Dr. Asten: Maybe he was returning the favor...
Liberals are pissed at Connecticut senator, Joe Lieberman, for having legitimate opposition to the expansion of Medicare as a replacement for the "public" option. The anti-purity-test liberals of the Democratic base have declared the senator "Public Enemy #1" and have called on Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to strip him of his committee chairmanship. Jane Hamsher, of Firedoglake, issues a "cease and desist" letter to celebrities calling on them to stop donating to Susan G. Komen's "Race for the Cure" organization where Lieberman's wife, Hadassah, is the spokeswoman (I wonder how many women will die of breast cancer if Hamsher's hair-brained scheme goes as planned...). These liberals act as if Lieberman had bamboozled Senate Democrats into thinking he supported their idea of "reform," and all of a sudden, had a change of heart. The problem is that Joe has made his positions known for quite sometime (It IS true that liberals believe history began this morning...).
This may be a stretch, but I find it amazing how liberals believe the US should ensure terrorist suspects are afforded every comfort known to man under the misguided belief that by doing so, they'll be nicer to us and leave us the hell alone, but are up in arms at their belief that Senator Lieberman will just not be satisfied. To me, the problem is not Joe Lieberman, it is the Democratic Congressional leadership who misread the results of the 2008 election. Senator Lieberman is the latest scapegoat for Obamessiah's agenda stalling in Congress. In a few weeks, there'll be another one. Democrats, as evidenced by their "gay rights" faction, can't seem to blame themselves for not being able to judge election results accurately...
Just a few days ago, between blaming Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Matthew Yglesias at the Toilet Paper factory, felt it was the "incoherent institutional set-up" in the US Senate that guarantees failure. Absent are Yglesia's posts about this faulty "set-up" during the Bush Years, when Democrats championed the filibuster privilege in an attempt to stymie the former president's judicial appointees and other items on his agenda. Oddly, this "incoherent" set-up didn't prohibit other presidents and previous congresses from passing laws. I wonder why the world's smartest legislators and president haven't figured out what their predecessors did a long time ago. It all goes back to a recurring theme, they misread the mandate...
Some Democrats in Congress are learning the lesson and have decided to call it quits, rather than suffer either a primary or general election defeat next year. I wonder if liberals will have the same feelings about congressional Democrats retiring four at a time, as they did about Republicans retiring before the 2006 elections. Liberals saw those retirements in 2006 as rats jumping from Bush's sinking ship, but something tells me that liberals won't believe that about themselves...it's 'cause they think they're smarter than you. Heck, if a so-called "public" option fails in the Senate, many Democrats will sit the election out anyway. From the looks of it, many Dems will be at home catching the six o'clock news then...so it's win-win.
It's nice to see confident Democrats now losing sleep at night worried about their congressional majorities. I say, shoulda worried about that while they were demonizing the Tea Party protesters and their constituents during the August townhall meetings...
Have a great day...
Showing posts with label My how times have changed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label My how times have changed. Show all posts
14 December 2009
20 August 2009
Democrats in 2001-2008: Namecalling against your opponents is a sign of your patriotic duty to dissent!
Democrats in 2009: Namecalling is un-Amurican!
I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.
I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.
Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).
It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational.Only now, are we seeing these liberal revisionists claiming they condemned the rhetoric of their ideological cohorts during the Bush years. They're still under this delusion that each and every protester who brings a gun to an Obama event is a GOP operative. In some cases, they attribute one of their own to the Right. If this behavior is being criticized by liberals now, then it should be criticized when a Republican is targeted. But liberals are counting on the electorate to believe their lies...
Have a great day...
I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.
I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.
Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).
It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational.
Have a great day...
13 August 2009
Democrats: Either you're with us, or you're against us...
...which is a policy change from 2001...
For a group of people who complain about conservatives seeing the world in black and white, liberals seem to form their arguments about healthcare insurance healthcare reform in the same frame of mind. Either you agree with the so-called "public option" and everything in the House bill, or you don't want reform at all. There is no time to discuss compromise, in the views of Democrats. The people who are asking the hard questions of their congressional representatives are maligned as "astroturfers," "political terrorists," "mobsters," and "racists." David Broder believes these protesters are going to end up hurting the GOP, which I find troubling since according to a USA Today poll, more independents sympathize with the protesters over Obama/Pelosi spin. It also doesn't occur to Broder to note the frustration Democratic constituents have with their representatives ignoring them, perhaps he's not seen the video of Sheila Jackson-Lee. It seems silly that Democrats expect to get away with griping about Republicans not wanting to compromise, when they [Dems] have already poisoned the well, as they've done many times before.
