to spray vitriol all over legitimate concerns, despite the polls showing how ridiculous a strategy it is.
Liberals may continue to bitch and moan about Republicans appearing to cast the theory of bipartisanship to the four winds, but it has always been liberals, especially in the ranks of the House leadership, who has been hostile to each and every Republican proposal. Democrats are hoping the electorate doesn't become wise to their scheme, to reject Republican proposals and bitch because they won't support a solid Democratic bill. Who's the bipartisan here?
Have a great day...
Showing posts with label media matters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media matters. Show all posts
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...
04 August 2009
Liberals: Did you know The Joker was racist?
Dr. Asten: Is that why all his victims were white?
I received an email from the White House a week ago telling me to be on guard against the misstatements surrounding ObamaCare during Congress' August recess. I was peeved that the White House has yet to give me a response to the issue I initially emailed them about (Gays in Iraq), and that they had the gall to send me this shit. Anyway, liberals are pissed off at a new photo of President Obama being photoshopped to look like the late Heath Ledger's rendition of the Batman villain, The Joker. The newsrag, LA Weekly laments that the Joker's garb never included a noose (awww...trying to go for "racism" for the win...). Does anyone else get the impression that ObamAid drinkers will go to great lengths to paint any criticism of Obamessiah as racist?
In my mind, this is different from my defense of President Bush during his administration. I, and other pro-Bushites, were defending him from incessant liberal attacks, comparing him to Hitler, Mussolini, and other over the top machinations. When conservatives answered and rebuffed the many hyperbolic comments of liberals, people like Secretary of State Clinton squawked the following:
I guess liberals remain confused in their worldview. This is not King Louis XVI's France or Charles I's England, where dissent was treated as a threat against the state. Or, they may be confused about what actual protests are, instead of bitching for the hell of it. I think it has less to do with griping and complaining about a photoshop of Obama, as was evidenced throughout Bush's years as president, as history has shown (Oh lookie, President Bush also has a picture of him as Heath Ledger's Joker, do liberals think that's racist too?), and more to do with liberals' frustrations over their inability to effectively defend Obama's agenda, as we saw with Behar's moral equivalence to the Bush Administration on yesterday's episode of The Spew.
Media Matters (on occasion) had the gall to try and convince people not to believe their lying eyes when a photo of Obama standing in front of Professor Gates, who was being helped by Sgt. Crowley, by pointing to Obama's bow to Saudi King Abdullah earlier this year. The Media Matters post has now disappeared down the cyber memory hole, to cover up their embarrassment. You can tell a person's character by the way they treat their mothers, and old people. The photo, which is below, tells you all you need to know.
Bill Sammon tells a story in Strategery about a time when President Bush went to Chile and one of his Secret Service agents was caught behind the Chilean detail. The president reached through the detail to bring his Secret Service agent closer to him. John Kerry, on the other hand, during a ski trip during the campaign of 2004, blamed an accident he had on his Secret Service agent. There is also a photo of President Bush helping an ailing Robert Byrd, I presume after Senator Byrd referred to the Vick dogfighting saga as "barbaric."
Now to the photos...
You be the judge...
Have a great day...
I received an email from the White House a week ago telling me to be on guard against the misstatements surrounding ObamaCare during Congress' August recess. I was peeved that the White House has yet to give me a response to the issue I initially emailed them about (Gays in Iraq), and that they had the gall to send me this shit. Anyway, liberals are pissed off at a new photo of President Obama being photoshopped to look like the late Heath Ledger's rendition of the Batman villain, The Joker. The newsrag, LA Weekly laments that the Joker's garb never included a noose (awww...trying to go for "racism" for the win...). Does anyone else get the impression that ObamAid drinkers will go to great lengths to paint any criticism of Obamessiah as racist?
In my mind, this is different from my defense of President Bush during his administration. I, and other pro-Bushites, were defending him from incessant liberal attacks, comparing him to Hitler, Mussolini, and other over the top machinations. When conservatives answered and rebuffed the many hyperbolic comments of liberals, people like Secretary of State Clinton squawked the following:
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’”
I guess liberals remain confused in their worldview. This is not King Louis XVI's France or Charles I's England, where dissent was treated as a threat against the state. Or, they may be confused about what actual protests are, instead of bitching for the hell of it. I think it has less to do with griping and complaining about a photoshop of Obama, as was evidenced throughout Bush's years as president, as history has shown (Oh lookie, President Bush also has a picture of him as Heath Ledger's Joker, do liberals think that's racist too?), and more to do with liberals' frustrations over their inability to effectively defend Obama's agenda, as we saw with Behar's moral equivalence to the Bush Administration on yesterday's episode of The Spew.
