Friday, August 31, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
To make a long story short, if she is elected President, the first Clinton Presidency is probably going to look tame compared to hers. Hillary's arrogance, paranoia, greed and hatred will drive her to do things that will result in an unending series of scandals that the Right will be only too happy to go after her for.
I should have known that it wouldn't take that long for a Clinton to be caught breaking the law:
DALY CITY, Calif. -- One of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.
Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.
A word of warning to the Democrat Party: If you elect a woman who believes that her "vision" for America trumps the law (i.e. the end justifies the means), she will be impeached, and she will be convicted. She truly believes that she is above the law. Anyone who is that arrogant will inevitably leave evidence of their wrongdoing, because they will be incapable of seeing it as wrong. The Constitution is meaningless to someone like her, because she knows what is best.
It's pathological narcissism.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
That was stupid.
To those of a religious persuasion, it was an insult that he should have a sudden "death row conversion" when his career was on the line. It was about as believable as the huge 50 pound mega-Bible that Bill Clinton used to carry around so that the cameras didn't think that he was carrying a copy of Hustler out of church.
And for the atheistic Left, the mere mention of the "G-word" was enough to doom him in the Liberal MSM. He'll never get another word of sympathy from them. I'm sure that they didn't believe him either, but he brought religion up on national TV, where some hick might actually believe him and look into that whole "God thing" for themselves. After all, if these people are stupid enough to watch football instead of bad off-Broadway plays, they can be easily duped into anything!
No, Michael, the correct play would have been to make a huge donation to PETA as penance for harming an animal, and then buy a Prius and profess your devotion to "the savior" Al Gore.
They still wouldn't believe you, but that doesn't matter. They don't really believe in any of it themselves. The important thing would be the money and the publicity for the "cause" of Global Warming, which is how they get otherwise semi-rational adults to pay attention to them.
If Vick had done that, he would have been an instant hero. All of his cruelties to those poor dogs would have been thrown down the memory hole never to be seen in the MSM again. The next time you saw a newspaper story about this episode would be a small paragraph on page 28 of the classified section.
And, if his football career went down the tubes, I'm sure that Pope Al would appoint him as Archbishop of Georgia. After all, Al Gore made $100 million with his new church. An NFL quarterback's salary looks like chump-change next to that.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Number of convictions related to the “most corrupt ever” Bush Administration: 1 (Scooter Libby).
Number of convictions related to “the most ethical administration ever” Clinton Administration: 47
And that number doesn't even begin to tell the tale. Here are some amazing and, apparently, memory-holed facts from that Progressive (i.e. Liberal) website:
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign (odd, how Pope Al's record of scumbaggery has been completely forgotten - even by most Conservatives - The Exile).
- Total cost of the Starr investigation (3/00) $52 million
- Total cost of the Iran-Contra investigation: $48.5 million
(I seem to remember about a million Liberals complaining about the cost of the Starr investigations - even to this day. - The Exile)
That website (The Progressive Review) is an absolute goldmine of information about the Clinton scandals. It is really interesting because it was put together by a bunch of Left-wing Liberals. If that's any indication of how the Left really feels about the Clintons, Hillary is toast.
Here's a nice little list that they put together:
OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.
And, the next time they whine about Alberto Gonzales (or anyone else) not remembering something during an investigation, there's a really great list of Clinton and Co.'s sudden memory lapses there, too.
It just amazes (but doesn't surprise) me how those on the Left can so brazenly assert that the Bush administration is so corrupt, while completely ignoring the fact that the current front runner for their party's Presidential nomination was neck-deep in an administration that had a record that looked like something from a Mafia criminal indictment.
I've got some serious problems with the Bush administration, but corruption isn't one of them. The Left can howl at the moon all they want, but if you present the facts to them, this administration probably is the "most ethical" in a long time, if not ever. Ronald Reagan's administration had an even worse track-record than Bush does.
But none of that matters. It's propaganda. The Left knows that if they repeat it often enough, the fools who will follow them will believe it. It doesn't have to be true. It just has to fit their neuroses.
