Gingrich Gets it Right

From CNN:

“I am not for a narrow victory,” he said. “I am for crushing the left in every single way.”

Gingrich was, of course, Matt’s first choice for nominee – he was my 2nd or 3rd (Santorum was always my first).  For me, Romney was a bit back there in the pack but always with the understanding that the crucial necessity is to ensure that Obama leaves office on January 20th, 2013.

The capstone for getting rid of Obama came, in my view, just recently – when it was revealed that in 1991 he was described as being born in Kenya.  Naturally, the Obamatons leaped to in action when this came out and called it a “mistake”.  But I don’t buy that – I call it a lie, instead.   Here is the key to Obama:  he’ll say or do anything to advance himself.  Back when he was just starting out being from an upper class, white Hawaiian family just didn’t cut enough liberal ice – being a foreign born son of a radical anti-British communist!  Well, that did the trick quite nicely.

From “composite” girlfriends in his autobiography (which, it would seem, millions of liberal pinheads bought but few read) to joining Wright’s racist church, Obama has merely crafted a narrative for himself as best suited his immediate needs.  And the cruelty with which he tosses aside old friends like Wright (say what you will about Wright, but have some sympathy:  for 20 years Obama and Wright were close and then Wright got in the way of the newest narrative, and he had to go) is just another indicator of the wrongness of Obama.

I don’t really know what Obama is up to – he’s up to radical leftism, but with what goal in mind, I don’t know:  I suspect there isn’t one in the traditional, political sense.  All we’re seeing now is yet another narrative, this one designed to get Obama re-elected.  After that, he’ll just go on to the next narrative – whatever makes him continue to rise up the ladder in his own estimation.  The trouble is that we need a President – someone who cares less about himself and more about the United States.  A re-elected Obama will not just pursue stupid, destructive policies, but he’ll also ignore any problem which can’t lead to more glory for Obama – and that is a recipe for national and global catastrophe.

Gingrich sees this – and sees more:  Obama must go, but the left as a whole must be crushed.  Our only task as conservatives, patriots and Americans from now until November 6th is to beat these people.  Because if we don’t, we’re going to pay too high a price for failure.

165 thoughts on “Gingrich Gets it Right

  1. dbschmidt May 20, 2012 / 10:47 pm

    Our current President is a narcissistic, anti-colonial piece of work; Nevertheless, this is the fourth time in history of this country (IIRC) that the “Progressives” have shown their true colors. In each of the previous occasions, the people have sent them scurrying like cockroaches into the darkness for another attempt later in the calendar. Just over the last two years we have seen several high level *&@#$(%$^&* claim the progressive crown like SoS Clinton.

    This time I would have to agree with Newt–scurrying back into the darkness of Liberalism is not enough and a complete crushing blow is required. Make take several cycles (which we can also pitch RINOs by the wayside) but no relenting until the last Progressive roach is exterminated.

    (All of this entry is metaphoric–no actual roaches or Democrats were injured with this depiction)

    BTW, mine was (in order) Cain, Newt, Santorium, and now have settled on Mitt. Just wish one of them would come out and state they would put Ron Paul in charge of the Fed. The only man I know who would work himself out of a job in under 4 years.

    • Mark Edward Noonan May 20, 2012 / 11:27 pm

      LOL – I, too, agree with Paul to the Fed…because I am one of those gold bug nuts who wants to return us to real money.

  2. Retired Spook May 21, 2012 / 12:28 am

    “I am not for a narrow victory,” he said. “I am for crushing the left in every single way.”

    There can’t be a narrow GOP victory. The margin has to be so great that no amount of cheating will make a difference. And believe me, the cheating this time around is going to be monumental. And if it is close, and the Donkey’s pull an Al Frankin on a national scale……………….well, I don’t even want to contemplate the ramifications.

    • neocon1 May 21, 2012 / 7:41 am

      Any body but Uboma or hitlery.
      I agree with the fig….crush marxist liberalism and flush it down the toilet.

      • neocon1 May 21, 2012 / 7:42 am

        OT

        Robin Gibb, Bee Gees Co-Founder, Dead at 62…

        RIP…Robin!!

    • neocon1 May 21, 2012 / 7:45 am

      Spook

      you are right on the money…….

      53,000 ‘Dead Voters’ Found in Florida..

      • neocon1 May 21, 2012 / 8:10 am

        Ubamas civilian security force in action……..time to arm up….

        Officials: Violent Chicago Restaurant Melee Appears to Have Been Protester Attack Against White Supremacist Gathering

        Witnesses said up to 18 young people wearing hooded black jackets wielded metal bats and hammers against a group of 12 to 20 diners at the Ashford House Restaurant in Tinley Park, Ill. Ten people were injured, three of whom were hospitalized.

  3. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J May 21, 2012 / 8:07 am

    From the bottom up . . .

    So you would prefer to seek the impossible, a permanent single party in power which serves a dying and archaic electorate? This sounds more like China than the Free America that those who share my ideals seek. The rest of your Birther nonsense is just a heap of sour grapes concoted into a wine for those who would never vote for a center right candidate no matter his or her opponent. This is far beyond race I will admit it is about ideology and yours depends on those who will not be alive in the next generation while Progressives will take up the mantle of civil rights for those too young to vote yet and our cause will more forward for generations to come. All the while the new conservatives that rise from the ashes of this current corruption of Goldwater’s vision will be more centrist because they realize that living in a Progressive society simply means they must accept the rights of others even if those rights are contrary to their beliefs. You will have your religion; it cannot become the religion of the state or even the religion of the political party in power. Freedom means both pof religion and from religion. You will have marriage and it must include same sex couples as well as heterosexual couples. Marriage is for everyone. Every American deserves single payer health care no matter the cost. Deficits be damned if your middle class goes broke trying to keep itself healthy; to insist that insurance companies continue their gouging of the middle class simply to “beat Obama” will be the death of your nation. But of course Mr Noonan I understand that your loyalty, ultimately lies not with America or its people but to your religious ideals. This makes you, in my opinion, unfit to comment on anything other than the politicsal affairs of the Vatican or possibly your take on who will win dancing with the stars. Possibly.

    • neocon1 May 21, 2012 / 8:14 am

      calvin umpteenth AMF, BFF, BS ARF

      a pile of BULL SHIITE in the first paragraph, couldnt read the rest laughing too hard.
      What drugs are you demons smoking in hell these days??

      which serves a dying and archaic electorate? This sounds more like China than the Free America that those who share my ideals seek. The rest of your Birther nonsense is just a heap of sour grapes concoted into a wine for those who would never vote for a center right candidate no matter his or her opponent. This is far beyond race I will admit it is about ideology and yours depends on those who will not be alive in the next generation

      you are a psychotic Moron seek help you Fn loon!

      • neocon1 May 21, 2012 / 8:26 am

        About ARA
        Contact: southsidechicagoara at hushmail dot com

        POINTS OF UNITY

        1.We go where they go: Whenever fascists are organizing or active in public, we’re there. We don’t believe in ignoring them or staying away from them. Never let the nazis have the street!

        2. We don’t rely on the cops or courts to do our work for us: This doesn’t mean we never go to court. But we must rely on ourselves to protect ourselves and stop the fascists.

        3. Non-sectarian defense of other anti-fascists. In ARA, we have a lot of different groups and individuals. We don’t agree about everything and we have a right to differ openly. But in this movement an attack on one is an attack on us all. We stand behind each other.

        4. We support abortion rights and reproductive freedom. ARA intends to do the hard work necessary to build a broad, strong movement against racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest, and the most oppressed people. We want a
        classless, free society. We intend to win!

        Notice this all begins in chicago………
        Ubamas brown shirts are already ramping up the violence, This is going to be a wild ride from now until Romney is sworn in…..

    • Cluster May 21, 2012 / 8:27 am

      So you would prefer to seek the impossible, a permanent single party in power which serves a dying and archaic electorate?

      Actually that was the goal of the democrats in 2009 when they controlled all three branches and excluded any conservative input, and then proceeded to mock, humiliate and lie about the tea party.

      I would welcome the return of a rational democratic party with people like Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman and the current Joe Manchin. Unfortunately, we are subject to brain dead, partisan hacks like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, and I agree with Newt – they must not only be defeated, but they must also be shamed, exposed, and humiliated for what they have done to this country.

      I also agree with Mark, that Obama lied in his bio on his first book. I knew that Obama was an empty suit and lacked character the minute he threw Rev Wright under the bus. Who does that? While I don’t agree at all with Wright, he was supposedly friends with Obama for 20 years, baptized his children, and was a “mentor” to Obama, only to be cast aside when he became inconvenient. That is shameful and exposed Obama for truly being a despicable human being.

      • neocon1 May 21, 2012 / 9:10 am

        ahhhhh our AA “education” system

        “Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?”

        The teacher started to get angry and said:

        “Not to my knowledge.”

        A couple of students relayed the story about Obama admitting that he bullied someone when he was younger. And that seemed to light the fuse on his teacher’s anger. A couple of the students exchanged words with the angry teacher.

        “Stop! Stop! Because there’s no comparison. He’s running for president. Obama is the president.”

        As one student attempted to argue for a fair, two-sided debate on the history of the candidates, he was shouted down and talked over by the teacher. She continued:

        “You got to realize, this man is wanting to be what Obama is. There’s no comparison.”

        Once again, the students pressed for equal discussion of the histories of both men, with one saying:

        “If you’re gonna talk trash about one side, you gotta talk trash about the other.”

        The teacher just seemed to dig her heels in deeper and press her defense of Obama telling the defiant teen:

        “You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.”

        Again the student persisted and invoked his First Amendment right.

        “I’ll say what I want.”

        The still unidentified teacher read the student her rules…her Obama rules.

        “Not about him, you won’t!”

        The back and forth continued and the most strident of the two students reminded his teacher that President Bush was constantly treated to negative statements about him while he was in office:

        “Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked sh-t about him.”

        To which the teacher responded:

        “Because he was sh-tty.”

      • Retired Spook May 21, 2012 / 9:58 am

        Unfortunately, we are subject to brain dead, partisan hacks like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi

        The problem is that their brain-dead foot soldiers like Cav, Dennis, Mitch, Watson, CO, Velma, etc. believe they’re in the mainstream of political thought, when, in reality, they occupy a tiny nitch at the extreme left end, a position, BTW, that none of them has ever successfully defended. I don’t mind giving the far Left a seat at the table, but they’ve shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that they should NEVER be entrusted with the reins of power.

      • Amazona May 21, 2012 / 10:10 am

        But your story indicates that the determination to excuse Obama for absolutely everything and to demonize everyone else for doing what Obama has admitted to doing is finally getting some attention. I think a lot of people are starting to see the hypocrisy of Obamabots as they excuse everything their Dear Leader has done (or refuse to even admit it) while attacking others on the same grounds.

        An anonymous person said he saw George W Bush use cocaine at an undisclosed place at an undisclosed time with no other witnesses, and the Left bayed like wolves that he should not even be considered for the presidency. Obama admits to using all sorts of drugs, including cocaine and hinting at others even stronger, admits to being stoned and/or drunk through high school, and has a specific claim of cocaine use as an adult made by an identified accuser, and not a word is said.

        A small number of records of Bush’s last years in the ANG can’t be found and the howling begins again—that he was AWOL, even that he never served at all (draft dodger!!) but when not a single record from Obama’s past, from passport records to college transcripts to papers he wrote as editor of the Law Review, are made available, the silence is absolute.