In their pursuit to prove that Republicans don't want to compromise, Obama absolutists point to placards which depict President Obama as another reincarnation of Hitler, whose name is off-limits, lest the target be Republican (Wonkette believes that Lyndon LaRouche, a Democrat, is now a fringe Republican...or something), use singular episodes of a protester destroying a poster depicting Rosa Parks (more on that here), or make shit up out of whole cloth. The strategy is obvious, if liberals can get away with portraying concerned Amuricans as members of a fringe "I Hate Everything Obama" group, then they can silence other critics of this plan. In addition to all the other questions that remain unanswered by liberals in regards to ObamaCare, why are they so insistent on not holding debate? Was it ok to have our representatives vote on the bill without reading it? I wish the PATRIOT Act received the same consideration from them...
Ann Coulter mentioned on last night's Hannity that Republicans were ready to deal on ObamaCare. It was the Blue Dog Democrats on Henry Waxman's committee that prevented a bill from reaching the House floor before the August recess. That's important, because if Republicans would have given Obama what he wanted, despite the costs, Republicans couldn't adequately oppose Obama's agenda in the future, they'd be a party to it. Coulter suggested that there needed to be some housecleaning on both sides. Thanks to the Blue Dogs and the much maligned "teabaggers," this bill is receiving the sunshine it needs, and liberals don't like it one bit. Their actions throughout this debate makes El Rushbo's statement, about Democrats having to lie to convince voters to vote for them, all the more true.
As I said in the Porkulus debate, if Obamessiah wanted Republican support for his agenda, he wouldn't have excluded them from debate. He called on the Pelosi-Reid cabal to stuff Porkulus down our throats and whined that Republicans had nothing to offer. Though Democrats and their liberals allies would like everyone to believe it's only crazy-assed "reich-wingers" who take issue with ObamaCare, one particular liberal in the Obamedia has some concerns about the so-called "death panel" section, 1233. It'd be wise for liberals to note the concerns Amuricans have about the bill instead of parroting whatever comes from the White House, after all, as Ed Morrissey reminds us, Obama's never been to accomodating to dissent...
Have a great day...
For a group of people who complain about conservatives seeing the world in black and white, liberals seem to form their arguments about health
In their pursuit to prove that Republicans don't want to compromise, Obama absolutists point to placards which depict President Obama as another reincarnation of Hitler, whose name is off-limits, lest the target be Republican (Wonkette believes that Lyndon LaRouche, a Democrat, is now a fringe Republican...or something), use singular episodes of a protester destroying a poster depicting Rosa Parks (more on that here), or make shit up out of whole cloth. The strategy is obvious, if liberals can get away with portraying concerned Amuricans as members of a fringe "I Hate Everything Obama" group, then they can silence other critics of this plan. In addition to all the other questions that remain unanswered by liberals in regards to ObamaCare, why are they so insistent on not holding debate? Was it ok to have our representatives vote on the bill without reading it? I wish the PATRIOT Act received the same consideration from them...
Ann Coulter mentioned on last night's Hannity that Republicans were ready to deal on ObamaCare. It was the Blue Dog Democrats on Henry Waxman's committee that prevented a bill from reaching the House floor before the August recess. That's important, because if Republicans would have given Obama what he wanted, despite the costs, Republicans couldn't adequately oppose Obama's agenda in the future, they'd be a party to it. Coulter suggested that there needed to be some housecleaning on both sides. Thanks to the Blue Dogs and the much maligned "teabaggers," this bill is receiving the sunshine it needs, and liberals don't like it one bit. Their actions throughout this debate makes El Rushbo's statement, about Democrats having to lie to convince voters to vote for them, all the more true.
As I said in the Porkulus debate, if Obamessiah wanted Republican support for his agenda, he wouldn't have excluded them from debate. He called on the Pelosi-Reid cabal to stuff Porkulus down our throats and whined that Republicans had nothing to offer. Though Democrats and their liberals allies would like everyone to believe it's only crazy-assed "reich-wingers" who take issue with ObamaCare, one particular liberal in the Obamedia has some concerns about the so-called "death panel" section, 1233. It'd be wise for liberals to note the concerns Amuricans have about the bill instead of parroting whatever comes from the White House, after all, as Ed Morrissey reminds us, Obama's never been to accomodating to dissent...
Have a great day...
10 August 2009
Democrats 2003: Dissent is patriotic!
