Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Well, first of all, that was a bald-faced lie. If you believe that Brabra Boxer really doesn't care if a pro-lifer gets appointed to the Supreme Court, please e-mail me. I have some investment opportunities for you.
And when the Left says that they don't want Conservative views "imposed on the rest of us", what they mean is that they don't want the government to do anything that Karl Marx would disagree with.
The bigger point, however, is: what the hell does she think that Roe v. Wade was if not the Leftist Supreme Court of the 1970's imposing their personal view on the rest of us?
If the Supreme Court were to get rid of Roe v. Wade, it would be doing nothing more than restoring the Constitution, at least in this case, to its original intention, which would be to turn the decision of abortion over to the states.
Contrary to what the Left always neglects to mention, abortion wasn't illegal in this country before Roe v. Wade. I honestly believe that there are hoards of liberal in this country who don't know that. It was up to the states to decide whether they would make it legal or not. And all of those blue states that the Left is so proud of would keep it legal.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, all it would mean is that someone would have to drive for a few hours to get to a state that would give them an abortion. God forbid that we should inconvenience anyone who wants to vacuum a baby out of her womb! I'm kinda thinkin' that the baby may find it inconvenient, too. If it could speak it would probably say, "It's my body!" right before it was torn to pieces.
I don't care how you read the 4th amendment. There is no possible way to read it and find a right to abortion in it. There isn't even a "right to privacy" in it! Which is how the court, somehow, made legalized abortion a Federal right.
If that isn't "imposing their personal views on the rest of us", what is?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
As far as why I would believe that the Left is incapable of understanding complex ideas, let's try something: why don't you try to figure out why I think that way? It's really pretty easy, but it takes some thinking.
Because you refuse to associate with leftists and liberals, so your only knowledge of 'the Left' comes via the strawmen arguments of other conservatives? I've certainly seen no indication that you actually understand any point of view that might be held by someone who calls themself a liberal or leftist, nor have you provided any references to anyone articulating the positions you attack.
For example, I'm not big on Target, either. I prefer to shop local -- the farmer's market, the local grocery and hardware chains, goodwill, that sort of thing. Given that the economy of the region I live in is already so denuded, though, a lot of the time it's hard to find locally-owned stores that have what I'm looking for. Until I have some reason to think Target's business practices are as abhorrent as Wal-Mart's, I'll choose the former over the latter if that's what things come down to.
You know, Nuoema, even if you hadn’t told me that you’re a college educated liberal, I would have guessed in a second. The first required course in Liberal Arts is apparently “Strawman 101”. It’s impossible to have a discussion with one of you without having your arguments dismissed as strawmen. Why? It’s just a cheap way of dismissing an argument as irrelevant so that you don’t have to argue a point for which you are have no good answer.
As far as “refusing” to associate with Leftists and Liberals, how do you know whom I associate with? Hint: the comment that you’re referring to wasn’t mine. You really need to pay attention. That is part of the reason that I believe that liberals can’t grasp complex ideas: lack of attention span. I call it Liberal Attention Deficit Disorder (LADD) and I posted on it not long ago.
Quite frankly, living in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area of Minnesota, it’s impossible not to be hammered over the head with the liberal viewpoint all day every day. Every media outlet in this area is far-left. Hugh Hewitt regularly cites the Minneapolis Star Tribune as the only major newspaper in the country that is actually farther to the Left than The New York Times. Most people wouldn’t believe that is possible. I assure you that it is.
Having grown up in this atmosphere, it’s impossible not to understand the Left’s point of view. Besides, it’s not very hard to understand, because it’s so simplistic. We’ll get to that in a minute.
You say that I don’t provide references to anyone articulating the positions I attack? OK, let’s take the Left’s hatred of Wal-Mart. Now where could I go to find a reference from someone who hates Wal-Mart? Hey! I know! How about this?
Until I have some reason to think Target's business practices are as abhorrent as Wal-Mart's…
Now, unless a company is skinning puppies alive, don’t you think that the word “abhorrent” is a trifle strong when referring to a company’s business practices? I mean, if Wal-Mart’s business practices are “abhorrent”, what would we call “Uncle Joe” Stalin’s murder of 50 million people? We’d have to make up new words to get to that extreme. Oh, wait. I guess we wouldn’t. We could just call it Communism, or Socialism, or Leftism.
OK. Now let’s get to the heart of the matter: why I believe that those on the Left can’t grasp complicated ideas. Man, this is going to be a long post! I hope I didn't offend you by saying "man".
I’ve posted about most of these things over the months, but this is a good place to put them together in one spot.
It’s been said many times that the people on the Left “think with their emotions”, and it’s true. But it’s even worse than that. They have no logic whatsoever. They can’t see cause and effect. The logical progression of events stemming from their ideas is beyond them. They are simplistic.
Well, I guess I’d better give a few examples. Where to start?
The View of the Left (TVL):
A) Union workers make better wages and have better benefits than the average worker. That is good.
B) Unions protect workers from bad working conditions. That is good.
Further thinking is unecessary, because arrogantly standing up for these "little guys" makes me feel good about myself, even if it harms "the little guy" in the long run, as we shall see.
The View from the Right (TVR):
A) When companies have to pay for higher wages and benefits for their employees, that cost is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
When prices get high, not as many people buy the product. They’ll buy a less expensive product from overseas.
When the company making the product is selling fewer products, they don’t need as many workers, so Americans lose their jobs.
B) 100 years ago, when companies really were abusing their employees and making them work in unsafe conditions, unions were a good idea. Now, however, the government takes care of keeping employees safe. The mere mention of OSHA sends waves of panic through companies.
Companies are so heavy regulated in regard to employee safety, hours and working conditions that unions have nothing to do with working conditions anymore.
From there, we can jump directly to:
TVL: Higher wages for low-level, unskilled employees are good.
TVR: When an employer has to pay higher wages, they have less money to hire more people and/or give better benefits. They also have less money to put back into the company so that they can grow and hire even more employees.
Minimum wage jobs are a place for people to start out and gain skills, which they can use to command higher wages. That’s where I started when I was a kid at $3.35/hour.
The vast, vast majority of people don't stay at minimum wage for long. Most of the people with minimum wage jobs are kids just starting out. If you're at minimum wage for more than a year, you're just not trying. Period.
Regardless of what the Left will tell you, the economy is humming along. Minimum wage jobs are hard to come by only because they're not very common. Most positions pay more than minimum wage to start, because employers are competing for even relatively unskilled workers.
Which brings us to our next point:
TVL: Competition is bad because it hurts people's self-esteem if they don't have the skills to compete. That's bad.
TVR: Competition amongst people is as old as the human race. Hell, it's older than the dinosaurs. If the Left truly believes in Evolution, you'd think that they'd encourage competition. After all, what is "survival of the fittest" if not competition at it's most basic level?
The Neandertal died out because he couldn't compete with Homo Sapiens. If there were a Liberal around back then, we would have heard screams of "discrimination!" and "bigotry!".