For 150 years the Democrats did everything that they could to keep blacks in this country down. They were pro-slavery, pro-Jim Crow, pro-segregation…and then, suddenly, they turned on a dime and decided that blacks were “victims” that needed their help. And it was incredibly sudden as far as political trends go. Within about 5 years in the mid-sixties , the Left suddenly became the black man’s best friend and savior. Why?
In the 1960’s the Left decided that they could use the blacks in this country to help in their “revolution”. The way that they recruited blacks was to tell them that they were victims of racism and were being cheated by “whitey”.
Oddly, most of this planting of resentments actually came after the Civil Rights Act was passed. immediately after. Why, at the moment when the future of blacks in America looked so bright, would the Left discourage and alienate them? You see, the Left couldn’t risk giving the CRA time to work because it may actually pacify the blacks that they so desperately wanted as troops for the “revolution”. If the Left would have left blacks alone to become mainstream Americans, they would have lost millions of potential soldiers.
Does that sound cynical or, perhaps, conspiratorial? Perhaps. But consider the fact that radical Tom Hayden was calling the Black Panthers “America’s Vietcong”. Or that the Students for a Democratic Society called them the “vanguard of the revolution”. In other words, the blacks were going to be the ones in the streets being shot at when the “Revolution” finally started. The leaders of the Left, like the so-called “armchair generals” and “chickenhawks” whom they constantly mock, would manage the whole thing from a safe distance.
It’s also important to remember that the whole Leftist agenda was being stage-managed by the Soviet Union, where the treatment of blacks would make the so-called “repression” in America look like a day in Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood. The Soviet Union, in the form of their willing pawns who were the leaders of the Left and their uninformed, misfit followers, were willing to do anything to destroy America; and if that included using blacks as cannon-fodder, so much the better.
In they eyes of the Soviet/Leftist leaders, blacks were savage, uneducated and, most importantly, expendable. Any who survived the battles to bring about the “revolution” could be dealt with later. The Left has never had any use for blacks for anything other than political pawns.
It sounds almost silly talking about an armed revolution in America now, but forty years ago these people were dead serious. They glorified the slaughter that was the Russian Revolution which ushered in the Communists of the Soviet Union. They weren’t against the Vietnam war because so many people were being killed. They were against it because we were beating the Hell out of their Communist Comrades. Killing people wasn’t against their credo. 100 million dead victims of Communist regimes could tell you that…if they could still speak.
What most people don’t realize – and it’s not surprising when you consider that it’s never mentioned by the MSM – is that the Black Panthers, Rosa Parks, even Martin Luther King Jr. were all advocates of Communism. The Left conned them into believing that, under their glorious Socialist Utopia, all people would be equal.
They just forgot to mention that some people would be more equal than others.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Senator Harry Reid (D - Panderland) commented on General Petraeus' upcoming presentation to the Senate today, saying, "While I support the troops, General Petraeus is a baby-killing liar who is nothing more than a minor demon in the Satanic Bush regime. I hope that we can have a civil conversation in the interest of civility and bipartisanship."
Later in the day, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi weighed in on the upcoming briefing by the General:
"David Petraeus is a man and, as such, can't be trusted to speak the truth about his vicious, illegal warmongering on behalf of the Nazis in the Bush Administration.
Granted, I'm more of a man than any of the "men" in my party. Come to think of it, so is our current frontrunner in the Presidential campaign. But you can trust what we say because we have different genitalia than the General does."
Hillary Clinton also gave her take on the situation, saying:
"I've always said that we can, and should, do whatever it takes to win in Iraq. I've never doubted for a moment that the Iraq war was a good thing. And I was the first to vote for the surge. There are records of that vote, although my incompetent staff seems to have misplaced them at the moment.
Umm...has anyone seen Bill? Goddamn him! Somebody check the coat closet!"
In a stump speech in New Hampshire John Edwards was quoted as saying:
"Do I look alright? How's my hair?"
Barack Obama had this to say about the present situation in Iraq:
"We should invade Britain, show them pictures of our nuclear bombs, promise that we'll never use them on anyone and then sit down with Bin Laden and Zawahiri and tell them that we're sorry for whatever it is that we did to piss them off.
