Archive for the 'Liberal Insanity' Category


Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth

Tuesday, March 6th, 2007

I just read one of the best posts on Al Gore and his “Inconvenient Truth” crap that I’ve ever read.  It was written by Beth’s “Beloved Curmudgeon.”  Here’s a taste:

Ol Al wants to help the environment by asking all of us to reduce our carbon footprint thereby doing our part for the climate. Good idea Al, maybe you can start by reducing the dimension of just your regular footprint. Have you seen the size of this guy? He is rapidly becoming the poster child for morbid obesity. The best thing he could do for the environment is to back off the grub a little bit and give the rest of the food chain a break.

Sphere: Related Content

“Black Vote” – Isn’t that racist?

Sunday, March 4th, 2007

I’ve watched CNN for awhile this morning, and one of the stories they’ve run several times is one about which Democratic candidate would get “the black vote.” 

To me, that seems the epitome of racist assumptions.  As though African-Americans are one block vote?  In essence, the MSM puts black voters into a box, and then assume that they ALL will vote for a Democratic candidate.  African-Americans aren’t given credit for being individuals with individual beliefs and goals.   I don’t hear discussions of the “white vote” or the “native American vote” or the “Muslim American vote.”  The assumption is that if someone is black – he/she is a Democrat.  And furthermore, all blacks will all vote for the same Democratic candidate.

It is surprising to me that the leaders of African-American groups don’t call the news networks on their obvious stereotyping.

Sphere: Related Content

Al Gore – and his “Inconvenient Truth” & the Academy Awards

Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Oh Lord, Al Gore’s movie just won an Academy Award!  What a pompous idiot he is!  And all the Hollywood folks are just fawning over him.  Earlier in the show Leonardo DiCaprio practically started drooling over Gore and how “honored” he was to be on the same stage.  Yea, I’d say Gore is definitely running.  What a pompous idiot!  Oops!  Did I already say that?

The best line of the evening, though, came from RT who, when Gore was on stage with DiCaprio, commented, “He was vice president, wasn’t he?”  Yes, unfortunately, he was – but obviously very forgettably so.

And the rather sad thing is that he won for “Best Documentary.” While I completely agree that we MUST take care of our planet, I have read too much scientific evidence that disagrees with Gore’s findings to swallow his bleatings hook, line and sinker.  He’s a politician, and this is very politically driven.   And he’s found a very popular platform for his political ambitions.

It was humorous when they started talking about how “green” this year’s Academy Awards are. What a joke!  All the Hollywood types and Al Gore patting themselves on the back for being so environmentally conscious when they’re the most outrageous over-consumers imaginable.

Sphere: Related Content

How Congress Shows Respect for American Soldiers

Friday, February 23rd, 2007

This cartoon is classic.  As the saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words.”  The dems don’t understand that they can’t expect people to believe their rhetoric about how they “respect and honor” American soldiers while at the same time speaking words and actions that actually help the terrorists and cause more deaths and injuries to our troops.

Tiara-tip to Darleen.

Sphere: Related Content

Is There a Voice of Reason and Common Sense in the Democratic Party?

Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

Joan at Daddy’s Roses has written a post quoting a Democratic Representative who was one of only two Democrats who voted against the non-binding resolution. 

I didn’t realize that there was actually a voice of reason and common sense in the Democratic party, but apparently there is at least one.  Here is part of what Representative Jim Marshall (D, GA) said when he spoke before the Assembly.  The emphasis is Joan’s:

We’re debating a nonbinding resolution to disapprove of the Iraqi/American military surge in Baghdad…. we do so hoping our debate and vote will not discourage those called upon to execute the surge…but we also do so knowing that it might. That’s enough for me to oppose the resolution……..This anti-surge resolution is akin to sitting in the stands and booing in the middle of our own team’s play because we don’t like the coach’s call. I cannot join midplay nay-saying that might discourage even one of those engaged in this current military effort in Baghdad.

Click over to Daddy’s Roses to read what he said directly to the troops about the resolution.

What Democrats fail to understand is that, like it or not, President George W. Bush is THEIR president as much as he is president for the Republicans.  In the long run, the Democrats’ words and actions against President Bush are actions against themselves.  Sure, they have the right to say and do what they’re doing.  However, they’re too short-sighted and self-involved to realize that they’re hurting themselves in the process.