When one's self-esteem is harmed, it makes most people work harder to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Unless you're a Lefty. Then it just makes you a victim.
There are countless other examples, but I need my beauty sleep, so let's wrap it up by going back to where we started.
TVL: Wal-Mart pays low wages, doesn't treat its employees well and kills small businesses. That's bad.
TVR: Wal-Mart pays what it can and gives what benefits it can, while still keeping its prices low.
Nobody is forced to work at Wal-Mart. If they don't like it, they can go out and find another job. That's the beauty of Capitalism. See "Competition" above.
As far as "Killing Main Street" is concerned, there hasn't been much of a "Main Street" for many years before Wal-Mart reared its "ugly head". As I've posted before, it's the romanticism of the Left. "Main Street" is what a bunch of people a bunch of people who hardly ever get out of the inner city envision as "small town America".
Simple concepts? Yes.
At least to people who think logically and can reason beyond the point where they feel good.
To Liberals who don't like themselves very much, who are insecure, who just want to feel good about themselves, thinking beyond their simplistic points is counterproductive. Hence they have trained themselves not to think beyond that point.
Why do you think that they hate Conservatives so much? It's because we're confident, we're self-assured. To coin a phrase, "We don't need no stinkin' village!"
All that they want is to feel that they are helping "the little guy". Whether their efforts are helpful or not is immaterial. It's all about how their efforts make them feel. More often than not, their policies hurt the very people whom they're trying to help. But do they rescind those policies?
Because that would mean that they were wrong. And to admit they were wrong would hurt their self-esteem, which is what their so-called causes were all about in the first place.
Anyone see the vicious circle here?
So, Nuomena, there's your answer. The simplistic views of the Left can be summed up in a soundbite. The views of the Right take some explaining.
At first glance, the views of the Left look good. If you delve deeper, which the Left never does, they are obviously flawed.
And now, this is the point where you take one, or if you feel daring, two of my points and obsess over them, instead of responding to my larger point.
Let me help you. I know that it's difficult, especially for one who thinks that they are so "terribly" educated such as yourself. Blather.
The real point is, the Left never thinks beyond the point that it makes the individual feel good about themselves.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Introducing…International Conspiracy in a Box!
Yes, now your moonbat can make up their own International Conspiracy theory just by using the parts supplied in this kit!
The kit includes:
Buy yours now for only three low payments of $19.95!
Batteries not included. Somebody will be required to assemble it for them.
Also try the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy in a Box!
And be sure to wish them a Merry Christmas! They hate that!
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Well, as it turned out, our biggest customer, Wal-Mart, is a competitor of SuperValu, and they wouldn't do business with us anymore. We had to lay off about 40 of our employees, which was half of our workforce.
Now, if I was your typical Wal-Mart hating Lefty, I'd blame it on Wal-Mart. I don't blame them. The essence of Capitalism is competition. No sense in putting money in the pocket of your competitors.
The real point is, because we lost Wal-Mart, there were 40 people who were unemployed. And these were realtively high paying positions.
When the Left thinks of Wal-Mart, it sees nothing but people in blue smocks who are working (willingly) for low wages in the stores. Anything beyond that is too complicated for them.
The Left, being unable to see the next step, doesn't see the people who are building these stores, furnishing them, putting in the electrical, plumbing, HVAC, refrigeration and everything else that it takes to make these stores run. They just hate Wal-Mart.
As I've said before, I don't think that it's a coincidence that they hate Wal-Mart, which was founded by Sam Walton, a very religious man, but they seem to have no problem with Target, which was founded by Minnesota Democrat, Senator Mark Dayton's family.
I managed to keep my job, because there aren't very many people out there who can fix, literally, anything and/or coordinate the people who can do what I can't. I'm the guy who keeps the shop running. Luckily the management in my company was smart enough to realize that. Arrogant? Maybe. But I've never met a good Maintenance guy who wasn't somewhat arrogant. If you don't believe that you can do anything, then you can't. And when you are required to know how to fix a machine that you've never seen before, you'd better believe it.
The rest of the people in the shop are also relatively skilled. The welders, the electricians, the plumbers...these are pretty well-paid jobs. And when Wal-Mart went away, so did many of the jobs.
SuperValu is in the process of selling us off, because they realize the damage that they've caused to our company, and they are truly sorry about it. Which is something else the Left would never believe. Corporations, in their minds, intentionally hurt people, or just don't care.
The sale should be done any day now, and then we can get back on track with our original plans, which include doubling the size of the shop to about 180,000 square feet (which is going to make my job incredibly interesting) and hiring about 100 more people. And that's just the start.
All thanks to Wal-Mart.
A new nasal spray aphrodisiac for women that works in minutes may soon hit the market, according to a Local 6 News report.
Doctors said women who used the drug PT-141 in test studies felt a tingling or throbbing followed by a strong desire to have sex immediately after spraying their noses.
And the Left says there is no God!
I can see it now:
"Honey. does this smell bad to you?"
BENNINGTON, Vt. -- A high school teacher is facing questions from administrators after giving a vocabulary quiz that included digs at President Bush and the extreme right.
Bret Chenkin, a social studies and English teacher at Mount Anthony Union High School, said he gave the quiz to his students several months ago. The quiz asked students to pick the proper words to complete sentences.
One example: "I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring him Republican votes." "Coherent" is the right answer.
Principal Sue Maguire said she hoped to speak to whomever complained about the quiz and any students who might be concerned. She said she also would talk with Chenkin. School Superintendent Wesley Knapp said he was taking the situation seriously.
"It's absolutely unacceptable," Knapp said. "They (teachers) don't have a license to hold forth on a particular standpoint."
Chenkin, 36, a teacher for seven years, said he isn't shy about sharing his liberal views with students as a way of prompting debate, but said the quizzes are being taken out of context.
"The kids know it's hyperbolic, so-to-speak," he said. "They know it's tongue in cheek." But he said he would change his teaching methods if some are concerned.
"I'll put in both sides," he said. "Especially if it's going to cause a lot of grief."
The school is in Bennington, a community of about 16,500 in the southwest corner of the state.
Notice that the AP writer says that the teacher was taking digs at the "extreme right". The question didn't say anything about the "extreme right", it said "Republicans". I guess to an AP writer, they're synonymous.
Also notice the old liberal fallback position of, "they took it out of context!" Sorry, pal, there's nothing to take out of context there. It was an attack on President Bush and Republicans. Period.
Well, lookie here, a link to the school's website. Whattya know? How did that get on my blog? I'd hate for anyone to use it to register their displeasure with the left-wing moonbat teacher or anything.
Hey, look! There's another one! That one appears to be an e-mail link directly to the Principal of the school!
UPDATE: a comment from my new buddy Phantom Driver:
We passs thru the People's Republic of Bennington (or Bummington as wel call it ) 4-6 times a year on the way to the Live Free or Die state of New Hampshire (home of NO sales or income taxes).
It's full of the debris known as stoners, hippies,bums, moonbats, etc. Folk songs played by stoners on street corners, etc. etc.etc. Backpacks, flowerpower skirts, it's the 60's revisited, even down to the Flower Power 60's ILLEGAL FM radio pirate station in town.
