in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| ABC News | New Tone: Obama Camp Says Clyburn’s ‘Raping’ Comment Is Inappropriate |
0 |
| Biz Insider | Intriguing: EXCLUSIVE: Here’s The Inside Story Of What Happened On The FB IPO |
0 |
| Lee Stranahan | This: Friday, May 25th Is “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day” |
0 |
| Gallup | 0 | |
| The Hill | Whoa: 4 in 10 Democrats desert Obama in Arkansas, Kentucky primaries |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Bam: Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) smacks down House leadership’s attempt at power grab
The transcript:
“Yesterday these leaders attempted to change a 185 year old House rule to dramatically increase taxes and government spending against the will of the minority party and the American people.
“Is this really the way to run the self proclaimed most honest and open Congress in our nation’s history?
“While House leadership may suffer from amnesia, the American people most certainly do not, and bending the rules to pass egregious tax-and-spend policies will not stand in the people’s house.”
Watch the video of Walberg’s comments below. It’s just a little over a minute.
Hat tip to Don Surber, who asks an interesting question:
Where is the press? When Republicans took over in 1995 (following the 1994 election) every move of Newt Gingrich was scrutinized and tested for that High Crime Of Hypocrisy, the only sin the Secular Left recognizes. Pelosi has yet to fulfill a single one of her promises — indeed, her promise not to withhold funding of the war was shattered and she is given a pass on it.
Maybe we need the Fairness Doctrine for straight news reporting.
Heh.
As to where the media is? Probably out lovingly covering Senator Obama’s latest fundraiser …
Prior/Related:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The press is, well never mind, I’ll get banned and I like this blog…
The best part is that the left thinks we’re just crying over spilt milk or it’s just the rants of right wing bloggers… I resemble that remark! Is this the definition of “Target Rich Enviornment?” or is it just me?
Pelosi hasn’t withheld money for the war. Bush simply hasn’t chosen to accept that money. I’m baffled about how Congress is getting tagged as obstructionist on this issue when it is the President who is using the veto pen.
We none of us get exactly what we want in this life–Mr. Bush included. I know he doesn’t like even nonbinding and waivable accountability, but at some point he needs to take the money if he wants to fight the war.
Both sides are playing politics, without question, but the president is the one letting the process grind to a halt here.
The reason is that any timetable gives our enemies a huge advantage. Bush knows this, I know this, the enemy knows this, why is it so hard for the left to grasp that concept?
Seriously…
I’ve never understood that line of reasoning, Vegas Art Guy. Any end to the war is going to involve a demobilization and drawdown that will be visible months in advance–it’s not as if we’ll be able to pull up stakes in the middle of the night and have al Qaeda wake up in the morning, scratching their heads and saying, “Hey, where are those Americans? They were just here a little while ago.”
At some point, we’re not going to be there, whether we telegraph it in advance or not.
DOC plays word games.
Pelosi is trying to end the war before the job is done.
Let’s pull your keyboard from you before you are done typing.
No. None of us get what we want in life. You may not have the keyboard in front of you as long as you wish…
This is what the debate is about. Finishing the job SUCCESSFULLY or creating a humanitarian crisis on the order of millions dead. Don’t think that could happen. It did when we pulled out of Vietnam. Is it worth that consequence in your eyes? Just admit it if you think so.
You showed your flawed logic with you last post. Checkmate. Why? Because we are going to be there (not just quickly pull out) and they aren’t just going to be scratching their heads one day. So.. Bush wants to fund the effort properly for the entire budget year. Nancy does not. IT WOULD LEAVE our troops underfunded, without the things they need. Are you for our troops getting hurt !!! Are you for less equipment and equipment that isn’t up to the task?
Of course not. That is the way you argue though…
Fund the entire year and if we pull out early then we SAVE money.
The “fairness doctrine” does not apply to democrats or “progessive” liberals. No, let me correct that. It does apply to the honest Democrats. The real “honest-to-goodness” ones. Not those hair-brained lunatics trying to highjack the Democrat party.