Democrats 2009: Dissent is manufactured!
As Congress enjoys its summer recess, the details of the healthcare overhaul are being hashed out among the political class and the electorate. Passions are erupting on both sides, with many on the Right going after congressmen in, not only their districts, but others as well. On the Left, the sentiment they cherished throughout the Bush years, dissent, is being dismissed as manufactured by special interests, content with the status quo. Although throughout the buildup and the Iraqi campaign, liberals' talking points were very close to rooting for the enemy, they still had the right to dissent and disagree and those of us who critiqued their talking points made sure we stressed that fact. Unlike six years later, when Obama is pushing a healthcare bill designed to modify about 15% of the US economy, without allowing Congress time to debate it, liberals are calling the same sentiment they cherished so much during the Bush years, as "unpatriotic." Don't sit there confused, you knew it was going to happen...it should be no surprise that liberals often project their feelings on to innocent bystanders.
Throughout President Bush's term, especially after 9/11, liberals were whipped into a frenzy at the thought that he was going to take away their right to disagree. The Obamedia made sure to portray these dissenters as everyday men and women, who were upset at the way President Bush was "destroying this country." They gave them authenticity, even as evidence was uncovered that Hungarian billionaire, George Soros, was funding the entire thing. The contempt shown by the Obamedia and their friends on the Left, towards the protesters at town halls, exposes a recurring theme that has been evident since January 20, 2009, the inability to effectively use the screen to take pressure off the quarterback. One can only imagine the foaming of the mouths of liberals if the Right engaged in this type behavior.
I got the email from the White House that warned me about misinformation during the congressional recess, using one of the president's favorite plays, the strawman. A portion of the email said, "...[o]ver the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high..." I've said it before, and I'll say it again, no one...and I mean NO ONE, is perpetuating the status quo...at least in the United States. The thought that people who are not only satisfied with their care, are open to reform, but believe that this bill will degrade their care, is not perpetuating the status quo. They don't want what the government is selling right now, especially after Barry-O wanted very little debate on the bills, which currently sit in Congress...and after it was clear the president was talking out of his ass.
Debra Saunders from the San Francisco Chronicle, notes how one Senator, who isn't ashamed at reminding people who she is, went after former Secretary of State Condi Rice for not having any children serving in the Iraqi Conflict, and dismissed criticism of her remarks as "speaking truth to power." Fast forward to 2009, the same senator feels uncomfortable when others "speak truth to power." Even Speaker Mimi has joined the chorus of Democrats, who are being reminded of who their employers are, who claim these protests are not authentic, calling it "astroturfing," (leaving the rest of us wondering "what the hell is in the water in California?). Obviously, these people need to be reminded that this nation was founded on protests that were "organized."
Anti-war protesters beat their chests to show their bravado, and proclaimed they had no fear of BushCo. Their bravery led to some of the most irresponsible rhetoric we've heard from them, and their friends in Congress (I'm sure we all remember Pete Stark's famous speech...and the support it got among the nutroots.). In an op-ed for USA Today, Speaker Mimi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, call out the hanging of effigies, the tombstones, and shouting down members of Congress as "unpatriotic," and "un-American" (funny how none of this mattered when it happened to President Bush and Republican members of Congress...). Paul Krugman claims that no one hounded Republican congressmen during President Bush's push for Social Security privatization in 2005, and Jon Henke wants to remind you how wrong Krugman is.
Jake Tapper of ABC News, reports that the hated Congressional Budget Office has released a report that will continue to absurdify (I made a word!) the rhetoric coming from the White House about ObamaCare cutting costs. The response from Democrats in Congress and at the White House was predictable, upset the CBO never gives their proposals any credit. Liberals continue to berate ObamaCare opponents, but they never say a word about its proposed costs, and the fact that the president didn't want debate on this legislation...kinda like Porkulus, which still hasn't worked.
They're continuing to show nervousness as the underbelly of their agenda is exposed...
Have a great day...
As Congress enjoys its summer recess, the details of the healthcare overhaul are being hashed out among the political class and the electorate. Passions are erupting on both sides, with many on the Right going after congressmen in, not only their districts, but others as well. On the Left, the sentiment they cherished throughout the Bush years, dissent, is being dismissed as manufactured by special interests, content with the status quo. Although throughout the buildup and the Iraqi campaign, liberals' talking points were very close to rooting for the enemy, they still had the right to dissent and disagree and those of us who critiqued their talking points made sure we stressed that fact. Unlike six years later, when Obama is pushing a healthcare bill designed to modify about 15% of the US economy, without allowing Congress time to debate it, liberals are calling the same sentiment they cherished so much during the Bush years, as "unpatriotic." Don't sit there confused, you knew it was going to happen...it should be no surprise that liberals often project their feelings on to innocent bystanders.