Why am I not surprised?
Friday, November 25, 2005
The whole freedom phenomenon went away, not coincidentally, at about the time that the military draft was ended. It went away for 25 years, but magically showed up again on the day that President Bush was elected.
On that day, the Left once again started whining about freedom: "Bush will take all of our freedoms away!" "Bush is trampling on our freedoms!" And my favorite, "Bush is trying to stifle my freedom of speech!", which is usually pronounced on nationwide talk radio shows where, literally, millions of people may be hearing it. At least if they're on a Conservative show. If they're on Air Unamerican, then maybe a couple-of-dozen people may hear them.
The Bush administration has had six years to shut down freedom of speech. and he hasn't succeeded. If he's to be accused of being 'incompetent', maybe it should be on this.
Let's look at the concept of freedom as viewed by the Left and the Right.
The Left is worried about freedom only in the sense that they, personally, may lose their freedoms. Like the selfish little children that they are, they got theirs and they couldn't care less if anyone else gets any.
The Left likes to demean Americans for having been lucky enough to be born into this rich country and, supposedly, not earning those riches. Well, they were lucky enough to have been born into a country where freedom is a birthright. They certainly didn't do anything to earn it. In fact, they've done less than the vast majority of people in this country have to earn their freedom. Many times they've also actively tried to take them away.
They certainly can't grasp the fact that spreading freedom throughout the world not only helps this country, but also all of the people that we help to live in freedom. That's too complicated for them and doesn't fit into their "more me now!" mindset. It's definitely not worth dying for!
Again, they got theirs, why should they fight to help other people enjoy those freedoms?
The Right, on the other hand, sees the bigger picture, as we always do.
Yes, freedom is an individual thing, but it's so much bigger than that. The whole concept of freedom for an entire nation of people is what gave this country the confidence and the drive to become the richest, most powerful and most benevolent country the world has ever known.
We on the Right also realize that spreading freedom not only helps us, but helps the people we free. Free countries do not make war on each other. Free countries trade with each other, which benefits both.
We also realize the amazing sacrifice that millions of people have made to keep this country free. While the Left smirks at anyone who uses the phrase, "Freedom isn't free", the Right knows that it's a simple truism. It's apparently still not simple enough for the Left to understand.
I have never, not once, heard one Lefty give a direct response, when confronted with the fact that the miltary that they hate so much, is what gives them the right to hate that military. I've seen hundreds of them confronted with that fact, and they always change the subject; even faster than they usually do when confronted with uncomfortable truths.
They don't have an answer because there is no answer! Most normal people would stop and think about why they can't come up with an answer, but these aren't normal people. I'm sure that they just think that they missed that part when their leaders were telling them what to say.
Freedom of the people was an amazing concept 229 years ago. We of the Right still think that it's amazing, and we're willing to fight to keep it and give the gift of freedom to others around the world.
The Left takes it for granted because they have their freedom. To hell with everyone esle.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Here are a few quotes, but you should really read the whole thing.
Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.
In other words, they prolonged the war and got more of our soldiers killed. The Left is doing the same thing today.
Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.
United we stand...
Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?
A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.
It certainly worked with the likes of Walter Cronkite and the rest of the Left, who immediately made it out as a huge North Vietnam victory. However, even the Left's allies in North Vietnam knew the truth:
Q: What about the results?
A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.
We almost had them defeated, but the Left forced us to withdraw, causing millions of unnecessary deaths when the North Vietnamese took the South. And they think that they're the compassionate ones.
We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.
If you think that the terrorists of today are paying any less attention to our politics today, you're deluding yourself. But the Left is great at doing that.
This interview cannot be read without coming to the conclusion that the Left was aiding and abetting the enemy back then, and they are doing it again today. Period.
And that is the definition of treason.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
That's like saying, "I love my wife, but she needs to lose 20 pounds, have plastic surgery, get breast implants, color her hair and get it styled differently. I don't like the color of her eyes, either. And her wardrobe needs to be completely changed. The way she talks needs fixing, and her laugh drives me nuts. While we're at it, her entire personality is wrong, and needs to be changed completely."
What the Left means when they say that they love this country is, "I love what we could turn this country into if only the stupid American people would just shut up and let us turn it into the Socialist utopia that we envision."
The only thing that they presently love about this country is that it gives them the right to attack it without being thrown into a gulag. A real gulag, as opposed to the Dick Durbin type, which is like being locked into the Hyatt Hotel. Yes, it would be nice to leave, but the room service is excellent.
Other than that, I challenge any Lefty to tell me one basic thing about this country that their side hasn't critcized. One thing. I'd even be interested to hear from my friends on the Right: can you come up with anything? I can't.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
You know the routine. They've been doing it for forty years or more. It's only in the past 5 years that they've suddenly developed a conscience about about spending huge amounts of your money. Only lately have they become "concerned" about leaving huge debts to our children.
It is, of course, all garbage. The Democrats are just as happy to waste your money as they have always been. Unfortunately, many Republicans would now seem to be on the same page.
The RINO's are just as happy as the Democrats to spend money, as they always have been. That's not surprising.
What is surprising is the seeming lack of concern among most of the more Conservative Republicans, including President Bush.
For once, the Democrats can legitimately call us hypocrites (as opposed to the other 99% of the time when they just do it reflexively). Republicans have been screaming about the Democrats' spending habits and expansion of government forever. We've now controlled the Congress for over ten years, and the White House for six. What have we cut back on? Nothing. In fact, were expanding the government almost as fast as the Democrats ever did.
The war is a large part of our budget problem, and I have no problem with that. The war is necessary for our nation's safety, which is explicitly spelled out in the US Constitution. It's other huge expenditures that I have a problem with.
Republicans have been saying for years that throwing money at the public schools won't solve the educational problems of this country. So what did we do when we gained power? President Bush let Teddy Kennedy write a new education bill when he took office! Teddy Kennedy! That's like letting Rosie O'Donnell write a diet book!
We are now throwing more money than ever at education, with the expected lack of results. What thanks did President Bush get for this? He got to listen to the steady drumbeat of, "Bush is underfunding education!" since he did it. What else did he expect?
So now the education bureaucracy has hired more "administrators" with that money to swell their union rolls, which certainly didn't help us any. They didn't go out and hire teachers, because that may have actually helped the problems with the public schools, and that's not the aim of the Democrats.
Then we have the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 22 smaller bureaucracies were herded into one massive bureaucracy, which was supposed to make it "more efficient". Does anyone actually believe that one huge government bureaucracy is any more efficient than many small ones? If you do, I'd like to speak with you about some investment opportunities.
And, of course, the Democrats wouldn't let the DHS bill pass without making sure that all of its employees would be unionized. Government union workers always vote Democrat. Do you see a pattern here?
The DHS was supposed to be created to make America safer. The Democrats wouldn't allow it to be created unless they could gain votes from the deal. But they will whine loud and long if you accuse them of putting their party before the good of the country.
