Confederate Yankee
September 08, 2008
Yes, Adam. But Not For the Reasons You Think
Over at the Huffington Post, liberal writer/director Adam McKay laments of the 2008 Presidential elections that "We're Gonna Frickin' Lose This Thing," and goes on to prove that the far left wing may lose this election for Democrats. It won't be for the reasons he thinks, but because of their own inability to find common ground with vast majority of Americans.
Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP candidate. We're coming off the worst eight years in our country's history. Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even the Supreme Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two years the R's have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet we're going to elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90% of the time and a former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve as science? That's not odd as a difference of opinion, that's logically and mathematically queer.
There's a lot of self-delusion contained in that one paragraph.
Barack Obama is a brilliant orator with a great personal story, points almost everyone will concede. But narrative isn't leadership, and Barack Obama is one of the least experienced candidates the Democrats have ever offered up as a presidential candidate, and he arguably holds the title of the least experienced major party candidate in history. Obama also voted with the most unpopular Congress in the history of the United States
97-percent of the time.
Joe Biden, his selection for Vice President, is a man who has been in the Senate longer than many Obama supporters have been alive, yet his party never gave him a position of leadership that was required by seniority. In a campaign espousing "hope and change, " Americans see Biden as the consummate Washington insider; even his son is a lobbyist. Biden also voted along party lines 97-percent of the time last year.
As for claiming that the Bush presidency was the "worst eight years in our country's history" — well that kind of gross hyperbole may be fine in Hollywood, but is such an absurd statement that it doesn't justify addressing.
McKay's conspiracy theory of why Obama is in trouble is just as far-fetched and delusional as his understanding of history.
It reminds me of playing blackjack (a losers game). You make all the right moves, play the right hands but basically the House always wins. I know what you're going to say " But I won twelve hundred dollars last year in Atlantic City!" Of course there are victories. The odds aren't tilted crazy, but there is a 51%-49% advantage. And in the long run, the house has to win. The house will win.
So what is this house advantage the Republicans have? It's the press. There is no more fourth estate. Wait, hold on...I'm not going down some esoteric path with theories on the deregulation of the media and corporate bias and CNN versus Fox...I mean it: there is no more functioning press in this country. And without a real press the corporate and religious Republicans can lie all they want and get away with it. And that's the 51% advantage.
Obama is losing because the press is in the tank... for
McCain.
Yes, McKay's quite sincere. And he's not done, either.
I'm not even getting into the fact that the religious right teaches closed mindedness so it's almost impossible to gain new voters from their pool because people who disagree with them are agents of the devil. I just want to look at two inarguable realities: A) we have no more press and B) the Repubs are screwing with the voters on the local level.
Adam McKay claims that Barack Obama and Joe Biden is a dream ticket for Democrats, thinks the mainstream media is in the tank for Republicans, and thinks that religion is being used to make Americans stupid, biased, and Republican.
But he has a solution.
1) We give definitive clear speeches like Biden and Obama gave the other day about how no one talked about any issues at the Republican Convention and how they outright lied. But we do them over and over again. 2) We use the one place where it's still a 50-50 game -- the internet -- as much as we can. 3) But most importantly we should bring up re-regulating the media and who owns it and what that conflict of interest is a lot more. By pretending there's no conflict of interest we're failing to alert the public that they're being lied to or given a looking at a coin at the bottom of a pool slanted truth. Every time a pundit or elected official is on any TV news program it should be a polite formality to mention that GE has made such and such billions off the war in Iraq by selling arms or that Murdoch is a right-wing activist with a clear stake in who wins and who taxes his profits the least. Disney, GE, Viacom, and Murdoch -- all want profits and the candidate and agenda that will get in their way the least.
Tell American they're too dumb to realize that politicians lie. Attempt to regulate free speech until only liberal speech is free. Make Marxist/Communist anti-capitalist rhetoric a required part of evening newscasts.
Congratulations, Adam McKay.
It is precisely this kind of delusional, arrogant, self-centered attitude that may very well make your nightmare come true.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:25 PM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Right, the media is in the tank for McCain/Palin? Where's my duct tape, my head is about to explode.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 08, 2008 02:46 PM (M+Vfm)
2
As a liberal Clinton-Democrat, I find myself in the weird position of agreeing with conservative Republicans on Obama.
We told them Obama was unelectable, but they wouldn't listen.
Posted by: myiq2xu at September 08, 2008 02:51 PM (VYeMl)
3
I really think it all started going downhill for Obama when he gave that speech in Berlin. I was driving home from work and had satellite radio on and almost drove off the road. When he said "...citizens of the world...", that was the beginning of the end. Americans will not elect into office someone who aspires to be everything to everyone, especially Europeans and world citizens.
Yes, the Audacity of the Hubris will do him in!
Posted by: CHRIS at September 08, 2008 03:24 PM (EblCC)
4
Obama from DAY ONE has NEVER been about America or taking care of America. When it comes to a Presidency, the American People want someone who will "Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk" and not be some liberalized eurocentric talking head. We may tolerate the Leftists in the Senate or Congress, but the American public demands a LEADER who represents ALL of them, not just the lefty salons of New York or San Francisco. The idea that this pompous self-aggrandizing 'community organizer' has what it takes is on it's face laughable.
Posted by: Big Country at September 08, 2008 03:33 PM (niydV)
5
Quick, let's get this guy into a leadership position at the DNC or the Obama campaign. He clearly has some important ideas the American people need to hear. I mean really, let's give him -- and all the Dems -- as wide a platform for their ideas as possible. When Palin debates Biden, she should just say, "You know, Joe, rather than respond to that, I think I'm just going to yield my time and let you talk a little more."
