January 29, 2005

Democrats; Party of ?

Fred Barnes hits it out of the ballpark with this commentary piece called "The Ruthless Party".

After watching Barbara Boxer trying to paint Condi Rice as a liar and then whine complain that SHE was attacked by Ms. Rice in a later interview, one just has to wonder how people could ever keep voting such an obvious moron mentally challenged person crybaby into the high office of Senator.

And then to listen to Senator Splash reiterating his inane comparison of Iraq to Viet Nam and calling for as hasty a retreat from Iraq as possible just makes one shake one's head in pity for his headlong dive into Altzheimers.

One has to wonder just why the Democratic side of the aisle just can't seem to realize that broadcasting timetables and rigid responses to situational hypotheticals can be invaluable information to terrorists in formulating their activities.

I just wish that, as Laura Ingraham suggested, Ms. Rice had responded to him with the quip: "well Senator, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it" if asked a hypothetical question that just couldn't be reasonably responded to by anyone who doesn't want to give suggestions to our enemies as to how they can prepare for her style of diplomacy.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:30 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

At least ONE embed sees the forest for the trees.

Most telling about the MSM was this little snippet from his last report:

The radio show today was held in the chow hall and it was very difficult to describe the last days. I did the best I could and tried to give a complete story not only of the Marines casualties but the victories of the 10 KIA’s, top 2 bad guys out of action, additional high value target captured, and more intelligence taken in as well.

Why do the media not report that? I video taped the live ABC news report from the dam – no mention of the Marines victories – only the losses. (empasis mine)

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 04:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Way TO GO!

Once a Marine, ALWAYS a Marine, and the Marine Corps just proved that by letting a 51 year old rejoin to fulfill his dream of an overseas deployment.

Now I wonder.....Maybe the Army could use a 50 year old Vet/ truck driver?

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 04:45 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Morris and Esther

Morris and his wife Esther went to the state fair every year, and every year
Morris would say, "Esther, I'd like to ride in that helicopter."

Esther always replied, "I know Morris, but that helicopter ride is $50, and
$50 is $50."

One year Esther and Morris went to the fair, and Morris said, "Esther, I'm
85 years old. If I don't ride that helicopter, I might never get another
chance."

Esther replied, "Morris that helicopter ride is $50, and $50 is $50."

The pilot overheard the couple and said, "Folks, I'll make you a deal. I'll
take the both of you for a ride. If you can stay quiet for the entire ride
and not say a word I won't charge you! But if you say one word, it's $50."

Morris and Esther agreed and up they went. The pilot did all kinds of fancy
maneuvers, but not a word was heard. He did his daredevil tricks over and
over again, but still not a word.

When they landed, the pilot turned to Morris and said, "By golly, I did
everything I could to get you to yell out, but you didn't. I'm impressed!"

Morris replied, "Well, I was going to say something when Esther fell out,
but $50 is $50."

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 04:33 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

one picture is worth a thousand words

'Nuff Said

(Hat tip to Jack)

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 04:16 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Connection Restored

AT LAST! DSL has been restored to the Citadel. I hope that regular (and BETTER) posting can now resume.

ER...anyone have a good cure for writers block?!?

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 03:23 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 28, 2005

One Iraqi's View

Naseer Flayih Hasan Is one Iraqi who spares no bones when he iterates his opinion of Leftist "peace activists".

The title tells the story in a nutshell:"How the Left Betrayed My Country - Iraq"

Here's a couple of teasers:

After those, and many other, experiences, we finally comprehended how little we had in common with these “peace activists” who constantly decried American crimes, and hated to listen to us talk about the terrible long nightmare that ended with the collapse of the regime. We came to understand how these “humanitarians” experienced a sort of pleasure when terrorists or former remnants of the regime created destruction in Iraq—just so they could feel that they were right, and the Americans wrong!