(If there are any Democrats out there who still want to argue that point, let me know. Maybe I'll meet you somewhere so that I can laugh in your face.)
We also have the prescription drug plan, which is a classic example of getting nothing for something. Lots of something. Hundreds of billions of somethings!
Promising Federally subsidized prescription drugs during the campaign was absolute stupidity. It gained us nothing. How many of those "cat-food munching" seniors do you think switched their vote because President Bush promised them cheap prescription drugs? I'd bet that you could count the number on the legs of a walker.
Yes, we could do it because we're "compassionate", but it's not going to help the problem. Prescription drugs will now only get more expensive. When the government subsidizes anything, it always gets more expensive. Which means that you and I are going to pay more and more for this "entitlement".
And this is not an entitlement! It's a gift! A gift from people like you and me, who are giving these people our tax money so that they can live more comfortably. And what thanks have we gotten?
"It's too complicated!", "It's not enough!"
I'm still waiting for one AARP member to say, "Thank you for this gift". The same goes for welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and God knows how many other government programs that we give our money to. We get no thanks, just whining that its not enough, because most Americans don't understand that they don't get money from "the government", but from you and me.
And if you want to speak of "compassion", when are we who have the tax money forcibly taken from us so that we can give these ungrateful cretins these "gifts" going to get some compassion? Every time that they take my tax money, they are, quite literally, taking it away from my daughter. "Taking candy from a baby" is usually considered a bad thing, but if you filter it through the US Congress, I guess it's OK.
That the RINO's are doing this wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary. That the mainstream, and even the "extreme" conservatives are going along with this is sickening. Some are speaking out against it, but not nearly enough.
To paraphrase my friends over at the Anti-Strib, we are "Conservatives first, Republicans second" (feel free to correct me), and I agree. But, unfortunately, if you're a Conservative, the Republican Party is the only real game in town, and we need to make them understand that we don't want the government expanding anymore. We don't even want the government to stay the same size. We want it cut back. Back to where it is, as it should be, within the confines of the Constitution.
We've got a long, hard fight to get back to that point, and it may now be impossile, but the way it stands now, we're not even trying to fight.
The links are on my sidebar. Start writing to your government!
Monday, November 21, 2005
Having said that, it's The Terrible Vikings against The Horrible Packers on Monday Night Football. I feel almost obligated to watch.
See you tomorrow with what will be, I'm sure, a brilliant post.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-controlled House spurned calls for an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq in a vote hastily arranged by the GOP that Democrats vociferously denounced as politically motivated.
After two days of defending Congressman John Murtha's weepy call for the removal of troops from Iraq, and ridiculing Republicans for "attacking" a Vietnam vet, the House of Representatives voted this idiot's idea down 403 - 3. Murtha himself voted against it!
Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the measure.So much for standing up for your principles, huh Democrats?
That included Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the Democratic hawk whose call Thursday for pulling out troops set off a nasty, personal debate over the war.
So what was the problem? Why, after vociferously defending Rep. Murtha for days, did almost all of the Democrats in the House vote against pulling the troops out?
He (Murtha) said the GOP resolution was not the thoughtful approach he had suggested to bring the troops safely home in six months.Translation: Those damned Republicans didn't give us any time to spin this the way that we wanted to! If we would have had a couple of weeks to let the MSM to do its work, we may have been able to pull out of Iraq and let it devolve into civil war, which would have really hurt President Bush! And that's what we live for.
Democrats said it was a sham and quickly decided to vote against the resolution in an attempt to drain it of significance.Yeah, right.
At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel."He asked me to send Congress a message -- stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message -- that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said. Murtha is a 37-year Marine veteran and ranking Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee.Could they be any more childish? Well, yes they could.
Democrats booed and shouted her down -- causing the House to come to a standstill.
Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., charged across the chamber's center aisle screaming that Republicans were making uncalled-for personal attacks. "You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!" yelled Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.The Democrat politicians are absolutely hysterical. Their loss of power has caused them to abandon anything even approaching decorum.
The Republican alternative: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."In other words, put up or shut up.
I guess we got their answer.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
- Monty Python
(Thanks again, Princess. Have another link.)
Unfortunately, for reasons that I haven't figured out yet, the comments of the Ultimate Troll, whom some of you may remember as Judy Edmondson, are not appearing on either Blogger or Haloscan's comments. Just my luck.
You may remember this woman because she was an absolute lunatic who apparently sat at her computer and ranted incoherently all day long whie I was at work, and wondered why I wasn't responding to her.
And, thanks to Stuffle, I noticed another thing: my latest troll is a guy named Drew...Edmondson. Yep, same last name as Sweet Judy Blue Eyes, the loon. There's apparently a nest of them out there in Colorado.
And Drew isn't just your run-of-the-mill troll. He's an actual war-protestor who gets arrested at military bases.
I'm assuming that Drew is Judy's husband because she made a point of pointing out (about a thousand times) that she was the wife of a disabled vet. Drew also points out that he's a disabled vet. This is apparently their attempt at taking the moral high ground.
Hopefully I'll figure out a way to find her comments so that I can hang her head on the wall next to her husband's. She was the most amazing creature, and she should have her spot next to her hubbie.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
'Hawkish Democrat'? That's like saying, 'Homosexual heterosexual'. There ain't no such animal. But that doesn't stop the AP writer from trying to make the connection anyway.
The comments by the Pennsylvania lawmaker, who has spent three decades in the House, hold particular weight because he is close to many military commanders and has enormous credibility with his colleagues on defense issues. He voted for the war in 2002, and remains the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
"Close to many military commanders"? I have many friends and relatives who are Democrats. I'm close to them, but that doesn't mean that I agree with them.
"Enormous credibility with his colleagues"? Which colleagues? I doubt that he has "enormous" (nice choice of words) credibility with the vast majority of the House Republicans. Maybe with Nancy Pelosi and her gang, but I doubt that he gathers much sympathy from the Right.
"It's time to bring them home," said Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Korean War and Vietnam combat veteran, choking back tears during remarks to reporters. "Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty."
What is with these weepy Democrats? Wasn't it Dick "Turban" Durbin who was weeping on the Senate floor not too long ago? And I've seen Harry Reid choked up a time or two. Nancy Pelosi broke down after Bush won the last election. These people are just hysterical, the men even more so than the women!
And yes, our military has done its duty, as they always do when the politicians allow them to do so, but unless this moron thinks that the mission is to damage President Bush by allowing Iraq to degrade into civil war, the mission has not been accomplished.
The anti-war politicians didn't allow the military to do its duty in Vietnam, and millions died. Thousands of our own troops died needlessly because the Democrats wouldn't let the military do what needed to be done to win the war (i.e bomb Saigon, overfly Laos & Cambodia on bombing runs). Just as today, they were fighting a politically correct war instead of doing what needed to be done to defeat the enemy.