Throughout President Bush's term, especially after 9/11, liberals were whipped into a frenzy at the thought that he was going to take away their right to disagree. The Obamedia made sure to portray these dissenters as everyday men and women, who were upset at the way President Bush was "destroying this country." They gave them authenticity, even as evidence was uncovered that Hungarian billionaire, George Soros, was funding the entire thing. The contempt shown by the Obamedia and their friends on the Left, towards the protesters at town halls, exposes a recurring theme that has been evident since January 20, 2009, the inability to effectively use the screen to take pressure off the quarterback. One can only imagine the foaming of the mouths of liberals if the Right engaged in this type behavior.
I got the email from the White House that warned me about misinformation during the congressional recess, using one of the president's favorite plays, the strawman. A portion of the email said, "...[o]ver the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high..." I've said it before, and I'll say it again, no one...and I mean NO ONE, is perpetuating the status quo...at least in the United States. The thought that people who are not only satisfied with their care, are open to reform, but believe that this bill will degrade their care, is not perpetuating the status quo. They don't want what the government is selling right now, especially after Barry-O wanted very little debate on the bills, which currently sit in Congress...and after it was clear the president was talking out of his ass.
Debra Saunders from the San Francisco Chronicle, notes how one Senator, who isn't ashamed at reminding people who she is, went after former Secretary of State Condi Rice for not having any children serving in the Iraqi Conflict, and dismissed criticism of her remarks as "speaking truth to power." Fast forward to 2009, the same senator feels uncomfortable when others "speak truth to power." Even Speaker Mimi has joined the chorus of Democrats, who are being reminded of who their employers are, who claim these protests are not authentic, calling it "astroturfing," (leaving the rest of us wondering "what the hell is in the water in California?). Obviously, these people need to be reminded that this nation was founded on protests that were "organized."
Anti-war protesters beat their chests to show their bravado, and proclaimed they had no fear of BushCo. Their bravery led to some of the most irresponsible rhetoric we've heard from them, and their friends in Congress (I'm sure we all remember Pete Stark's famous speech...and the support it got among the nutroots.). In an op-ed for USA Today, Speaker Mimi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, call out the hanging of effigies, the tombstones, and shouting down members of Congress as "unpatriotic," and "un-American" (funny how none of this mattered when it happened to President Bush and Republican members of Congress...). Paul Krugman claims that no one hounded Republican congressmen during President Bush's push for Social Security privatization in 2005, and Jon Henke wants to remind you how wrong Krugman is.
Jake Tapper of ABC News, reports that the hated Congressional Budget Office has released a report that will continue to absurdify (I made a word!) the rhetoric coming from the White House about ObamaCare cutting costs. The response from Democrats in Congress and at the White House was predictable, upset the CBO never gives their proposals any credit. Liberals continue to berate ObamaCare opponents, but they never say a word about its proposed costs, and the fact that the president didn't want debate on this legislation...kinda like Porkulus, which still hasn't worked.
They're continuing to show nervousness as the underbelly of their agenda is exposed...
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...
28 July 2009
Mike Stark: Getting in people's faces is my job...
...if others put me on the spot, it's a hate crime...
Mike Stark is back. In case you don't remember who Mr. Stark is, he's the guy who went on a tirade against Melanie Morgan's radio show on KSFO in San Francisco after an unknown started sending her sponsors edited clips of her radio show, designed to make it appear that Melanie and her cohost, were hateful. The idea was an attempt to shut down conservative talk radio after the Democrats took the majority on Capitol Hill in the aftermath of the Election of 2006. Dan Riehl, of Riehl World View, decided to take on Mr. Stark in a debate, of sorts, on Howard Kurtz' CNN show, Reliable Sources. If your memory's still a little fuzzy, Mike Stark is also the guy who asked then-Senator George Allen if he "spat on his wife," and was the guy holding the sign, "Hannity Sucks Ass," behind Alan Colmes, who was acknowledging Joe Lieberman's defeat in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic senatorial primary. Needless to say, the debate wasn't a good idea for Mr. Stark...