If that doesn't work, I'll have my beautiful wife, Michelle, give them a verbal lashing."
We attempted to contact Al Gore for a comment, but an aide said that he was taking confession from carbon-sinners at that time and couldn't be interrupted.
Dennis Kucinich was overheard during an appearance at a Star Trek convention saying, "Gandalf? When might I return to the Shire?"
The Demobratz are ready. I don't think that the format has been finalized yet, but I pray to God that the Bush administration has the intelligence to insist that Petraeus' testimony is televised. Nothing could be better than watching the man answer these grandstanding fools who will be questioning him.
Coincidentally, I know where they can get 12 million Mexicans who will work cheap.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Well, Patsy, pamphlets at abortion clinics and protest signs don't count as books.
I'm not sure that I'd believe any poll put out by the Associated (Liberal) Press, but I think that there's a more fundamental flaw: Liberals have an overwhelming need to feel superior to everyone else. And Liberals lie constantly about everything. Put those two together, and how honest do you think they're going to be when speaking to a pollster?
"It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."
No, that would be an easy book to write. To give Liberal writers their due, it is difficult to write a book that says "Conservatives are Nazis" in new and creative ways. Especially when its been said a million times already by a thousand other Liberal authors.
That quote also shows that Patsy hasn't actually read any Conservative books. She's no different than the people who declare Rush Limbaugh evil and "hate-filled"... but have never actually listened to his show. Like all liberals, she just believes what she's told (or has read...hmmm). The Conservative books that I've read focus on taxes for maybe 10% of their content. Most of the books are more focused on how the Left is doing everything in their power to destroy America with their push for Socialism.
OK, I admit that this is an ad hominem attack, but Patsy Schroeder is the girl who cried when she had to drop out of the Presidential race. And the reason that she had to drop out is because she is about as sharp as a marble. I don't know what she's been reading, but it hasn't increased her intelligence by any notable amount.
"Who are ya gonna believe...me or your lyin' eyes?" The Liberals that I know are certainly not big readers. They definitely don't read any more than Conservatives that I know. Quite a bit less, if anything. Personally, I have four different books going at the moment. That may be unusual, but I don't know one Conservative who doesn't have a book or two going at any given time.
And, unlike Patsy Schroeder, I actually listen to people on the other side. I regularly tune in to Air Unamerican radio. Some people think that it's masochistic of me to do so, but I've always found mental disorders fascinating - and it's like a mental institution broadcast to the world on that channel.
Most of the Liberals who call in to the Air Unamerican shows give the impression that they have to move their lips and follow along with their finger when they're reading Curious George. That is, if they're not too stoned to remember where they put the book. These are the people who think that Cindy Sheehan is, like, totally brilliant, you know?
A large part of the mental disorder of Liberalism is their obsessive need to feel more intelligent than other people. It's because somewhere deep inside they suspect that they're really not as smart as their counterparts on the Right. It's the insecurity that you can see in any child and, as we all know, Liberals from Marx to Clinton are nothing more than emotionally stunted children in adult bodies.
And so, a biased poll comes out, Patsy Schroeder reads what she wants to into it, and waves it about like a bloody flag because, in her eyes and the eyes of her political/mental equals, it "proves" that they're smarter than their hated adversaries.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Granted, she may be marginally more articulate than Cindy Sheehan but they both sound like old Valley Girls.
A couple of weeks back, Amanda Carpenter had a column over at Townhall.com that transcribed the speech that Hillary gave to one of the "breakout sessions" at YearlyKos. By my count, she used the phrase, "you know" 43 times in what may have been a half-hour speech.
Here's a sampling:
So, therefore, you know, having people who share our overall goals even if we disagree on tactics or strategy, but understanding where we are trying to take our country is really helpful because then it’s not just one voice or a couple of voices, it’s millions of voices -- and you know I doubt you know that we can’t go back and rewrite history certainly, you know (ouch! -ed.), -- but I think about what if we had the blogosphere in ‘93, ‘94 when I was working on healthcare and you know being hammered and they were raising $300 million dollars and distorting everything we were trying to do and we made our own mistakes but a lot of it was you know, trying to do something that was worth doing which we will get done when I am President finally.