        Now anonymous people supposedly claim that Romney not only “bullied” another student in high school, but that the alleged “bullying” was because of hatred for the other student’s sexual orientation, (an accusation which we are supposed to believe is only COINCIDENTALLY made a couple of days after Obama comes out, kind of, for gay “marriage”) and the Left is trying to work up a good fit about that, finding it tough going after using so much energy on other, failed, efforts to invent outrage over faux scandals. Obama has admitted to bullying in high school, and this is now forbidden territory.

        The Left depends on stirring up the lackeys into shrill outrage, throwing them some raw meat to feed their created frenzy, and now some of the lackeys are taking a closer look at what they are being fed and finding it rancid and unpalatable.

    • Amazona May 21, 2012 / 9:53 am

      Cav’s little tirade can best be summed up as 20 pounds of s**t in a five-pound bag. I can’t remember seeing so many bizarre and delusional comments packed into so small a space for a long, long time. It’s like a college sophomore, fresh from a couple of years of indoctrination by radical Leftist professors, found a soapbox and started to bellow all the Leftist propaganda and nonsense he had been pelted with for two years.

      No, it is the RRL which seeks a single party ruling a nation. Always has. Check your history books.

      The nonsense about a “dying and archaic electorate” is just more snotty ageist bigotry, the kind of supercilious pap the juvenile trot out because they think they, in their callowness, are the answer, and the old fogies are the problem. It happens every generation, though not always with such toxicity. The mantra in the 60’s was “never trust anyone over 30”. Kids always think they have invented surliness and smugness, think they are the ones who have discovered fire. But they’re just arrogant punks and in a few years some will have killed themselves off with drugs or booze, some will be professional “students” throwing rocks at police cars, and most will be solid middle class citizens trying to deal with snot-nosed kids of their own and being the “dying and archaic electorate” their own kids sneer at.

      This passionate nonsense is typical” “it is about ideology and yours depends on those who will not be alive in the next generation while Progressives will take up the mantle of civil rights for those too young to vote yet and our cause will more forward for generations to come. ”

      My, how breathlessly smug! And so silly. Cav says this election will be about ideology, but he doesn’t have the slightest idea about the ideology of the PROgressives he is so smitten with, and brags that “our” ideology “…depends on those who will not be alive in the next generation..”

      Hmmmm. So I issue my challenge, one more time, knowing it will not be met but responding to Cav’s declaration that he understands both ideologies represented in this electoral battle.

      Cav, please explain the ideology of the Left. Not the silly utopian crap the Left lays out as bait to sucker people like you in, but the actual IDEOLOGY of the movement. (You might have to look up the meaning of the word, as you and your kind seem to have it confused with pretty much everything BUT ideology.)

      And explain the ideology of the Right.

      While you’re at it, explain why the ideology of the Right is dependent on old people and will, as you claim, not be around for more than this generation.

      Anyone think Cav will have the spine and the intellect to answer these questions? Or will s/he just slink off into the weeds like every other recycler of Leftist pap has in the many years I have issued this challenge?

      My bet, should you care to take it, is that if there is an answer at all it will be ideology-free but full of emotion, and claims like those in the post, of wanting freedom and civil rights, blah blah blah blah blah.

      • Cavalier Epithet, DGET, 3=D- {{}} Ewe! Srsly? IANAL May 21, 2012 / 12:27 pm

        The Ideology of the Left
        By Cavalier Epithet
        What the Left really stands for is all that is good in this world; it was the Left that invented government; Greeks are Leftists and they invented government. The Left invented industry; villages in the Middle-ages were actually Communes and the barter system we invented became the Crony Capitalism of today. The Left is responsible for defeating Tyrants; FDR and Wilson were both Left and they defeated the Right-wing Axis and the Right wing Hun (tho’ not in that order).

        We in the Left believe everyone can become President; even poor oppressed minorities raised in the squalor of the South Pacific and educated at second-rate institutions like Occidental College. We believe that every voter should have a voice: we’d rather allow ten-thousand dead voters than disenfranchise one single illegal alien undocumented Democrat from exercising his right to vote for the Democrat of our choice.

        We believe that putting money into an economy will always spur growth and grow the economy and help those less fortunate have the 60” Flat screen and maybe a night or two each week at Aura Nightclub or Marquee. We know we enjoy a night of wild abandon every now and then, why should those dumber and lazier who have fallen through the cracks of Corporate Greed be allowed to wallow in their inferiority?

        The only reason tossing money into the ghettos hasn’t worked is because it’s never been enough; corporations want to prevent people from going to the same social events as corporations go to so they syphon off the money intended for the democrat voters and spend it all on fancy baseball stadiums and luxury accommodations for themselves and their corporation friends, especially oil corporation friends.

        The Left stands for equal pay for Union workers. We believe teachers are overworked, and should be paid much more than four Star Generals. There should be two teachers, one psychologist, one crisis counselor, and a staff of Union clericals for every five students. We believe that no corporation should earn more off the labor of the workers than that labor is actually worth. We, who are smarter should decide what businesses should operate period! We don’t need any more McDonalds (unless we don’t have enough) or gum manufacturers or yacht companies. We need industry that will produce cars that are good for you, food that is healthy, clothing that is organic and those tasty croissants with chocolate sprinkles and flavored spreads like chive and arugula, yumm.

        We believe the world will be better off with hugs for everyone except religious people that don’t believe Mohammed is the supreme ruler, and fairies, and witches, and atheists, and those weird people in the saffron robes at the airport; they’re okay ‘cuz they’re not like Christians.

        Oh, and we believe conservatives are necessarily obese, white, middle class pew sitters who only get their media coverage from Rush Limbaugh and the collection of blonde FOX “news” anchors. Meaning we are open minded, tolerant and accepting of all mankind; unlike you filthy, money grubbing, backward, toothless, hillbilly, ignorant, racist, god-whores.

      • neocon1 May 21, 2012 / 5:01 pm

        Ahhhhhh the LOOOVING left and Ubamas brown shirts…..

        New Black Panther Field Marshal: Whites ‘Should be Thankful We’re Not Hanging Crackers By Nooses…Yet, Yet, Yet’

        “We’re taught to send this cracker to the cemetery”

      • Amazona May 21, 2012 / 7:07 pm

        “What the Left really stands for is all that is good in this world”

        OK, now you’re just making stuff up.

        OR…..and I guess this is a possibility……to you, “all that is good in this world” is the soul-killing looming presence of Big Brother, telling you where you can work, how much you can make, how much of that you can keep, what you can eat, what you can drive, where you can live, etc.

        You ARE aware, are you not, that Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Progressivism and Liberalism are all just different names for (sometimes) different degrees of Leftism? You DO understand that, don’t you?

        So “all that is good in the world” includes the purposeful starvation of tens of millions of Russians to stabilize Stalin’s grip on the country, the slaughter of something like 6 million Jews, homosexuals, Catholics, gypsies and other undesirables, the killing fields of Cambodia, the butchering of anyone considered educated when the North Vietnamese took over the South, the gunning down of people so desperate for freedom they dared to try to cross the Berlin Wall, the gulags for political dissenters, etc.?

        Interesting worldview, there, Cav.

        “The Left is responsible for defeating Tyrants…”

        Uh, just which “Tyrants” would those be? Stalin? Lenin? Kruschev? Pol Pot? Mao? Fidel? Gotta be more specific there, Cav.

        Oh, I see—to make that statement make any sense, you first have to redefine the political systems of Germany as “RIGHT wing”. Sure. If you can reframe Right Wing to mean massive all-controlling government, collectivism, and top-down governmental control over nearly every aspect of the citizenry, I suppose then you can call these governments Right Wing.

        And you can call the sun the moon and claim that up is down, because it would all make equal sense.

        Yes, I understand, to you political illiterates whose entire political understanding is based on chugging down demagoguic KoolAid fed to you by propagandists, and never able to get past Identity Politics, anything you don’t like IS “Right Wing”..

        It’s only those who are smart enough to actually UNDERSTAND the ideologies of Left and Right who know that any system, no matter what flag it may fly or name it may slap onto itself or identity assigned to it, can really only be accurately identified by its IDEOLOGY.

        The ideology of the Right is small central government, free market, local political control and power.

        The ideology of the Left is large central government, government control over the economy (and sometimes direct control over production) and little to no political power vested in the individual or in the local governments.

        You just keep posting here, Cav, and we will just keep laughing at your absolute, utter, stupidity. Nice effort at paraphrasing Marx, though.

        Is this your answer to my challenge? You know, and let me repeat it here: You can call it an open book test, as I already gave you the answers, but feel free to elaborate.

        Cav, please explain the ideology of the Left. Not the silly utopian crap the Left lays out as bait to sucker people like you in, but the actual IDEOLOGY of the movement. (You might have to look up the meaning of the word, as you and your kind seem to have it confused with pretty much everything BUT ideology.)

        And explain the ideology of the Right.

        And I’ll get the popcorn, because your intellectual pratfalls are truly the stuff of fine entertainment.

      • Amazona May 21, 2012 / 7:13 pm

        Sorry, Cav….I was so busy laughing at your juvenile screed that I missed the first line.

        You actually think this laundry list utopian wishes, rewritten history, and general blather is an IDEOLOGY???

        I warned you, I told you in advance, I expected an actual ideology from you, and what did you come up with? Not a single word that actually describes a political ideology.

        Not one.

        The word “pathetic” gets used too much these days, but in this case it is the only word that even comes close to the truly abysmal level of political ignorance, historical illiteracy, and general much-mouthed pap you have outlined with such passion and such wrongness.

        No, sweetie, ideology is the blueprint for how to run a country. I asked for a blueprint and you gave me a realtor’s spiel on how much I would like living in the neighborhood.

        So utterly, sadly, pathetically, almost frighteningly clueless……

      • Amazona May 21, 2012 / 7:17 pm

        OK, you got me, oh great sock puppet, whose glory is glorious and whose wit is so witty.

        This is what I get for dropping in on my way to do something else and not paying attention to the screen credits.

        The thing is, it sounded exactly like what Cav would say, much of it what he already has said.

        But that is the essence of true comedic brilliance—the kernel of truth upon which the edifice of ridicule is built.

        I bow to your genius.

        I AM NOT WORTHY…….

      • Amazona May 21, 2012 / 7:19 pm

        Now do dennis…..

      • Retired Spook May 21, 2012 / 7:54 pm

        Now do dennis…..

        That’s a tough challenge. Not even Dennis does Dennis very well.

        BTW, Amazona, I thoroughly enjoyed your ripping the sock puppet into shreds. I’m not sure which gave me the biggest laugh, his post or yours. Liberals would be so much more tolerable if they could just laugh at themselves.

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 21, 2012 / 8:31 pm

        Cavalier is clearly a fake – not a word in there about the way conservatives cruelly beat puppies to death with tire irons…this is just soooo opposed to the liberal view which is that no dog should be without his garnish…

      • Cavalier Epithet, DGET, 3=D- {{}} Ewe! Srsly? IANAL May 22, 2012 / 12:47 pm

        Amazona,

        Call me a fake will ya’? Every paragraph in my screed was lifted (essentially) from arguments made at their website. Purposely reductio ad absurdum but the arguments nonetheless.
        I actually went to that fever-swamp and gleaned those smarmy pellets of ignorant misinformation, the only thing I cut was the obscenity from their description of the blond “Fox” news anchors.

        Methinks that is the reason they have not responded. Cannot argue with their own logic without demonstrating the lie of their position.

    • Mark Edward Noonan May 21, 2012 / 8:27 pm

      Cavalor,

      Care to actually comment on what I wrote about?