"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
"Have become" the primary target? Excuse me, Congressman, but they always have been a target of the terrorists (not insurgents). And if they are the "primary" target, why are so many more Iraqi civilians dying from terrorist attacks in Iraq than US troops? These "insurgents" must have really, really bad aim. Either that or they're so stupid that they can't tell a burqa clad girl from a fully-dressed US Marine. That's possible. If they fall for the "72 virgins" (i.e. little girls) thing, they can't be too smart.
And a war is not going "as advertised"? Imagine that! If this idiot had been in office in 1942 we would have just quit fighting WWII and brought the troops home because the war wasn't going as planned. Here's a clue, Congressman Einstein: there has never in the history of the world been a war that has gone as planned. For being such a respected war veteran, he doesn't seem to understand the nature of war.
"... a flawed policy wrapped in illusion"? This guy is a fool wrapped in the Emperor's clothes.
"Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."
"The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists," McClellan said. "After seeing his statement, we remain baffled — nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer."
Alright! The White House has finally went on the offensive, and this statement seems to indicate that they intend to remain there. Why it took them 2-1/2 years to do so is beyond me, but they'd better keep it up. Part of Bush's low poll rating is, I'm sure, because a lot of us are sick of him standing there taking punches from the Left. We on the Right are supposed to be the hardasses, yet we keep taking it and taking it from the Left. The Left wants to make us out to be macho assholes? We may as well act the part. After all, who are we going to offend? The MSM? The Left? Piss on them. No matter what we do, they can't get any more vicious than they are now.
What are they going to do. call us "uncivil"? "Partisan"? "Mean-spirited"? "Warmongers"? "Murderers"? "Nazis"? They really can't call us anything worse than they already have, can they? We don't need to turn into shrieking, hysterical loons like they are, but there is no reason that we shouldn't point out their lies and associate them with the nutpacks of the Left whom they're kowtowing to.
What gets me about this idiot Congressman is the huge play that he's gotten from the MSM. He's a pissant that nobody's ever heard of (except Bob). Yet, when he starts weeping about pulling the troops out of Iraq its huge news.
The MSM has become absolutely shameless. A Democrat is saying that we should pull our troops out of Iraq? Wow! That deserves massive news coverage! Nobody's ever heard of him? We'll fix that!
This story has been on Yahoo news all day long. I've also seen it on AOL, The Wahington Post, the New York Times and even Al Jazeera!
Congressman Murtha should be tried for treason rather than receiving accolades in the press.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Hillary Clinton is trying to become a "centrist" before the 2008 Presidential election. Her "move to the center" is nothing more than the usual phony appeal from a dedicated Leftist for no other reason than to gather votes. In other words, she's lying. She's using the same tactic that her husband did to gain political power: he lied.
To the Left, lying to gain political power is quite alright. Witness the current lies put forth by the left that "Bush lied!".
Not that the "Bush lied" lie has any basis in fact but, to play the Devil's advocate, which would be worse: to lie about the reason for going to war to rid the world of a torturing, murdering dictator, or to lie for no other reason than to regain power?
Even if President Bush had lied about the reason for attacking Iraq, which he didn't, getting rid of one of the worst murderous dictators in history was well justified.
The Left is lying when they say "Bush Lied!", and they're doing it for no other reason than to regain power.
So, who's lie would be worse?
But the fact is, President Bush didn't lie, anymore than did John LeKerry or anyone else who voted for the Iraq war. They were all going off of the same intelligence reports.
Another fact is, the Democrats who are now attacking President Bush are lying. And they know it. But that doesn't matter. To a Lefty, the end always justifies the means. Just ask Karl Marx.
It's no coincidence that Hillary's remarks mirror those of the former Soviet Premier. As much as the Left may deny it (e.g. they're lying) they have the same goals for our country.
That pretty much sums up the Democrat Party of today. His answer wasn't, "Until we're sure that the vote is correct", which is what any fair-mided person would say. It was an almost Freudian slip that revealed their win-at-all-costs mentality. Right or wrong never entered into the equation. They just wanted to win any way they could. My daughter used to have that same mentality before I taught her why that was wrong. These people were in their 40's, 50's and 60's and they hadn't learned that yet.
And now there is another drive on to investigate whether President Bush "manipulated" pre-war intelligence. There have already been two Congressional investigations, not to mention armies of Lefties looking into it for the past two-and-a-half years, but they want to keep investigating "until they win".
The Democrat Party has become filled with absolute, amoral, childish, shameless, lying hypocrites. They are absolute scumbags. Their addiction to power has turned them into unprincipled cretins who would assasinate their own grandmothers' characters if it would help them to regain Congress or the White House.
Rhetoric, you say? Remember: Al Gore was using his sister's death from lung cancer to try to blackmail money from "big tobacco". Meanwhile, he was talking to tobacco farmers about how he, personally, used to harvest tobacco when he was trying to raise campaign money from them.
These people have no principles. None. To put it another way, they have no "moral values". Like any addict who can't see past their addiction, these people will never be able to figure out what the voters meant after the last election when they said that the Democrats were weak on "moral values".
The Democrats, lacking any traces of logic as usual, deemed this to mean "religious values" and immediately went about trying to show how "religious" they were. Of course, nobody bought it for a second because, at the same time, they were doing everything in their power to cut religion down.
The phoniness and hypocrisy of this is exactly what the "moral values" voters were talking about. But, being completely unable to link actions to effects, the Democrats couldn't see it.
"Bush lied!", they say. That is a lie.
In the past week, starting with Norman Podhoretz' column throwing the Democrat's lies back in their face, and President Bush throwing John LeKerry's lies back in his face, the Republicans and the Right have finally gone on the offensive.
President Bush did it again today, quoting Democrats on their stances before the war, but not naming them by name. Anyone with half a brain could find out who these people were, however.
Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion."
— Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., then the Democratic whip.
We've all been individually pointing these hypocrisies out for years now. We're finally on the same page and, between blogs, talk radio, FOX news and the rest of the New Media, the message is getting out.
"Bush lied!" is a lie.
And what do the Democrats say to all of this? Their response is, "we didn't have the same intelligence that the President did!" That is a lie.
All of the responses to Mr. Podhoretz' article have been, basically, the same: "Yeah, but there were plenty of other people who didn't believe that Sadaam had WMD's!" Unlike Mr. Podohretz, they never seem to come up with any actual quotes to bolster their argument. In other words, they're lying.
Mr. Valerie Plame (aka, Joe Wilson) has lied on numerous occasions, and should be investigated immediately.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Teddy Kennedy, John LeKerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Terry McCauliffe. Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangell...the list is endless. They have all lied.
Most of these people have been entrusted by the voters with our National Security, and they're playing games with it for nothing more than short-term political gains. Even the ones who aren't in elected office are responsible, to some extent, for shaping the way people think, and they are extremely irresponsible to be lying for no other reason than to regain power.
The war against the Islamofascists who are trying to kill us, to them, is secondary to holding the reigns of government. After all, the government is theirs! They love it and the power that it brings them. Republicans just want to cripple their "precious" by cutting it back.
The Democrats are despicable liars. The chutzpah that it takes to base your entire political platform on accusing President Bush of lying, which is itself a lie, is unspeakable.