Did I mention the flawless grammar?
Yeah. She's, like, totally brilliant. And so, you know, well-spoken.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
A 1990 survey* by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference found that one-third of black American churchgoers believed that AIDS was a form of genocide. One-third also believed that HIV was produced in a germ-warfare lab, and 40 percent of black college students in Washington, D.C., agreed.
Bush details increased AID package for Africa.
Apparently, after 40 years of listening to Democrats tell them how "victimized" they are, the blacks in this country have gotten a bit confused. Could it be that they believe that Bush is detailing his genocidal plans for Africa in major policy speeches?
Yes, it's just a joke. But if they believe some of the things that are detailed in that article, it wouldn't surprise me much if they did believe that (I particularly like the part about how the first President of the United States was a black man).
You really need to read that article. The people who wrote it, who are black, were actually fired from their talk-radio jobs for pointing out the fact that those conspiracy-theories were ridiculous. The black "community" is even more screwed up than is apparent from the MSM's softball treatment of the subject.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Havana, August 6, 2007 -- There is no doubt that the Cuban authorities will not allow the Cuban people the possibility of watching this documentary by Michael Moore, a leading movie producer and ideological ally of the Cuban regime.
Although it might look contradictory, the propaganda used in the film to discredit the USA health system while trying to highlight the excellence of the Cuban health system, turned out to be considered “subversive” by the Cuban regime. It so happens that he based his arguments on gross lies that do not represent at all the Cuban health drama.
(Tip o' the hat to Josue's Townhall Blog)
Thursday, August 09, 2007
What I want to know is, who thought that this was a good idea...and why?
The current Presidential campaign started, literally, the day after the last election in November '06. Why?
The campaigns used to start about 18 months before the election, giving us 6 months to nominate a candidate in the primaries and a full year for them to get their message out to the "undecided" voter...who didn't pay attention to the campaign until about the last month of the campaign anyway!
Is this really necessary? In today's political climate especially, most people know who they're going to end up voting for. If the rest of them need 2 years to decide whether they're for or against higher taxes, abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues that separate the parties, maybe they shouldn't be voting. If they're that completely ignorant of the issues, do we really want them to be deciding who's running this country?
There was a minor brouhaha last week because somebody suggested that we have a very basic test regarding the issues before letting somebody vote. Many people were horrified at the thought. I, for one, would be all for it. Especially when you consider the Demobratz' tactics of scaring people into voting for them.
Demobratz never have any ideas...they don't need to have any. They just tell the "undecided voters" that Republicans want to take everything away from them and kill them and their families. And the genius in the "undecided voter" category, who pays absolutely no attention to what's going on in this country other than the "American Idol" standings, and who pays no attention to politics until the last month of the campaign, when Demobratz turn into Conservatives, believe every word of what they hear in the MSM and vote Democrat.
I've never seen a poll on the subject, but I'd bet that the vast majority of "Independent" voters vote for Demobratz. You have one part of that category who are too embarrassed to associate themselves with the "liberal" label of the Democrat Party, and the rest are people whose TV's don't often stray from the broadcast TV (i.e. MSM) channels and who believe what they read in the newspapers.
The only thing that a two-year campaign does is to give the Demobratz more time to spin their lies into something that your typical uninformed "Independent" voter will find palatable. It just gives them more time to find a way to demonize the Conservative message (such as it is) being put out by the Republican Party.
The first rule of propaganda is that endless repetition will make your point into the truth in the eyes of those who don't know what's really going on. This endless campaign works right into the hands of the spin-monsters of the Left who need to convince those who don't know better into believing that Socialism will solve all of their problems.
We need to reform the campaign process. I have no hope of eliminating the uninformed from the process. That would just be too easy for the Demobratz to get those very same uninformed voters up-in-arms. "You have a right to be ignorant and vote for us! In fact, we count on it!" If we were to eliminate the uninformed voter, the Demobratz could never win again, and they know it.
