5 Oct

Partisanship, Politics, and Patriotism

                                       

2009-01-20c
Former President George W. Bush embraces President Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, after Obama’s inaugural address at the inauguration ceremony in Washington, January 20, 2009.
REUTERS/Jason Reed

Suck it up, liberals…What’s been good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Democrats have been licking Obama’s Copenhagen wounds by barking at conservatives for “cheering” the political Olympic-sized debacle as a rooting against America. Republicans are now being accused of “being unpatriotic“, because they want the president’s policies to fail.

Some of the Copenhagen criticism against conservatives has merit (I’m glad Obama suffered politically for this ill-conceived trip). Much of it is just plain warped, however, as there are also honest reasons why all Americans should be happy Chicago lost the Olympic bid to play host:

the U.S., dodged a bullet:

The common rejoinder to spiraling costs is that the Olympics make money for host cities. But the record is somewhat spottier than boosters admit. Athens and Beijing lost billions. Montreal, which hosted the games in 1976, took 30 years to pay off its loans. Los Angeles and Seoul made a tidy profit. Atlanta and Sydney broke even. It also depends on how you count: Is building a stadium factored into the cost? How about improving the subway? Expanding the housing stock? All this can leave a city with new and gleaming infrastructure — or a bunch of costly new houses no one wants to buy and stadiums no one wants to use.

Also read this from WaPo.

Chicago’s lucky it lost.

Democrats have been distorting the fierce opposition to their party’s push for healthcare reform (teabaggers and townhall protesters as uninformed scaremongers, birthers, conspiracists and racists…”the mob”…).

Democrats have been lamenting about how “Hope” and “Change” are being derailed because those “mean, racist Republicans” stand in the way as the “if he’s for it, we’re against it” Party.

Isn’t this what Democrats did to President Bush for 8 years of opposition? Personal as well as policy attacks? Distortions and smears?


2009-01-20

Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gestures prior to the inauguration ceremony, January 20, 2009.
REUTERS/Jim Young

Democrats are crying foul over the Hitler comparisons to President Obama. Where were they on this obscenity for the previous 8 years?

I agree, though: The Obama-Hitler comparisons are currently, unfair and inaccurate…

….At least Hitler got the Olympics to come to his city. (*Baddum bump!*)

When President Bush exercised, it was deemed “obsessive” and “creepy”:

the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy.