They will lose, mostly because McCain-Palin is a *great* ticket and because their ticket is basically Buffoon and Buffooner.
Posted by: Jeff at September 08, 2008 03:36 PM (F+Bkw)
6
Moral of the Story: You'll never win when you delude yourself. Nor will you ever win when you refuse to correctly assess your enemy.
Increasingly, I think the recent comparisons between Democrats and Wily Coyote are appropriate given that Democrats have a unique persistence in their clinging to myth, delusion and fantasy. While the right has its issues, fat cats, crooks, special interest, corrupt pols, weirdos, kooks and other problems, we usually do a reasonable job calling them out when we see them.
Is it pathological? E.g. does a personality defect cause someone to associate more with the kingdom of misfit toys that is the progressive movement? Or is it the fact that you have to employ advanced rationalization to bend their square peg ideologies into the round holes reality presents?
Posted by: redherkey at September 08, 2008 04:24 PM (kjqFg)
7
I think they will gain some traction with the lie that the Reps didn't talk about the economy at the convention.
EVERY dem surrogate (and the candidates) is repeating this ENDLESSLY to the media.
Posted by: mockmook at September 08, 2008 05:32 PM (WtqUl)
8
redherkey: "kingdom of misfit toys" ? LOL
I think you're holding back. Tell us what you really feel.
Posted by: Neo at September 08, 2008 06:08 PM (Yozw9)
9
"Coming off the worst eight years in our country's history"? Wow. Never mind the minor unpleasantness of the 1860's, or Economic Discomfort of the 1930's or that minor fracas that started December 7, 1941.
Posted by: Zhombre at September 08, 2008 06:11 PM (SeBzj)
10
The worst years in our nation's history, huh? Worse than the Depression, WWII, the Civil War?
And to think these are the people who think all Republicans are uneducated idiots.
If the Dems lose this one, it would be nice to see them react like grown-ups - to say 'OK, what are we doing wrong? We have misread the American people. We need to take a good hard look at ourselves and change our assumptions."
But I doubt they will because evasion of personal responsibility and the cult of victimhood is not a bug with the Dems but a feature. So their losses will always be due to the stupidity and/or evil of the majority of Americans who just don't know what's good for them.
Posted by: Donna at September 08, 2008 06:16 PM (/VLYH)
11
Oh well, if this fool cant identify the real problems on why Obbie is losing than he doesn't stand a prayer in resolving it....sucks to be him.
It makes you kinda wonder if there are other people like this clown managing Obbie's campain...Oh wouldn't that be sweet.
Posted by: Drider at September 08, 2008 06:37 PM (IQAbf)
12
> If the Dems lose this one, it would be nice to see them react like grown-ups - to say 'OK, what are we doing wrong?'
No, something is *always* wrong with Kansas, not with them! I have a nephew like that :/
Posted by: Felix at September 08, 2008 07:14 PM (f6rEV)
13
Donna: "If the Dems lose this one, it would be nice to see them react like grown-ups - to say 'OK, what are we doing wrong? We have misread the American people. We need to take a good hard look at ourselves and change our assumptions."
It's not going to happen. We've already seen the lawyers being readied in the wings, nevermind the meme of "Racial Wars Exploding" which one of the mirmidions wrote about in Philadelphia... the Dems are wholey incapable of being gracious in defeat... they remind me much of Hitler at the end of World War 2 in the bunker when he proclaimed a "scorched earth policy" that if he couldn't have it, then no one could. It frightens me to think these people are willing to whip up something so terrifying as race riots over something like a lost election. Only time will tell. Somehow I think 100 years from now people will be looking back at these times and regard liberalism as some form of mental illness.
Posted by: Big Country at September 08, 2008 07:30 PM (niydV)
14
I continue to be amazed at the assertion that Obama is a brilliant orator. If this is so, the standards for brilliance in oration have deteriorated substantially in my lifetime. As a teacher of English, speech and debate, I do have some experience in these matters.
Obama is, at best, better than the average politician at reading and delivering a speech on a teleprompter. Throw in his mimicking of the rhythms, but not usually the emphasis, of the preaching style of the black church, and he stands out a bit more than the usual politician. But take away the teleprompter and he is in real trouble. Fluency and confidence disappear. Verbalized pauses assume a front row seat. The rhythmic structure of the black church runs out of the sanctuary and down the nearest street.
But then again, when one is told, over and over, that someone's abilities in a given area are superhuman, I suppose that rubs off.
Still, brilliant? Not even close.
Posted by: Mike at September 08, 2008 09:47 PM (Ftgjp)
15
Good gravy!!
Is this the norm of the Huffington Post?
And this is a leading blog for the Democrats overall?
"So what is this house advantage the Republicans have? It's the press."
This is the kind of stuff you hear in commitment papers when they are getting the straight-jackets ready....
Posted by: usinkorea at September 09, 2008 04:09 AM (uMPp1)
16
On his point #3 for correcting the problems:
I was thinking about that the other day --- I wasn't serious - but I mused, "Maybe bringing back the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't be so bad..."
Let's see the government force MSNBC to put Rush Limbaugh as co-host of Countdown.....for example...
Let's see the government force CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, and so on ---- to have an equal amount of staffers who are conservative/Republican as they do liberals.
Let's see government regulators forcing the media to give an equal amount of positive or negative coverage to social and foreign policy stories -- from a conservative point of view.