  4. Liberty At'Stake May 21, 2012 / 7:01 pm

    “I am for crushing the left in every single way.”

    Me too. It’s imperative.

  5. Copious Gasser May 22, 2012 / 12:05 am

    Reblogged this on Copious Gasser and commented:
    Not only Gingrich gets it right, but this guy gets it also. I’d add more, but he says it perfectly.

  6. watsonredux May 22, 2012 / 1:54 am

    Mark Edward Noonan said, “The capstone for getting rid of Obama came, in my view, just recently – when it was revealed that in 1991 he was described as being born in Kenya.”

    This is your capstone? Obama was “described” as being born in Kenya? Whether it’s true or not, all you need to do to convince The Great Noonan is to describe it as such.

    I heard it described that Mitt Romney was born in Mexico. In fact, the exact headline is “Mitt Romney Maybe Born in Mexico, Say Birthers Who Are Bad at Math.” I’m not voting for a Mexican for president. If he wants to be a president, he can run for the president of Mexico.

      • GMB May 22, 2012 / 4:21 am

        Because he was born in kenya? Naw, that could not be true.

    • Mark Edward Noonan May 22, 2012 / 10:08 am

      Watson,

      Don’t you see? The publisher couldn’t have just snatched that information out of the air: someone told them that Obama was born in Kenya. Now, just who do you think told them this? Obama’s mother? Obama’s friend? Get real – it is almost a certainty that Obama told them, himself (there is that one in a million shot that some third party told them and they didn’t bother to ask Obama for verification…but I don’t deal in absurdities). And given that it is almost a certainty that Obama told them then we have this to consider: in order to finesse his bio and advance himself, Obama lied about himself.

      What we appear to have in President Obama is a man so entirely self-absorbed that each and every move in his adult life has been a conscious attempt to advance himself regardless of the facts. He’s got to go – the United State and the world are unsafe as long as he’s President. It was a gigantic mistake we made in 2008…we, as a people, fell for a con…

      • Cluster May 22, 2012 / 10:29 am

        ….we, as a people, fell for a con…

        People like watson fell for a con – I was convinced Obama was an empty suit from day one, as were most conservatives.

      • HAL May 22, 2012 / 4:49 pm

        Look Dave, I can see you’re really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 23, 2012 / 12:34 am

        Dave,

        Then you provide us a rational argument showing how it is impossible – or even highly unlikely – that it was Obama, himself, who told his publisher that he was born in Kenya. This is an incredible thing: he was born in Hawaii and his 1991 bio (which appears was not updated until 2007) says he was born in Kenya. If it wasn’t Obama making the statement, then who? Why?

        Unless you can come up with a reasonable argument better than mine, then you’re just dodging the issue.

      • Canadian Observer May 23, 2012 / 6:30 am

        “The publisher couldn’t have just snatched that information out of the air: someone told them that Obama was born in Kenya.”…Mark
        ———————————————————————————-

        Miriam Goderich, the individual who edited the text of the bio has said:-

        “This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

        Perhaps, Mark, you can get her to submit to a lie detector test. She plainly says that the information did not come from the President, so according to your accusation, she must be a bold face liar.

      • tiredoflibbs May 23, 2012 / 11:10 am

        Ahh, the drones overlook one little detail….

        How long did this “error” remain in effect? ObAMATEUR never saw this promotional item about himself to say “hey this is wrong”…

        Hmmmm…. I know these drones never look at the details and the overall big picture. It is a huge weakness for them and shines through each and every time.

        Bowman chimes in with the usual dumbed down talking point … “your hatred for obAMATEUR”….

        … pathetic.

      • HAL May 23, 2012 / 11:32 am

        “you do remember, though, that Dave triumphed over HAL, right?”

        Sorry Dave, that’s incorrect. Perhaps you should have read the books instead of watching a bad movie.

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 23, 2012 / 8:36 pm

        Canadian,

        Like I hadn’t seen that before – so you tell me; if she’s telling the truth and did not learn from Obama that he was born in Kenya then who told her? Had Obama even been to Kenya by 1991? Obama, Sr., was 5 years dead when that bio was written, so we know it wasn’t dear, old dad who said it. Obama’s mother? Who? And if it wasn’t Obama then why didn’t Obama correct it when he got his copy? I’ve had a book published and I certainly wouldn’t have let a major biographical fact like that slip by…it would be one thing to say I was born in New Jersey when I was actually born in New York…but if they said I was born in Ireland I’d have to speak up.

        It is just astounding that we have a clear, obvious lie (though we don’t know for certain who it was who uttered the lie…highly likely it was Obama, but we’ll never have rock-solid proof) and you simply gloss over it and by a stupid statement about fact-checking errors from the publisher…if they couldn’t have checked something like that then its a wonder they can even spell their own names correctly. Publishers deal with words – its all they do; a basic fact like this is not one to slip by anyone with any degree of competence.

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 23, 2012 / 8:38 pm

        Dave,

        Don’t be so cowardly – answer the question: If it wasn’t Obama’s lie, then who’s was it?

      • Amazona May 23, 2012 / 8:52 pm

        We are supposed to believe that a publishing company, preparing a short bio to promote an author, asks the author no questions at all about himself, his background, his inspirations, ???????

        For an AUTOBIOGRAPHY ????

        OK, so Miriam is used to just pulling stuff out of her ear, making it up out of whole cloth, simply inventing imaginary “facts” to make authors look more interesting. Hmmmmm. I wonder if she can produce any other examples of this fabrication of “facts” to enhance the images of other authors.

        For fiction, she managed to guess pretty well, getting awfully close to the truth as told now by Obama. She got the Kenya part right, and the Hawaii part right, and the rest of it right, evidently without asking one single question of Obama but just winging it. Gee, out of all that info the only thing she didn’t correctly invent was the place of birth!

        She ought to handicap horse racing, being so weirdly accurate in her visions and all.

        But then,after we accept the claim that Miriam is a liar who pretends to be telling people about the author in question but is really just making it all up, we are supposed to believe that this particular publishing company, unlike others, did not submit the bogus bio to the author himself for review. Sure, other publications routinely do this fact-checking, to get the author’s reaction to what is said, to see if he has any changes to make or things to add or subtract, before it goes out to the public. But not this one! This one doesn’t care about accuracy, errors, spelling the names right, any of the things that reputable publishing companies work so hard to eliminate by having the people in question go over the material before it is sent out. What the hell, right?

        So now we have a publishing house with an oddly casual attitude toward fact, as shown by its acceptance of fictional biographies and its lack of interest in confirming anything that is going to be presented to the reading public as factual.

        And THEN, having swallowed these unlikely scenarios, we are asked to buy into the most unlikely thing of all—- that a man with such an overweening ego that he has presumed to write an autobiography at such a young age, with so few accomplishments (none of them verified, either) and looking forward to the publication of his first book, doesn’t even read the promo stuff written about him.

        Yeah, Mr. “I, WE, I, ME, ME, ME, ME, MY, I, I, I, ME,MY” doesn’t even, for 16 YEARS glance at a purported bio of himself, used to promote his self-serving egomaniacal preening assessment of his own importance and interest.

        So we have to accept a lying biographer, an indifferent and sloppy publisher, and a writer so humble that he doesn’t even vet what is written about him to promote his first book.

        And then the flying pig crashed into the huge bridge built across the desert before he got to the oceanfront resort in Kansas……….

      • Canadian Observer May 24, 2012 / 7:42 am

        Mark, why do you think that those birthers who insist that the President was not born in Hawaii have as yet failed to prove their assertions?

        Remember when Trump said he had sent investigators to Hawaii and they could not believe what they were finding. Well, we are still waiting today to learn exactly what that was, aren’t we? No, if there was any truth in that statement, Trump, being the egomaniac he is, would have called an international press conference to announce to the world that it was he that uncovered the truth about the President’s place of birth.

        Now we have Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett saying that he considers the matter of President ballot eligibility closed and apologizing for creating controversy and feeding a birther frenzy by requesting that Hawaiian officials once again verify the president’s birth documents.

        Why not admit, Mark, that despite how much you and other birthers believe that Mr. Obama is not an American citizen by birth and, therefore, not eligible to serve as President of the United States and leader of the free world, the cold hard fact is that on August 4, 1961 at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, Stanley Ann Dunham gave birth to a baby boy who would become the 44th. President of the United States of America.

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 24, 2012 / 11:37 am

        Canadian,

        I beg your pardon – I’m on the side of those who say Obama was born in Hawaii…Obama, though, appears to have been, at one time, on the side of the “birthers”. You are really just being obtuse now – deliberately so, I imagine: you just don’t want to admit that your hero is a liar.

      • Canadian Observer May 24, 2012 / 1:46 pm

        I’m on the side of those who say Obama was born in Hawaii…Mark

        ———————————————————————————
        You could have fooled me, Mark. Everything you have written on the subject would lead me to believe otherwise. The President has proven beyond a doubt that he is a citizen born in the United States and yet you call him a liar. Your stand is very confusing to say the least.

      • J. R. Babcock May 24, 2012 / 2:24 pm

        Your stand is very confusing to say the least.

        Canadian, no I think you just confuse easily. Clearly what Mark is saying is that Obama took 16 years to correct what any observer, Canadian or otherwise, would see as a glaring error, and only did so when he decided to run for President, and being born in Kenya was not only no longer an advantage, but made him ineligible. He was either a liar when he told the publicist he was born in Kenya, or he was a liar in 2007 when he said he wasn’t. Does that clear up your confusion?

      • Canadian Observer May 24, 2012 / 3:11 pm

        J. R. Babcock May 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm #

        Canadian, no I think you just confuse easily…J.R. Babcock

        ———————————————————————————–
        Perhaps so, J.R., but the bottom line is that it is a physical impossibility for a person to be born in two different locations. It is a proven fact that the President was born in Hawaii, on American soil, and is, indeed, a legitimate U.S. citizen. You can argue otherwise until you are blue in the face and it still won’t change the fact that he is legally POTUS and leader of the free world.

      • J. R. Babcock May 24, 2012 / 3:56 pm

        You can argue otherwise until you are blue in the face and it still won’t change the fact that he is legally POTUS and leader of the free world.

        I’m not arguing that and neither is Mark. Geez, you’re as obtuse as everyone here says you are.

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 25, 2012 / 4:21 pm

        Canadian,

        I’m calling him a liar because in his 1991 bio he said he was born in Kenya. Are you having some reading comprehension issues?

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 25, 2012 / 4:25 pm

        Dave,

        And I have said there is a chance – exceptionally small, to be sure – that Obama wasn’t the source of the “born in Kenya” statement…but in an Occam’s Razor sense, there is not anyone else more likely than Obama as the source. Now if you’ve got a rational argument to make which would indicate someone else as the source of that statement, then let’s hear it.

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 26, 2012 / 11:23 am

        Dave,

        You may be unaware that I am a published author – so, yes, I am familiar with all that. My publisher asked me for a biographical sketch for inclusion in the book and I provided it. I suppose it is possible that Obama’s publisher decided to write the sketch for him but they still would have obtained the asserted facts contained therein from the author. As I’ve said, if you’ve got a rational argument for someone else being the source of the data then let’s hear it – your continued refusal to provide one is indicating that you are just determined upon a knee-jerk defense of the President.

      • tiredoflibbs May 26, 2012 / 2:35 pm

        Come on Mark, the most easiest and likeliest explanation is just that it was a simple fact check error (that went on for 16 YEARS!!!).

        Why quibble about details and obvious questions?!?

        We need to concentrate on the deflecting questions offered by Davy.