That statement alone should be your cue to cork it up, because I believe you truly can’t understand, hence the “never understood” part of your shortcomings.
To put it in dirt simple terms, Doc. If you were in a wrestling match and your opponent was losing but he KNOWS that you’re going to quit before the end of the second round, stalling WILL be his tactic. How tough is that to see? So easy, even the 7th century splodidopes get it!
Not only does he think you’ll give up based on the quitters who preceded you but among your alleged team mates, are traitors who want the US to fail and fail miserably and are advertising that loser mantra WORLD WIDE!
Word games are simply putting more people at risk. Talking like you belong to the other side, just provides encouragement to the enemies of the world and mankind. If you want to be a cheerleader for the terrorists that are trying to kill us, that’s your prerogative. Just know that ignorance from understanding why it is plans are not to be revealed to your enemy WILL add to the death toll of Americans and Iraqi’s fighting for the freedom of all Iraqi’s.
Just know that ignorance from understanding why it is plans are not to be revealed to your enemy
My friend, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.
Baklava:
To continue with your analogy a bit, the nonbinding and waivable aspects of the bills (both the one that was passed and the most recent proposal) guarantee that the keyboard would not be yanked away if the typist didn’t want it to be.
Again the left shows why they should not be in charge, thanks Doc. It is the hope of the right in this country that one day al Qaeda, won’t wake up at all. It is idiotic to end this thing before we have victory. Is victory such a hard concept for you people?? I am so sick of these constant discussions, the deception of the left runs so very deep. They are incapable to see how important victory is here. Why should it take another attack on our soil, more civilians killed here in America before these clueless individuals wake up?? If that scenerio happens, these 8 year olds will point the finger at Bush and scream and stomp their feet about how this is all Bush’s fault. I will scream then as I scream now, it is the fault of the left in this country who constantly gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and I am sick of their stupidity. – Lorica
Lorica, how many of the people we get in Iraq are actual al Qaeda operatives, and how many are pissed-off non-al Qaeda insurgents?
We can’t even make our way through bin Laden’s innumerable seconds-in-command, or even get bin Laden himself, let alone dispirit the enemy enough to end the fighting.
And what about bin Laden, anyway? Is cutting the head off the snake such a hard concept for you?
(Bonus points for dealing with the bin Laden issue without blaming Clinton who, we should remember, has not been president in over six years.)
Today’s equivalent of Tokyo Rose, Bagdhad Harry (Reid), has already stated that he doesn’t believe anything General Petraeus says, and today’s Axis Sally equivalent, Bagdhad Nancy (Pelosi), wouldn’t even meet with Petraeus to hear what he had to say last time he was in town. Since Pres. Bush would rely on reports from military commanders about whether “progress” was being made when those Democrat timetables came due, what would prevent Bagdhad Harry and Axis Nancy from saying they don’t believe a word Bush is saying, and then to demand we get out of Iraq? In short, when the cut ‘n runners have already said, on the record, that they don’t believe the experts, why should Bush believe they would become believers anytime in the near future? (To make “believers” out of Democrats, some Islamofacists will have to blow up part of Congress. When their own butts are flaming, that will get their attention.)
Bush’s acceptance of Democrat “nonbinding” and “waivable” demands would only mean more Democrat and MSM whining, posturing and pointing fingers at Bush. The primary objective of Democrat tinkering is pinning everything on Bush, not caring about our troops or stopping the war. If they cared abaout our troops, they’d send Bush a bill in a form he would sign. If they really wanted to stop the war, they could immediately defund it.
All that, of course, has been said and printed for months, so the fact that some here don’t “understand” it suggests they don’t want to “understand.”
I didn’t intend to confuse you Doc. Perhaps my explanation was too ambiguous.
Ignorance = lack of knowledge
Understanding = perceiving the significance
In other words, the perceptual inabilities that embody you don’t permit you to grasp the significance of *why* (refer to my prior example) and is at least in part because of your lack of knowledge. The fact that you’ve “never understood”, clearly is on display and believe it or not, I don’t mean for that to sound mean spirited. It simply appears that You. Don’t. Get. It.