Yes. Let's see the government go about the business of providing balance and fairness...
....because I agree......the media left alone --- has utterly failed at the task....
Posted by: usinkorea at September 09, 2008 04:18 AM (uMPp1)
17
And then there's the left's obsession with Rupert Murdoch. They persist in making him out to be a Republican shill, yet his political donations this year went to ... Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Eric at September 09, 2008 08:03 AM (wM/aS)
18
This flat inversion of reality is just par for the course. Bob Tyrell has scoffed for many a year that the great Left skew to the media is, on net, more harmful to Democrats. Barry's experiences lately underscore this. The hook for the Palin attacks initially was on "vetting" with the presumption, often stated, that Obie has been thoroughly vetted through the primaries. Hillaroids, hold your stomachs! What winning the primaries means is simply that Barry was relatively unobjectionable to the sort of Commie freaks that control the primaries and especially the caucuses. Hillaroids also know that Barry gamed the caucuses by trucking in out of state ringers in full view of the press and electoral officials with not even any coverage, much less a legal response. But the simplest facts of Barry's life and career are game-enders, the Dem/press knows it and they are also realizing, now, that they cannot really be hidden. JOY!
Posted by: megapotamus at September 09, 2008 10:29 AM (LF+qW)
19
I've heard that the press is biased FOR Republicans from liberals before. Often it's because the press is responding to relentless criticism of their liberal bias by, occasionally, rarely, trying to appear fair, usually unsuccessfully I might add, and by the fact that media outlets now exist that are NOT liberal mouthpieces. If the press does not worship liberalism 100%, as has been the norm for decades, then liberals naturally see that as a betrayal of their beliefs, which they arrogantly believe everyone who matters shares. Hence, "fair" reporting is seen as proof of bias.
To paraphrase Bush, "If the press is not FOR us, it's against us."
Posted by: DoorHold at September 14, 2008 02:37 PM (yTscd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Reality Checked at MSNBC
Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews have been relieved of their anchor duties at MSNBC:
MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel's coverage of the election.
That experiment appears to be over.
After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.
The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel's perceived shift to the political left.
Frankly, I haven't watched Matthews or Olbermann during their stints as anchors, so I can't pretend to tell you with any certainty
why they were pulled, but based upon why I know of them prior to their anchor duties, I would not be surprised if their was a perception of open Obama partisanship in their coverage that damaged MSNBC's credibility as a news organization.
I can tell you that news of the end of their run is helping create something of a Rorschach test exposing the biases of the political blogosphere. Simply
scan the responses to the news of their dismissal and you'll see what I mean.
Of particular interest — from my perspective, anyway — was how some of the most radical leftist sites seemed to take their removal as a personal affront.
MSNBC may have tilted left as a business decision, but I wonder how carefully they calculated the downside of courting a politically-motivated audience that takes policy and programming so personally. Such a relationship may be advantageous if the network and audience remain on the same page, but such devotion is fickle as well as intense, and it appears that if a network deviates from the exact kind of coverage the audience prefers, then the backlash will be both intense and immediate.
By responding to the replacement of Matthews and Olbermann with such ferocity and anger towards MSNBC, the liberal audience may very well have dissuaded future forays into more liberal programming by MSNBC or other broadcasters.
Why should broadcasters take a programming risk, if the upside is minimal, and the downside can be so adverse?
By responding with such venom, the far left netroots have let their anger get the better of them once again.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:58 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, it may be that they were horribly biased - and I did watch them for the spectacle of it all - I would guess that the main reason they've been replaced is that the ratings suck.
They could have held up signs saying "Republicans Suck" during the convention and they would have stayed if they had beat out Fox in the ratings.
Posted by: DS at September 08, 2008 01:44 PM (GzvlQ)
2
I wonder if Chris Matthews got a thrill up his leg at the news of his and Olby's firings?
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 08, 2008 02:20 PM (M+Vfm)
3
Well, I watched them a very little bit...until I simply couldn't stand it anymore. From the little I watched, the two weren't overtly *against* whoever/whatever was just shown but were so sarcastic/disdainful of everything GOP. I did have the opportunity to see Uberdoush's 'reaction' to the "9/11" video shown...sad, pitiful, and/or ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe it.
Posted by: Mark at September 08, 2008 03:49 PM (4od5C)
4
I think NBC is starting to realize how badly folks like Matthews, and especially Olby, are destroying their brand, and turning them from democrat supporting stations into far, far, far left progressive stations, which, like with radio, just do not do well. Heck, even most liberals do not want to watch MSNBC, because they would rather watch Fox and yell and spit at the TV.
Heck, if half the lefties who are complaining about the demotions actually watched MSNBC, the station would be doing well, instead of having to hire a person from a completely failed radio station to do a show.
Posted by: William Teach at September 08, 2008 04:02 PM (SXjxL)
5
PMSNBC?
NBC?
WHO CARES?!?!??
Posted by: emdfl at September 08, 2008 06:00 PM (N1uaO)
6
Keith Olberfuehrer is the king of the spittle flecked diatribe. His "Mr Bush" video on You Tube is a moonbat classic.
Chris's Leg Tingly moments were the stuff of legend. His comments after Barry's "Race" speech where he said this should be shown in schools and is on the level of the Gettysburg Address were priceless!
I've tried numerous times to watch these losers but after about 2 minutes of their verbal diarrhea followed by the numerous Soros minions spouting their BDS rants it's just more than a fella can take.
I feel a pressing need to hurl!