However, we need to convince some courageous person in Congress to bring a bill that will limit campaigning to a 1-year period. That would give the candidates a few months to get their message out to the primary voters, and 9 months for them to state their positions to the general public.
If the candidates can't get their message out in that time, perhaps they shouldn't be running.
And, if the "undecideds" can't figure out what they stand for in that time, perhaps they shouldn't be voting.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Friday, August 03, 2007
Let's hope that this doesn't make me regret coming back to Blogger.
Will that be a disaster for this country? Most assuredly. But think about what will happen when this woman, who once assured us that her husband's administration would be the "most ethical administration in history" obtains the ultimate power.
Bill Clinton wanted power for power's sake. Once he got it, he really didn't care to do much with it. He just wanted the jet-setting lifestyle, the hobnobbing with rich, important people, the money and, of course, to get laid. I always got the sense that Hillary was more angry at him for not instituting a bloodless, Leftist "revolution" than she was about him screwing every woman who got within groping distance.
Bill Clinton was a slacker party-boy. Hillary is a true believer in the Socialist dream.
Hillary has all of the marks of your Leftist dictator: the unquenchable thirst for more and more power, the paranoia, the greed, the narcissism, the naked hatred of her opponents, the unflinching willingness to go to any length to destroy people who stand in her way, the arrogance to believe that her way is the only way and that she can completely change 40,000 years of human nature in a few, short years.
If you look at the years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, other than the sexual escapades, you can see Hillary's fingerprints on all of the scandals. From the Rose Law Firm billing records, to the gathering of FBI files relating to their opponents, to the firing of the White House travel office staff, to Whitewater, to the illegal fundraising, to the last-minute pardons, to the theft of White House belongings...she seems to be the one who was pushing all of this stuff while Bill seemed to be pliant and willing to just go along with it as long as nobody interfered with his fun. In fact, I've often wondered whether that was one of the things that Hillary liked about Bill: his willingness to let her play politics while he just played.
Yes, Hillary caught a lot of flack for all of the above, and more. But it was all filtered through Bill because he was the one who had been elected. She could have been indicted in a criminal court for a lot of that stuff, but going after the First Lady of the United States would have been political suicide for the Republican Party.
Now flash forward to 2009. Hillary is now the elected President of the United States. The Republicans...no...the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" is now doing all that they can to stop her from implementing her Socialist dream on this country. They are criticizing her relentlessly. They are questioning her motives and catching her in her lies. They are threatening to take away her power base. What does she do?
She does what she's always done.
She first tries to destroy her enemies. And, as we've seen before, there's a very good chance that not all of her methods will be legal.
She will be desperate to get her policies pushed through. Even more than Bill, I think, she is the one obsessed with the Clinton legacy. In addition, she actually believes that her policies are what's best for the future of the Democrat Party...err... America. And she has already shown that she's willing to use unethical and/or "extra-legal" means to do that.
While she'll tell herself that she's doing it for the good of her party...nay, the good of the country, she will be in a never-ending fundraising mode just as she was in the 1990's. It will be nothing more than greed and lust for power, but she will justify it to herself. And, again, we've seen what lengths she and her cronies are willing to go to for a few dollars more.
To make a long story short, if she is elected President, the first Clinton Presidency is probably going to look tame compared to hers. Hillary's arrogance, paranoia, greed and hatred will drive her to do things that will result in an unending series of scandals that the Right will be only too happy to go after her for.
As opposed to the Left's caterwauling about President Bush's supposed "illegal" activities, Hillary Clinton's activities truly will be illegal. You can bet on it. It's who she is. To her and her Communist cronies, "the end justifies the means", which is nothing more than a different way of saying that "we are above the law".
Thursday, August 02, 2007
What I haven't heard is the comparison between the two for joining the military for nothing more than their own self-aggrandizement.
Beauchamp joined the military so that he could "write a book".
Kerry joined the military to polish his credentials for his planned run for political office.