Given the importance of his job, it is astonishing how much time Bush has to exercise.

~~~

Bush can bench press 185 pounds five times, and, before a recent knee injury, he ran three miles at a 6-minute, 45-second pace. That’s better than I could manage when I played two sports in high school. And I wasn’t holding the most powerful office on Earth. Which is sort of my point: Does the leader of the free world need to attain that level of physical achievement?

Maureen Dowd:

I like to exercise, but W. is psychopathic about it.


When President Obama exercises
, it’s a source for inspiration and admiration:

the Washington Post delivered a front-page paean to Barack Obama’s workout habits. The 1,233-word ode to O’s physical fitness read more like a Harlequin romance novel than an A-1 news article.

Sighed smitten reporter Eli Zaslow, “The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.” Drool cup to the newsroom, stat.

Zaslow imparted us with vital information about buff Bam’s regimen: “Obama has gone to the gym for about 90 minutes a day, for at least 48 days in a row.” The Washington Post enlightened us with more gushing commentary from Obama friends and associates, who explain how, as the subtitle of Zaslow’s opus put it, “Gym Workouts Help Obama Carry the Weight of His Position.”

“Progressives” were fuming over the financial costs of President Bush’s inaugural:

In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.

Yet according to a mostly underreported Washington Post poll this week, a strong majority of Americans — 66 percent, including 46 percent of Republicans — would have preferred a “smaller, more subdued” inauguration, given the ongoing war in Iraq. In other words, Bush’s overblown celebration ranks as one of the few political issues that most Americans agree on — a phenomenon the press ignored.

Gee…given the huge financial crisis our country is in, did Salon also think to criticize President Obama’s lavish inaugural spending? No. But their side rallied around the defense of it.

President Bush was criticized for travel expenses to taxpayers. So then, what’s wrong with applying the same to President Obama?

Bush supposedly “ignored” his generals. And now that it’s Obama in office, it’s now okay to criticize the generals he may disagree with? To the point of arguing what uniform dress McChrystal should have worn in his 25 minute meeting with the president?

When will President Obama get criticized for not attending military funerals?

Prior to President Obama’s “unprecedented” address to the Muslim world, President Bush said much the same, yet received nowhere near the accolades, let alone fawning gushes and swoons. Instead, he was accused of launching a crusade against Muslims because “God told him to”.

Democrats mercilessly hammered Bush on spending and the ballooning deficit; but now that it’s “their guy” in the Oval Office, suddenly, like children in a candy store, it’s cool once again to cheerlead “runaway spending” (note to American voters: The answer to spending control is never NEVER to put more Democrats into office)? If the size of the government spending under 2 terms of Bush was bad, that okays Obama’s quadrupling of it in his first year of office? Whaaa-?! Ok, so we’ll spend our way out of recession- so long as it’s Obama and not Bush. Remember: Democrats are going to own this one (not that they won’t still blame Bush for it, of course).

So much of the opposition to President Bush was about partisan politics over patriotic opposition. And now that the shoe is on the other foot, liberals can know what it’s been like on the receiving end of their hyperbole, their hysteria, shrillness, and partisanly deranged opposition to all things Bush.

Welcome to being in political power. Enjoy it while it lasts.

goodluck

This entry was posted in Bush Derangement Syndrome, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Politics, Sports. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, October 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
| 155 views

36 Responses to Partisanship, Politics, and Patriotism

  1. savage24 says: 1

    The democrats take umbrage when their patriotism is questioned,but you will really have a hard time finding a patriot in their ranks. I grant you that there are not all that many in the elected Republican Party, but you still can find a few. We Conservatives will not sell our freedom for votes. The only thing is these corrupt politicians run the country and we need to get rid of them one way or the other. The corrupt elections just don’t cut it and using that way is a lost cause. If we can’t have honest elections, then revolution is the only option we have left. The attitude that “we won” so we will do whatever we want is not the American way.

    ReplyReply
  2. Wordsmith says: 2

    The democrats take umbrage when their patriotism is questioned,but you will really have a hard time finding a patriot in their ranks.

    But isn’t this the very kind of demonizing statement and partisan hyperbole that gives credence to the criticism from the other side? Can’t their be loyal opposition and policy disagreement without being an ideologically conservative purist on all issues? Or are only conservative purists, patriots?