Sphere: Related Content

An Open Letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – from Charlie Daniels

Sunday, February 18th, 2007

An Open Letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

Dear Sir and Madam:

You have said often enough that you don’t believe in the war in Iraq and that you want to bring the troops home. Yet all you do is talk and sign non-binding resolutions which only goes to show that you really don’t mean what you say about ending the war or that you’re just playing political games and in doing so giving aid and comfort to a dedicated enemy.

Now if you’re serious about ending the war you have the means and the votes to do just that. Simply cut off the funding for the troops, bring them all home and the American people can transfer the deed to this war and the ramifications of what you do to the Democrat party and you can live with the results.

You say you support the troops, but that has to be a lie. If you supported them and you truly think the war is wrong, you’d bring them home or either dispense with the poisonous rhetoric and get in behind them and help them get the job done.

You can’t have it both ways. If you support the troops do something. Your party won a majority in both houses, so you have control so take the responsibility.

Of course, I think you should remember that when the terrorists follow us home from Iraq and start their attacks on American soil it’s too late, so you’d better have a plan to deal with it. Do you have a plan?

And if Iran goes into Iraq and makes it a staging ground for Al Qaida to plan and carry out attacks all over the western world you’ll need to deal with that. Do you have a plan?

And if Iran decides to go into Kuwait and cut off the oil flow from the Persian Gulf, you’ll need a way to make up for the shortfall. Do you have a plan?

The world would look at us as a country that has not finished a commitment to war since 1945. Do you have a plan for dealing with that?

The purpose of this letter is to call your bluff. I don’t believe you have the guts to do anything but talk and talk is cheap. Oh you have no shortage of words but I seriously doubt the amount of backbone you have.

Do you really think that signing a non binding resolution is really fooling anybody into thinking you’re anything less than career politicians trying to tip the scales of the O08 Presidential Election.

What you’re doing is silly and dangerous. If you really don’t like what’s going on, change it, do something about it. You’ve got the power but have you got the guts?

Pray for our troops.

What do you think?

God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
February 16, 2007

Wow!  That says exactly what I believe.  With the dems it’s all about politics, politics and politics.  They back-stab and fill the airwaves with hateful rhetoric to try to ensure that the Bush plan will fail while still making themselves look politically good.  You can’t “support the troops” while spewing crap that makes the terrorists bolder and more confident and ends up getting more of our troops killed.  The troops don’t need THAT kind of suppport.  Dems, you can’t have it both ways. 

Tiara-tip to Linda at Something …and Half of Something.  Also at A Mom and Her Blog and Blue Star Chronicles.

Sphere: Related Content

House Resolution Slams Bush’s Troop Reinforcement Plan

Friday, February 16th, 2007

Okay, let me get this straight.  This resolution makes NO difference in policy.  It is non-binding.  It doesn’t stop the troop REINFORCEMENT plan.   And  yet the Democrat-controlled House felt it was important to publicly declare that they don’t support OUR president.  They should be ashamed of themselves.

House Resolution Criticizes Bush War Policy

By DAVID ESPO

AP

WASHINGTON (Feb. 16) – The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush ‘s decision to deploy more troops to Iraq  on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress  and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182.

“The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi , leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.

“The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home,” Pelosi vowed after leading the House in a moment of silence as a sign of respect for those who are fighting and their families.

Citing recent comments by Democrats, Bush’s Republican  allies said repeatedly the measure would lead to attempts to cut off funds for the troops. Outnumbered, they turned to Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas to close their case – and the former Vietnam prisoner of war stepped to the microphone as lawmakers in both parties rose to applaud his heroism.

“Now it’s time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already,” he said. “We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them,” he added, snapping off a salute as he completed his remarks to yet another ovation.

Bush made no comment on the developments, and his spokesman said the president was too busy to watch the proceedings on television.

After a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Bush said the Iraqis reported providing troops to fight alongside Americans, making sure that no ethnic or religious factions are ignored in the security operations, providing $10 billion toward reconstruction and working on an oil revenue-sharing law.

“That’s good news for the Iraqi people. And it should give people here in the United States confidence that his government knows its responsibilities and is following through on those responsibilities,” he said.