Media Matters (on occasion) had the gall to try and convince people not to believe their lying eyes when a photo of Obama standing in front of Professor Gates, who was being helped by Sgt. Crowley, by pointing to Obama's bow to Saudi King Abdullah earlier this year. The Media Matters post has now disappeared down the cyber memory hole, to cover up their embarrassment. You can tell a person's character by the way they treat their mothers, and old people. The photo, which is below, tells you all you need to know.
Bill Sammon tells a story in Strategery about a time when President Bush went to Chile and one of his Secret Service agents was caught behind the Chilean detail. The president reached through the detail to bring his Secret Service agent closer to him. John Kerry, on the other hand, during a ski trip during the campaign of 2004, blamed an accident he had on his Secret Service agent. There is also a photo of President Bush helping an ailing Robert Byrd, I presume after Senator Byrd referred to the Vick dogfighting saga as "barbaric."
Now to the photos...
You be the judge...
Have a great day...
16 July 2009
Zandar Versus The Stupid: Wingers can't read...
...and neither can I...
There is much buzz around the blogosphere about the 1,000 page bill outlining ObamaCare. Investor's Business Daily, reported that there was at least one "uh oh" provision in the bill that prohibits citizens, who have had private insurance in the past, from applying for private care if they lose it due to job losses or if they decide to become self-employed. If a person is currently insured by a private insurance company, they will be allowed to keep their coverage. Under ObamaCare, a citizen will only be allowed the option of private insurance coverage if, and only if, the public option is available. In an effort to prove that "wingers" are stupid, the Zandar at Zandar Versus The Stupid decides to go off on a tirade against those who are calling ObamaCare a blatant attempt at damaging the private sector. And a side note, if I am reading the text of the bill correctly, those who are covered by private insurance companies before this bill goes into effect, or Y1, the private insurance company has five years to comply with those plans created after Y1.
I guess none of this gives Zandar pause, he views it as Obama Derangement Syndrome (ain't it funny how the Left is stealing ideas from the so-called dumbasses on the Right?). The Congressional Budget Office is predicting that unlike the delirious projections coming from the White House, ObamaCare will not save the federal government any money, and will increase the deficit, as Doug Elmendorf, the director of the CBO, told a senatorial committee. Blue Dog Democrats, who are feeling the heel of San Fran Nan's shoe in their collective chests, believe that ObamaCare will do nothing to insure that healthcare will remain affordable and in the long run, may cost people their jobs. Commenters at Media Matters see no problem with the deficit increasing with this bill, they claim it's all for a good cause (even though no one who read the bill sees it that way)...unlike the Global War on Terror, which as of February 2008, cost roughly $700B, or about $100B a year. ObamaCare, according to the CBO has a price tag of about $1T and climbing.
Allahpundit reminds us that it's been exactly a month since Mr. Elmendorf testified that ObamaCare, with all it's promises of unicorns and gooey gooey gumdrops, will still leave a large number of Amuricans uninsured, not to mention waste even more taxpayer money. Can I just say something here? When the "Spendulus" bill was forced down our throats, we were told that this money would shore up the economy and we'd be well on our way to economic solvency. We were promised transparency and a full accounting of the money spent. "Our money," we were told, "would be spent responsibly." Now, once Obama's felt the heat from the wasteful spending of Porkulus, he claims that the $787B was to be spent over the course of two years. Apparently, this "crisis" wasn't one atall. He wants to do the same with our healthcare system, calling the number of uninsured, a "crisis," and we must do something about it NOW.
But at what costs, Mr. President?
Have a great day...