Which is why I would ask all of those who don’t get it, to STOP cheerleading for the benefit of America’s enemies and disparagement of our forces!
I’ll be honest with you, Forest, and point out that the problem wasn’t my lack of vocabulary; it was the fact that the way you put the words together didn’t make any sense in English.
What did I write that disparaged our troops?
I’m inclined to agree with you Doc. I think your issues are considerably deeper than what was first apparent. I said nothing about your lack of vocabulary. I simply tried to clarify my english. The lacking in your grasp of reality is what I’ve called into question.
I apologize if my english is beyond your understanding or confuses you. Do you think dodging my attempt to provide a single simple example illustrating what I believe is an atypical area in which your understanding falls short, should be ignored.
Weave as much web as you like, Doc. What I said about what you wrote was already addressed?
Doc, I think you need to see a real Doc, one that can give you a prescription that can help you grasp what Hunter, Forrest and Lorica are TRYING to get across to you.
Trying to talk logic to a dem is really frustrating, you go along with your party line, period, and seem to side with our enemy and think nothing when the left breaks Senate and House rules, commit crimes like freezer money man and sandy burgler.
I think there is an opening on my Doctor’s schedule Monday at 10A, hope you can make it.
Drewmom:
I understand the words, but not always the reasoning. Also: could you remind me how many American troops were killed by the money in the freezer? I’ve forgotten.
I’ll be honest with you, Forest…
I love the way liberals always have to make a point of saying when they’ll be honest, as if it’s so unusual in their daily lives, such a “red” letter day, that it needs to be announced and called attention to. I think they view people who are honest all the time as having some kind of pathological mental problem.
Severian:
I love the way that you have such a tenuous grasp of the language that you always have to use emoticons to convey the crux of your message.
Folks:
Pelosi no doubt has her faults. But the fact of the matter is that she and the Democratic leadership delivered a spending bill that placed no actual limitations on the President or his future prosecution of the war.
The Right frequently mentions the “message” that is sent by this or that piece of legislation or sound bite. How is it that Congress’s “yes” to funding the troops sends a bad message and the President’s refusal to accept that funding sends no message at all?
I know that consistency is the hobgoblin of et cetera, et cetera, but a little consistency would go a long way toward the Right’s seeming reasonable on this issue.
Can you give us the bill # Doc?
Doc wrote that he couldn’t understand the reasoning and then asked, “How many American troops were killed by the money in the freezer?”
Drewsmom didn’t say American troops were killed by the money in the freezer.
So you not only fail in reasoning but reading comprehension.
You won’t get anywhere dialoging with us here if that is your attempt at dialog.
Respectfully submitting….
There has been much written above about the supposedly typical responses of liberals to certain topics. To my mind, Baklava, this is a typical Republican response: cast insults and focus on pointless minutiae.
I’d bet money that you don’t even know that we’re talking about H.R. 1591. Anyway, what does the number of the bill matter?
The substance in the bill matters. Checkmate.
Either you lied or didn’t read the bill. I skimmed until pages 37 and 38 and found that you weren’t “reporting” the truth with your statement, “But the fact of the matter is that she and the Democratic leadership delivered a spending bill that placed no actual limitations on the President or his future prosecution of the war.”
At this point you can humbly apologize and promise to try to get it right but I haven’t seen a liberal do that yet and I’ve been debating them since I converted from liberalism in 1991. Well.. There’s my friend Van and a few others who I’ve converted from liberalism so maybe that counts for some liberals trying
BTW, You can say that I cast insults – and maybe I did – but where did Drewsmom say what you inferred she said? Reading Comprehension isn’t your strong suit on 2 things now. Want to make it a third?
You achieve “checkmate” when you’ve won, not when you concede, and I think you just conceded my point. Read SEC. 1903 (c) before you demand an apology.