It’s worth noting, as well, that the general attitude of peace activists I met was tension and anger. They were impossible to reason with. This was because, on one hand, the sometimes considerable risks they took to oppose the war made them unable to accept the fact that their cause was not as noble as they believed. Then, too, their dogmatic anti-American attitudes naturally drew them to guides, translators, drivers and Iraqi acquaintances who were themselves supporters of the regime. These Iraqis, in turn, affected the peace activists until they came to share almost the same judgments and opinions as the terrorists and defenders of Saddam.

And Mr. Hasan is not a Pollyanna shill for the American shill:

We believed—and still believe--that America’s removal of the regime opened a new way for democracy. At the same time, we have no illusions that the U.S. came to Iraq on a white horse to save our people. We understand this war is all about national interests, and that America’s interests are mainly about defeating terrorism. At this moment, though, U.S. interests are doing more to bring about democracy and freedom in Iraq than, say, the policies of France and Russia—countries which also care little for the Iraqi people and, worse, did their best to save Saddam from destruction until the last moment.

Now go read the rest.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:19 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Liberals

I borrowed this list from a favorite blog of mine that, sadly, has fallen defunct.
It's just as valid as when it was first posted however.

You might be a liberal if …

You think that protestors outside nuclear power plants are dedicated activists, but protestors outside abortion clinics are dangerous zealots interfering with a legal activity.

You believe that more federal regulations will make your life better.

You believe that even though the top 20 percent of taxpayers pay 80 percent of income taxes, that the rich are not paying their “fair share.”

You think that Rush Limbaugh’s listeners are mindless “dittoheads,” but you have never doubted anything that you heard from Michael Moore.

You believe that the network news is a better indicator of what “real” news is than talk radio, Internet news sites, and blogs.

You believe that there was never, ever a problem with biased news coverage until Fox News went on the air.

You believe that Mikhail Gorbachev deserves more credit for losing the Cold War than Ronald Reagan deserves for winning it.

You mentally subtract 100 points from someone’s IQ if the person speaks with a Southern accent.

You think that Dan Rather got a raw deal.

You think that the phrase “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution.

You pride yourself on your global awareness, global sensitivity and global outlook, but can’t name your state legislator or school board representative.

You are dedicated to helping the poor, the downtrodden and the less fortunate, but you have never given blood.

You believe that a woman should make it on her own, without depending on her husband (except for Hillary Clinton).

You believe that professional, working women should never be judged on their appearance (except for Katherine Harris).

You believe that rich people should not be allowed to contribute so much money to candidates for office (except for George Soros).

You believe that government should make a special effort to hire members of traditionally oppressed groups, such as African-Americans (except for Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice).

You feel a deep sense of common cause with oppressed groups, such as Hispanic immigrants (except for Cuban Americans fleeing Castro).

You believe that a mother’s wishes for her child, especially a mother’s last, dying wish for her child, should outweigh the wishes of a father who had long before deserted his family (unless the child is named Elian Gonzalez).

You have no problem with Hollywood movie stars flying around in private jets to give speeches on the evils of SUVs.

You think that raising taxes will reduce the budget deficit.

You are more concerned, more often, with the rights of convicted felons than you are with the rights of small business owners.

You uphold a woman’s right to choose, unless a woman chooses adoption, chooses to be a stay-at-home mom, chooses to homeschool, or chooses to start a business.

You are more concerned with Vice President Cheney’s links to Halliburton than with Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorism.

You have used the phrase, “in Europe, the government pays for health care and vacation,” without irony.

You are worried about how the French view Americans.

You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that anyone objecting to pornography “only has to look the other way.

And finally, you are almost certainly a liberal if you refuse to admit that you’re a liberal, and accuse anyone of calling you a liberal of McCarthyism.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:03 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Press Release

(AP) Austin, Texas - Dr. Calvin Rickson, a scientist from Texas A&M University has invented a bra that keeps women's breasts from jiggling, and prevents the
Nipples from pushing through the fabric when cold weather sets in.