Posted by: SacTownMan at September 08, 2008 06:17 PM (nFGR9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Another Foreign Celebrity For Barack Obama
This time it was British comedian Russell Brand in his opening monologue at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards:
"Now as a representative of the global community, a vistor from abroad, I don't want to come across as a little bit biased, but could I please ask of you, people of America, to please elect Barack Obama. Please! On behalf of the world!
"Some people - I think they're called racists - say America is not ready for a black President.
"But I know America to be a forward-thinking country right? Because otherwise, you know, would you have let that retarded cowboy fellow be a President for eight years?
"We were very impressed. It was nice of you to let him have a go, because in England, George Bush wouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors."
Update:The U.K.
Telegraph adds:
Brand also took a shot at Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
Speaking of Palin's daughter's boyfriend, Levi Johnston, Brand said: "That is the safe sex message of all time. Use a condom or become a Republican!"
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:58 AM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hmm, another drug addled Brit dumping on my country.
Guess he's still angry over that whole 1776 thing.
let it go Mr. Brand, let it go...
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 08, 2008 07:56 AM (M+Vfm)
2
Ooohhh, edgie, i bet it took him a while to think of these.
Posted by: Penfold at September 08, 2008 08:47 AM (lF2Kk)
3
Great submarine ad for McCain. Rove, you magnificent bastard, using McCain's naval history to torpedo Obama. Maybe the Dixie Chicks will write another angsty song of bitterness for Obama to capsize his boat.
Posted by: twolaneflash at September 08, 2008 09:03 AM (05dZx)
4
I suppose it's bad enough when our own insulated glitterati take it upon themselves to lecture us on what we should do, and I ought to really resent it even more when foreign ones do it, but to be truthful I can't be bothered anymore. If anyone wants me to take his opinions under consideration, perhaps he could start by leaving the condescending contempt at the door. Seriously, I bet hectoring your audience on how stupid they are plays well in Europe, but in some parts of America it sends you right to the bozo bin.
Mister Pompous Limey What's-your-name, you are an ass. Take my advice and shut your piehole, and return to your negligible historical has-been of a backwater. There, that ought to do it - we'll see if he does what I so solicitously demand.
I bet not.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 08, 2008 09:33 AM (Vcyz0)
5
When do the British plan on electing a black PM, or even nominating one?
Get stuffed ya hemp-head.
Posted by: Danith Karter at September 08, 2008 09:53 AM (9v34C)
6
This “comedian” is a bipolar, heroin-addicted alcoholic with 11 arrests for public indecency and another for making a false police report. Perhaps the British think this person is funny, but I don’t get it. The UK is such a nanny state, soon no one will be trusted with scissors. He does, however, have a great deal in common with the Obama supporters. He is rude, ignorant, self-absorbed and obscene.
Monty Python is funny.
Posted by: arch at September 08, 2008 09:57 AM (fKThr)
7
Especially rich seeing as it comes from a guy who’s country’s leaders, be it Premier, Prime Minister or Head of State are all appointed or are hereditary.
Spare me the lecture you arrogant ignorant dimwit.
Posted by: KPD at September 08, 2008 10:25 AM (lGcRV)
8
Use a condom or become a Republican--Republicans actually LIKE children.
Posted by: Trish at September 08, 2008 11:39 AM (IlbgI)
9
Ron White said it best,You just can't fix stupid!!
Posted by: Gator at September 08, 2008 12:01 PM (uaTZE)
10
MYOB, sometimes our Constitution works against us as when Our open borders allow foul mouthed talking busy bodies like British comedian Russell Brand. He is a sure fit for the democrats foul mouths. Nothing funny about this comedian, save your money and tell him to MYOB!
Posted by: JosephineSouthern at September 08, 2008 12:15 PM (0glcT)
11
Obviously a GOP plant.
Posted by: Bandit at September 08, 2008 12:26 PM (SHPL6)
12
Funny how comedians from the UK always call America racist. The first black congressman in the USA took office in 1868; the first "black" (actually Asian Indian, but the British refer to him as black) parliament member in the UK took office in 1892. In the USA, the first black female was elected in 1968; in the UK, the first black female was elected in 1987. The first black cabinet member in the USA was appointed in 1966; the first black cabinet member in the UK was appointed in 2002. The first female cabinet member in the USA was appointed in 1977; the first black female cabinet member in the UK was appointed in 2003.
I'll give the UK credit that they have been ahead of the USA when it comes to electing women to office. However, the USA has been at least a generation ahead of the UK when it comes to non-whites in politics. So shouldn't comedians in the UK start calling themselves out as racist before pointing at the USA. Goshdarnit, we are sexist not racist...just look at our press's reaction to Palin!
Posted by: JoJo at September 08, 2008 12:57 PM (cx28d)
13
(1) Who's he?
(2) The Mtv VMA - like anyone who watches that actually votes.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 08, 2008 02:47 PM (O9Cc8)
14
You know, British humor used to have the reputation of being subtle.
Posted by: Trish at September 08, 2008 08:37 PM (IlbgI)
15
Russell Brand is a prime example of what happens when society is dumbed down, resulting in incompetent spokesmen pandering to its lowest common denominator. Russell Brand proves that gratuitous shock value, Irreverence and cheap shots are poor substitutes for real talent. At low points in history, inferior elements often gain the ear of malcontents, enabling those like the far left, and it's shallow clique of celebrities to gain the attention of mindless lemmings who will blindly follow their counterparts like a stampeding herd, thugs in a lynch mob, or lost souls who worship a golden calf. Since these types have no real substance, luckily their existence is usually short lived.