Also: by bringing it up in the course of the current discussion, Drewsmom implied an equivalence between ongoing death of American troops abroad and the damage done by political corruption here. What I wrote was a rhetorical flourish intended to underscore the irony of her position. You, too, use rhetorical flourishes, unless I’m mistaken, or do you believe that you and I are actually playing a game of chess?
You may accuse me of being cynical, but I wouldn’t chalk the Democrats’ behavior up to ignorance or a lack of understanding. I think they understand full well what they are doing. While they can’t admit it, I believe they are politically invested in defeat in Iraq, and perhaps the war on terror in general. Nevermind the fact that our ability to fight against our enemies would be permanently impaired, that the sacrifices of our brave sons and daughters would be made moot, and that we would be made significantly more vulnerable to attack from abroad and within, this is about gaining political advantage. To the Democrats, the loss of our security is a price they are willing to pay to get power.
They claim now that they want to minimize our losses, and that a surrender date will ensure that, but I suspect they intend to blame Republicans for a war loss that they caused. Suppose that we DO follow their plan and scurry out of Iraq with our tail between our legs. What will be the consequences? A bloodbath in Iraq and reduced security here at home. When the public looks in horror at the outcome, who will the Democrats and the media blame? Suggesting ignorance and a lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions is being far too charitable to the Democrats. I have another word for undermining the war and providing aid and comfort for the enemy.
Crabby:
Unless I miss my guess, you’re not a Lefty, and your analysis depends on being able to understand the Lefty mindset and motivations, which, with all due respect, I think you have gotten wrong. I have myself despaired of ever truly understanding the way the Right thinks–we live in different political universes.
First, as far as Democrats are concerned, they don’t need to engineer a defeat in Iraq; that trainwreck has already happened, and what we need to do now is extricate ourselves from the wreckage before the whole thing blows up, taking all the survivors with it. You may disagree with the assessment, and you likely do, but it highlights the chasm that separates the thinking of Lefties and Righties in America today–the Right seriously thinks that the Left wants to cause a horrid mess for political gain; the Left thinks that the mess already exists and it’s time to minimize American losses there.
Second, the Left has never been convinced in the same way that the Right is that Iraq represents a genuine front in the GWOT. Iraqi insurgents, the thinking goes, weren’t killing Americans until Americans went to Iraq, whereas Afghanistan definitely brought it to America on September 11. That’s why Lefties generally decry Iraq but generally accept Afghanistan. It’s also why the Left keeps harping on bin Laden. Even if Iraq is a genuine front in the GWOT, Lefties feel, it’s not the only one, and a strategic retreat (or “advance toward the rear,” as some would have it) can allow us to focus our resources where they are more needed and more likely to do some good. If Iraq is only one battle in the war, then we need to remember that it’s possible to lose a particular battle and still emerge victorious from the war itself.
Third, the Left feels that the American public is already looking in horror at the fighting in Iraq.
Fourth, the Left feels that America already blames Republicans for Iraq. That’s why Democrats have trumpeted the result of the midterms as a referendum on the war.
Finally, I think that the Left’s feelings are best summed up by this Schurz quote: “Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right.” America is our country. It’s where we were born. It’s where we’re rearing our children. Of course we want our nation to be the best place on earth, but, in those situations where it isn’t, we need to face up to the problem and fix it.
I understand that I’ve essentially sounded the opening bell on a snarky feeding frenzy, but so be it. Severian and Baklava, I welcome you with open arms. I brought my snarkproof diving suit with me.
No Doc. I don’t usually use this word. But you are now considered by me to be a flat out LIAR. (not ignorant)
The caps were for emphasis not yelling.
Your quote, “But the fact of the matter is that she and the Democratic leadership delivered a spending bill that placed no actual limitations on the President or his future prosecution of the war.”
No Doc. I don’t usually use this word. But you are now considered by me to be a flat out LIAR. (not ignorant)
The caps were for emphasis not yelling.
Your quote, “But the fact of the matter is that she and the Democratic leadership delivered a spending bill that placed no actual limitations on the President or his future prosecution of the war.”” IS A LIE. Read the bill number you presented. It contradicts your quote. There is no point reading on to section 1903 (c) unless that section strikes entire pages of the bill.