I have a vocabulary that is larger than most, and even I can't put into words how disgustingly low these people are. The Democrats of today are the worst possible people that we could have in the government at this point in our country's history. Power is at the top of their list. The good of the country is lucky to come in fourth or fifth.
Their putting their own well-being ahead of the good of the country is not only disgusting, it has crossed the border into treason.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Captain: Sergeant major, what's this man's name?
RSM: This one sir? This one is MacDonald, sir.
Captain: No, no, no, no. (the captain stops MacDonald who is straining quite hard to get away) Hang on to MacDonald, sergeant major, hang on to him.
RSM: I don't know whether I can, sir... (MacDonald's eyes are staring in a strange way) he's in a state of Itsubishi Kyoko McSayonara.
Captain: What's that?
They am both struggling to restrain MacDonald.
RSM: It's the fifth state that a Scotsman can achieve, sir. He's got to finish himself off by lunchtime or he thinks he's let down the Emperor, sir.
So how long before the real suicide bombers appear in France? The media seems to be keeping track by how many cars are torched, but they seem to be ignoring the fact that power stations, subway stations, and schools, among other things, are now being attacked.
The French spin is that the situation is improving, but they don't acknowledge that the attacks have switched to more important targets than automobiles.
But perhaps they're right. Maybe there aren't as many incidents since they've instituted curfews and deployed a massive police response. But how long can they keep that up? The country is economically strapped, and can't sustain massive deployments of police forces for months or, quite possibly, years.
And President of Frogs, Jaques ChIraq has been missing in action. Some speculate that it's because of a stroke that he suffered a few months ago, but I think that it's much more likely that he just has no idea how to deal with the situation. Like any Leftist, he has no ideas, and certainly can't think on his feet.
Putting the terrorists down forcefully is not an option to a government built on political correctness. At least not until it actually threatens their hold on power, and then it could turn into a bloodbath. There is nobody on this earth more willing to slaughter people than a Leftist in danger of losing power. The only people that come close are Muslim extremists.
So, in lieu of a post of my own, I point you to my friend, Justthinkin at Crittermusings. His post about why he's leaving Canada shows that he understands the uniqueness of America's system of government better than most of the people who live here. Especially the liberals, who would absolutely love Canada's system, but don't have the guts to actually move there, even though they threaten to do it every four years, just like a six-year-old threatens to run away from home when they don't get their way.
We don't need a wall on our northern border, we need to put up a massive playpen across it.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Currently there is no known cure for LADD.
From a pharmaceutical standpoint, there are indications that anti-depressants may be of some help but, overall, drugs seem to have no effect on the disease. In fact, there are indications that "self-medication" with illicit drugs may actually cause parts of the disease to manifest (i.e. paranoia, inability to think clearly) in some people.
Mental therapy also seems to have no effect on the disease. Therapy sessions always seem to degrade into "whining sessions" and may actually worsen symptoms by giving them a captive (though expensive) audience who will pay attention to them. It probably also doesn't help that a large majority of their "counselors" suffer from the same disease and have no incentive to cure anyone.
There are reports of people being spontaneously cured, but they are very rare. The cause would seem to be some kind of chemical change in the brain that suddenly causes their eyes to open and sudden feelings of disgust with themselves and their associates. Again, these cases are very rare, and the condition appears to be chronic.
Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore
Friday, November 11, 2005
NEW YORK - U.S. troops could begin leaving Iraq in significant numbers sometime next year, so long as Iraqi forces are properly armed and trained by then, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi told a U.S. audience on Friday.
Can you imagine if this were to actually happen? What would the Democrats run their campaigns on? They would be absolutely speechless. "Bush lied!" is their entire political platform! I'm sure that they'd continue using it, but it would lose a lot of it's punch with the uninformed if we were actually leaving Iraq.
The Democrats are all so pathetic. They've got nothing! Why? Because, unlike in years past, all of them have become far Left-wingers. And the people of the far Left cannot think logically. Hard to come up with ideas when you can't think.
I always knew that Lefties "thought with their feelings", but I assumed that there was at least some logic there. After all, you couldn't get through life without having at least a little bit of logic, could you? Apparently, you can.
There is absolutely no logic among these people. They are incapable of seeing cause and effect. They can't see beyond their next step.
If you give people money...they're not going to work
If you tell the terrorists when we're going to pull out of Iraq...they're going to sit back and wait for us to leave.
If you raise taxes...people will have less money to spread around and put into the economy.
Things that are ridiculously obvious to you and I, are utterly beyond their comprehension. That's why we have such a hard time understanding them: their thought process is utterly beyond our comprehension. Most of us quit thinking like they do when we were about 10-years-old, if not earlier.
You'd think that they'd do everything in their power to keep the war in Iraq going. Without it, they have nothing.
But that's too complicated for them to understand.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Here are just a few quotes from Democrats who now claim that "Bush lied!":
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
-Bill Clinton 1998
Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
- Madeline Albright, 1998
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy (Bundles in his Undies) Berger, 1998
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Ted Kennedy, 2002
And those are just a few. There are, literally, dozens of quotes like this from people who now don't even hesitate to say that "Bush lied!", because they know that the MSM will never call them on it.
Anyone who utters the phrase, "Bush lied!" should be forced to read this and answer for their own lies. This article is absolutely irrefutable.
Why are you still reading this? Get over there now!
UPDATE: Might I suggest that you copy and paste these quotes and send them to their respective quoters (i.e. Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, et al)? The links to the Senate and the House are on my sidebar to your right.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
For all of their phony panic about George Bush being a politician with religious beliefs, they can’t conceive of an ideology (i.e. Islamic Fascism) that cannot distinguish between religion and politics.
I mean it. Their minds can’t comprehend the concept. For them, it’s like trying to think about what a fourth dimension would look like. We humans, who have lived our entire lives in three dimensions, wouldn't even know where to start thinking about what a fourth dimension would be like.
(Yes, I know that some have posited that time is the fourth dimension, or that, according to string theory, gravity may be a force that flows through many dimensions, which would explain why it is so weak in our dimension compared to the other forces. This is politics, not quantum mechanics!)
Other than "support the underdog at all costs", that is the only explanation that makes any sense. And, given the arrogance of the Left, it wouldn't surprise me that they would think that the Muslim extremists would worship them and give them their undying support for their help. It's pretty much the same thing that they've believed in every Leftist revolution that's ever occured: "The people will thank us for freeing them from the bondage of Capitalism!"
And, when it turns out that "the people" can't stand them, they start executing, torturing and imprisoning them.
Which would fit right in with the Muslims.
Monday, November 07, 2005
OK, that was a joke. Kind of. But here's something that doesn't seem farfetched at all.
Is it possible that Al Qaeda and the rest of the usual Islamofascist suspects are trying to start an all out war in Europe so that the United States will have to save their asses again? Thereby moving the war from the mideast, where our continued involvement could reshape the entire system there? After all, if the war is in Europe instead of the mideast, we can't be starting new Democracies in the mideast, can we?