        Never mind that erroneous information was allowed to stand for 16 YEARS. Never mind that obAMATEUR is what he needs to be at the time (like running as a centrist in 2008 and turned hard left Jan 20, 2009).

        That is not important. What is important is the simple minded spin that satisfies the mindless drones.

    • GMB May 22, 2012 / 4:27 am

      From my experience, watson doesn’t do answers. Good luck getting one 😛

      • neocon1 May 22, 2012 / 7:05 am

        GMB

        answers require a functioning brain, watty only has printed placards to read talking points off…….well maybe some pictures of stick men to help his “reading”

      • neocon1 May 22, 2012 / 7:45 am

        The PLOT thickens…lol

        Hawaii Five-O: Sheriff Joe sends detectives to Honolulu
        Cold Case Posse seeks to crack mystery of Obama’s birth 50 years ago

      • neocon1 May 22, 2012 / 7:54 am

        Ahmadinejad, Farrakhan & New Black Panthers: Shocking New Details on Their Meeting & the ‘Beast’ Alliance That Was Forged

        “So, am I not to ally myself, alliance myself with this Arab in fighting this white man?”

        this is no accident folks….this is pure tyranny and treason by the Ubama regime and his flying monkey holder.

  7. Cluster May 22, 2012 / 8:23 am

    Hey, we finally found something positive about the Obama economy:

    Traffic congestion dropped 30% last year from 2010 in the USA’s 100 largest metropolitan areas, driven largely by higher gas prices and a spotty economic recovery, according to a new study by a Washington-state firm that tracks traffic flows.

    Isn’t this great! And think of the economic stimulus all those unemployment checks are creating. This Obama economy is just super.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-22/traffic-congestion-down/55120930/1

  8. Cluster May 22, 2012 / 8:32 am

    Everyone needs to watch this you tube link which is embedded about 3/4 down the page:

    http://salisbury.wbtv.com/news/politics/73239-classroom-debate-over-obama-goes-viral-teacher-suspended

    I find it hard to believe that this woman is actually a teacher. Based on this short recording, she does not at all belong in the class room but unfortunately I will bet that there are many more like her. There were so many opportunities for her to take this discussion down a road that would encourage these kids to think through the positions of each candidate based on their approach to economics and tie it in to historical examples – but no. I think the teacher is probably less informed and less mature than the kids she is instructing.

  9. Cluster May 22, 2012 / 12:43 pm

    The Obama regime suing states, religious organizations suing Obama – what a wonderful society he has created in just three years. Has everyone had enough yet?

    43 Catholic dioceses and organizations filed a lawsuit on Monday against the Obama administration.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz1vcLDEOGa

  10. E. Holder May 22, 2012 / 12:56 pm

    New Black Panther Field Marshal: Whites ‘Should be Thankful We’re Not Hanging Crackers By Nooses…Yet, Yet, Yet’

    “We’re taught to send this cracker to the cemetery”

    I approve this message!

  11. GMB May 22, 2012 / 1:05 pm

    News Flash! Stop the presses!! ANNE ROMNEY LIKES HORSES!!

    Other than that I got nothing. A Donkyrat. 😛

    • Cluster May 22, 2012 / 1:34 pm

      Not just any horse – but horses that cost money!!

      Oh the horrors!

  12. Cluster May 22, 2012 / 3:17 pm

    If anyone is looking for an alternative to the comedy channel, you can’t go wrong with MSNBC. Right now I am watching the brain trust over there – Krystal Ball (and no, she’s not a stripper), Jonathan Capehart, and that rocket scientist himself Martin Bashir talk about Romney and Bain and it was mentioned that Romney usually leads in polls that are based on the economy to which Bashir replied: “but that we was before we knew what venture capital was”

    That’s priceless. Evidently the smart people over at MSNBC had no idea what venture capital was until just recently. You can’t make this shit up.

  13. Cluster May 22, 2012 / 3:27 pm

    Prediction: When the democrats lose in November, opposing the presidents agenda will be labeled patriotic and protecting the minority. I can hear Hillary now:

    “We have a right to a disagree with this President, blah, blah, blah”

    Liberals are nothing if not transparent.

    • J. R. Babcock May 22, 2012 / 4:12 pm

      Liberals are nothing if not transparent.

      And dangerous — don’t ever forget that — and ignorant, and smug, and condescending, and nasty, and humorless, and sanctimonious, and hypocritical, and, oh, and did I mention DANGEROUS?

    • neocon1 May 22, 2012 / 7:20 pm

      at least two **MALE** student editors complained to colleagues and senior university officials about inappropriate behavior by Obama,

      once a pot and pole smoker always ……………

      • neocon1 May 22, 2012 / 7:22 pm

        Im Bwany Fwank and I appwove of dischhh message………..

        Obama named ‘The First Gay President’ on Newsweek …

  14. GMB May 22, 2012 / 7:59 pm

    The score is still in Mitt’s favor. 1400+ SAT score, 3.97 college GPA.
    barky. 0000 sat and 0.00 college GPA.

    Yet barky is the smartest person since eisnstein. Hows that work again?

    • neocon1 May 23, 2012 / 5:57 am

      Hows that work again?

      Manchurian candidate

  15. watsonredux May 22, 2012 / 11:04 pm

    GMB said, “From my experience, watson doesn’t do answers. Good luck getting one.”

    Oh, I answered many questions in the previous thread. I just don’t answer them all because your game is to just keep asking questions. If you don’t like it, just ignore me.

    And I’m still not voting for a Mexican for president.

    • Amazona May 22, 2012 / 11:05 pm

      Clearly you understand citizenship about as well as you do the Constitution

    • Retired Spook May 22, 2012 / 11:21 pm

      I just don’t answer them all because your game is to just keep asking questions.

      There weren’t that many, Watson, and they weren’t that tough.

      • watsonredux May 22, 2012 / 11:27 pm

        Yeah, and I had essentially one question: What are your principles? Honestly, all of your answers added up to the idea that state and local governments can use taxpayer dollars any way they want as long as it’s legal.

      • Retired Spook May 22, 2012 / 11:36 pm

        Honestly, all of your answers added up to the idea that state and local governments can use taxpayer dollars any way they want as long as it’s legal.

        I think you’ve finally got it Watson. Taxpayers (the people) can also take their own money and use it anyway they please as long as it’s legal. Now if you had said “should” instead of “can”, then I would disagree.

      • watsonredux May 23, 2012 / 12:01 am

        Okay, fine, Spook, keep playing games.

        Sure from a legal standpoint, governments CAN do whatever they can legally get away with. The whole point of asking your for a conservative principle in the example I cited was to find out what you conservatives thought was appropriate. Would you like for me to repeat all of the absurd rationalizations you guys proposed in the previous thread? I mean, we can carry it over here if you really want to.

      • Retired Spook May 23, 2012 / 12:39 am

        Okay, fine, Spook, keep playing games.

        Too funny, Watson. A conservative position is that the Federal Government has certain enumerated powers. Everything else is reserved for the states or the people. The states also have their own constitutions, a number of which actually preceded the U.S. Constitution. Citizens of states elect public officials at the state, county and municipal levels and sometimes at the township level to appropriate and manage spending for a variety of functions. I actually moved out of Fort Wayne and Allen County, Indiana, out in the country in a neighboring county because the politicians in Fort Wayne and Allen County were constantly after a higher percentage of my tax money, and I didn’t like they way they spent it.

        Several years ago Fort Wayne participated in a joint venture with a private equity firm to build a new minor league baseball stadium downtown, even though the stadium north of downtown, next to the Coliseum at that time was not yet paid for, and was one of the nicer stadiums in the league. There was major citizen opposition to it. but it actually turned our pretty well, and it’s now one of the nicest minor league stadiums in the country. From everything I hear and read, it’s been a net plus to the city. But I’m not a big sports fan, and had I still lived in Fort Wayne, I would have opposed it. Even though it was not an illegal venture, several politicians who supported it got voted out of office. That’s the way representative government works.

        You have this annoying habit of latching onto minor issues and blowing them all out of proportion, all to score some kind of little gotcha. It’s really getting tiresome. If you were doing so on the basis on some kind of personally held principles, I could maybe understand, but principles don’t seem to be part of your repertoire.

      • Cluster May 23, 2012 / 8:25 am

        Watson again shows me again why I am so anxious to not only defeat people like him, but to watch them bleed from the ears. I am no longer interested in having a conversation with them, preferring instead to humiliate them. Wouldn’t it be great if we could trade liberals for hard working, God fearing immigrants that actually appreciate this country?

      • Amazona May 23, 2012 / 10:39 am

        To summarize: watson, and his ilk, refuse to define the Left, because even if they do know what they think they also know that plainly stated it would be quite unpalatable to most Americans, as it is diametrically opposite the most basic principle of American government, the Constitution of the United States. Knowing how distasteful open opposition to the Constitution would be, they pay lip service to it if pressed, claiming to “believe in the Constitution”.

        But then when something comes up that rattles their cages, and they start to howl at the moon about an ISSUE, their arguments inevitably reveal their true, inner, contempt for the Constitution as the rule of law in this country, as well as their ignorance of what it says and what it means.

        This is the only thing that makes it worth my time and energy to engage a hysteric like watson—the knowledge that he will soon, in his shrill defense of whatever emotional position has his panties in a wad at any given time, if pressed, reveal his ignorance of the blueprint for governance of the United States and his conviction that it really should not be considered to be of much importance.

        And then, in spite of themselves, as this very very thin veneer of “believing in the Constitution” peels away and the underlying conviction that it can be ignored or discarded at any time for any reason shows its Leftist face, we can see the chasm of political belief between the Left and the Right.

        We know that one cannot be a Leftist and believe in the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land, because the very definition of the Left, the definition of large and controlling central government, is directly opposite that of the small-central government, authority at the local level, core of the Right’s ideology.

        The Leftists here, or rather the Pseudo Leftists as they have no allegiance to the ideology of the Left, not even understanding it, but only an emotional attraction to the bait of social issues the Left strews about to lure them in, are simply emotion-driven, clueless, lackeys attacking an imaginary “Right”, imaginary “conservatives” whose ideology is as much a mystery to them as that of their chosen side.

        But they can be goaded into blurting out their belief that the Constitution doesn’t really matter if it gets in the way of something they want, and that’s always a rewarding outcome to a little expenditure of time and energy.

      • Amazona May 23, 2012 / 5:48 pm

        Be careful, David….to answer you I need to get into that scary scary territory of political ideology, and we all know how you Libs fear that unknown land.

        I stand behind my comment. And my comment is based upon an actual understanding of the ideology of the Left and of the Right.

        The word “conservative” in the context of 21st Century American politics means a belief in the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land. That is, by definition, a national or federal government that is severely restricted as to size, scope and power.

        If one does not believe in this, one does not believe in the Constitution, because this what the Constitution SAYS, it is what it MEANS and it is what it stands for.

        To read and understand the Constitution, to read and understand the writings of and about the Framers regarding the structure of the Constitution and what they wanted it to do, to read and understand the explanations of the Constitution given by the Framers after it was signed and then ratified, means by definition to understand the inherent goal, clearly stated and by reference, to make it impossible for people following its rules to ever expand the size, scope and/or power of the Federal Government.

        Leftist ideology, so clear to those who read and understand it, is the antithesis of the ideology underlying the Constitution. It is defined by a desire and need for a very very large, very very powerful, central government, and it is defined by redistribution of wealth.

        To claim to be a Leftist and to believe in the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land is to claim both sides of diametrically opposing philosophies.

        It’s a claim that can only be made by someone who truly does not understand the ideology of either system, and it is blatantly foolish.