Posted by: Gina at September 09, 2008 12:36 AM (VUlvt)
16
I saw the MTv video of Mr Brand's rant. For all his attacking of Sarah Palin, I thought he was trying to copy Sarah's up-do.
Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at September 09, 2008 08:33 AM (as7yD)
17
Whoever he is, I suspect he'll discover the backlash from using his "celebrity" to promote a particular political point of view will put limits on his career here. God bless the British anyway!
Posted by: DoorHold at September 14, 2008 02:48 PM (yTscd)
18
These elitist snobbish celebrities who think they are so clever, think they know better what's best for us than we do, using the wealth we gave them by watching their movies, and buying their sponsor's products. I don't want these celebrities to buy the Presidency. The people of the United States should chose the President. Each citizen's vote should be equal, not canceled out, or overshadowed by some spoiled celebrity. Look at the list of lame celebrities who are trying to get Obama in the white house ...
Madonna, Ludacris, the idiots from the View, Rosie, Pamela Anderson, Oprah, Lohan, chevy chase, Susan Sarandon ... These celebrities are out of touch with us Americans. They are just part of an
"in crowd clique" who think they are at liberty to use disgusting language, and make nasty attacks, with impunity. They don't know the issues, or care, for they are insulated by their wealth, and believe they are above reproach. We, the common people are the ones who gave them their celebrity and wealth ... and, we the common people are the ones who can take it back. No Wright, no Farrakhan, no Rezko, no Ayers, no Pfleger, no mean Michelle, and, NOBAMA !!!
Posted by: Gina at September 16, 2008 01:04 PM (VUlvt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 07, 2008
Biden's Senior Moment
o rly?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:23 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Say what? Good grief, does this guy know where Idaho is?
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at September 07, 2008 10:53 PM (Qv1xF)
2
Good thing Obama brought Biden on board to shore up his own foreign policy weaknesses.
Posted by: Matt at September 07, 2008 11:02 PM (cXWnh)
3
If Idaho is one of Hussein O's 57 states Biden knows where it is. Soon Hussein o will learn that WVa connects to Il, but not to Ark. Send them both back to the third grade and let the 'students' tutor them.
Posted by: Scrapiron at September 07, 2008 11:51 PM (I4yBD)
4
Not that I really want to defend him...but, in his defense, Biden did immediately correct himself.
The entire interview, however, is worth a full viewing. Throughout, Biden keeps attempting to claim 'now that they are following MY plan'...Iraq is turning around...BUT...' (completely paraphrased).
Take a look at the whole thing...just have plenty of duct tape around so you can tape up your head
Posted by: Mark at September 08, 2008 04:01 PM (4od5C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama's "Sambo" Smear Merchant Now Posting Prominently at BarackObama.com
Charley James, the expatriate, cartoonishly progressive blogger that smeared Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin as being the overtly racist and sexist governor of a racist and sexist state, now has his smears prominently linked and displayed at BarackObama.com:
Click image for full-screen)
The campaign can and does delete blogs created by "difficult" supporters, like the diary kept by long time Obama associate, SDS veteran, and Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) chairman
Mike Klonsky.
Why is James' smear of Governor Palin still online?
Update: Charley James
isn't even his real name, if this comment can be believed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:09 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's there because it suits team Obama/Biden to have the smear up there.
Someone will point it out, Obama will disown the blogging aspect of his own site, with a half-assed "I have no control over what that part of my site posts, but I "strongly" disavow that kind of talk, no matter if it's accurate or not.
Mark my words, Obama will keep this up there until called out directly on it.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 07, 2008 03:42 PM (M+Vfm)
2
[Conservative CBU at September 7, 2008 03:42 PM]
Yup, it needs some air time to get it out there and then it will be disposed of and denied.
Posted by: Dusty at September 07, 2008 03:50 PM (Mlw0p)
3
Someone will point it out, Obama will disown the blogging aspect of his own site, with a half-assed "I have no control over what that part of my site posts, but I "strongly" disavow that kind of talk, no matter if it's accurate or not.
But, we were assured that Obama has sufficient executive experience because he is running his campaign.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at September 07, 2008 10:08 PM (EsOdX)
4
Team Obama is dealing in the politics of personal destruction
Posted by: Neo at September 08, 2008 07:48 AM (Yozw9)
5
Right from the start "Alaskans speak in frightened whispers" you know the content is fake.
Frightened whispers and Alaskans do not go together; frightened whispers and DNC do.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 08, 2008 10:01 AM (O9Cc8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 06, 2008
Shocker: L.A. Progressive Writer Who Smeared Palin as a Racist and Sexist is a Life-Long Liberal With a Severe Hatred of Republicans
The LA Progressive post attacking Sarah Palin as a racist and a sexist that has been swallowed unquestioningly by the dimmer lights of the progressive blogosphere is the work of one Charley James.
Who is Charley James?
James is a far left-wing blogger that views radical activist web site
Democracy Now! as "one of the few news and public affairs programs delivering real news"... perhaps not that surprising for the kind of person shocked that some damnable Americans in progressive Canada
didn't appreciate his "Bush Lied/They Died" tee shirt.
James, who has been blogging at
The Political Curmudgeon since June of this year, claims to be an independent investigative journalist, and I have no doubt that he is.