More than 390 of 434 lawmakers spoke during four days of a dignified debate – an unusual amount of time devoted to what Republicans and Democrats alike said was the most significant issue confronting the country.

Supporters of the nonbinding resolution included 229 Democrats and 17 Republicans – fewer GOP  defections than Democrats had hoped to get and the White House and its allies had feared. Two Democrats joined 180 Republicans in opposition.

Moving quickly, Senate  Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., set a test vote for Saturday on an identical measure, and several presidential contenders in both parties rearranged their weekend campaign schedules to be present.

Republican senators said in advance they would deny Democrats the 60 votes needed to advance the resolution, adding they would insist on equal treatment for a GOP-drafted alternative that opposes any reduction in funds for the troops.

Even so there were signs of Republican restlessness on the issue. Only two members of the GOP rank and file sided with Democrats on an earlier procedural vote; the total figured to be higher this time.

The developments unfolded as a new poll showed more than half those surveyed view the war as a hopeless cause.

A sizeable majority, 63 percent, opposes the decision to dispatch more troops, although support for Bush’s plan has risen in the past few weeks from 26 percent to 35 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos poll.

The House measure disapproves of Bush’s decision to increase troop strength, and pledges that Congress will “support and protect” the troops.
Bush has already said passage of the measure will not deter him from proceeding with the deployment of another 21,500 troops, designed primarily to quell sectarian violence in heavily populated Baghdad.

Already, troops of the Army’s 82nd Airborne have arrived in Iraq. Another brigade is in Kuwait, undergoing final training before proceeding to Iraq. Three more brigades are ticketed for the Baghdad area, one each in March, April and May.

In addition, the Pentagon is sending two Marine battalions to Anbar province in the western part of the country, the heart of the Sunni insurgency.

Bush and his allies in Congress calculated days ago that the House measure would pass, and increasingly have focused their energy on the next steps in the Democrats’ attempt to end U.S. participation in the war.

“I’m going to make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops,” Bush said earlier this week, a reference to legislation that requests more than $93 billion for the wars in Afghanistan  and Iraq.

Democrats have made clear in recent days they will use Bush’s spending request to impose certain standards of readiness, training and rest for the troops.

“That stops the surge (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because … they cannot sustain the deployment,” Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said recently.

Republicans pointed to Murtha’s remarks repeatedly during the day as evidence that despite their claims to the contrary, Democrats intend to cut off funds for the troops.

“This is all part of their plan to eliminate funding for our troops that are in harm’s way. And we stand here as Republicans … committed to making sure our troops in harm’s way have all the funds and equipment they need to win this war in Iraq,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.

Up until a few years ago I was a happily independent voter.  I studied each candidate’s position on issues and voted without regard to party affiliation.  Since 2001, though, the Democrats have astounded me with their level of childishness and putting politics over integrity and country.  It is a sad situation.

Sphere: Related Content

The John Edwards – Amanda Marcotte Campaign Blogging issue – The solution has been found!

Saturday, February 10th, 2007

For those of you who have been following the shenanigans of John Edwards’ “Campaign Bloggers,” click over to Darleen’s Place.  Darleen has the answer for you.

Boston Legal – Stereotypes and Intolerance in Action

Wednesday, February 7th, 2007

At one time Boston Legal was one of my favorite TV shows.  It was funny and outrageous.  Unfortunately, it has gone the way of most shows that last beyond a few years.  The storylines are getting more and more absurd, and apparently they no longer are happy with their “progressive-friendly” scripts.  Now they simply MUST have scripts that preach their anti-conservative and anti-religion biases and intolerance. 

Last night’s show, in particular, was a constant barage of derision and disdain for conservatives and for religion.  It has stopped amazing me at the extent of intolerance the “progressives” can display toward anyone who doesn’t agree with them.   Their “accept everyone as they are” mantra only applies to other progressives – and certainly not towards conservatives or Christians.

If past blogging history is any indication and this post receives comments from the progressive side, they will most likely be laced with profanity and personal attacks and charges.   To progressives, conservatives are the “other America” that Denny and Alan discussed with so much disdain in last night’s show.  The “other America” that doesn’t believe in giving people equal rights and the “other America that elected a president.”  And I have yet to hear a progressive admit or even recognize that such a discussion is the epitomy of intolerance and stereotyping.