At a news conference announcing the invention, a large group of men took
Dr. Rickson outside and kicked the shit out of him.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 12:31 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 27, 2005

Islamic Fundementalism

Many on the Left claim that Terrorism is a result of US policies in the Mideast, some going so far to claim that US policies are fronts for policies formulated by the Iraeli government, but when you listen to what terrorists such as Musab Al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Ladin himself, have to say about the conflict between radical Islam and the US:

Blockquote>"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong idiology" "Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion, and that is against the rule of God"

and Osama bin Laden himself:

"Anyone who particpates in these (Iraqi) elections...has committed apostasy against Allah." "Those( that aid the elections) are apostates who should not be prayed over upon their deaths. They can not inherit, and they must not be inherited from after their deaths. Their wives are divorced from them, and they must not be buried in Muslim cemeteries".

The intellectual founder of the current radical Islamic movement, Sayyid Qutb, wrote in 1957:

In the world, there is ONLY ONE PARTY, THE PARTY OF ALLAH;ALL OF THE OTHERS ARE PARTIES OF SATAN AND REBELLION. Those who believe FIGHT IN THE CAUSE OF ALLAH;and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of (satan) the rebellion"

Check out Memri.org and you can find any number of statements from Islamic organizations declaring that democracy is an "atheist" heresy, and that anyone participating in it is, Ipso Facto, an "infidel" and/or a "heretic".

Read the Queran to see what is expected to be done by the Faithful to to anyone who is considered to be a member of those hated groups.

Still believe that this is a fight against policies? Or is it something more akin to a war between two totally incompatible idiologies? A war that was brought home to us on our own shore on 9/11?

I believe the latter, because I take the enemy at their word when they come right out and state their agenda; nothing less than the eradication of every priciple I hold dear and replacing it with a tyranical theocracy.

The battleground at present is Iraq, but if you look at the increasing frequency and escalating manner of terrorist actions in Europe, it's obvious that the Islamist's ultimate goal is a world-wide Islamic State.

The citizens of Iraq have a choice to make on Sunday; between starting a (admittedly) long, painfull process towards some form of democratic self rule and a total theocracy ruled by outside Mullahs that brook no dissent from their rigid form of rule.

To those that say that "the US is imposing our will on only two states (Iraq and Afghanistan) and ignoring other theocratic regimes", I would point out that Iraq and Afghanistan are only the first step in our stradegy, with the end goal, that if a democratic rule can be established in those two states, the citizens of the other tyranies in the area will take it upon themselves to gain the same freedom for themselves, and not be forced to it from outside at great cost and blood to us.

OUR ultimate goal is nothing less than the democratization of the whole Middle East. Democracy NOT necessarily in the same form as ours, but in the manner suited to the people and culture of the area. The reason we wish this? Because history shows us that democratic states are much less likely to engage in war/terrorism than dictatorships and theocracies. Boiled down to it's simplest, it's proactive self defense.

And to those that claim Israel is an "aparteid state"....just tell me how it is that those arab citizens of Israel enjoy all the same rights, INCLUDING holding elective office as any other Israeli if it WERE such a state? There are Arab Muslim's ,freely elected, in the Knesset.

The ONLY distinction between Arab and Jewish citizens in Israel is that Arabs are not required to serve in the IDF, while Jewish citizens are required to serve for at least two years.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 10:57 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

It WOULD explain a lot....

Once upon a time, a Sheik was blessed with the birth of a son after years of hoping. The boy immediately became the apple of his father's eye.

Just before his son's sixth birthday, the Sheik said to him, Son, I
love you very much. Your birthday is coming soon. What would you
like?" His son replied, "Daddy, I would like to have my own airplane."

His Father bought him American Airlines.

Just before his son's seventh birthday, the Sheik said, "Son, you are my pride and joy. Ask what you want for your birthday. Whatever it is, it's yours."
His son replied, "Daddy, I would like a boat."

His father bought him the Princess Cruise Line.

Just before his son's eight birthday, the Sheik said, "Son, you
bring so much happiness into my life. Anything you want, I shall get for
you." His son replied, "Daddy, I would like to be able to watch
cartoons."

His father bought him Disney Studios.