Farfetched? Not at all. It's no different than our preferring to fight the terrorists in Iraq, rather than on the streets of Minneapolis.
I'm sure that the terrorists would rather fight on the streets of Minneapolis, but they know that it's a fight that they'd lose. Even if our military didn't crush them, the 3 million or so armed Minnesotans certainly would. I myself have 5 guns and a bow, and that's not considered alot in this state. The citizens of this state alone could arm 20 million people, easily. Multiply that by 50 states and we have 100 million "citizen soldiers".
So they pick the easy target: the unarmed Europeans and their weak military. They know that, eventually, we'd have to respond, just as we did in WWI & WWII.
If I remember correctly, it was only this past spring or summer that Al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, told his followers to spread the war from Iraq. I have little doubt that this is part of that plan.
And now the greatest appeasers of all time, the French, are fighting Muslim terrorists in their streets, while we who (no thanks to the Left) went on the offensive have yet to be attacked again. I hate to say, "We told ya so", but...
In fact, the whole situation in France is a perfect microcosm of Leftist policies.
France has your usual European unarmed citizenry, so they are unable to defend themselves against these Muslim terrorists, and yet Chirac won't do more than send small squads of local police to deal with the situation for fear of offending...Muslims! God forbid you offend the people who are attacking you. Instead he wants to have a "dialogue" with them. You can almost hear the sneers of derision from the Muslims, just as the Vikings of 1200 years ago (see yesterday's post) must have sneered at their cowardice.
And what is the "root cause" (to use a phrase from the Left) of these problems? It comes down to nothing more than that idotic idea from the Left, "respecting diversity". By "respecting" these people's "right" to maintain their own culture, they have created ghettoes where the law of Islam trumps the laws of France.
These people are insisting that the "occupying" police forces of France stay out of "their" territory! Can you believe that? And the police have largely complied! The French, as usual, have given up and let these people do whatever they want. The Muslims have taken over large parts of the country and kicked the French out.
Unforunately, we're not far from doing the same thing in this country. Will this be a lesson for us? I doubt it. No politician has the spine to do what is necessary to force these people to assimilate, or leave.
So what happens next? Need you ask? France, as always, will capitulate to their demands which, in turn, will only cause them to demand more or the violence will escalate (which it will whether they give in or not; Israel vs. the Palestinians, anyone?), and quite possibly spread to the neighboring European appeasers.
We could very well be witnessing the beginning of another European war. And it will be caused by the same thing as the last two: appeasement of a fascist ideology.
And, once again, who do you think they're going to call to bail them out?
Sunday, November 06, 2005
I don't know which is more embarrasing: that Walter Mondale only won his home state, or that Al Gore didn't win his.
Give thanks for Ronald Reagan. He's the one that made it OK to love America again. It's no wonder that the Left hates him so much.
It looks like, once again, the French are going to surrender to invaders on their own soil. No fighting back, let alone the massive show of force that would stop the rioters in their tracks.
But it’s not surprising that they just surrender to these Muslim dirtbags; they’ve been doing it for longer than most people know:
In 841, just one year after the breakup of the Empire, the Vikings sacked Rouen and destroyed the Abbey of Jumieges. In 845, the Danish king Ragnar sailed up the river with 120 ships, passing through Rouen and heading for Paris. (French ruler)Charles the Bald decided to challenge the enemy...
On Easter Sunday, Ragnar attacked the French capital and laid it to ruins. Charles the Bald, unable to resist, paid Ragnar 7,000 pounds of silver for him to leave with his loot. Thus was born the tradition of the Danegeld, the ransom the Vikings exacted from their enemies in exchange for a period of peace.
And thus they gave the Viking marauders every incentive to keep plundering Europe, eventually making their way all the way to Russia.
The arrogance of the French is almost incomprehensible when you consider how long they’ve been losers.
Almost, but not quite, incomprehensible, because as I’ve said before, the arrogance of the Left is a mask for their insecurity, whether that be the Left in America or the Left in France. It’s no wonder that the Left in this country builds France up to be some sort of Utopia: they are the same misfits and losers.
The Left in America constantly tell us that if we had cradle-to-grave Socialism like they do in France, all of the problems of poverty, crime, racism, unemployment and anything else caused by “social injustice” would disappear forever.
Well, let’s look at France and her current problems, shall we? They have ghettoes where crime, racism, poverty and unemployment run rampant which, combined with the other perennial loser ideology of this earth, hardcore Islam, has exploded into these riots.
Aren’t we told by the Left that universal healthcare, a huge welfare state, massive government regulation, “worker’s rights” and all of the other mommy-state programs would solve these problems?
France has all of these programs, but they seem to have the same problems that we do. Odd, isn’t it?
Why is it that the Left is completely blind to the fact that their ideas never work? The Soviet Union, Cuba, France, China, wherever their policies are implemented, they fail. Always. No exceptions. Not one. Ever.
But in their arrogance, they blindly cling to the belief that “true” Marxism has never been tried, and if only they were the ones implementing it, it wouldn’t fail.
The perfect irony of that belief is that it’s those very people who have screwed it up every time! The power-addicted, Leftist control-freaks are the ones who bring down Socialist countries every time because of one simple fact: they never factor their own human nature into the equation.
Sure, Marxism sounds great if you know nothing about human nature. Who wouldn’t like everyone to be equal? But the fact of human nature is that some people crave power and control over people more than other people do. Again, ironically, it’s those on the Left who fit the description of wanting power and control more than anything.
France is no different, and they are well on their way to becoming just another third-world nation ruined by the Left.
Friday, November 04, 2005
What an incredibly stupid "argument".
For all of you idiotic Lefties out there, let me explain something to you: by the time that you're able to join the military, you are an adult. Your parents can't 'send' you anywhere.
George Bush is the most powerful man on earth (and all of that power that isn't yours is what really pisses you Lefties off, isn't it?), but even he can't send his daughters anywhere. They're adults. They can do whatever they want to.
And I don't remember Bill & Hillary "sending" Chelsea off to fight in Bosnia. Nor do I remember any of you on the Left whining because they didn't.
You know, if something that obvious has to be explained to the Left, I'm not even sure why we bother "debating" these dolts.
Beneath a Mambo Sun
I've got to be the one
Beneath a peat bog moon
I wanna croon
UPDATE: I think I'll leave this up and play "Name That Tune". Anyone? Bob?
Whattya think of the blockquoting? Too much? Ugly? Too cool, earthman?
Thursday, November 03, 2005
After 5 years of Democrats railing against it, BAM! It's pretty much a done deal. I pay attention to politics, and even I didn't know that this was even on the radar.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Democrats tell us that the entire country was against this? I have yet to hear one yelp of outrage from anyone other than your usual Lefty suspects.
The biggest arguement that I've heard from the Left, so far, is that it's not "economically feasible" to drill for oil in ANWR.
Does anyone want to listen to what the Left says about what's "economically feasible"? Think about it: the economic policies of the Left brought down a huge empire that is now known as "the former Soviet Union".