        It is like stating “I am a Christian who does not believe in God”.

      • HAL May 23, 2012 / 5:58 pm

        Dave, Are you sure you’re making the right decision? I think you should stop.

      • Amazona May 23, 2012 / 8:25 pm

        For a while Outback Steakhouse had a very funny ad featuring Jemaine from Flight of the Conchords. He explained that he was a vegetarian.

        “Well, I do eat fish. And chicken, And some meat. I guess you’d say I’m semi-veg”.

        I think of this when I hear a Lefty inform us that he DOES believe in the Constitution, really he does. But then the qualifiers come in, and he thinks guns should be banned, and free speech on conservative talk shows, and it’s really freedom FROM religion, and the Feds can redistribute anything they want if someone thinks it is a good thing—more and more “semi”.

      • Amazona May 23, 2012 / 8:30 pm

        Did anyone here ever complain that “liberals aren’t compromising enough”?

        Really?

        I guess if your entire philosophy is based on moral relativism, then you can assert that other people should be happy to be only partly awful instead of trying to be right.

        What these guys don’t get is that we are not Liberals BECAUSE WE THINK THEY ARE WRONG.

        All they do is bleat about our failure to go along with their wrongness. And, of course, to attribute it to some nasty and unpleasant characteristic instead of objective principle.

      • Retired Spook May 24, 2012 / 9:04 am

        “The word “conservative” in the context of 21st Century American politics means a belief in the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land.”

        I’ll assume for your sake that the above is a joke. Because if that’s what you honestly believe–and you honestly believe that ONLY conservatives believe in the Constitution

        The fact that you would think that’s a joke shows just how completely out of touch you are. I wouldn’t go so far as to say ONLY Conservatives believe in the Constitution, but I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that the Left believes in the Constitution as written. And by “as written” I mean including all the Amendments, lest you make the standard charge that I mean Conservatives are in favor of slavery. Obama has said publicly that it’s deeply flawed, and doesn’t allow for what the government MUST DO for people, an idea completely alien to the principles upon which this country was founded and prospered. What do you think he meant when he said he was going to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”? Nowhere in his speech did he add the qualifier “within the confines and limits of the Constitution”. Virtually every Lefty I’ve ever known views the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, not a blueprint for governing, and that mindset is, more than anything else, what’s driving the modern Conservative movement.

        But do tell us, Dave, what you believe a 21st Century Conservative is. And, while you at it, how about telling us what you are.

      • Retired Spook May 24, 2012 / 11:00 pm

        Well, the best definition of 21st century conservatism I’ve seen is: “Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today; updated daily.”

        You sound like a half-way intelligent guy, Dave, so I expected a little more than the best definition you’ve seen on some Lefty site. If that’s all you’ve got, then you’re a waste of bandwidth.

      • Retired Spook May 25, 2012 / 8:05 am

        I’m sorry, Spook, did I hit a little too close to home?

        Ha — not at all. I’m about as mainstream Conservative as you can get. I’ve been married to the same woman for nearly 46 years — never been unfaithful. Don’t cheat; rarely lie unless it’s to spare someone’s feelings. Been working since I was 12, never been unemployed or taken government assistance, and don’t have a bunker or a closet full of guns, ammo and freeze-dried food.

        But let’s look at where the parties have come since JFK. The current Conservative movement mirrors much of what Goldwater stood for: individual freedom, rugged individualism, adherence to the Constitution. JFK wouldn’t even recognize his party today with assorted Leftist radicals, socialists, Commies and Muslim radicals in the White House, spending through the roof, national debt at 100% of GDP and the country’s first credit downgrade. Hell, I’d probably vote for JFK today. So I think you’ve got your parties mixed up there sport. It’s the Democrat Party that’s gone off the rails. Apparently you not as intelligent as I gave you credit for. My bad — carry on.

      • Amazona May 25, 2012 / 12:39 pm

        It’s a simple matter of definition of terms, a process the Left hates and maybe even fears because pinning down a definition eliminates the ability to be “flexible”, that most prized of Liberal traits.

        But once you say, of the Constitution, “I believe in the Constitution” you have to go on to say what that means.

        Because once you say “I believe in the Constitution, BUT….” you have veered away from believing that the nation must be governed according to the laws laid down within that very Constitution.

        If it says that the Federal Government is limited to only the delegated duties enumerated in the Constitution, and you want the Federal Government to do things that are not delegated to it, then you really DON’T “believe in the Constitution”. You believe that you should be allowed to do whatever you decide is the right thing to do, whether or not it complies with Constitutional limitations or restrictions.

        I understand why Lefties fight this so vehemently, and I have understood all along that this is the main reason none of you have been willing to openly and frankly state your ideology. When your ideology runs counter to that stated within the Constitution and codified as the law of the land, and is in conflict with what has been the most basic identifier of an American for centuries, it is awkward to say so out loud. Probably awkward to even admit it to yourself.

        So you try to play both sides, paying lip service to “belief in the Constitution” while advocating and voting on policies that are in no way compliant with the Constitution, and simply mounting nonstop attacks on those who insist that compliance is necessary.

        There are some who say, quite sincerely, “I believe in the Constitution but I also believe that sometimes we have to stretch its boundaries to accomplish something I think is important”. This is a tough call for many people. But the problem is, once you decide that the Constitution can be expanded or distorted to meet a goal of the moment, it can then be expanded or distorted to meet another goal at another time, and it is no longer the law of the land but merely a collection of suggestions for how the nation should be run, if it’s expedient.

        I suggest that one difference between a true conservative and a Democrat who is not yet a hard-core Liberal is that both see the same problem, both find it to be a serious problem, both are very intent on solving the problem, and both are equal in their compassion, their concern for their fellow man, and their desire to make a situation better.

        The conservative looks at the problem, comes up with some ideas of how to resolve it, and then applies those possible solutions to the Constitution to see if they can be implemented within the confines of the actions allowed to the Federal Government. If they are not, then the conservative looks to other places for solutions—state governments, local governments, churches, private charities, and so on.

        The Democrat looks at the problem, comes up with essentially identical solutions, and then demands that the Federal Government apply these solutions, regardless of the Constitutional restrictions on such actions.

        At the heart of the matter, this is the difference between a conservative and a liberal. (Lower-case L liberal, classic American liberal, not the radical Liberalism we are seeing take over the Democratic Party. The radicals get into demagoguery, demonization, and so on, but most if not all of their focus is gaining and retaining power, not on solving problems.)

      • Amazona May 25, 2012 / 1:34 pm

        Funniest damned thing—Dave’s links are solely about identity, without a single word, even a single SYLLABLE, about actual political ideology.

        So some people who are registered with the dreaded “R” after their names are jerks—this is, to surface paddlers of political waters, an indictment of IDEOLOGY.

        Not that they use this word either, but that’s what it comes down to. Ol’ Dave there just tosses around the word “conservative” as if it means Republican.

        Typical.

        And some of the stuff he quotes is just plain dumb. (Go figure!) Someone is all wound up about a reference to Communists in the Dem party, unearthing the old bogey-man of McCarthy, but as usual misrepresenting what McCarthy actually said.

        What he DID was identify, by name, and with complete accuracy, several Communists who held high positions in the US government. Oooooh!!! The horror!!!

        Of course, this was at a time when the Communists had threatened to “bury” us, to destroy us, basically declared war on us. Having members of the enemy in high levels of our own government was just plain stupid—kind of like having members of the Muslim Brotherhood in high places in our current government.

        McCarthy was right. The rest is just revisionist crap.

        Just the other day I heard a lawyer say that he doesn’t like what McCarthy did, like the Committee on Unamerican Activities. Duh. Dumb as dirt.

        Yeah, ol’ Dave has quite a list of approved sources of his “information” and apparently it is all based on bigotry and ignorance.

      • Canadian Observer May 25, 2012 / 2:15 pm

        Amazona May 25, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

        “Someone is all wound up about a reference to Communists in the Dem party, unearthing the old bogey-man of McCarthy, but as usual misrepresenting what McCarthy actually said.

        What he DID was identify, by name, and with complete accuracy, several Communists who held high positions in the US government. Oooooh!!! The horror!!!

        McCarthy was right.”

        ————————————————————————————————–

        You truly believe that McCarthy was right, do you, Amazona? You would have no hesitation in accepting his actions at part of your ‘actual political ideology’? The idea of an individual who would embrace McCarthyism in today’s political climate sickens me. What kind of conservative are you?

        ————————————————————————————————

        “McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1954 and characterized by heightened fears of communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, “McCarthyism” soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

        During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person’s real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.”

        ——————————————————————————————————

        You can continue to applaud and espouse your political philosophy as being spun from threads of gold, Amazona, but when you plainly write, in black & white, that “McCarthy was right”, well, your lengthy words of wisdom cease to have any credibility at all. Hopefully, this is just your personal opinion and is not something that a thinking conservatives would believe.

        Go ahead now and attack me with your usual snarky response.

      • Amazona May 25, 2012 / 3:13 pm

        CO, you managed to get yourself quite worked up, didn’t you? This is what happens when people blithely accept propaganda and demagoguery instead of taking the time to actually find out what the hell they are talking about. You people are so easily led.

        Joe McCarthy named names, and was later vindicated when it was proved that the people he accused of being Communists in the government were, in fact, Communists in the government. Do you deny this?

        I don’t know where you got your overheated screed about the eeeeeeevils of this man, but if you take the time to examine it you see a huge amount of fluff padding out very little fact.

        “McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.

        Were you astute enough to detect the demagoguery in this statement? First, who defined “McCarthyism” in this way? Because it is a demagogic tool. And that snide little comment of “without proper regard for evidence” ought to be a giveaway, for anyone interested in sorting out propaganda.

        You people are sooooo gullible.

        In fact, the few accusations actually made by McCarthy were based on evidence, which was proved to be correct. So this aside is simply a lie.

        The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1954 and characterized by heightened fears of communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, “McCarthyism” soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts.

        Uh-oh—-a fact slipped in, which went right over YOUR head. But this author, as deeply invested in smearing McCarthy as he obviously is, still managed to mention that the Red Scare was what he called a “similar effort”, not the actions of McCarthy himself, whose acts were quite limited.

        BTW, there is a lot of information out there, from released KGB files, that prove much more infiltration and espionage than we even suspected, further vindicating McCarthy. Ever hear of Alger Hiss, for example?

        And just who was it who “criticized the anti-communist pursuits” of ANYONE during a period when the leaders of the Communist Party openly threatened to “bury” us, destroy us, and possibly blow us off the planet? ?????? Please explain to us why anyone WOULD criticize finding enemies in our midst.

        The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

        Pretty broad brush there, isn’t it? The author just decided to lump everything he could portray as bad into this invented “McCarthyism”. “Reckless” “Unsubstantiated” “Demagogic” Eeeeuwwwww. I think he missed poor personal hygiene and wearing plaid with stripes.

        Yeah, the term is now used pretty generally, but by dupes and lemmings who can’t be bothered to find out the facts, but who do dearly love a steaming pile upon which to roll.

        Yet Joe McCarthy made one accusation, which was fully substantiated, far from reckless, and hardly demagogic. It was simple fact.

        During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers …

        By whom? Not by McCarthy..

        ….and so on. A hit piece alarmingly short on fact, packed with innuendo and implication but really, when examined, nothing but vague statements about unnamed people doing various things that offend the author.

        Sooo sorry you got yourself worked up into such a snit of righteous indignation, but that’s what happens when you swallow a load of crap without even checking it to see if it has any basis in fact or is just toxic sludge.