It's obvious that they were both your typical military-hating Leftists. There is no reason that either of them would have joined the military other than to gain credibility and stave off any criticism in their planned careers. And a huge part of that plan included sucking up to the Left by attacking their former brethren in the armed forces. They both knew that the Liberals were (and are today) desperately in need of military figures who would criticize the current war. And they both knew that the Liberals would ignore their obvious lies (Christmas in Cambodia, anyone?) and embrace them if they did that.
We know all about John Kerry and his lies. He has been completely discredited in everyone's mind except the Kool-aid drinkers, which includes a majority of Massachusetts voters.
But Mr. Beauchamp is another story. And that story is already being swept under the rug by the MSM.
Read this guy's Blogger blog, and you'll see that this guy had absolutely no reason to join the military. None. He's your typical, arrogant faux-intellectual Liberal who seems to like culture for no other reason than to say, "Look how cultured I am!".
In fact, if I didn't know that he married a gal from The New Republic (the very magazine in which his bogus "reports" from Iraq were published), I'd say that he was a beneficiary of Bill Clinton's "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy.
Here's a sample of his writing:
Sliced writsts recovering from barbwire night mission in a furnished 1600's bedroom window open to the stars strained notes The Magic Flute from further down the hall when I'm off work early she brings me coffee and a fresh stack of freshly pressed laundry while struggling through The World According to Garp auf Deutsch...warum?...now you are a citizen of the world, son, so she rents a car to take me to Bamberg this weekend and maybe plane tickets to London the next because through a month of silence and guilt and regret, reciting the Zarathustra quote over and over in your head, "I've always carried a disdain for creatures who considered themselves kind merely because they were clawless"..and you "get it" and you "understand" and you see yourself maybe not for the first time and finally a perfect rearrival of yourself, doch, ja, meine mereshweinkin ist sehr schon...die Welt ist deins...do you come to terms with the past or accept it or apologize and bow or cut free and run...
Yeah. There's a guy who was just aching to join the military and kick some Al Qaeda ass.
And, speaking of his wife, I wonder how she feels now that she's found out that this lying fool claimed that Conservative German blogger Claudia Heym was his girlfriend. Note that the pictures on both blogs are the same ones. This guy copied and pasted himself a beautiful German girlfriend!
Like the Liberal child that he is, even though he planned to be rich and famous, he thought that nobody would dig his lies up. Just like the Liberal child John Kerry thought that nobody would dig his lies up.
They're liars, they're fools and, despite their pretensions of intellectualism, they are stupid. They are no different than the vast, vast majority of Liberals.
It’s so cute when the girls in the Democrat Party try to act tough. It's like watching four-year-olds make pancakes: they always make a mess and screw it up, but it's funny to watch.
It's odd, but I have yet to hear a single Liberal call Obama a “warmonger”, a “chickenhawk” or even an “imperialist”.
I guess declaring war on our allies is OK…if you’re a Democrat; but declaring war on our enemies is not OK if you’re a Republican.
But they don’t have double standards. Nor are they hypocrites. If you doubt it, just accuse them of being hypocrites and watch how (hysterically) indignant they get.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
All of this and more is what we can expect from the loony-Left. It's coming. They can't help themselves anymore. Coming up with "unique" conspiracy theories is a badge of honor for these people now. It's what passes for deep thinking on the Left. It doesn't have to be fact-based, it just has to be complicated enough to make them actually use a tiny bit of what passes for logic amongst the Lefties. Remember: these are the people who can't grasp the concept of paying people not to work and then wondering why we have poor people who don't want to work.
When I was a younger man, we used to have parties on the riverbank under this bridge. It's a big bridge. Here are a few pertinent facts.
It would be nice if the Left in this state didn't try to use this disaster to their political advantage. But they will. It's who they are and what they do. They are power-hungry little Socialist toadies for whom the end justifies the means. And, if using tragedy to advance their political agenda is what it takes, they'll have no qualms about that.
You can watch for the finger-pointing in the most Socialist newspaper in the country, bar none (including the New York Times): The Minneapolis Star-Tribune.