    ReplyReply
  3. nelli says: 3

    Even if Republicans really, really wanted Chicago to lose the Olympic bid just so Obama would take a loss, it’s not as if now al Quaeda slaughters the IL. police and national guard as they flee the state, then takes over Chicago and imposes sharia law, and then starts building wmd with state funds. Like when liberals wanted us to lose Iraq.

    ReplyReply
  4. Blast says: 4

    I don’t feel like splicing every bit of your post, but lets just take couple of your points…

    President Bush was criticized for travel expenses to taxpayers.

    umm… it was in the context of his 2004 re-election campaign, and the article did speak to the use of Air Force One by Clinton and “other presidents”

    “It is an advantage that Bush and other presidents before him have enjoyed. President Clinton frequently was criticized by Republicans for his record-setting use of Air Force One in the campaign season, and Bush is exceeding Clinton’s pace.”

    No doubt Bush was criticized in an improper way. Anyone who said Bush and Hitler in the same sentence were lost to me. They are idiots to make such a comparison… just like those who use the same terminology about Obama.

    Bush supposedly “ignored” his generals. And now that it’s Obama in office, it’s now okay to criticize the generals he may disagree with? To the point of arguing what uniform dress McChrystal should have worn in his 25 minute meeting with the president?

    ummm… are you speaking about a comment in a blog as being emblematic of anything? That is the first I have heard of it… and honestly a nitsy non issue. It was interesting that the source of the comment did not even say anything except for copy and pasting Army regulations.

    ReplyReply
  5. AdrianS says: 5

    Who is hiding from the fact that we conservatives want Obama to fail?

    Obama’s failure in Copenhagen was of his own making. Obama is a large child with childish expressions. Obama’s naivete will not imbue him with anything eloquent, upon his person or character.

    Let’s make it clear here and now:

    We want Obama to fail in his socialist ways and demeaning schemes for America.

    We have no pity on him even though Obama is now a certifiable failure in the public eye.

    We shall not only oppose but will vigorously fight his plans for unnecessary reform of our health system in any way. And, too, oppose Harry Reid for his repugnant anti-American ways.

    We are as a matter of fact cheering, with well over half of the population of Chicago, the removal of that city as a candidate for further consideration for the Olympic games.

    We oppose Obama’s lack of consistency, especially when it involves the lives of our beloved soldiers who are putting their lives on the line for their country — the country they love. We as Americans owe our generals and soldiers all of the support that we can give in their efforts to protect us. And, we make absolutely NO apologies for our insistence that the fight, against those who would harm us if they could, go to completion until, as Ronald Regan so aptly said, “We win, they lose.”

    The patriotic thing to do, now that we have turned the lights on, is to oppose Barack Obama and any cohorts who challenge rather than uphold the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

    And, for the benefit of those who loath to hear or read it, we say, “God bless America.”

    ReplyReply
  6. Wordsmith says: 6

    umm… it was in the context of his 2004 re-election campaign, and the article did speak to the use of Air Force One by Clinton and “other presidents”

    blast, it wasn’t about the specific details as a picture-perfect equivalent to similar political rancor aimed at Obama; I could have just as well pulled the “Bush taking too many ranch vacations” out of my ass and Obama heading off to Martha’s Vineyard, and other frivolous attacks. I just lacked the time to do a more thorough job of research; but thanks for calling me out. There are many other examples floating around out there.

    It was interesting that the source of the comment did not even say anything except for copy and pasting Army regulations.

    blast, scroll up. Read the flow of the conversation. Thomas Ricks, no surprise, is populated by those defending Obama while attacking Bush; hence, the McChrystal criticism.

    I realize, too, that it can also be deemed “unfair” for me to cite…say, Jonathan Chait, and then ascribe his personal opinion to ALL Bush-deranged liberal Democrats and independent “progressive” lefties as complicit in that view.

    But you get the point of the post?

    ReplyReply
  7. Pingback: H.R.578 – Iraqi Refugee and Internally Displaced Persons Humanitarian Assistance, Resettlement, and Security Act of 2009 « Us Government « MyWhiteHouse.org

  8. Wordsmith says: 7

    @AdrianS:

    We oppose Obama’s lack of consistency, especially when it involves the lives of our beloved soldiers who are putting their lives on the line for their country — the country they love. We as Americans owe our generals and soldiers all of the support that we can give in their efforts to protect us.