Just before his son's ninth birthday, the Sheik said, "Son, you are
my life. Your birthday is coming soon. Ask what you wish. I will get it
for you." His son, who had grown to love Disney, replied, "Daddy, I
would like a Mickey Mouse outfit and a Goofy outfit".

His father bought him the Democratic Party and CBS news.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 07:27 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Test #...

Now THIS TEST got me more accurately! LOL

eXpressive: 5/10
Practical: 4/10
Physical: 5/10
Giver: 8/10

You are a RSYG--Reserved Sentimental Physical Giver. This makes you a Nice Guy/Nice Girl.

Oh, poor RSYG. You're the one all your friends of your target sex *should* be dating when you have to watch them go out with jerks. You're the sweet one that the lead in a romantic comedy ends up with after s/he learns a valuable lesson. You're the best friend, the chaperone and the shoulder to cry on when you should be the lover. Well, no one ever said people were smart.

You dislike conflict -- you prefer to express yourself through action, not discussion -- but you know it is necessary. This means you are more likely to tackle an issue before it grows, but you're also more likely to stop fighting before the issue is resolved to your satisfaction. This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- it's kind of a nice compromise between fighting about everything and fighting about nothing -- but you have to remember to look out for your own interests sometimes.

You have a strong sexual appetite, but it seems so out of place with the rest of your persona that people find it hard to believe. Often they try to shield you from sexual content -- it's ridiculous, but you can use it to your advantage: everybody wants someone clean in the kitchen and dirty in the bedroom. That's you.

You don't want to cheat, but you might. Especially since it's only when you're in a relationship that you start getting the attention from your target sex that you should have been getting all along. Your experiences could make you misanthropic if you weren't so tenderhearted.

A lot of RSITs think they're RSYGs. They're not.

You'll end up with someone who deserves you in the end.

Of the 183807 people who have taken this quiz, 3.4 % are this type.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 02:50 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Test #....

I took THIS TEST. You can see the results below. I disagree with the wackiness quotient, I think I'm a lot funnier than they would say I am. I also believe I'm a great deal more constructive than the test would indicate. I have no interest in leadership, so I'm not surprised by a low score in that area.

Wackiness: 40/100
Rationality: 80/100
Constructiveness: 40/100
Leadership: 44/100

You are a SRDF--Sober Rational Destructive Follower. This makes you a Fountain of Knowledge.

You are cool, analytical, intelligent and completely unfunny. Sometimes you slice through conversation with a cutting observation that causes silence and sidelong glances. You make a strong and lasting impression on everyone you meet, the quality of which depends more on their personality than yours.

You may feel persecuted, as you can become a target for fun. Still, you are focused enough on your work and secure enough in your abilities not to worry overly.

You are productive and invaluable to those you work for. You are loyal, steadfast, and conscientious. Your grooming is impeccable. You are in good shape.

You are kind of a tool, but you get things done. You are probably a week away from snapping

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 02:39 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The EU Idiotarian disease is infective

I have always been proud of my Dutch heritage. The Dutch have long had a reputation for being the most tolerant society in europe, allowing for the most individual freedom possible, but then I saw this article via Acidman, and I can only conclude that the Idiocy that is the main product of the EU is infecting my beloved homeland.

Just by WHAT twisted logic could someone engaged in illegal activities take business deductions on the tools used in those activities?!?

I'm waiting for something similar to this happening in Kalifornia or Washington state. The way it's going, I may not have to wait long. In the meantime, I can only feel embarrassed for the country of my birth, I sincerly hope that Dutch common sense will reassert itself soon and put an end to lunacy such as this.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 02:13 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Deficit spending

A great many people are doing the chicken little dance in reference to the economy, citing a debt approaching the trillion dollar mark.

The deficit IS a cause for concern, but if you look over the economies of past years and adjust the present deficit as a percentage of GDP, you come to realize that the situation isn't as dire as the Tax and Spend, would be controllers of the economy, would have you believe.

The most important thing we could do to help the economy right now is to drastically cut federal spending; something that President Bush has shown himself to be woefully inept at. The President should lead the charge in cutting spending in real terms, instead he seems content to allow rises in almost every area, or at the most, a halt in raises without actually doing any cutting.