There is much buzz around the blogosphere about the 1,000 page bill outlining ObamaCare. Investor's Business Daily, reported that there was at least one "uh oh" provision in the bill that prohibits citizens, who have had private insurance in the past, from applying for private care if they lose it due to job losses or if they decide to become self-employed. If a person is currently insured by a private insurance company, they will be allowed to keep their coverage. Under ObamaCare, a citizen will only be allowed the option of private insurance coverage if, and only if, the public option is available. In an effort to prove that "wingers" are stupid, the Zandar at Zandar Versus The Stupid decides to go off on a tirade against those who are calling ObamaCare a blatant attempt at damaging the private sector. And a side note, if I am reading the text of the bill correctly, those who are covered by private insurance companies before this bill goes into effect, or Y1, the private insurance company has five years to comply with those plans created after Y1.
I guess none of this gives Zandar pause, he views it as Obama Derangement Syndrome (ain't it funny how the Left is stealing ideas from the so-called dumbasses on the Right?). The Congressional Budget Office is predicting that unlike the delirious projections coming from the White House, ObamaCare will not save the federal government any money, and will increase the deficit, as Doug Elmendorf, the director of the CBO, told a senatorial committee. Blue Dog Democrats, who are feeling the heel of San Fran Nan's shoe in their collective chests, believe that ObamaCare will do nothing to insure that healthcare will remain affordable and in the long run, may cost people their jobs. Commenters at Media Matters see no problem with the deficit increasing with this bill, they claim it's all for a good cause (even though no one who read the bill sees it that way)...unlike the Global War on Terror, which as of February 2008, cost roughly $700B, or about $100B a year. ObamaCare, according to the CBO has a price tag of about $1T and climbing.
Allahpundit reminds us that it's been exactly a month since Mr. Elmendorf testified that ObamaCare, with all it's promises of unicorns and gooey gooey gumdrops, will still leave a large number of Amuricans uninsured, not to mention waste even more taxpayer money. Can I just say something here? When the "Spendulus" bill was forced down our throats, we were told that this money would shore up the economy and we'd be well on our way to economic solvency. We were promised transparency and a full accounting of the money spent. "Our money," we were told, "would be spent responsibly." Now, once Obama's felt the heat from the wasteful spending of Porkulus, he claims that the $787B was to be spent over the course of two years. Apparently, this "crisis" wasn't one atall. He wants to do the same with our healthcare system, calling the number of uninsured, a "crisis," and we must do something about it NOW.
But at what costs, Mr. President?
Have a great day...
15 July 2009
Pro-Sotomayorites: Did you know Jeff Sessions asked different questions to Sam Alito?
...that just shows how racist he is...
It seems the folks over at Crooks and Liars take issue with the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee forcing "So So" to backtrack on her "wise Latina" remarks. This is why I wanted the GOP members to disregard the "advice" of Hispanic "rights" groups and go after Sotomayor on her weird applications of the law, since liberals will view them as racists anyway (Didn't the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, most notably Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), praise the GOP for not being nasty towards Sonia?). Media Matters (not to them) complained that Senator Sessions stated in his opening remarks that he, nor any other senator, should vote for a judge's elevation to the Supreme Court based on personal experience, and noted his vote for Associate Justice Sam Alito. The moral equivalency game being played by liberals on this issue is not surprising, considering how they didn't think it was out of line to search the video rentals of a certain Supreme Court nominee.
I should dive further in what I said about Sam Alito's personal experience comment. Unlike Sotomayor, who believes that her Latinaness gives her more insight than Sam Alito would, Alito stated that his ethnic background would help him make decisions, not that because he's an Italian-American that he somehow has more experience than Anthony Kennedy or John Paul Stevens, who have more judicial experience than both of them combined. Crooks and Liars attempts to take Rush Limbaugh to the woodshed for suggesting Judge "So So's" remarks were worse than what former Virginia senator, George Allen, uttered about S. R. Sidharth during the campaign of 2006 (I would also like to note that C & L had no mention of the anti-Semitic and other objectifying materials coming from Allen's opponent in that race, James Webb). I am not understanding John Amato's rationale here. Macaca didn't have any meaning until liberals decided that the wealthy was a new protected class in Amurica. Furthermore, when liberals and the media (redundant, I know) declared it racist, they then used it to marginalize Allen for being Jewish (I do recall several times, former Air America host, Mark Riley, and other liberals referring to George Allen as "Macacawitz," so maybe it wasn't THAT racist at all...). I wonder if John Amato noticed he used the same offensive word in describing Allen...oh the horror!