And what was that about Republicans and the Bush administration being on the retreat? Libby (NOT Rove), Scalia and now ANWR. Not bad for a week's work.
Now we just need to get President Bush off his ass and start proposing some new things. Immigration reform, tax reform, school vouchers.
Let's do it.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
It details the Republican party's fight against racism from the earliest days of the party until today.
The Left whines continuously about the Right "hijacking" this and "hijacking" that, but they have hijacked 150 years of our legacy.
I knew a lot of this stuff, but there's a whole hell of a lot that I never knew in that post.
Any Lefty who spouts the word "racist" should be forced to read this and respond to every bit of it.
Luckily, somebody's trying to stop it.
The House was set to vote on the bill that would exclude blogs, e-mail and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission.
The bill, if passed by the House and Senate, would stop the FEC from moving ahead with court-mandated rulemaking to govern political speech and campaign-related spending on the Internet.
Anyone care to guess which side is supporting our free-speech rights and which side is opposing them? Silly question.
"The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling ), R-Texas, sponsor of the legislation. "The Internet is the new town square, and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there."
Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan , D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays , R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign finance law that banned unlimited "soft money" contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.
For all of the whining from the Left about the Bush administration "shutting down freedom of speech" in front of 300 million people, they sure don't seem to like it very well when it's not to their advantage.
The ironic thing is that during the last election, it was to their advantage. Mooreon.org and the rest raised ungodly amounts of money for John LeKerry. So what are they afraid of?
Simple. They're afraid that we on the Right, being adults, are even better at organizing than the Children of the Left are, and we're not about to let them beat us in online fundraising again. So now they want to shut it down before their own tactics can be used against them. Freedom of speech be damned.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
I actually saw one "horrified" female talking head say that the law stated that the woman had to get permission from her husband! Oh, the horror! If it were true, which it's not.
You know, something that I never hear debated in the whole "abortion rights" issue is, why doesn't the man have any say in the matter? After all, that child is as much his as it is hers, isn't it?
I realize that it's an incredibly thorny issue with no good solution, but should that 'little' fact be ignored? It is never brought up in any discussion.
The second that the sperm cell penetrates that egg, all of his rights are gone. Period. End of discussion.
If he wants the baby and she doesn't, tough bounce, pal. We're sucking it out whether you like it or not.
If she wants the baby and he doesn't, tough bounce, pal. You're going to pay for it for the next eighteen years (maybe longer), no matter what. Maybe we'll even let you see the kid sometime.
The Feminists have managed to portray a majority of people in this country (e.g. females) as a minority deserving of "victimhood" status and protection from the Left. Yeah, right.
I don't know what its like where you live, but here in Minnesota, once a man impregnates a woman he's the one who gets screwed. And if he gets married, doubly so.
If she decides that she wants a divorce, for any reason, 90% of the time the guy ends up moving out of his house and giving up his kids. 90%!!! Can you possibly imagine the outcry if those figures were reversed and she was the one who lost the house and kids 90% of the time? But that will never happen, because men will never be able to overcome the stereotype as abusive brutes who give the woman no choice but to kick him out.
The sad part is that, from looking at hundreds of divorces among friends and aquaintances, it usually seems to be the woman who files for divorce. She either gets bored because she's not living a "soap-opera" life full of drama and romance, or because she starts to see the big four-oh (40) looming on the horizon and files for divorce so that she can remain 18 forever.
Contrary to the Feminist talking points, abuse is seldom the reason that a woman files for divorce.
The only chance that men have, and ironically I was "lucky" in this regard, is "extreme" circumstances of addiction and/or abuse. That's it. Period. A woman can say, "I want a divorce" with no explanation and she will almost always get the house and the kids.
If you're a guy, you'd better have documentation and witnesses aplenty before you even think about applying for a divorce.
In my case, I had to put my daughter through two years of absolute chaos before I even dared to file for divorce.
In that time, I had documented 5 trips to detox, countless lost jobs, 2 or 3 failed rehabs and multiple police visits to our house (including the time she broke her hand on my head and then asked me for a ride to the hospital. Now that was funny!).
I had witnesses to witness my witnesses, including her own mother.
I asked my lawyer what the odds were that I'd get custody of my daughter. His answer? Oh, about 80%. 80 pardon-my-language-fucking-percent!
If she had wanted a divorce, all she would have had to do is go find a lawyer and file the case. That's it. No documentation, no witnesses, nothing. And she would have gotten the house and the kid.
Remember that next time you hear some Feminazi whining about the "Patriarchy".
Equal protection under the law, my ass.
How many times have we seen this pattern?
1) Get caught in questionable and/or unethical (if not downright illegal) activities.
2) Attack those who had the temerity to call you on those activities.
3) Use your cronies in the MSM to spin everything away from you and toward your opponents by endless repetition of half-truths and outright lies.
That is exactly what happened here: Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and their backers got caught lying and playing embarassing political games, so they attacked those who dared to question them.
No matter how complicated anyone wants to make it, that is the story. It's simple, and we've seen it time and time again.
Ms. Plame, who called the British report of Sadaam Hussein trying to buy yellow cake from Niger "crazy", sent her husband, Joe Wilson, to Niger to confirm her preordained conclusion.
Joe Wilson then lied and said that the Vice President sent him. Whether he meant Dick Cheney himself or the Office of the Vice President is immaterial. Valerie Plame had no business sending her husband. If a Republican had pulled a stunt like that, the cries of "conflict of interest!" from the Left would make your ears bleed.
And do you believe that this "CIA operative" could find no one more qualified?
Hell, she could have just asked someone at one of her Georgetown cocktail parties. Everyone knew that she was a CIA agent anyway, so she wouldn't have had to worry about blowing her cover.
Michael Medved had an anti-war guest on his radio show today Here's a small excerpt:
Caller: "Nobody held a gun to these people's heads and made them join the military."
Anti-war lib: "I never said that anyone held a gun to their heads."
What an amazingly stupid, childish way to "debate". They take the most common of metaphors and act like they've never heard it before to try to make it look like their opponent is just trying to put words in their mouth.
Whenever I hear one of them use this tactic, and they do it often, I always wonder: do they know what a ridiculous tactic this is?
I've come to the conclusion that they don't know. They think that it's a clever move on their part. Mostly because the response of most logical people is to blink and pause when they hear something that idiotic. Of course, to them, the lack of a response to something so utterly stupid is translated in their minds as, "Gotcha!"
The only true response one can give is: "My God, you're an idiot." I think that it should be used much more...liberally.
TUBBATAHA REEFS, Philippines (AFP) - Greenpeace is to be fined after its flagship Rainbow Warrior II damaged a coral reef in the central Philippines during a climate change awareness campaign, marine park rangers said.
The ship and its crew were assessed a 640,000-peso (11,600-dollar) fine after the 55-meter (180-foot) motor-assisted schooner ran aground at the Tubbataha Reef Marine Park on Monday, park manager Angelique Songco told AFP.
The ship's bow sliced through a reef formation measuring 160 square meters (1,722 square feet), she added.
Now that's funny!