For the political newbies out there: There are people who will lie to get you to believe ANYTHING. Do not look at what they write or listen to what they say after they are proven liars. It is a waste of time…
As for you Doc… Our conversation is OVER… However I will refute you from time to time just to make sure new people on the blog are exposed to your junkism.
Sorry for posting twice ST. A missing end greater than sign messed things up.
Yet, Doc, you fail to mention how Al Qaeda’s number two recently pointed to Congress demand of a timetable as a signal that we are defeated. To me, when the enemy is saying “message received”, I think it’s a fine example of how they are perceiving such a timetable.
I hope this isn’t an attempt to show how the entire population is against us. The majority of the insurgency are Sunnis and former Baathists. These are the people who benefited from Saddam’s torture and murder. They have lost all the power and money and they are pissed off about it. There are 26 million people in Iraq to our 144,000 troops, if they wanted to, they could kill every last American in that country.
Really? It seems there were some very prominent lefties, Clinton, Pelosi, even Dean, who were cheerleaders for this war when it started. I’m sure you recall the link to all the lefty quotes about the war when it started, if not I’ll be glad to repost it for you.
I also seem to notice how the left loves to quote our own intelligence resources when they say things like the terror situation has gotten worse, yet they have no comment when the very same intelligence agencies say that abandoning Iraq would be a disaster. Why is that?
Lying would be pointless, Baklava, as anyone could look the legislation up to see whether I am telling the truth. I encourage everyone to do so.
SEC. 1903 (c) of H.R. 1591, as passed by both houses of Congress and eventually vetoed by the President, reads as follows:
(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.
That’s pretty straightforward: “Shall not be construed to require.” Congress sincerely wished that the troops could come home, but it wasn’t requiring it.
The fact that you don’t know this aspect of the bill, Bakalava, doesn’t make me a liar. It just makes me better informed than you.
I certainly do remember the list, NC Cop, and it was compelling. But if you add up every single solitary American Lefty on the list, the number pales in comparison to the number of rank-and-file Lefties who protested during the runup to the war. Again, the Left has generally not been convinced by the centrality of Iraq in the GWOT.
I’ll even amend it. Let’s say for the sake of argument that every single Lefty in America was for the war when it began. In the time since, it would be safe to say that the Left has decided that the war was and is a bad idea.
The bin Laden reference was nothing more than a nod to the puzzling number of people who have been called “bin Laden’s second-in-command” since the war in Afghanistan started.
I’ll stipulate the quote by al Qaeda’s number-two guy. In the long run, so what? If we respond to that, isn’t it kind of like being swayed by the guy who makes clucking chicken noises at you as you tell him you don’t want to fight? How does what he said really affect the strategic situation?
Which is exactly the problem. Because our intelligence agencies are saying otherwise.
Really? What are those numbers? Do you have them handy?
And therein lies the disaster. By withdrawing without achieving success we will telegraph to every terrorist group and two bit dictator that you don’t have to defeat America on the battlefield. All you have to do is drag it on long enough and the American people will grow tired and demand a retreat. I see this as an extremely dangerous precedent to set.
So what? I guess this would explain why, back in 2006, when the dems won control of the Senate and Congress, Al Qaeda, Syria, and Iran all released statements saying they were happy with the election results. It says volumes, to me, when our enemies are thrilled at the results of an election, wouldn’t you say? These people know that the dems will go back to treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem, making their jobs much easier.
Oh, and I just had to respond to this one:
Even though the head of the Bin Laden unit at CIA under Clinton blames him? It seems that you know more than the CIA, DIA, NSA, and military intelligence? That’s amazing!
NC Cop, there were more people who protested in the town I lived in back then than were on the list you posted.
You’re not getting an argument from me about whether or not Clinton should have eliminated bin Laden when he had the chance. Clinton, however, hasn’t been President in over six years. We have been at war in Afghanistan–essentially against bin Laden and his minions, since he masterminded the attacks–since late 2001, and the man remains at large. Remember how Reagan took responsibility for things that happened on his watch? It has been Bush’s watch now for a long, long time. Can’t you even grant that?