Of course, this is yet another episode of the methods we've become all too familiar with coming from Obamabots. Only this time, covering up for his failures and incompetence isn't only coming from his right, it's coming from the left as well. Michael Seidman, a law professor at the University of Georgetown, believes that Sotomayor is either a perjurer or dumber than Keith Olbermann (I made that last part up). None of the liberal apologists have noted that if Sotomayor's words were so fucking innocent, she wouldn't have backpedaled from them. They haven't taken note that if Sonia did not believe that her race makes her more qualified than a contemporary white man, she wouldn't have repeated the same assertion over seven times throughout her judicial career. Her attempt to play off retired Justice O'Connor is an excuse to cover for her racist views. Justice O'Connor commented that a woman or man should come to a similar conclusion, if they applied the law, while Sotomayor believed her Latinaness would allow her to reach a better result.
Liberals can try to fool people into believing that Republicans and others who have reservations about Sotomayor's jurisprudence is racist. Some will be fooled, but those who aren't know that Sonia was lacking in candor, and engaged in a little intellectual dishonesty during her confirmation hearings. Liberals believe that minorities groups are monolithic, that they all vote with one voice. They're like the moderate voter, who must be treated like a crystal flower. Only one wrong move will turn off these minority voters once and for all, as Craig Crawford explains. This bigoted thinking helps to explain why liberals have so much contempt for minority conservatives...
But it's foolish, at least according to liberals, to think that any liberal could BE racist when the evidence is staring them in the face...
Have a great day...
It seems the folks over at Crooks and Liars take issue with the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee forcing "So So" to backtrack on her "wise Latina" remarks. This is why I wanted the GOP members to disregard the "advice" of Hispanic "rights" groups and go after Sotomayor on her weird applications of the law, since liberals will view them as racists anyway (Didn't the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, most notably Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), praise the GOP for not being nasty towards Sonia?). Media Matters (not to them) complained that Senator Sessions stated in his opening remarks that he, nor any other senator, should vote for a judge's elevation to the Supreme Court based on personal experience, and noted his vote for Associate Justice Sam Alito. The moral equivalency game being played by liberals on this issue is not surprising, considering how they didn't think it was out of line to search the video rentals of a certain Supreme Court nominee.
I should dive further in what I said about Sam Alito's personal experience comment. Unlike Sotomayor, who believes that her Latinaness gives her more insight than Sam Alito would, Alito stated that his ethnic background would help him make decisions, not that because he's an Italian-American that he somehow has more experience than Anthony Kennedy or John Paul Stevens, who have more judicial experience than both of them combined. Crooks and Liars attempts to take Rush Limbaugh to the woodshed for suggesting Judge "So So's" remarks were worse than what former Virginia senator, George Allen, uttered about S. R. Sidharth during the campaign of 2006 (I would also like to note that C & L had no mention of the anti-Semitic and other objectifying materials coming from Allen's opponent in that race, James Webb). I am not understanding John Amato's rationale here. Macaca didn't have any meaning until liberals decided that the wealthy was a new protected class in Amurica. Furthermore, when liberals and the media (redundant, I know) declared it racist, they then used it to marginalize Allen for being Jewish (I do recall several times, former Air America host, Mark Riley, and other liberals referring to George Allen as "Macacawitz," so maybe it wasn't THAT racist at all...). I wonder if John Amato noticed he used the same offensive word in describing Allen...oh the horror!
Of course, this is yet another episode of the methods we've become all too familiar with coming from Obamabots. Only this time, covering up for his failures and incompetence isn't only coming from his right, it's coming from the left as well. Michael Seidman, a law professor at the University of Georgetown, believes that Sotomayor is either a perjurer or dumber than Keith Olbermann (I made that last part up). None of the liberal apologists have noted that if Sotomayor's words were so fucking innocent, she wouldn't have backpedaled from them. They haven't taken note that if Sonia did not believe that her race makes her more qualified than a contemporary white man, she wouldn't have repeated the same assertion over seven times throughout her judicial career. Her attempt to play off retired Justice O'Connor is an excuse to cover for her racist views. Justice O'Connor commented that a woman or man should come to a similar conclusion, if they applied the law, while Sotomayor believed her Latinaness would allow her to reach a better result.