I think one step would be to get the federal government out of those areas that that the Constitution does not give over to the Federal level of government.

Education controlled by the NEA would be my choice for the first to go, not that I believe that will happen any time soon.

We need to return to a more self-reliant mode. The "progressives" would have you believe that more government intervention is the answer to every problem. "Let the government pay for it" is their central meme, forgetting that government in itself has no money, it is the money of the citizens, and the higher ratio of that money taken from those citizens, the greater the problems become; and the more dependant the citizens become on the public teat, the greater the control the government has over those citizens.

Freedom entails a certain amount of risk and personal responsiblity. As Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those that would give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither."

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:48 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 25, 2005

Men, do we ever think before we speak?

A husband walks into Victoria's Secret to purchase some sheer
lingerie for his wife. He is shown several possibilities that range
from $250 to $500 in price, the more sheer, the higher the price. He
opts for the most sheer item, pays the $500 and take the lingerie
home.

He presents it to his wife and asks her to go upstairs, put it on and
model it for him. Up stairs, the wife thinks, "I have an idea. It's
so sheer that it might as well be nothing. I won't put it on, do the
modeling naked, return it tomorrow and keep the $500 refund for
myself."

So she appears naked on the balcony and strikes a pose. The husband
says, "Good Lord! You'd think that for $500, they'd at least iron
it!".

He never heard the shot.

Funeral services pending.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 11:30 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 23, 2005

That A.C.L.U., What Jokers!

What's wrong with this picture?

If you look closely at the picture above, you will note that all the Marines pictured are bowing their heads. That's because they're praying.

This incident took place at a recent ceremony honoring the birthday of the corps, and it has the ACLU up in arms. "These are federal employees," says Lucius Traveler, a spokesman for the ACLU, "on federal property and on federal time. For them to pray is clearly an establishment of religion, and we must nip this in the bud immediately."

When asked about the ACLU's charges, Colonel Jack Fessender, speaking for the Commandant of the Corps said (cleaned up a bit), "Screw the ACLU." GOD Bless Our Warriors, Send the ACLU to France.

Please send this to people you know so everyone will know how stupid the ACLU is Getting in trying ! to remove GOD from everything and every place in America. May God Bless America, One Nation Under GOD!

What's wrong with the picture? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

GOD BLESS AMERICA,

GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:15 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 When you claim that God blesses your bloodthirsty nation and your murderous, torturing troops, one begins to wonder whether your 'God' is Satanic.

Posted by: truth_doesn't_hurt at January 23, 2005 04:48 PM (mCYFQ)

2 I whole heartedly agree there is nothing wrong with the picture above. In fact if ever a group of people needed prayer it would be those troops.
They need not only their own prayers but ours as well.
On a less agreeable note, I must tell you delftsman I am sadly disappointed to find that you have such a disparaging opinion of my blog and my opinions. I have respected you and not only appreciated but enjoyed your comments on my blog. I welcome your point of view. While I may not agree with you or be often swayed by you, I admire your willingness to stand up and defend your political stance. But, when you to other blogs and make negative (and borderline erroneous) comments about me, it leads me to believe that you do not return my respect. In fact it leads me to believe that you view me as a fool whom you tolerate only for entertainments value. Besides the fact that you invite trolls to my blog. How ungentlemanly of you. You take my southern hospitality and you shame me. I am wounded sir.

Posted by: wanda at January 23, 2005 05:39 PM (1ivbm)

3 They can pray all they like, wherever they like. I have no problem with prayer, but they must also allow the other religions the same right. Also, they need to not try to force their religion(s) on others. That is what the schools and companies get in trouble for. You must have only one God and that God must be this God. I like the Native American Indians' ideas of Gods.

by the way, I really appreciate your comment section. I neglected to put in my E-mail address and since it's required, the software told me I needed to put it in, however, it kept my original comment so I didn't have to RE-TYPE it all. That was truly wonderful

Posted by: oldwhitelady at January 23, 2005 08:06 PM (wyE7H)

4 I guarantee that no one was ordered to bow their heads. Anytime a chaplain prays at any type of event or ceremony he invites people to pray. There is no obligation or requirement to pray to any one particular god or to participate at all for that matter. Each member of the armed forces is entitled to exercise their own views.