Why, just check out his
unimpeachable fact-checking methodology:
To verify what friends were writing, I called the St. Paul Mayor’s Office (615.266.8510) where I was directed to the police (651.291.1111). A PR woman for the cops said I had to talk to the Secret Service (612.348.1800), which refused to answer any questions but asked for the spelling of my name before telling me to call Homeland Security (202.282.8000) where repeated calls were not returned. I tracked down the cell phone number of the St. Paul convention office of the Republican National Committee where the man who answered claimed to have no idea what I was talking about, helpfully suggesting I call the police before suddenly asking how I got the number. Ring around the rosy.
It was like trying to get an answer from Dick Cheney’s office. Translation: The e-mails were accurate.
This stellar journalist uses the long-validated "Olbermann method" of confirmation, where the inability to collect evidence to the contrary
proves the worse rumors about your enemies are true.
So by all means, when Charley James writes that Sarah Palin is a racist that hates Eskimos, don't let the fact that she's been married to one for the past 20 years get in the way.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:35 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Are liberals really that intellectually challenged that they will believe any smear? No matter how ridiculous? Are they even capable of being ashamed? If I were that naive I'd be embarrassed.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 07, 2008 11:06 AM (kNqJV)
2
No, they think WE'RE that naive. It's aimed at convincing the people who aren't in their camp.
And no, they are not capable of being ashamed.
Posted by: Trish at September 08, 2008 09:57 AM (IlbgI)
3
You mean it's not the Department of Homeland Security's job to verify or deny rumors about what was said in an Alaskan diner months ago? WTF????
You'd think this would take priority, especially since Gustav only ended up being a Category III.
Posted by: Buzz at September 08, 2008 03:34 PM (kwhut)
4
Shocker! Your audience proves one point to me. When you don't have anything relevant to say, resort to insults, in addition to your superior attitude about anyone who disagrees with you. Intellectually challenged? Naive? I think not. You people seem to believe everything you hear hook, line, and sinker. How you can possibly believe that the country can stand another four years of failed policy and a war without end is beyond me. McCain has proved himself a hypocrite, with his constant harping on Obama's inexperience and then choosing someone less experienced to be his running mate. And don't even count her "executive" experience as governor of Alaska. She's been there for two years and Alaska has a population smaller than mid-sized cities in the US. Regarding the naive comment, McCain choosing a woman running mate thinking that great numbers of women will vote for him/her because she's a woman, sounds a little naive. Also insulting to the rest of the women who vote based on issues, not emotion or personality. I for one was a strong Hillary supporter, and there is no way in hell I would vote for McCain. On another subject, how intelligent people can believe that abstinence is the best philosophy for sex education (or lack thereof) are hiding your heads in the sand. Not to mention it worked so well for Palin and her family. Like it or not, teenagers are going to have sex. The best possible information should be available to them before they become sexually active. Join the real world. Even if the article mentioned above is total lies, she still has some credibility problems. Need I say "bridge to nowhere"? Or her firing of the man who refused to fire her brother-in-law? Her support of creationism is another problem. Religion of any type should not be taught in public (tax-supported) schools--this should could be covered at home and in the church. Instead of making derogatory remarks about people who don't agree with you, maybe you need to take a look at yourselves!
Posted by: tammy at September 12, 2008 01:18 PM (sXEVG)
5
Thanks for do so much to prove my points, Tammy. Who wants to point out the lies and distortions Tammy regards as truth?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 12, 2008 01:30 PM (zqzYV)
6
Actually, you prove my point. By all means, never listen to another point of view, because you seem to believe you are the only ones who are right! Lies and distortions my a$$! Wake up!!!
Posted by: Tammy at September 12, 2008 06:11 PM (RqUW7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Meet One Of Barack's Bosses
Sorry, Michelle. It isn't you. Who is it?
Here are some clues:
- Official member of Barack Obama's campaign. You know, one of those folks eligible for something Obama calls "firing" should they attack a candidate's family --- properly or otherwise.
- Only one of 35 bundlers to raise over $500,000 for Obama, on par with Hollywood moguls Daivd Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg
- Not only a registered lobbyist, but Lobbyist of the Year (2006)
- Not only Lobbyist of the Year, but he played a lobbyist (himself) on HBO's K Street
You'll have th click over to
Perfunction to get the details.
This goon is such a a powerful lobbyist and Obama campaign figure that he can go
directly against Barack Obama's explicit public promise to fire anyone who
attacks Sarah Palin's family during the same week Obama made the promise (and it's still fresh in everyone's minds), and walk away without a scratch.
Barack Obama isn't in charge of his campaign, and Obama's puppeteers such as this man are arrogant enough to show that in public, without fear of Obama living up to his promise.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:34 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
One of Obama's bosses? Pfft! These people do Obama's bidding precisely, no matter what he says in public.
Posted by: Don, the Rebel without a Blog at September 06, 2008 01:12 PM (EcXfP)
2
Waiting for Obama's patented, "This is not the man I know" nonsense...
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 06, 2008 02:44 PM (M+Vfm)
3
Howard Gutman was the lawyer for Susan Rosenberg, a member of the Weather Underground was charged in the Brink’s case, but not tried because she had received a 58 year sentence in a weapons case involving 740 pounds of dynamite intended for bombings. Trying her on the Brink’s matter therefore seemed unnecessary to prosecutors. She served 16 years before Bill Clinton pardoned Rosenberg at the end of his Presidency.
Yet another connection between the Democrats and the Weather Underground terrorists.
Posted by: Neo at September 06, 2008 04:44 PM (Yozw9)
4
Now we'll find out what happens when Obama tries to throw the driver under the bus.
Let us pray said vehicle is on an overpass over a very deep gorge at the time.