Liberals can try to fool people into believing that Republicans and others who have reservations about Sotomayor's jurisprudence is racist. Some will be fooled, but those who aren't know that Sonia was lacking in candor, and engaged in a little intellectual dishonesty during her confirmation hearings. Liberals believe that minorities groups are monolithic, that they all vote with one voice. They're like the moderate voter, who must be treated like a crystal flower. Only one wrong move will turn off these minority voters once and for all, as Craig Crawford explains. This bigoted thinking helps to explain why liberals have so much contempt for minority conservatives...
But it's foolish, at least according to liberals, to think that any liberal could BE racist when the evidence is staring them in the face...
Have a great day...
28 March 2009
Stop picking on Obamessiah...
...it's making the poor liberals upset...
As I am perusing the blogs on MySpace, I came across this little gem, where the blogger is upset that people haven't given President Oprompter a chance to "fix George Bush's wrongs." She's also upset at the fact that the Right has taken the top 10 spots on the "News and Politics" section. Now, I have said several times that leftie bloggers, who felt that former President Bush could do no right, are slowly coming to after being in an Obamotose state for about 5 months. There are a few that try to claim that the media created messiah needs time to enact his agenda, and we shouldn't have taken their notion that he was almighty, too seriously. The blogger apparently isn't aware of how other nations are also noting how much an empty suit the current president is, and I'm willing to bet that if you asked any Obama Kool-Aid drinker, why our "allies" and our enemies are now becoming one in the same during Opromter's tenure, they'd give you a look making you think they'd been hitting the pipe again.
Lies from the Left about the Right always must be taken care of. Liberals always lie about conservatives because they refuse to understand their points-of-view, unlike conservatives towards liberals. The new mantra coming from lefties is their belief that the Right was silent as Bush/Cheney cabal ran all over the US Constitution and destroyed civil liberties and reduced our moral standing in the world and violated countless laws...oh yeah, and the deficit. No one has been able to prove these alleged crimes, and if guilty, I seriously doubt any conservative would support them. The fact that many Democrats, who believe anyone taking a strong stand on national security is a de facto criminal, went along with these "crimes" tells me that many of those on the Left are just blowing smoke as usual. And speaking about the deficit, President Bush was on track to balance the budget by 2010, since spending had started to decrease in 2004, but the bailouts coupled with Oprompter's spending spree has shot that ALL to hell (what do libs say about that?).
The Left may bitch and moan about the methods the Bushites used after "9/11," and may point to a misinterpretation of an April 17, 2008 Government Accountability Office report to try and debunk the truth, but the fact of the matter is, one Abu Zubaydah, who had been waterboarded, gave the CIA enough intel to thwart several attacks that would have occurred in the wake of "9/11," not to mention the New York Subway threat in 2005, Richard Reid in 2002, etc. Even Media Matters tries, but fails to debunk the fact that Bush policy did, indeed, keep this nation safe. I did find it kinda hilarious that MMFA hinges its argument on a GAO report that only focuses on the tribal regions, something we knew was going to be problematic, because of the terrain, as their sole rationale that the entire Bush counter-terrorism strategy was a complete failure...oh, and that AQ leaders don't want to attack the US because of strategery reasons. Does MM think that could be due to Bush's counter-terrorism strategy? Nah, they don't want to give him too much credit...
For all their bitching about being the president's lapdog, I would have thought that these same preachers would be careful about falling for the wiles they'd warn us about. They could take a lesson from the Right on this, instead of demonizing them so much. Former President Bush and the Right have had their disagreements, as had been noted by objective viewers, but the Left would have the populace believe that the Right laid down as Bush ran all over their backside, kinda what President Oprompter is doing to them. Does anyone, besides me, remember the Great Illegal Immigration Debate of 2007 and Dubai Ports of 2006 and Harriet Miers of 2005? Those were at least three times where Bushie and the Right battled, but the Left, who is always been the champions of revisionism, would like for all the ignorant ones to forget that. People like Janie are believing that Oprompter is doing nothing wrong at this point in his presidency, but even some of those who agree with Janie politically, are having second thoughts about Oprompter's competence.
The Left would like for you not to notice how everything that Obamessiah said on the campaign trail had expiration dates, he gave the finger to our biggest ally, doesn't know who runs the Italian government, wants Russia to overcharge their relations with the US, relies on the TelePrompter more than any other modern president. Oh sure, they'll claim that all politicians lie, but they continue to ignore a central tenet of Obama's rise to the presidency...that he was a different type of candidate, one who would rise above the old and tired ways we used to do politics. The Left's fascination with the legacy of former President Bush is not what we need to focus on right now, the Left would be more credible if they would focus on the dangerous path Obama plans to take this country, and stop trying to make excuses for his incompetence by point the finger at Republicans.