On a second note, Wanda, I don't think Delfts intention was to draw trolls to your site, but to merely draw some of those with differing opinions. Delfts and I don't always see eye to eye either, but we will always have a good relationship as friends.

SlagleRock Out!

Posted by: SlagleRock at January 23, 2005 10:14 PM (fTGYN)

5 Also, if you look closely at the picture it is obvious that there are those that are exercising their rights by not participating. There are several Marines that are simply looking straight ahead.

SlagleRock Out!

Posted by: SlagleRock at January 23, 2005 10:16 PM (fTGYN)

6 As with any branch in the military not all are Christians, it is common to respect the beliefs of others whenever a prayer service is held. For non Christians there are non denominational chaplains available to serve their needs. Having attended nearly every denominational service the military has to offer, never have I heard an order to pray, it is always a request. If you ever find yourself paying last respects over poncho draped bodies of fallen comrades what difference does it make which denomination is saying the benediction. The ACLU would like to ban all prayer but until I see the words "In ACLU We Trust" as our national motto Fuck'em , I'll stick with "In God We Trust".

Posted by: Jack at January 24, 2005 06:11 AM (5jtiZ)

7 Don't worry Wanda. From what I can tell Delftsman either had a troubled childhood, or isn't taking his medication. Maybe both.

Yours isn't the first blog he has come to and ridiculed. Combine that with his rabid racism, his contempt for anything and anyone non-American, his relgious fanaticism, continous support for militarism, and the number of times the word 'imperial' and 'empire' appear on this blog and I think you'll agree he's a bit of a headcase...

Posted by: anti-imperialist at January 24, 2005 03:14 PM (onRjP)

8 The picture looks fine to me. Oh damn Delftsman, you've upset the moonbats.

Posted by: EC at January 24, 2005 03:46 PM (yYGP5)

9 As someone formerly in the military, I can say that I always found it offensive that the U.S. government assumes that everyone's a Christian and has Christian prayers as part of virtually every military ceremony. If the prayer is voluntary, they should dismiss everyone who isn't a Christian from formation. Isn't it highly hypocritical that the same people who are up in arms about China not allowing religious organizations that don't register with the state are falling over themselves in glee when the U.S. government sanctions religious practice. And the Muslims in the Middle East are supposed to trust us to help them establish a secular democracy. What a joke!

Posted by: Karlo at January 24, 2005 05:41 PM (HoLw7)

10 Combine that with his rabid racism, his contempt for anything and anyone non-American, his relgious fanaticism, continous support for militarism, and the number of times the word 'imperial' and 'empire' appear on this blog and I think you'll agree he's a bit of a headcase...

AI; Just WHERE do you find ANYTHING that could be termed "racist" in my blog? OR "religeous fanaticism"? I am not religeous in any of the common sort of definitions. I believe in a God, but I don't believe in a religion. I do believe that religion can be comforting to it's adherants, but it's a personal choice for every individual as to what form that might take, and woe to the person that tries to force me to his practice.

I am NOT against anything not American Yes I do decry actions in foreign nations when they warrent it, when those actions are held up by the moonbats as the right path to go here. I was not born American, I chose to become American, but I do hold great esteem for my heritage.

As to militarism, if that means that I applaud just action in defense of our national security, I gladly plead guilty. We may honestly disagree as to what is just or not.

As for the references to "Imperial" and "Empire", please take note of the rather large button prominantly displayed in my gutter for the Anti-Idiotarion Rottweiler, of which I am a proud "Loyal Citizen"....it's a tongue in cheek group, you twit. Although the humor might be lost on such as you.