So are you saying that people like Pelosi and Dean, who represent predominately liberal thinkers, were ignoring their constituents???? Isn’t that the same think that you are accusing President Bush of?
Indeed, but unlike when Clinton was President, Bin Laden and his minions are hiding in caves, are not as effective a force as they used to be, and an unknown number have been killed.
So, essentially, it’s ok with you that Clinton denies any responsibility for anything remotely connected to Bin Laden and 9/11, yet you demand that Bush do it?
Not to mention, I certainly remember Bush on television saying that mistakes have been made and the HE was responsible for them.
But I guess they only showed that part on Fox, huh?
I also noticed that you didn’t have any comment on our enemies being happy with the outcome of the election.
Why is that?
So, essentially, it’s ok with you that Clinton denies any responsibility for anything remotely connected to Bin Laden and 9/11, yet you demand that Bush do it?
Again: Clinton is not the President. He hasn’t been the President for many years. He will never be the President again. Bush is now the guy who needs to make things happen.
Liberals like Doc are amazing aren’t they NC? They act like if they ignore facts and history, if they claim they’re not important, they just don’t exist. Thousands of years of military history, military and political theory, by masters from Sun Tzu to Von Clauswitz to Mao Tse Tung, all spelling out in no uncertain terms how you fight wars and gain and hold power, and what the results inevitably are when you weaken and show lack of resolve and attempt to “reason” with murders and tyrants. And by saying “we don’t think that’s important” they wave their hands and think they can make the brutal neat hook realities of the world and fighting evil, despotic men just vanish in a chorus of Kumbayas. It worked really well in Vietnam, they waved their hands, turned their backs, cutoff the South Vietnamese from all aid, and ignored the 4 million deaths as if they didn’t happen, all the while patting themselves on the back for how enlightened and civilized and just darn nice they were. All while the barbarians in SE Asia slaughtered anyone who ever cooperated with us or who resisted the communist onslaught. I guess, with Iraq, they want another Vietnam, that is they actually want millions dead and millions more condemned to live under brutal, totalitarian regimes, all so they can make drum circles and chant and feel good about themselves for being so much more kind and ethical than us neocon warmongers.
Pretty repulsive.
Clinton let Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein fester into the massive problems they are today, so mentioning Clinton’s failures is completely appropriate, no matter how much you want to revise history Doc. And when this administration was called on to do something about it, rather than helping or just shutting up since you aren’t being asked to sacrifice anything, you and your ilk aren’t content with that, you have to bite the ankles of the people trying to solve the problem, aid the enemy, and generally attempt to seditiously interfere.
I’ll take that as a yes.
I also noticed that you didn’t have any comment on our enemies being happy with the outcome of the election.
I’m sorry; I got busy addressing some other inane side issue. You’re right: al Qaeda was indeed happy with Bush’s reelection in 2004. I’ll give you that one, buddy.
Doc:
Well, it doesn’t take a brilliant detective to conclude that I am not a lefty. As far as being in “different political universes”, that seems like a euphemistic way to contrast those who support the war on terror and those who seek to undermine it.
First, a war is not lost until we surrender. But, as I said, I think you know that, and that you are being disingenuous. The Democrats are attempting to force surrender, only to blame the defeat on the Republicans.
Nonsense. Most of those on your side, who were in a position to do it, voted to authorize the war. They are now stumbling overthemselves disavowing their earlier position. This is a problem with a political movement that has no ethics, black is white, big is small, defeat is victory. Whatever gets you power is ethically justified. Let me clarify, surrender and defeat is NEVER victory.
War is not pretty, and it is not for the faint of heart or the ethically challenged. Perhaps many in the country are too young to recognize the consequences of losing a war. If they think things are bad now, wait until your side has demoralized, de-funded and disemboweled the military that protects them. The country can be thankful that people of character are still demanding victory, rather than defeat.