    The problem here is that, implicit in your comment, is the notion that Obama doesn’t care about our troops. Policy disagreements are one thing. But the kind of rhetoric you are using, while fit for a venting as a comment on a partisan political blog will get you rah-rah cheers from the amen chorus, but won’t win you converts from those valued voters in the political center. And it gives the opposition political ammo to point out examples of “the looney right” and “fringe wingers” filled with hate and vitriol.

    Not that I’m above that sort of sniping, myself…..

    ReplyReply
  9. AdrianS says: 8

    @Wordsmith:

    Don’t read to much INTO what is written; just read it for what it says. Lack of consistency refers to what Obama has said in the past in support of our troops. Now he’s taking his time rather than affording full support. There is nothing here about Obama caring.

    Note that the political opposition, without even a cause, will drum up an argument from the dust off of my shoes.

    ReplyReply
  10. Patvann says: 9

    @ The Word.

    Obama does NOT care for our troops, unless and until they benefit HIM politically.

    Name ONE warrior he or anyone in his admin has visited at a hospital, or any family of a fallen warrior. ( Bush/Cheney visited them all.)

    He ignores the same military men he put into the position to advise him, unless and until they embarrass him.

    Our warriors have begged him for more support, and he has yet to even give them the reasons for his doubts, or his delay.

    He. Despises. Warriors. And. Their. Creed.

    He, and the Dem-leadership has infact, given support to our enemies, and should be held for treason.

    ReplyReply
  11. TexasFred says: 10

    I was called a racist the other day… Imagine that…

    Anyway, my finance guy does what he calls *Obama Proofing* your profile, I won’t go into detail but he has actually made us money while others are losing, any how, I was commenting on another blog the other day and I mentioned *Obama Proofing*…

    One of the other people making comments said I was a vile racist for making that remark and using that terminology, and he was dead serious too!

    It doesn’t matter WHAT any of us say, if we speak out against Obama and/or his administration, it’s not because he really sucks at being POTUS, it’s because WE are vile racists…

    TexasFred <——– Vile Racist :twisted:

    ReplyReply
  12. Skye says: 11

    One term wonder…Thank God.

    ReplyReply
  13. Pingback: Tweets that mention Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Partisanship, Politics, and Patriotism -- Topsy.com

  14. Wordsmith says: 12

    skye,

    We can only hope for that change to come. Let’s not blow it.

    @AdrianS:

    Note that the political opposition, without even a cause, will drum up an argument from the dust off of my shoes.

    Of course they will. It’s human nature, and not exclusive to just one side. Our side does it as well.

    Still, it doesn’t help give us the moral high ground when we demonize the opposition in the same manner in which they demonize and distort our own record.

    Take Joe Wilson. Was it right for him to say what he did? Most of us were ecstatic. I’m glad he said it (and it achieved positive results); but it was also wrong of him to break decorum- and he was quick to admit it and apologized. And yes, I think one time was enough, to the president. But it gave political ammunition for the other side to point out right-wing incivility and distort it further into all sorts of false accusations of racism and hate. Yes, the left would find means to demonize us anyway; but why feed into that? Why give them a leg to stand on?

    Here’s an example:

    Now, did the videographer edit the video to distort the 9/12 protesters to create a propagandistic impression? Sure he did. But he couldn’t have done it without the help of some of these idiots in the video. And how do those protesters in this video look to ordinary, sane Americans in the middle? Every bit like the nutjobs on the left from Code Pink to 9/11 Truthers, to The World Can’t Wait who make an embarrassing spectacle of themselves.

    Saying “Obama hates America” or “Obama hates our military” will do nothing to endear us to those outside of our base. And if all we’re relying upon is our base to win elections, we will never again win an election. Sorry, but there just aren’t enough voters on that fringe. Rhetoric like “Obama is evil” harms our side. It doesn’t help.

    To cite Michael Medved, who angry-as-hell conservative purists probably would like to dilute from the Republican Party:

    The point to remember about those citizens in the political middle who decide every national election is that they’re the least philosophically committed, issues-oriented voters in the electorate. Interviews and conversation make it obvious that many citizens describe themselves as “moderate” because they feel uncertain of their place on the political spectrum, less engaged with the roiling controversies of the day. Moderates famously respond to personalities or atmospherics (”hope and change” or “compassionate conservatism”) more than they react to nine-point plans or detailed position papers. They also dislike strident, the other-guy-is-Hitler rhetoric because such appeals seem like a rebuke to their own uncertainty.