I never ridicule other blogs, I have ridiculed certain forms of moonbat idiologies. Of which I don't consider of Wanda. We certainly honestly disagree on most things, but I can respect her for her honest opinion. And unlike Trolls, and some libs, I ALWAYS leave my real e-mail addy and URL; so they can respond directly to me should they wish to.

Posted by: delftsman3 at January 25, 2005 05:39 AM (hTrQW)

11 Look out Knewt she's startin' to rear!

Go get 'em Delfts!!

I got your back and it'd be so far away they'd never even here the crack of the rifle, LOL

SlagleRock Out!

Posted by: SlagleRock at January 28, 2005 01:42 AM (fTGYN)

12 This story is an internet hoax.

The picture, obviously, is genuine. However, the story is some ignorant idiot’s effort to get people riled up over his own personal opinion of the ACLU.

1. An internet search for ‘Lucius Traveler,’ the alleged ACLU spokesman, and ‘Col. Jack Fessender,’ the alleged Marine Corps PAO, turns up nothing except the text of this story repeated on a dozen or so blogs. Even the US Marine Corps website has nothing about this story or anyone named Fessender. Nothing else at all on the internet. No press releases, no interviews. My guess is that these two individuals are fictitious, or they are the world’s worst spokesmen.
2. The ACLU website has no such press release. The ACLU website does have a statement saying that they have no knowledge of the events described in the e-mail, and that they do not employ nor have they ever employed an individual named Lucius Traveler. http://www.aclu.com/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertyMain.cfm
3. This e-mail is debunked on several websites which specialize in rumors and urban legends, including Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp); TruthorFiction.com (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aclu-marines.htm); and breakthechain.org (http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/marinepray.html).

Posted by: Mike at October 23, 2005 12:07 AM (Bh4Rw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 22, 2005

EU BS

I was going to post about the EU and their latest example of munificence in the Airbus/Indonesia affair, but found that the Emperor had already done it better than I ever could.

It really makes me want to cry when the Moonbats on our shores hold out the EU as the model we should emulate. Lets see:
A. A community that uses coercion to force a tragedy ridden country to help support a state supported industry.
B. A community that makes it illegal to use force to defend one's home.
C. A community that makes it "hate speech" for a minister to preach from the pulpet according to the precepts of his religion.
D. A community that micromanages it's resident populations down to standardized regulations on it's playground equipment.

Yep! THATS the model I want to follow! (that was sarcasm btw, for any moonbats that might have strayed into here off from the "true path").

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:02 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 21, 2005

Tsunami relief

I keep hearing the Leftist's crying about how we need to bow down to the "superior wisdom" and greater international relief abilities of the UN in providing for the betterment of victoms of every stripe in the world.

Then I read a report from a "BOOT ON THE GROUND" in Indonesia and had, as Kim du Toit would say, a "RCOB" moment.

I have asked this question a number of times of a Leftist bent reader when they happen to come on here, maybe this time, one will deign to provide an answer?; the question is simply this: Provide me the details of just ONE case where the UN was able to provide adequate and true relief to victoms of any sort in the world, whether victoms of a natural disaster,like Indonesia, or the victoms of a tyrannical regime, such as the genocide occuring in the Sudan, without the US being the major driving force, in terms of supplies,manpower, payor of the bills, etc.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 09:31 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 19, 2005

The Left is constantly citing MSM sources as the basis for their opposition to the war in Iraq, but they never consider the biases of that media. Whenever someone speaks against the flow that that the MSM, it's obviously because that person is a "tool of the administration". Never mind that because of the nature of the internet we can get information directly from those that are involved in day to day operations in Iraq; If The Old Grey Lady says it, it must be true regardless of what the "boots on the ground" have to say.

Here is another "boot on the ground" telling it like he sees it. LTC. Ryan points out that what you read in the MSM ain't necessarily the way it really is. Why is it that the Left decries the media as a "tool of the Fascists" when it doesn't match their preconceived ideas, but jump anyone on the other side that points out the obvious biases against the US actions/policies as being anti-truth?

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 09:26 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.6084 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.6006 seconds, 69 records returned.
Page size 72 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.