The new mission of both Democrats and liberals, like Stark, is to embarrass the GOP by offering a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood. The resolution states that Hawaii is the birthplace of the 44th president, which is a challenge to the GOP to either support the Birther movement or oppose celebrating Hawaii's statehood. Stark has appeared in front of at least three Republican legislators asking them if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The Republican lawmakers, seeing the looming "gotcha" moment, either run or filibuster. The time wasting resolution passed, but that didn't stop liberals from bitching about Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann's desire to stop it by saying a quorum wasn't present.
But OH how times have changed...
Let us set the WayBack Machine for September 2007, where we are in the aftermath of the MoveOn.org's heavily discounted ad, "General Petraeus or Betray Us." TheCongress US Senate was considered a resolution calling on Democrats, who could not believe the Iraq surge was working, to separate themselves from the moonbattery going on at George Soros and Eli Pariser's MoveOn.org. The Senate had passed the resolution condemning the ad, while the House Democratic leadership refused to consider. The same liberals who are now bitching at Michelle Bachmann for stopping a political charade, went after Congressional Republicans (one commenter at GunTotingLiberal, claimed the GOP was shredding the Constitution for suggesting this...) for doing the exact same thing for which they're championing Neil Abercrombie (D-HI). I say it's just another episode of political theatre, as these liberals said about Republicans then, designed to distract from the inability to pass the disastrous ObamaCare.
In another episode of in the OHTHC theme, is how more credulous one group of conspiracy theorists are than another, according to the media. A few years after 9/11, a fringe group became convinced that President Bush engineered the World Trade Center attacks, in fact a poll released in 2007 said that between 61% of Democrats wouldn't rule out the idea that Bush either knew in advance about the attacks, or that he pressed the demolition button himself. Noted metallurgist Rosie O'Donnell proudly claimed on The Spew that 9/11 marked the first time fire melted steel. They were treated in the media, as responsible citizens, who had moral authority to question their government. The Birthers, on the other hand, are treated with scorn, and dismissed as kooks on the lunatic fringe of the rightwingnutosphere. Now, I have no use for any conspiracy theory, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are born. But if one group of conspiracy theorists are going to be treated with scorn, they all should.
Have a great day...
Mike Stark is back. In case you don't remember who Mr. Stark is, he's the guy who went on a tirade against Melanie Morgan's radio show on KSFO in San Francisco after an unknown started sending her sponsors edited clips of her radio show, designed to make it appear that Melanie and her cohost, were hateful. The idea was an attempt to shut down conservative talk radio after the Democrats took the majority on Capitol Hill in the aftermath of the Election of 2006. Dan Riehl, of Riehl World View, decided to take on Mr. Stark in a debate, of sorts, on Howard Kurtz' CNN show, Reliable Sources. If your memory's still a little fuzzy, Mike Stark is also the guy who asked then-Senator George Allen if he "spat on his wife," and was the guy holding the sign, "Hannity Sucks Ass," behind Alan Colmes, who was acknowledging Joe Lieberman's defeat in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic senatorial primary. Needless to say, the debate wasn't a good idea for Mr. Stark...
The new mission of both Democrats and liberals, like Stark, is to embarrass the GOP by offering a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood. The resolution states that Hawaii is the birthplace of the 44th president, which is a challenge to the GOP to either support the Birther movement or oppose celebrating Hawaii's statehood. Stark has appeared in front of at least three Republican legislators asking them if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The Republican lawmakers, seeing the looming "gotcha" moment, either run or filibuster. The time wasting resolution passed, but that didn't stop liberals from bitching about Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann's desire to stop it by saying a quorum wasn't present.
But OH how times have changed...
Let us set the WayBack Machine for September 2007, where we are in the aftermath of the MoveOn.org's heavily discounted ad, "General Petraeus or Betray Us." The
In another episode of in the OHTHC theme, is how more credulous one group of conspiracy theorists are than another, according to the media. A few years after 9/11, a fringe group became convinced that President Bush engineered the World Trade Center attacks, in fact a poll released in 2007 said that between 61% of Democrats wouldn't rule out the idea that Bush either knew in advance about the attacks, or that he pressed the demolition button himself. Noted metallurgist Rosie O'Donnell proudly claimed on The Spew that 9/11 marked the first time fire melted steel. They were treated in the media, as responsible citizens, who had moral authority to question their government. The Birthers, on the other hand, are treated with scorn, and dismissed as kooks on the lunatic fringe of the rightwingnutosphere. Now, I have no use for any conspiracy theory, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are born. But if one group of conspiracy theorists are going to be treated with scorn, they all should.
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)