    Republicans can’t win without rallying the plurality of Americans who prefer conservatism to liberalism, but they also can’t triumph (anywhere) with that group alone. Like Democrats, the GOP needs moderate votes for victory, and the only way to get them without sacrificing principle or core conservative voters involves deploying the same combination that has worked before: maintaining clearly conservative positions, but with those values presented in a manner that’s optimistic, constructive, reasonable and, yes, moderate.

    But don’t worry, Adrian; I’m not going to read too much into what you wrote. ;)

    No, Medved’s not saying dilute the Republican message of conservative ideology. But he is saying the tone and tenor has to be not over-the-top loony, or you will fail to attract the valuable moderates and the voters who only come out for major elections, but are normally turned off by politics and partisan divisiveness.

    @Patvann: Can you read the president’s mind? How do you know he doesn’t care about our troops?

    And for the record, President Obama has visited our wounded, at Walter Reed.

    Your mirror opposite accuses Bush and Cheney of hating our troops; of not caring. Does that make it so? They use the same kind of shoddy “evidence” of it, as you appear to be doing- mostly just partisan rancor.

    And as much as I believe the majority in the military, both active and retired, think, believe, and vote Republican/conservative, there are a significant number of them who voted for Obama and probably still support him. There are those who believe our military was mismanaged and misled by the previous administration.

    ReplyReply
  15. Wordsmith says: 13

    You know…..When all is said and spewed, if you really think about it, the Obama-Hitler comparison is currently unfair and inaccurate: At least Hitler got the Olympics to come to his city.

    *Baddum bump*

    (Ok…I had to update the post with that line.)

    ReplyReply
  16. mooseburger says: 14

    Wordsmith: Your comment #12 is well said. I could vote for Conservatives who are fair minded, even handed and stand on their convictions without going into the gutter to pander votes. Personally, I’m pi**ed about the Dali Lama thing, and folks can find plenty wrong with any administration that has ever been. Tactics…Tactics are important….Tactics tell you as much about a person or party as do their stated beliefs. I think the pallin’ around with terrorists style of campaigning has started to backfire, as I mentioned in another post earlier. When Conservatives rise up, shake off the extreem hate everything Obama does, says, and is stuff, and start becoming reasonable, engaged and offering viable solutions to the problems in the country and the world with logical reasoned approach and arguments, I guarantee the Liberals, and that includes me of late, will start to worry big time. Until then, it is the nutjobs who are defining the Conservatives, and the longer the association between the two goes on, the stronger the perceived connection will be established in the voters in Middle America’s minds.

    ReplyReply
  17. southernsue says: 15

    we also need people on our side that know how to fight with words the way the democrats do it. also, in plain english so everyone can have a clear understanding of what they are saying.

    in other words our side needs a hero that isn’t afraid of the mafia machine that now controls our government.

    sarah palin comes to mind. whoever it will be needs to be very capable of taking care of themselves in the press and in their private lives because this mafia administration will put on one heck of a fight to stay in power.

    be at the polls in 2010 for the beginning of the revolution!

    ReplyReply
  18. Philly_nj says: 16

    “*”If we had thought about how to make a lot of money we would have chosen Chicago,” Rogge said as the body would down the Olympic movement’s XIIIth congress.

    “*”Money is not what drives IOC members when it comes to choosing a host city,” he concluded.
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.78eddf1f537d8956756a2a2b646264db.871&show_article=1

    Is IOC president Jacques Rogge hinting that ‘Team Obama’ attempted to bribe the IOC ?
    .

    ReplyReply
  19. Aqua says: 17

    @ Wordsmith

    I agree with Adrian S. and what Patvann said was right on. It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with your Generals. The left can say what they want about Bush, he acted like a CinC. Dems say Bush took his time in enacting the surge, but that allegation is false. The Iraq Study Group report came out on December 6, 2006, Bush started working with DoD, Sec of State and the Joint Chiefs on December 11.
    Obama is the CinC. In the end, it doesn’t matter what his Generals say, the final decision is his. But doing nothing isn’t the act of a good commander. If your current plan isn’t working, you fix it or change the plan. To maintain the status quo while your troops die as a result of your indecision is unacceptable. Either pull them out or change strategy. If he doesn’t like McChrystal’s plan, go with his own.