In last night’s episode, Denise told Brad that he was the father of the child she is carrying.  Immediately they put Brad in the dunce category as he started talking about getting schools  lined up for the baby – “It’s never too early.” 

Then Denise told him she hadn’t decided definitely about continuing the pregnancy.  So now it looks like that storyline will be one in which Brad will be portrayed as an  idiot male trying to exert his “father’s rights” while Denise will be portrayed as the brave and liberated woman guarding her “right to decide.”

I wish that “entertainment” shows would stick to entertainment – and leave the political commentary to the political shows.

Sphere: Related Content

The Patriotic Terrorist

Sunday, January 28th, 2007

At The Huffington Post, Greg Gutfeld has written a thoughtful post that is generating quite a stir among leftwingers.  Reading the comments to his post is almost more fun than reading the post.  Leftwingers never cease to confirm that they can be the most venomous and vile commenters. 

Here’s what Gutfeld’s wrote:

Whenever I visit this lovely blog, I usually run into someone – a “leftist,” if you will – who finds pleasure in things that make our country or the President look bad. I suppose I could say these angry types are no better than cheerleaders for terrorism. After all, both entities – the left and terrorists – seem to share the same desire: to put the US, humiliatingly, in its place.

But I would be wrong to say such things. Very wrong. Of course, “dissent is patriotic,” and the left is only critical of America because it simply loves our country much more than I do.

That’s why calling them terrorists would be intolerant and pretty shameful.

But what about “patriotic terrorists?”

That’s kinda neat.

What is a patriotic terrorist?

It is an American who claims to love his or her country while enjoying the enemy’s success against said country. It is a person who gets deeply offended if you question their patriotism, while also appearing to share the same ideals of the more spirited folk who like to blow up innocent people.

Patriotic terrorists love America with so much intensity that it appears to the untrained eye that they hate it. But it’s actually the most powerful form of “tough love” known to man, woman and Rosie O’Donnell. Patriotic terrorists love America so much that they realize it needs an intervention – and real terror is the only way to enable that intervention. In fact, to keep a mammoth, arrogant superpower like America in check, terrorism is the only thing we’ve got. Noam Chomsky knew this from the start, making him a patriotic terrorist of the highest order.

This is why he gets the chicks.

Hey, I bet you’ve probably wondered why Al Qaeda hasn’t struck in the US since 9/11. They don’t have to. It has its own offshoot franchise here at work already. Patriotic Terrorists.

Think about how much both groups have in common!

-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda want the US to abandon Iraq, for that reveals Bush and America to be monstrous, laughable failures. It does not matter to either group that the withdrawal from Iraq will make post-Vietnam look like an afternoon at Ikea shopping for a Hoggbo innerspring mattress.

-For patriotic terrorists and real terrorists, car bombs going off is music to their ears. It proves that you can’t offer democracy to troubled countries, as long as you’ve got terrorists standing in your way. And that’s great news for everyone who believes in checks and balances between the haves and the have nots! (Note: “haves” means the US. “Have nots” means those who hate the US)

-Patriotic terrorists and the more committed terrorists both believe that infractions at Guantanamo Bay are far worse than anything a genocidal dictator could muster, and such horrors possess far more PR potential in denigrating the US than anything involving Ed Begley Jr.

-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda terrorists believe the US desires to control the Middle East, empower evil Israel and expand it’s power base at the expense of innocent Arab lives. But both groups also realize that the US is too stupid to achieve these goals – and that makes being a patriotic terrorist loads of fun!

Are you a patriotic terrorist?

If you are intensely critical of the US, while tolerating homicidal enemies who condemn everything you previously claimed you are for – human rights, voting rights, gay rights, women’s rights, porn – then you’re a patriotic terrorist.

If you talk about tolerance constantly – and hilariously tolerate genocide and suicide bombers because those actions undermine your more intimate opposition, the American right – then you’re a patriotic terrorist.

The only difference between a patriotic terrorist and a real one? Real terrorists are simply patriotic terrorists who’ve taken the extra step – choosing to actually die for their beliefs – rather than simply talking about them at Spago. If Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, and their ilk had real cojones, they’d all be wearing cute black vests – but stuffed with more than dog-eared copies of Deterring Democracy.

Hat tip Blue Star Chronicles.  Read more commentary there and also at Something…and a Half of Something.

Sphere: Related Content