Would you say that you (Democrats) and the media have helped foist that perception on the public? I don’t expect honesty here, the question is rhetorical. Democrats have gambled heavily on a strategy of destroying the country’s willingness to win a war.
Please spare me the phoney “I am a patriot too” leftist tripe. There was a time when both parties would work together to win a war. While the same political motivations existed, the loyal opposition would never have even considered denying the country an important war victory. While you may think you have put a positive spin on enabling an enemy victory, there are many who will view the actions of the left as indistinguishable from the efforts of a fifth column.
Doc (or shall I say not a Doc), The “number” of troops wasn’t the limitations that I checkmated you on. You must not have gone to the pages I referenced that proved your statement was a lie.
ack. I promised the conversation was over. ok it is now…
All this bluster and you can’t admit your statement was the opposite of true or factual. It’s ok. We’ve all seen it here before.
Doc, still holding his dictionary upside down, holds forth on the AQ mindset:
So you must have missed the bin Laden “Vote for Kerry” video, huh? And the al-Zawahiri Dem get-out-the-vote ad last October?
Doesn’t it strike you as the least bit odd that America’s enemies, whether the Communists 30 years ago or the islamofascists today, just naturally make common cause with American liberals? In the 80′s you had Ted Kennedy going to the Soviets to encourage them to hang tough against America…now you have Pelosi going to Syria for basically the same purpose.
Or maybe that doesn’t strike you as odd, because, being on the left, you see the true enemy as anyone who stands in the way of your power here…not the ones who hate America elsewhere in the world.
Here’s the one big difference I’ve noticed about the interactions on Right- and Left-wing blogs: Lefties may think that Righties are idiots, and they’ll cheerfully tell them so when any of them show up. Righties, on the other hand, always assume that Lefties are lying. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been called a liar just in this thread alone. I’ve even been told that I’m lying when I explain how I feel about my country.
Here’s the big news flash: I don’t care about anyone’s opinion here enough to lie about anything. Enough to keep posting, yes; enough to ask, “What the heck are you talking about?” and hope you explain, yes; but not enough to lie about anything. No offense intended, but you figure that prominently in my internal life.
Lying and having a different opinion than you–or even having a different take on the facts than you–are not the same thing.
Christopher Hitchens once again makes an excellent point:
LINK
Baklava:
Assume for a second that I’m not a mindreader and can’t psychically acquire from your brain the passage from H.R. 1591 that proves that I’m a liar.
Go ahead and provide me with a section number and/or a specific quote that shows my dishonesty.
I don’t care about anyone’s opinion here enough to lie about anything.
Really. No kidding you don’t care, you’re not here to debate but to proselytize. And listen to yourself “talk” as apparently like most liberals you have a kind of childish narcissism where you’re way to enamored of the sound of your own voice and the “cleverness” of your own statements. As for lying, my experience is that lying is such a common trait among liberals that they completely fail to recognize honesty when they see it and view it as some kind of demented character fault. See Chris Hitchen’s quote above, he nails it quite succinctly.
Seeing as how there is no conceivable chance that anyone here would come around to my way of thinking on any issue, evangelism is obviously out, and only a fool would consider it.
I’m here to knock ideas around with people.
I’m sorry that Lefties have lied to you in the past and hurt your feelings, Severian.
Folks? Can we get back to the issues and not go down Character Assassination Ave.? Doc would it be reasonable to say that Iran is our enemy? Would it be reasonable to say that Al-queada and their ilk are still out to get us? We’ve been fighting terror groups in Iraq since we went there. There was a big camp in the Kurdish area we torched and Iran has been supplying weapons etc., to the various groups in Iraq for years. Funny how the MSM never mentions that fact about Iraq. Iraq is the front line on terror right now, and if we run we’ll pay a dear price in the future. Not just the civil war that would explode but more attacks on our soil. I’d just as soon fight them over there than over here. The only way the dems win is if we lose so they are doing everything they can with the support of the MSM to MAKE this another Vietnam. GWB certainly gets his share of the blame but there is another player in Iraq and everyone needs to remember that.