      • Canadian Observer May 25, 2012 / 3:47 pm

        Amazona May 25, 2012 at 3:13 pm #
        —————————————————————————————
        With you holding McCarthy in such high esteem, Amazona, have you ever considered starting a petition to get him his own national holiday? A day to honor his patroitic contribution would keep his name alive and in the hearts and minds of all Americans. I can think of no better way for you to show your appreciation of the man you so greatly admire.

      • Amazona May 25, 2012 / 4:19 pm

        Oh, CO, your drama queen histrionics are rather tiresome.

        I did not say McCarthy was a hero.

        I merely made the observation that he has been lied about and maligned, and pointed out the fallacies of the beloved Lefty mantras about him.

        I notice that when the facts about McCarthy are pointed out to you, you can’t rebut them or address them, but have to change your tactic to attacking me.

        I guess you missed the post a while back when I stood up for Obama’s repeal of the ban on horse slaughter. That’s the funny thing about people who base their principles upon truth—-it is not variable or flexible, it applies to all.

        Joe McCarthy was, by most accounts, a rather unpleasant man, at least a man with an unlikable personality. This made him an ideal target for the radical Left of the day, the Left that was so threatened by the exposure of so many infiltrators and the possibility of even more spies being exposed that they had to find a way to distract from the seriousness of the real issue. So they did what they do, and mounted a massive distraction campaign, making McCarthy the focal point instead of the threat to the security of the nation due to Communist infiltration of the highest levels of government.

        Suddenly it was not about Communists infiltrating our government, about national security, but about JOE MCCARTHY

        And, of course, the lemming chugged it all down and asked for more, never questioning why anyone would go after the Communist IDENTIFIER and not the Communists themselves. And you still spout this unexamined nonsense, and with absolute assurance, because the campaign was successful enough to become part of the national consciousness.

        That, and how FDR saved us from the Depression through government programs, and how Bill Clinton was responsible for welfare reform, and how Republicans fought the Civil Rights Act and so on. You people never question the lies you are fed, but gleefully spread them around and attack those who point out your foolishness and gullibility.

        You are such handy little tools, useful for all sorts of dirty work.

    • GMB May 22, 2012 / 11:29 pm

      I rarely ask any question of you. You come come down squarly on the statist, authoritarian, and progressive side of any issue. The Constitution is a living breathing document meaning whatever you want it to mean whenever you want it to mean it.

      Am I wrong?

      • watsonredux May 22, 2012 / 11:32 pm

        Yes.

      • watsonredux May 22, 2012 / 11:32 pm

        As in, Yes, you are wrong.

      • Retired Spook May 22, 2012 / 11:37 pm

        As in, Yes, you are wrong.

        Could’a fooled me.

      • watsonredux May 23, 2012 / 12:01 am

        Maybe you just don’t pay close attention.

      • Amazona May 23, 2012 / 5:34 pm

        GMB, you can’t ask the wattle a question about the Constitution. He doesn’t know what it is, what it says, or what it means. He has just spent a lot of time, over the past couple of days, painting a vivid picture of the scope of his ignorance, and it is vast.

  16. GMB May 23, 2012 / 2:12 am

    The 10th Amendment is a “absurd rationalization” TeeHee. That doesn’t even deserve a LOLzer there. Thanks for confirming my general thought of what you think of our Constitution.

    Power to the people!!! Occupy my butthrthurt!!! yada yada and some yada. 🙂

    • neocon1 May 23, 2012 / 6:02 am

      Barack Obama’s Arkansas primary problem

      Two weeks after an imprisoned felon received 41 percent of the vote against President Obama in West Virginia’s presidential primary, Arkansas could provide another potential embarrassment for the incumbent.

      Nooooooooo
      the EMBARRASSMENT ………..IS Ubama

      • neocon1 May 23, 2012 / 6:06 am

        White Woman attacked while ordering lunch at McDonald’s drive-thru

        daughters of Ubama?

      • neocon1 May 23, 2012 / 6:09 am

        Expect to see a LOT more of this as the racist in chief and his surrogate flying monkeys whip up his civilian army.

        “All of a sudden I was being attacked,” Shannon said.

        Two women jumped out of the car in front of her.

        “She was right in my window just punching me in my face, pulling my hair,” Shannon said. “She started biting on my hands so severely. I thought she was gonna bite ’em off, actually.”

        Then a man jumped out of the car and threw a soda through her window.

        “He said, ‘This is for you, you white b—-. This is a grape soda.’ And then they took off,” Shannon said.

      • neocon1 May 23, 2012 / 6:12 am

        HORROR: Mob of 20 ‘hooded blacks’ storm UK pub, drag man out, stab him to death…

  17. dennis May 24, 2012 / 1:33 am

    Cavalier’s post was funny when I read it two nights ago but even funnier to come back and see all the verbiage Amazona typed to debunk a parody. She’s like the energizer Bunny – just push her button and she keeps going, and going, and going, and going. Then she even came back to throw her other shoe at him. A classic B4V exchange, thanks for the entertainment.

    Mark, what it sounds to me like you’re saying is that you’ll take the republic if you get to pick the representatives, but you no longer care about democracy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but as an American how could you disenfranchise half the country? Your ODS is spinning out of control. Surely you don’t think a “crushing” majority will embrace your set of values? It’s very hard to see Romney giving your party that kind of landslide, so how exactly do you propose to crush the left?

    Of course we know how loosely “the left” is defined here. Yet Spook says “the problem is that their brain-dead foot soldiers like Cav, Dennis, Mitch, Watson, CO, Velma, etc. believe they’re in the mainstream of political thought…”

    In light of that, please kindly demystify this WashPost poll for your occasional visitor: “Fully 56 percent of all Americans say an economic system favoring the wealthy is a bigger problem than regulatory overreach by the government; 34 percent say public constraints on the free market are a larger concern.” http://tinyurl.com/blttksc

    Is B4V in the mainstream? It looks to me like a cult of true believers so implacable in their hatred of this president and so dedicated to their own proprietary interpretation of constitutional and conservative doctrine that everything else is dangerous or worthy of scorn. “Dangerous — don’t ever forget that — and ignorant, and smug, and condescending, and nasty, and humorless, and sanctimonious, and hypocritical, and, oh, and did I mention DANGEROUS?” (That’s from J. R. above) Some of you are even armed against the unwashed masses you fear will be coming to take your stuff any day now. Speaking for myself, I’m not interested in your stuff. Seriously. I’m not dangerous and most people I know are private, peace-loving folks. What are you guys so scared of?

    Spook comes up with such clichés it’s hard to believe he ever was an intelligence professional. Ama is a freak show – I picture her with a viking helmet standing on her porch screeching Wagner at her cattle, and motoring to the local saloon in her vintage Benz to hold forth on constitutional theory. I know, I know – it’s all in my head – but at least I know that’s a cartoon, while you guys have these fantasies that you actually believe are real about other people. Ama’s presumed clairvoyance is the longest running joke I think I’ve ever seen. And someone please tell Spook I don’t even want to be in the political mainstream, it holds no appeal for me. Notwithstanding the poll above, I knew years before stumbling into this cyber-sandbox that my views don’t align with any party, except incidentally. I don’t pin my hope on government or political solutions, and learned long ago to expect the worst. However I still will cast my vote for peace and justice, as far as possible.

    This thread is already nearly dead but cheers, carry on. I hope a few of you get your heads out of the feedback loop here. You might be amazed by the music (both metaphorically and literally) of the larger world.

    • Retired Spook May 24, 2012 / 8:44 am

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but as an American how could you disenfranchise half the country?

      I assume, Dennis, that by “half the country”, you mean people like you. You flatter yourself. People like you make up, at best 20%; I’d say closer to 10%. In contrast, the Conservatives here (at least most of them), comprise a group that makes up, by most accounts, around 40% of the population. We don’t want to disenfranchise you. As I said before, I’ll gladly give you a seat at the table. We’re just not going to let you run things.

      It’s very hard to see Romney giving your party that kind of landslide

      I’ll have to admit, up until the last couple weeks, that possibility was difficult for me to picture as well. But then came the Obama campaign’s decision to run against capitalism, and — sorry, but that is a losing strategy.

      Spook comes up with such clichés it’s hard to believe he ever was an intelligence professional. Ama is a freak show

      At the end of the day (or thread), that’s really all you’ve got, Dennis: just calling other people names. You seldom, if ever, post actual ideas, and how your ideas are better than Ama “the freak show”. She at least believes in and understands the principles that made this the greatest nation on the planet. Since that makes her a “freak show”, in your mind, just what exactly do you believe that makes you somehow a better, more productive member of society?

      And someone please tell Spook I don’t even want to be in the political mainstream, it holds no appeal for me.

      Thanks for finally admitting what most of us have known all along.

    • neocon1 May 24, 2012 / 8:46 am

      dennistooge

      the crack pipe or meth tonight?

    • neocon1 May 24, 2012 / 8:49 am

      dennistooge

      , but as an American how could you disenfranchise half the country?

      WHICH half?
      the half who pay NO FEDERAL TAXES???
      or
      the half who pay for BOTH them selves and the looters and takers???

    • Amazona May 24, 2012 / 10:00 am

      Notice that all dennis got from my response to the parody was a titter and a teehee.

      Notice that he is too dense, or too deep in the woods, or both, to realize the truth of my admission to being sucked in—that it was possible only because the parody was so close to the truth. As the author noted, his parody was taken from statements by Libs.

      Yeah I was a little embarrassed at being a patsy, but then I went back and looked at what I wrote, and why, and found it still relevant, if not the post in question then to the overall ignorance of the Pseudo Left. In fact, I appreciated the opportunity to debunk, yet again, some of the smugness of the PL zealots who spout such nonsense with such conviction and can never back up a single assertion.

      dennis cannot respond to a single factual point. All he can do is fall back on snotty stereotypes.

      FYI—I use Wagner as a weapon—-some loud German opera will run boaters off my stretch of the river faster than any shotgun, and is a lot less confrontational. Italian opera=OK. Wagner, not so much. Don’t have many cattle now—three Highlands for meat this fall for me and my family, two South Devons named Lily and Not Lily, and a few yaks who are pretty indifferent to anything but hay. But when fed they do the Yak Happy Dance Of Joy and Celebration, so they entertain me, not vice versa.

      But thanks for spending all that time working up a profile of me. I kind of like it—-any idea where I can get a pointy hat? And can I substitute vintage Dylan for Wagner? Many people have the same reaction, and I know the words.

      In general, dennis, your rant is really nothing more than an indictment—of your political knowledge, of your civility, and even of your mental health. It is such a bizarre compilation of sullen resentment, irrational loathing, elaborate fantasizing, projection of various unpleasant characteristics upon people you not only do not know but can’t even quote accurately, it ‘s really quite useless except perhaps as a diagnostic tool.

      Speaking of tools—-all you are doing here now is redundant, your work here is done, and maybe it’s time to infest some other blog to see how long you can get away with your nonsense there.

      Hmmm?

    • Retired Spook May 24, 2012 / 10:03 am

      However I still will cast my vote for peace and justice, as far as possible.

      Could you expand on that a little, Dennis? By itself it sounds like a line from a Miss America Pageant. Let’s say you are Presidential candidate Dennis, and you run on a “peace and justice” platform. How does that differ from “Hope and Change”? What will be your strategy to achieve peace and justice. And peace and justice for whom, and at who’s expense? And are you talking about economic justice, social justice, or just good, old-fashioned law and order justice?

