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...

ObamAid Drinkers: Leave Obamessiah Alone!

Dr. Asten: Hell, no!

I recently got in a heated discussion with an Obama supporter, over a status on Facebook which called on people to stop criticizing President Obama, since he believes they patted President Bush on the back for eight years. When asked to clarify the Obamist's status message, it turned into the typical left versus right debate we were exposed to during the Bush Years, where the liberal would engage in attacks ad hominem and the conservative would try to engage in substantive debate. Any person who followed the news coverage of the Bush Years knows that the Obamist's statement is a misspeak, if not a lie. If anything, the media metamorphosed from being the "government watchdog," to the "government lapdog." The media tried their damndest to keep President Bush from being reelected, and made it a point to form their coverage to make him look like the "Imbecile-in-Chief." I reminded him that Republicans and conservatives were all over President Bush for runaway spending, illegal immigration, McCain-Feingold, and bungling Iraq. Hell, several self-described conservatives were arguing against the US invading Iraq.

Those facts proved his theory wrong, but he wasn't letting up. In a move that showed his intent was to empty the punch bowl, and follow the media's line hand over foot, the ObamAid drinker tried to come after me using the line we heard in the beginning of the Obama Administration, giving Obama time to "fix George Bush's mess." I reminded him that the economy grew after Bush's tax cuts in 2001, we were privileged to have 52 months of economic growth, which began to decline the year the majority in Congress switched to the Democrats. I also told him that if President Obama was serious about fixing the economy, he would have allowed both Republicans AND Democrats in on crafting the legislation which culminated in the Porkulus law. I also noted that Obama doesn't want the electorate to look at his US Senate record, where the supposed fiscal conservative Obama supported both TARP and the bailout of Bear Stearns. I explained that Obama is at least culpable for our current economic situation, and that he's not blameless. The Obamist claimed that he was one vote in a sea of 535, against a lone President Bush. I rejected that line for exactly what it was...its lameness.

Clearly, the Obamist was feeling frustrated that his theory was falling like a house a cards, he went into a tirade against McCain, asking me if I believed had McCain beat Obama, if the economy would be "hunky dory," to which I said "No," with the caveat that McCain would have better vetted his Treasury Secretary, and not allowed a tax cheat to dictate tax policy. I believe McCain would have called on a bipartisan bill to emerge from Congress that would have actually "jumpstarted the economy," instead of scaring the shit out of people declaring this money is needed now, and waiting until next fiscal year to spend a bulk of the funds. By this time, the ObamAid drinker was in sputtering rage, most of his words were indeterminable. I also told the Obamist that while he is content on allowing Obama to quadruple the deficit, and continue to blame President Bush, his talking point is in the minority.

In getting me to say that McCain's policy probably would not make everything "hunky dory," the Obamist declared "victory." I admit, his bar for victory must have been low, if all he wanted me to do was say something bad about Republicans. His larger point was refuted over and over again, yet he continued to ignore it and was sputtering at me because I would not jump on his bandwagon. He did claim that he's willing to give Obama another year before he will say the economy belongs to Obama. I say by that point, most Democrats would have distanced themselves from Obama, and this ObamAid drinker will still be drinking from the punch bowl wondering why he's all alone. It's a shame the ObamAid drinker I was "debating" was my own brother...

Gateway Pundit shows us the all familiar chart that shows how much the Obama Administration plans to increase the deficit. There's also a story on Yahoo! that says that tax cheating US Secretary of the Treasury, lil Timmy Geithner, has not ruled out tax increases for the middle class, and I suppose ObamAid drinkers will invoke the cynic card, claiming all politicians lie. It doesn't occur to them that their cynicism, in the face of Obama blowing up the deficit, will have a perilous effect on us in the future. The Porkulus jive was an excuse to pander to his political donors and rationale to enact his disastrous agenda on the nation. 2010 and 2012 can't get here fast enough.

This weekend, I also had the privilege, I guess, to read Gwen Ifill's Obama puffery, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," more on that in a later blogpost...

Have a great day...