Posted by: mrkwong at September 06, 2008 05:25 PM (G8Eo0)
5
The connection between the terrorists and the Dems is quite troubling - no wonder they scoff over the war on terror. Wasn't there any vetting of Obama? Why isn't the MSM asking him these questions? And they say they are not biased. I remember the Clinton years and his war on the militias, his "bravery" in having a child at gun point to be sent back to Cuba and the other murders of US citizens.
Posted by: Krystal at September 06, 2008 07:34 PM (I4yBD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama Slips, Admits He'd Favor A Gun Ban
In Pennsylvania for a campaign event before a hand-picked crowd, Barack Obama stumbled badly when thrown by a skeptical supporter with a question about his noted anti-gun stance:
A woman in the crowd told Obama she had "heard a rumor" that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the "traditions of gun ownership" but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of "gang bangers and drug dealers" in big cities "who already have them and are shooting people."
"If you've got a gun in your house, I'm not taking it," Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.
So he tried again. "Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress," he said. "This can't be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I'm not going to take away your guns."
So Obama concedes that he
wants to "take them away," but then he claims that he doesn't have the votes to push through a gun ban. Far left liberal Democrats control both houses of the most unpopular Congress in recorded history. Do they have anything to lose by trying to push another gun ban, and does anyone want to take the risk, knowing Obama would sign any gun control bill that crosses the President's desk?
Update: Several folks I respect are disputing my contention that Obama's comments amount to an admission of favoring a gun ban, and think I'm distorting what he said.
What do you think?
In my experience as a reader and author, the construct "Even if I wanted to do 'x'..." is an admission that the actor desires 'x' but merely lacks the means to obtain it.
Further breaking down Obama's statements, he says, "Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress. This can't be the reason not to vote for me." I read this as an admission that he desires a ban, but that he lacks the means so you should not hold his views against him.
Taken in the context of a politician that refuses to recognize the right of gun ownership for anything beyond hunting and target shooting on his own campaign web site, who has a documented record of working to fund anti-gun groups as a Woods Fund board member, who had called for the banning of all semi-automatic firearms and handguns, and who has attempted to zone gun stores out of business, is my interpretation illogical?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:19 AM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I disagree.
""Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress,""
This is clearly a hypothetical, that even if he did favor such a policy it would be impossible to implement it.
Posted by: Dawnfire82 at September 06, 2008 10:31 AM (N27+H)
2
I have no doubt Obama would ban and confiscate all guns if he could (see links below), but I don't see this exchange as proof. It's a law professor's answer (or in his case, a senior lecturer's answer). He's conceding the premise in incremental steps and making the argument that "it's still no reason not to vote for me." Now it is a stupid approach and no doubt you could make the argument that he adopted the premise too easily thereby showing his true colors.
OTH, John Lott recently recounted his personal conversation with Obama when they were University of Chicago Law faculty colleagues, where Obama told Lott: "I don't think people should be able to own guns." Taken together with his earlier statements about gun bans, I think your conclusion is correct.
Mark Levin Link -- http://johnrlott.tripod(dot)com/levinshow082808lott.mov
Steve Malzburg Link -- http://johnrlott.tripod(dot)com/LottonMalzberg090108WOR.mov
Sorry for no direct links, your site wouldn't allow link to tripod(dot)com [remove and replace dot with .]
Posted by: capitano at September 06, 2008 10:52 AM (UsyG7)
3
The appropriate response, which you'll never hear Obama come close to uttering: "The Second Amendment explicitly secures (ed. note: not 'establishes') the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has affirmed that right. As president, I will take an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' Next question."
Posted by: Diffus at September 06, 2008 11:17 AM (IHmyy)
4
Of course he would take the guns away otherwise why even bring it up? He has to know by bringing it up it's going to hurt so why not just admit it in a "hypothetical" and say that what he wants can't get passed anyway?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 06, 2008 11:18 AM (kNqJV)
5
So he tried again. "Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress," he said. "This can't be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I'm not going to take away your guns."
Uh, oh! The Obabamessiah looses his composure, things are not looking good for him or the Dems.
Posted by: formertucsonan at September 06, 2008 11:27 AM (141qm)
6
"is my interpretation illogical?"
No, I don't think it's illogical. I think it's reading too much into that particular comment. I've no doubt that Obama is personally pro-gun control. But I think that viewing this particular instance as an admission of favoring an outright ban (which was apparently the topic introduced by the questioner) is incorrect.
Posted by: Dawnfire82 at September 06, 2008 11:30 AM (N27+H)
7
Oh, thank you so much, Mr. Obama, for agreeing not to take our guns.
Give me a break. Of course he wants a gun ban. He'd confiscate every gun tomorrow if he had the power. His entire campaign has descended into dissimulation, i.e., pretending he doesn't believe what he really does and to the degree he does (and has previously declared and demonstrated he believes) because otherwise he wouldn't be elected dog catcher. Isn't it interesting that Repubicans can shout their policies and principles from the rooftop, but democrats must conceal how they really feel to get elected.
Posted by: rrpjr at September 06, 2008 12:15 PM (uf8br)
Posted by: baslimthecripple at September 06, 2008 12:59 PM (hc5v2)
9
If he was sincere and firm in his resolve to respect our gun rights, why would he even bring this up (don't have the votes)?
Because - it is a Freudian slip!
Posted by: Lily at September 06, 2008 01:02 PM (gIQ7K)
10
I agree with your take on it. "Even if I wanted to..." is not the language of one who would never contemplate it. I've never heard a defender of the Second Amendment resort to that kind of language or turn of phrase.