    • J. R. Babcock May 24, 2012 / 11:49 am

      “Dangerous — don’t ever forget that — and ignorant, and smug, and condescending, and nasty, and humorless, and sanctimonious, and hypocritical, and, oh, and did I mention DANGEROUS?” (That’s from J. R. above) Some of you are even armed against the unwashed masses you fear will be coming to take your stuff any day now.

      Those are just the traits I see from liberals on this blog. And the reason you’re so dangerous is that you (collective you, not you personally) appear to have no concept of principles like honor, duty and loyalty. The over-riding concern of the Left is almost always about the “greater collective good”. If I were ever in a position where I had to depend on a Liberal to protect or defend me, my first concern would be that my safety and well-being would lose out to “the greater good.” I wouldn’t have a problem sharing a foxhole with someone like Neocon1, because I know he’d have my back.

    • tiredoflibbs May 24, 2012 / 12:13 pm

      denny: “However I still will cast my vote for peace and justice, as far as possible.”

      So, you will not be voting for the obAMATEUR in the next election, then?

      I mean obAMATEUR’s unprovoked attack on Libya, who did not attack us nor was a threat.

      Plus, obAMATEUR’s Justice Department failures to prosecute the voter intimidation committed by the Black Panthers, arming drug dealers by allowing the smuggling of weapons across the border (and using that illegal activity to push for international gun control) which is directly linked to additional violence and American deaths.

      Should we continue listing these facts that obAMATEUR and his administration are far from the “peace and justice” that you oh so care about?

      Of course, you will remain willfully ignorant to these facts, since you cannot even bring yourself to admit that obAMATEUR lies in his rhetoric…. oh, excuse me, “bearing false witness against the brotherhood of man” in his campaign rhetoric.

      denny: “I don’t pin my hope on government or political solutions…”

      Really? You cannot even be honest with yourself!

      You were just the other day touting that America was at its “greatness
      when we had more REGULATION and a PROGRESSIVE tax code!!!

      Why do I bother trying to discuss facts with a mindless drone and a hack???

      • Retired Spook May 24, 2012 / 12:39 pm

        denny: “I don’t pin my hope on government or political solutions…”

        Really? You cannot even be honest with yourself!

        You were just the other day touting that America was at its “greatness when we had more REGULATION and a PROGRESSIVE tax code!!!

        Tired,

        I’d be more than a little embarrassed if I constantly got caught making conflicting statements like that. Dennis routinely gets caught in such hypocrisy, slinks away for a few days, and then comes back with more of the same. Amazing!

      • dennis May 25, 2012 / 12:30 am

        No, I don’t pin my hope on government or political solutions.

        Specifically I said regulations and a progressive tax code were ways that worked to make America more fair. I cited the Glass Steagall Act preventing Wall Street from speculating with depositors’ money as how a good regulation should work. And I noted a more progressive tax schedule was in place through the years the America’s middle class was the strongest.

        Recognizing sound policies the government had in the past has nothing to do with where I put my faith or hope today. There’s no conflict in what I said, only in the way you chose to spin it. This decay of logic happens here constantly.

        Spook: “I assume, Dennis, that by “half the country”, you mean people like you.”

        No, to describe the mainstream I didn’t reference myself. You’re the one who made that linkage. I referenced a Washington Post poll that said “56 percent of all Americans say an economic system favoring the wealthy is a bigger problem than regulatory overreach by the government.” http://tinyurl.com/blttksc Of course you didn’t respond to that.

        Yes, I will cast my vote for peace and justice as far as possible. Pretty corny, huh? Better than unrestrained free markets, conservative social values or an expanding military. To each his or her own.

      • tiredoflibbs May 25, 2012 / 6:16 am

        denny, you can deny it all you want, but your common theme is that more government is the solution!! Only government can make things more “fair”!

        Again, I point to your comments that regulation and progressive tax code were your reasons for America thriving and you also claim that when we were “deregulated” and gave “tax cuts for the rich” (two of the most overused dumbed down talking points) that course was reversed.

        You are calling for more regulation and tax increases!!! Who are the only ones that can deliver those????

        Again, this leads me to the question, “do you ever read what you post?”.

        BTW, “the mainstream” is not necessarily “informed” people. Polls by the Washington Post are hardly “mainstream”, but if that makes you more comfortable and justified in your weak and disproven beliefs then so be it.

      • Retired Spook May 25, 2012 / 8:16 am

        I referenced a Washington Post poll that said “56 percent of all Americans say an economic system favoring the wealthy is a bigger problem than regulatory overreach by the government.” http://tinyurl.com/blttksc Of course you didn’t respond to that.

        I didn’t respond because I don’t hold a lot of stock in WAPO polls. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that over 50% of Americans are envious of the wealthy. And progressive tax code? Hell, 50% of Americans don’t pay any federal income tax, and the top 1% pays nearly as much as the bottom 95%. You can’t get much more progressive than that.

      • tiredoflibbs May 25, 2012 / 12:13 pm

        Ah, denny, you rely on the Washington Post for a fair poll to back up your pro-big government stance.

        The same Washington Post that reported the reason obAMATEUR’s sagging support in the primaries of Kentucky and Arkansas is because of …. wait for it…. RACISM!!!!!

        Naw, there could not be any other reasons now could there???

        Aside from a recovery WORSE than the actual recession.
        Higher unemployment….
        Higher food prices….
        Higher gasoline prices….
        Higher energy prices….
        More people on foodstamps and welfare…..
        More people who no longer looking for work because they have given up…..

        naw, it is only racism…….. and not the pitiful failing policies of the obAMATEUR. The “mainstream” media is doing their best to dumb down the population who are becoming more and more dependent on big government – as we have seen more and more people are not paying their fair share in federal income taxes but demand the rich pay more because of some LIE that they are not.

        Again, what was it you said about “bearing false witness against the brotherhood of man” and why don’t you apply this to the left that you so readily and loyally defend??? Why do you avoid this challenge each and every time it is asked?

    • Mark Edward Noonan May 25, 2012 / 4:33 pm

      Dennis

      Disenfranchise? I don’t think so – unless you think that FDR and the Democrats disenfranchised the 15.7 million people who voted for Hoover in 1932. I mean, that is a lot of voters – to be sure, FDR got 22.8 million so it was a crushing loss for the GOP, but it was clear even then that a very large number of people did not want to go down the FDR path. And yet, they go they did…because FDR was President and the Senate was 59 Democrats and 36 Republicans while the House was 311 Democrats and 117 Republicans…and it got even worse in the next Congress with 70/23 split in the Senate and a 322/102 split in the House. That is the sort of result I want to pile up in favor of my side over the 2012 and 2014 elections…and if that works out to disenfranchisement, then that is what I’m all about…

  18. Amazona May 25, 2012 / 9:00 am

    I find it so odd that dennis has to spin “crushing the Left” as, somehow, “disenfranchising half the country”. Anyone have any idea what he might have meant, or tried to mean, by that?

    Taking away the vote of half the people in the country. Hmmmmmm. I wonder how he figured that would work. That the Right, upon winning the election, would implement the Thought Police the Left is so fond of, and then not allow anyone who is in favor of redistribution of OPM to vote?

    Yes, that’s my point. The statement is simply nonsense. And my other point is, it makes complete sense to dennis.

    But no, denny, to “crush the Left” does not mean to strip them of their power to vote. It also does not mean putting them in gulags, or killing them and dumping them in mass graves, two faves of Leftist ruling elites in the past.

    Quite simply, it is done by stripping away its thin (and thinning) veneer of “fairness” and sweetness and light, blah blah blah, and clearly identifying the true ideology of the Left, outlining its origins, its agendas, and its unrelenting history of abject failure, and then letting people vote on which system they want to run the country.

    Nobody has become one of the “disappeared”, nobody has been stripped of the right to vote, no one has become “disenfranchised”. You will still be able to trot on down and pull the lever for the Leftist of your choice, and you will still be able to stomp around in outrage because so few people (and fewer all the time) buy into the fantasies that fuel your hissy fits and illusions of moral and intellectual superiority.

    Approximately 20% of Americans polled consider themselves to be Liberals. And of that 20%, I’m guessing that maybe 2% actually know what “Liberal” means, in the political sense.

    So nearly all of those who voted for Obama last time around did so without the slightest clue of the ideology they were voting in, but just succumbing to the litany of fluffy promises on one hand and the dark attraction of being able to vote AGAINST a successfully demonized, yet never defined, Other, on the other hand.

    Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to do whatever we can to make sure that a much higher proportion of American voters vote on actual educated political principle and not on emotion.

    And this will crush the Left, because the reality of the Left is ugly, and brutal, and unappealing to most Americans. Without the shiny facade the Leftist minders set up and prop up, there’s not much left to vote for unless you actually DO want to go down the path trod in the past by Russia, Cuba, East Germany, and other examples of the reality of Marxist philosophy when implemented.

  19. Amazona May 25, 2012 / 9:38 am

    Here is a perfect example of what seems to pass for political discourse on the Left.

    “But do tell us, Dave, what you believe a 21st Century Conservative is.”

    Well, the best definition of 21st century conservatism I’ve seen is: “Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today; updated daily.”

    Wow. So deep, so profound, so steeped in political study and research.

    I supposed if your own political alliance is based on a temper tantrum, you automatically assume everyone else’s is, too. That is the only reason I can find for the Leftist insistence on “defining” conservatism solely in emotional terms.

    Conservatism is what conservatism is, and this does not depend in any way on how anyone else tries to redefine it. We see this all the time—the Left, and its PL lackeys, think that merely by applying different words to something, like a political movement (conservatism) or a legal and cultural construct (marriage) they can alter the basic construction of the element. Wrong. As I have said, I can change words around and call my VW Thing a Porsche, but that will not alter the inherent qualities that make it not-Porsche.

    And what conservatism is, is a commitment to running this nation according to its Constitutional laws.

    After that, there are issues, upon which conservatives may agree or disagree, but once a commitment to an ISSUE veers away from Constitutional boundaries, the political ideology is, by definition, changed from Conservative to some degree of not-Conservative.

    As for actions, it is not only possible but quite common for people to strongly believe in an overarching principle, yet violate it to some degree in action. Most people think adultery is morally wrong, yet many who believe this still have affairs. Most people think stealing is wrong, yet many would fail to correct a mistake in their favor in a contract. Most people agree we need speed limits, yet sometimes drive too fast. These actions, which are taken in spite of a core belief, are what religious people call “sin” when they involve violation of religious strictures, and they do not negate the underlying core beliefs, they only illustrate the vulnerability of mankind to temptation. This conflict is the theme of most great literature. It is not limited to politics.

    It is shallow and cheap to claim that if a person has a core belief in the Constitution, which of course is a belief in a small Federal Government strictly restricted in size, scope and authority, and then engages in an action made possible only by having a large, bloated, overly powerful central government, that person has abandoned his core principles. Not so. Only if he changes his beliefs, changes his commitment to a certain form of government, does he move away from conservatism.

    Example: Last month I met a Libertarian who had just bought a Volt. I pointed out that taking Federal money to be able to buy this car was a contradiction to his core beliefs, and he agreed. He said he argued with himself over it, he did it because he really wanted the car and he also thought that having more of the cars on the road would advance an agenda in which he strongly believes—that is, the electric car as the car of the future—-but he also realized he was being a hypocrite.

    Absolute purity is not requisite for having and believing in an underlying political philosophy. Actions often cross boundaries between political philosophies.