    I don’t see any vitrol in a comment such as this at all. All Obama has to do is say, “I’ve listened to my Generals, I decided that I will pursue a different strategy,” or “I will follow the recommendations from the ground,” or “We’re pulling out.” Obama can’t make a decision. And that in and of itself shows a complete lack of regard for our troops. Plain and simple, no hatred for the messiah, just the facts.

    ReplyReply
  20. Aqua says: 18

    @ mooseburger

    When Conservatives rise up, shake off the extreem hate everything Obama does, says, and is stuff, and start becoming reasonable, engaged and offering viable solutions to the problems in the country and the world with logical reasoned approach and arguments, I guarantee the Liberals, and that includes me of late, will start to worry big time.

    WTFever! The majority of republican a$$ clowns currently in congress don’t deserve to be there. When they held the majority under that idiot Hastert, they tried to make buddies with the left. “Let’s share power, let’s out spend the libbies, let’s be loved by the media.” Worked out pretty well for them, huh? The republicans tossed Newt under the bus to get along with the left. What did it end up getting them? Pelosi. She is 10 times more polarizing than Newt ever was, yet the left rallies around here. You have a chairman of the ways and means committee that is a blantant tax cheat, and yet the left rallies behind him.
    Logical, reasoned approach and arguments? So none of the ideas offered by the right in any of healthcare or Porkulus debates were reasoned or logical? And being accused of a new holocaust on the house floor wasn’t extreme hate from the left? Nope, only the right has extreme hate.

    No thanks. I’d rather keep ramming ACORN and all the other stuff down the left’s throats. Given the chance, the left would do it to us and not lose a moments rest.

    ReplyReply
  21. URI says: 19

    I like to read about how enthusiatic some of you are about the upcoming election and that Obama is going to be a one term President. But something inside of me tells me that it is too easy. Obama wants to be the President for a long time. I don’t know how it is going to be achieved but I believe that we will not have free elections in the future. I hope I am wrong but something just ain’t right.

    ReplyReply
  22. Aqua says: 20

    @ URI

    It’d be a pretty good trick. It would also start a civil war. And democrats know, our military isn’t a big fan of their party.

    ReplyReply
  23. Blast says: 21

    URI: “I believe that we will not have free elections in the future.”

    Oh? So you are saying the President Obama will cancel free elections in the future? That is totally crazy talk and your insinuations are provocative and damaging. Freedom loving people should denounce people like you for planting such lies to disrupt our democratic Republic.

    ReplyReply
  24. Missy says: 22

    @Blast:

    For whatever reason, you have cropped part of URI’s comment:

    I don’t know how it is going to be achieved but I believe that we will not have free elections in the future. I hope I am wrong but something just ain’t right.

    You then remark:

    So you are saying the President Obama will cancel free elections in the future? That is totally crazy talk and your insinuations are provocative and damaging. Freedom loving people should denounce people like you for planting such lies to disrupt our democratic Republic.

    No, that’s not what he said and it’s not URI that is doing the “crazy talk.” Also appears that you have just planted a lie.

    ReplyReply
  25. Aqua says: 23

    @ Blast

    Really Blast?

    <a href="Congressman John Olver, Democrate says Bush will cancel 2008 Elections

    Democrat Underground claims Homeland Security Plan to cancel 2008 Elections

    Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis claim Bush to cancel 2008 Elections

    The left said it constantly prior to the 2008 elections. Funny, I don’t remember seeing you say anything about the planting lies to disrupt the democratic process.

    ReplyReply
  26. RobbyS says: 24

    I don’t think that Obama is going to act to stop elections, but it bothers me that he has a block of uncritical supporters that amounts to one third of the electorate. Hitler never had as many. A situation might develop gives him the pretext for a takeover, and I think he is arrogant enough to seize such an opportunity. Alternatively, he may do things that lead to a Seven Days in May situation. In the end, the army was the only institution in germany that could have taken Hitler down.

    ReplyReply
  27. Hard Right says: 25

    Blasted strikes again. You really have no clue how stoned and flat out loony you sound when you post, do you? A little Abilify or Seroquel would do you wonders.

    Instead of asking what he meant, you fly out of your straight jacket and assume he meant obama would stop elections from being held…which is what people like you claimed Bush would do.

    I’m sure he won’t stop elections especially since they are getting better and better at stealing them.