Have a great day...
As I am perusing the blogs on MySpace, I came across this little gem, where the blogger is upset that people haven't given President Oprompter a chance to "fix George Bush's wrongs." She's also upset at the fact that the Right has taken the top 10 spots on the "News and Politics" section. Now, I have said several times that leftie bloggers, who felt that former President Bush could do no right, are slowly coming to after being in an Obamotose state for about 5 months. There are a few that try to claim that the media created messiah needs time to enact his agenda, and we shouldn't have taken their notion that he was almighty, too seriously. The blogger apparently isn't aware of how other nations are also noting how much an empty suit the current president is, and I'm willing to bet that if you asked any Obama Kool-Aid drinker, why our "allies" and our enemies are now becoming one in the same during Opromter's tenure, they'd give you a look making you think they'd been hitting the pipe again.
Lies from the Left about the Right always must be taken care of. Liberals always lie about conservatives because they refuse to understand their points-of-view, unlike conservatives towards liberals. The new mantra coming from lefties is their belief that the Right was silent as Bush/Cheney cabal ran all over the US Constitution and destroyed civil liberties and reduced our moral standing in the world and violated countless laws...oh yeah, and the deficit. No one has been able to prove these alleged crimes, and if guilty, I seriously doubt any conservative would support them. The fact that many Democrats, who believe anyone taking a strong stand on national security is a de facto criminal, went along with these "crimes" tells me that many of those on the Left are just blowing smoke as usual. And speaking about the deficit, President Bush was on track to balance the budget by 2010, since spending had started to decrease in 2004, but the bailouts coupled with Oprompter's spending spree has shot that ALL to hell (what do libs say about that?).
The Left may bitch and moan about the methods the Bushites used after "9/11," and may point to a misinterpretation of an April 17, 2008 Government Accountability Office report to try and debunk the truth, but the fact of the matter is, one Abu Zubaydah, who had been waterboarded, gave the CIA enough intel to thwart several attacks that would have occurred in the wake of "9/11," not to mention the New York Subway threat in 2005, Richard Reid in 2002, etc. Even Media Matters tries, but fails to debunk the fact that Bush policy did, indeed, keep this nation safe. I did find it kinda hilarious that MMFA hinges its argument on a GAO report that only focuses on the tribal regions, something we knew was going to be problematic, because of the terrain, as their sole rationale that the entire Bush counter-terrorism strategy was a complete failure...oh, and that AQ leaders don't want to attack the US because of strategery reasons. Does MM think that could be due to Bush's counter-terrorism strategy? Nah, they don't want to give him too much credit...
For all their bitching about being the president's lapdog, I would have thought that these same preachers would be careful about falling for the wiles they'd warn us about. They could take a lesson from the Right on this, instead of demonizing them so much. Former President Bush and the Right have had their disagreements, as had been noted by objective viewers, but the Left would have the populace believe that the Right laid down as Bush ran all over their backside, kinda what President Oprompter is doing to them. Does anyone, besides me, remember the Great Illegal Immigration Debate of 2007 and Dubai Ports of 2006 and Harriet Miers of 2005? Those were at least three times where Bushie and the Right battled, but the Left, who is always been the champions of revisionism, would like for all the ignorant ones to forget that. People like Janie are believing that Oprompter is doing nothing wrong at this point in his presidency, but even some of those who agree with Janie politically, are having second thoughts about Oprompter's competence.
The Left would like for you not to notice how everything that Obamessiah said on the campaign trail had expiration dates, he gave the finger to our biggest ally, doesn't know who runs the Italian government, wants Russia to overcharge their relations with the US, relies on the TelePrompter more than any other modern president. Oh sure, they'll claim that all politicians lie, but they continue to ignore a central tenet of Obama's rise to the presidency...that he was a different type of candidate, one who would rise above the old and tired ways we used to do politics. The Left's fascination with the legacy of former President Bush is not what we need to focus on right now, the Left would be more credible if they would focus on the dangerous path Obama plans to take this country, and stop trying to make excuses for his incompetence by point the finger at Republicans.
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)