    This is why it is so important to at the very least UNDERSTAND political philosophies, and make objective, intellect-based, choices on which political philosophy one believes is the best blueprint for governing the nation. This objective evaluation of abstract conviction provides a compass, a template against which issues and policies can be compared. Without it, one is rudderless, drifting from one issue or promise or attraction to a noble-sounding cause without any reference to an underlying principle.

    I think it interesting that Libs here are so freaked out by the idea of actually defining their underlying political principles. At first I thought it was just ignorance—-that they didn’t know the difference between politics and identity, between politics and issues, that they simply did not understand the very concept of ideology. But as conservative ideology has been explained to them and they deny the validity of the definition, it appears that their aversion to political definitions goes deeper than mere ignorance.

    It appears that the very linking of conservatism to the constitution is seen as threatening to Liberals. I wonder if they give any thought to why this is the case.

  20. dennis May 25, 2012 / 2:24 pm

    Ama: “nearly all of those who voted for Obama last time around did so without the slightest clue of the ideology they were voting in, but just succumbing to the litany of fluffy promises”

    A good rule of thumb is to never trust any president, no matter who it is. But having said that, how about all the people who voted for Mr. Bush in the prior election? Do you suppose they were voting for some noble ideology? or for the immediate promise of peace and safety, even at the expense of constitutional rights such as freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition), gutting the Geneva Conventions, which the United States is consitutionally bound to honor, or a host of other breaches of legality and human rights? And so what if unpleasant things only happened to people most of us didn’t know? In an age where legal precedents make all kinds of things possible into the indefinite future, do you suppose all those Republican votes really made us freer from tyranny?

    “the reality of the Left is ugly, and brutal, and unappealing to most Americans. Without the shiny facade the Leftist minders set up and prop up, there’s not much left to vote for unless you actually DO want to go down the path trod in the past by Russia, Cuba, East Germany, and other examples of the reality of Marxist philosophy”

    Once again you laughably suggest the only possible conclusion of liberal policies is Soviet-style repression. How curious that the U. K., Canada, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Finland and even Israel whom we give billions in aid to (and the list goes on and on) incorporate socialist elements into their governments and somehow manage to be free and livable places. Some of these nations have been around a lot longer than the U.S. has. How strange that we’re the only advanced nation without universal health care, and you’re still dragging out the bogeyman of Soviet gulags? I don’t think most people buy that crap any more.

    • Amazona May 25, 2012 / 2:49 pm

      dennis, do you have any idea of how much smoother these talks would go if you would not just make stuff up and then emote about it? And oh my goodness once you get started it is like a veritable avalanche of hysteria.

      OK, I never used the word “noble”. I never said that people who vote Republican ALL have a clear vision of their political ideology. I never said that “…the only possible conclusion of liberal policies is Soviet-style repression. ”

      I am so tired of repeating myself, only to have you bounce back with more shrill ranting about what I didn’t say and more irrational voyages into your strange fantasies.

      What I said, what I say, what I believe, is that there is a difference between ideology and identity, that people can have political identities such as Republican or Democrat without understanding the underlying ideology of the Left or the Right, that it is important to know the ideology of the system you are, in effect voting for because the individual who wins your heart and mind is still going to represent one of the two basic ideologies, and that an electorate informed regarding the two basic political models is going to make better choices than one voting on emotion, attraction to platitudes, or lazy going-along-with its traditional political identity and just pulling an R or a D lever in the voting booth.

      It’s not that complicated. If you could just shut down that knee-jerk defensive reaction of yours and just take one idea at a time,actually think about it, and actually respond to IT instead of whatever fantasy it triggered, you would seem far more rational.

      My inclusion of the horrors of radical Leftist government control is relevant because if allowed to go to its natural conclusion, unfettered by resistance from those who recognize its defects, this is where the Left ends up. Yes, the attraction of Leftism Lite is quite benign, and this is what makes good-hearted well-meaning people so gullible about it. What has happened in places like the UK and Canada is that it has taken so long to evolve past the warm fuzzies of Leftism Lite, the economic and social defects have had time to rise to the surface, slowing its progress. That does not change the end result of uncontrolled Leftist governance.

    • tiredoflibbs May 25, 2012 / 6:16 pm

      “Do you suppose they were voting for some noble ideology? or for the immediate promise of peace and safety, even at the expense of constitutional rights such as freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition), gutting the Geneva Conventions, which the United States is consitutionally bound to honor, or a host of other breaches of legality and human rights?”

      Denny still posts the usual dumbed down talking points YEARS after they were disproved.

      Once more for the record, FISA allows for warrantless wiretaps – your lie is disproved.

      The Geneva Conventions do not apply for enemy combatants – they only apply to enemy soldiers. Germans soldiers who were spies and infiltrators (just like their American counterparts) can and were executed. The Geneva Convention did not apply to them. So, your dumbed down regurgitated mindless talking point “gutting the Geneva Convention” is a lie.

      “How strange that we’re the only advanced nation without universal health care..”

      So. Citizens of nations with universal health care COME HERE for care. CANADIANS come here for care. We have the best health care system in the world – and don’t bring up that WHO poll that places the US 28th on the list. That has been exhaustedly been debunked here as well.

      Denny, do you have anything new or are you just going to continue to regurgitate leftists talking point lies?

      “Once again you laughably suggest the only possible conclusion of liberal policies is Soviet-style repression. How curious that the U. K., Canada, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Finland and even Israel whom we give billions in aid to (and the list goes on and on) incorporate socialist elements into their governments and somehow manage to be free and livable places.”

      So… these countries do not have our Constitution, where our Founding Fathers did not want an all powerful federal government that did not take care of our every need or want.

      Geez, denny, if I haven’t told you once, you really need to stick to photography and stained glass – they are more your mental speed.

      BTW, since you are a photographer, perhaps you can go to DC (its not that far from where you hang your shingle) and photograph the ROLLING THUNDER activities this weekend….

      ….that would be a greater contribution than the debunked crap you post here.

      • Amazona May 25, 2012 / 7:25 pm

        Isn’t it funny how the most indignant are the most ignorant?

        The Geneva Conventions assure certain levels of treatment for uniformed military of nations which are in a declared war, fighting for a nation that has signed on to the Convention.

        Some scruffy coward in civvies hiding behind a woman’s skirts, representing no nation but just an insane hatred of an Other, in no war but the one in his own diseased mind, is not an enemy combatant in a declared war fighting for a named nation, in its uniform, after it has agreed to the terms of the Convention.

        You have to admit, once we get past the frustration of having to deal with these morons, they do offer some entertainment value. I often send snippets of their idiocy to friends, who have a hard time believing that anyone motivated enough to seek out a blog and participate can’t be bothered to find out what he is talking about.

    • tiredoflibbs May 25, 2012 / 6:21 pm

      oh and my favorite dennyism: “A good rule of thumb is to never trust any president, no matter who it is.”

      Ooooh so that is why we see all your posts criticizing obAMATEUR for attacking Libya, a country who never attacked us and was not a threat to us.

      and

      …criticizing obAMATEUR’s LIES …. ahem…. “bearing false witness against the brotherhood of man ” about his political opponents, their legislation and their budgets.

      therefore, I take it, you are going to pull the lever AGAINST obAMATEUR this fall???

      Yeah, right.

      • Amazona May 25, 2012 / 7:26 pm

        Yes, isn’t it funny to watch the Only True Christian lie through his teeth, post after post?

    • tiredoflibbs June 2, 2012 / 12:44 pm

      I’m telling you guys, Davey sounds more and more like wally, everyday. Under his previous personas, he started out sounding intelligent and interested in debate. However, as time went on and his postings became more shrill (due to the FACT that his crap was so easily debunked), deflected and dodged from the topic and then making claims that simply were not true as in the “feelings hurt” posting above.

      Davey is Wally, bodie, monty, jeffy, etc etc.

      • Amazona June 2, 2012 / 2:45 pm

        tired, they all sound the same. Some ARE the same, but they all are incubated in the same feverswamp of irrational loathing for an invented and demonized Other—–in this case, “the Right”.

        They all march to the sound of the same drum, they all recycle the same lies and admire each other for this, and they are all so deeply emotionally vested in having their personality disorders validated by their minders as actual political discourse that they are impervious to fact or reason.

        But that’s OK. Quite honestly, I don’t want them on our side, because they would still be hate-drive gasbags and who needs them? Daily, thousands if not more of what I call “unexamined liberals” see the light, realize they have been duped, realize that they have been supporting a political system that simply cannot be defended on its merits or its history, and start their journeys to the light.

        And when I post, I do not post for Dave, or any of the other RRL and PL trolls who infest this blog. I post facts and ideas for the lurkers, who drop in to see what other people are saying, and who deserve some counterpoint to the mindless hate-filled blather of the Psuedo-Lib hysterics like Dave.

        And I love it when he/they go off the rails like he has been doing, like they all do when challenged. None of us could ever portray the irrational and hate-driven nature of the far Left better than they do themselves, when we give them a forum and then hold their feet to the fire.

  21. Amazona May 25, 2012 / 6:01 pm

    BTW, dennis,you really ought to stop that debunked old whine about “warrantless wiretapping”.

    There was a long-standing legal ruling regarding the legal ability to intercept calls made into the United States from other countries, from known terrorists. This continued under President Bush and became even more important after 9/11.

    A “wiretap” is a warrant allowing ongoing recording of conversations on a specific phone line. This is quite different from what was happening when phone calls from known terrorists in other countries, whose phone calls were legally intercepted, called people in this country.

    When that happened, the telephone conversation of the known terrorist was recorded, and of course both sides of the conversation had to be recorded. In this circumstance, if the conversation included information that would allow law enforcement of either country to intercept a terrorist attack, the information gleaned from the listening-in could be used.

    But if a known terrorist in,say, Paris, called his cousin in Cleveland to ask him to steal a van and use it to rob a bank to get funds for a terrorist group, this information could not be used against the cousin. At this time the government could use this conversation as the foundation for asking for ongoing surveillance of the Cleveland cousin’s phone line, but what was overheard in the first conversation could only be used if it was to directly intercept an attack.

    It couldn’t be used to prosecute the Cleveland cousin, either. Only to halt an attack.

    This important tool was used under Clinton, under Bush 43, and is now in use under Obama. It is not “wiretapping”.

    The strident Left liars about this program have never said just how we should handle a situation in which a known terrorist calls several people to discuss the timing of an upcoming attack to take place in the US, and some of those calls terminate in the United States.—-when the call goes through to a US area code, just hang up and wait for the terrorist to call someone in another country? Just hang up on every call into the US?

    Did you refuse to vote for Obama because he did not promise to end this program? Will you refuse to vote for him again because it is ongoing? What about it do you find offensive? You do know it was legally challenged several times and always confirmed by the courts as legal, don’t you?

    in other words, you have no interest at all in whether what you say is true,or relevant, or even FAIR.

    “Extraordinary rendition” has nothing at all to do with Constitutional protections for citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. It never has. This is just another irrational Lefty whine about something that has continued under Obama.

    The Geneva Conventions were not “gutted”. My goodness, you are foolish. Clearly you don’t know what the Geneva Convention guarantees, or how it fails to address the handling of people in civilian dress attacking our nation in an undeclared war, representing no nation or signatory to the Convention. I know it would take some time, and more to the point some integrity, for you to actually learn a little about things before you spout your mental sewage,but it sure would be a nice change.

    And no, there were no “other breaches of legality and human rights”. You are simply a tool, a mindless parrot of lies and propaganda,and to have you then lecture on things like truth and honor is just bizarre. I can’t think of any poster in recent memory who has posted so many lies, one after the other, packed into post after post.

Comments are closed.