    Oh and moosebrain, I suggest you stop projecting your issues onto Conservatives. Get your hate issues fixed before preaching to us.

    ReplyReply
  28. Hard Right says: 26

    Arrrg. Spam filter…

    ReplyReply
  29. Blast says: 27

    Aqua, “Funny, I don’t remember seeing you say anything about the planting lies to disrupt the democratic process.”

    Funny you never asked me before. If Congressman whoever said it about Bush, I would call for evidence and if none were shown, I would say it was crazy talk.

    Oh, and Aqua… why aren’t you speaking out against such comments that are actually happening right now, and in this blog?

    Hardly Right “Instead of asking what he meant, you fly out of your straight jacket and assume he meant obama would stop elections from being held…which is what people like you claimed Bush would do.”

    Funny… you actually made me laugh out loud with that comment. Especially the part where you totally LIE about me. I never said Bush would stop elections, and while you are flying out of your straight jacket… I will say anyone who made those claims about Bush were nuts too.

    ReplyReply
  30. Pingback: Press fact-checks everyone but Obama » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog

  31. URI says: 28

    Blast, It is very hard to accept or to think the unthinkable sometimes. I am not an expert and maybe I am not alone. We are talking about about hard core lefties ideologs and people who have just gotten into power…do you think or let me refrase that..Did Castro relinquish power like the Cuban Constitution stated? Or Chavez? Why did Honduras have a Coup d’etat? He talks about a new world order. What is that supposed to mean? When I read about the background of the advisors, is atypical for America to have those people in such powerful positions.

    Blast, history repeats itself and for some of us who are more experienced or perhaps cynical, certain ideas are not so far fetch. If I can think of it, why not them?. Again, I hope to be totally wrong and may all of these be only a product of my imagination.

    ReplyReply
  32. RobbyS says: 29

    As Limbaugh , as indeed, every true liberals has said, the history of mankind is a history of men trying to win liberty. In both the Jewish and Christians tradition, we have a liberator God. The God of Islam, is a slave master. So is the god of Marx. To Hitler, the master race was god, the “creator” of all good things. But the aim of all kings is to reduce their subjects to slavery.

    ReplyReply
  33. Mr. Gray says: 30

    @Aqua:

    he could just press on with a failing strategy and double down on his first instinct or advice without giving thoughtful consideration to the lives of the troops or the true purpose of thier service. This would allow him to look like the big and strong commander while everyone else sees the error of his strategy. All he has to do is keep that up until the next administration takes over. Thats how you fight a war without having to worry about winning. It has worked before…

    ReplyReply
  34. Aqua says: 31

    @ Blast

    Sorry, the link was messed up. Here is the link. Congressman John Olver Believes Bush will Cancel 2008 Elections

    Oh, and Aqua… why aren’t you speaking out against such comments that are actually happening right now, and in this blog?

    I did in a round about way. Sorry though, after 8 years plus of hearing republicans being called everything from racists, hate-mongers, war-mongers, nazis and inbred morons, all my goodwill is spent. I have always tried to find common ground with normal democrats. I believe that those of us on the left and right that live outside the beltway are actually much closer on issues than the views espoused by the pundits of D.C. But I’m pretty much done playing nice. After my own congressman said that no censuring Joe Wilson would encourage people to take to riding the countryside in white hoods and robes, I refuse to apologize for anything, anyone says about this administration. You guys started it, deal with it.

    ReplyReply
  35. Blast says: 32

    @ Aqua, oh, that makes sense, you ask me to denounce some bad behavior and then you say “ll my goodwill is spent” and will allow what you tastily acknowledge as incorrect behavior stand… ok, that speaks volumes. I hope you refresh your goodwill and attempt to participate in an open way.

    ReplyReply
  36. Aqua says: 33

    @ Blast

    Dude, I expect it from the left. Just calling out the hypocrisy of the left. If one conservative says something about a liberal that 1 million liberals have said about conservatives, you guys lose your mind. As for my goodwill, I’m going to need a significant amount of goodwill deposit from the left before I go back to the way I was. Didn’t get us anything in the past except kicked and spit on. No, I’m thinking that using the lefts tactics against them is working much better. We’ll just throw a bunch of names and accusations at you guys until just one sticks and well hammer away at that. That’s what the left does to us and it seemed to work out pretty well for ‘em. Think we’ll give it a shot for a while.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>