Posted by: Proof at September 06, 2008 01:27 PM (j3K9W)
11
Regardless, reducing privately owned guns, particularly handguns, is something Barry has wanted for a long time. 2nd Amendment? What 2nd Amendment?
Posted by: William Teach at September 06, 2008 03:09 PM (cuTsc)
12
Even though he doesn't have the votes now, who knows what votes might be present in Congress after November 4, 2008. Don't trust him if you're a gun toter, bitter Bible thumper.
It's also funny that he brings up gang violence, but when he was an Ill. State Senator, and they brought out a death penalty bill to target gang bangers, then all of a sudden it was a racist bill because gang bangers were minority group members and to give them the death penalty would be akin to racist lynchings because minorities would suffer 'disproportionately' from enforcement of the statute.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at September 06, 2008 03:25 PM (W88Qb)
13
BO does not outright state that he would or wants to ban guns. He does imply it.
On the other shoe, Obama diplays his utter ignorance of the Constitution. The Second Amendment, protects a right assumed be God-give. Congress has no power to restrict rights.
I don't know what BO taught. It sure as the heck wasn't constitutional law.
Posted by: DavidL at September 06, 2008 04:34 PM (AK8DM)
14
"I don’t have the votes in Congress"
Oh, so you’ve thought about it.
Many Pennsylvanians do "cling to their guns" the same way the the NOW/NARAL crew cling to their "abortion rights."
The argument that Obama gave could equally be used for the abortion issue by any pro-life candidate, so why the hell is Obama running "abortion rights" commercials ?
It’s because he knows it’s lame argument .. things can change.
You’d think the manchild of "Hope and Change" would know that.
The voters here in Pennsylvania do.
Posted by: Neo at September 06, 2008 04:45 PM (Yozw9)
15
By his standards, then, since Mr McCain and Mrs Palin personally oppose abortion, but the Congress would never permit an outright legislative ban, pro-choice voters cannot oppose a McCain presidency on those grounds?
Never mind that Mr Obama probably could be counted on to appoint judges of a statist, control-minded bent? Never mind that we can be damned certain he will appoint a raft of bureaucrats of similarly authoritarian views?
Okay, I'm not voting for McCain because Obama is anti-gun. I'm voting for McCain because Obama obviously put away the pakalolo and paid attention the year Harvard Law taught Upper Division Dissemblage.
Posted by: mrkwong at September 06, 2008 05:21 PM (G8Eo0)
16
B. Hussein Obama, Jr. is a Socialist thug who wants to abolish our 2nd Amendment rights...he is a danger to the Republic.
It's his diabolical plan to surrender our nation to Islamo Fascism (which he could even enunciate during his "interview" with O'Reilly), so they can attempt to build their world wide Caliphate...
Don't tread on me Barry; a despicable scumbag.
Posted by: Carlos Echevarria at September 06, 2008 05:42 PM (CsNoJ)
17
"even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress"
Just another reason not to vote a lawyer into public office.
Posted by: veblenschild at September 06, 2008 06:36 PM (o7kfF)
18
Since Obama did not simply state that it is a right to bear arms - then obviously he is in favor of more gun control since he adds the whole "not having enough votes". With that logic then the pro abortion people should not be upset since Gov Palin can say the same thing - that she can't overturn Roe vs Wade as it stands.
Obama and his ilk just dont get it that law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms for the protection of their home/family, for hunting etc. It is the thugs, such as in his own city of Chicago, who are using arms to murder their own kind. And he is worried about the war in Iraq being a mistake - he should look at his own city's lack of control and government.
Posted by: Krystal at September 06, 2008 07:29 PM (I4yBD)
19
OMG! Obama IS Kerry. He has no idea why someone wouldn't vote for him over a silly thing like the second amendment.
Posted by: joh at September 06, 2008 09:44 PM (1DPb/)
20
And if he needed a vote in Congress, that would actually mean something.
Instead, on Jan 21, Sarah Brady is named head of the BATFE. All of a sudden, the Federal permits that EVERY commercial gun and ammunition seller must have to do business start getting denied. "Oh, I'm sorry, Form Sucks2BU isn't filled out correctly; there's an i not dotted on page 1234." "Darn, we lost the paperwork; resubmit, please." "Oh, include these 5 new forms."
"NO, you can't sell anything until your paperwork is right."
Think I'm kidding? Right now, TODAY, if your form for the instant background check uses the standard 2 letter Post Office abbreviation for the states (e.g. TX), instead of spelling out the name of the state, that's an instant rejection. Fill it all out again and re-submit. And no, you can't buy the gun until that form goes thru, you bitter clingy gun-nut, you.
Posted by: SDN at September 07, 2008 07:22 AM (F2ojY)
21
Obama is a clone of Chicago's virulent anti-gun mayor, Mayor Richard M. Daley. Any Chicago political figure with ties to the city is going to be anti-gun, no matter what they say. I lived in Chicago for over a good half of my 48 years on earth, 3+ of them working for the city and know how the politics work. Obama's position is no different than that of Mayors Bloomberg of New York, Newsom of San Francisco, Villaraigosa of L.A. or the now imprisoned Mayor Kilpatrick of Detroit.
As they do every year, the idiot Mayor Daley and his police dept. recently had their annual "turn in your guns" day (no questions asked, of course) and in exchange they give $100 gift cards to the few gang bangers and other thugs who value getting Michael Jordan sneakers over their guns. But these same vermin will eventually find other ways to obtain another gun. They know the system. And of course, it's a huge joke.
So if you elect a black community activist such as obama to be America's CEO, this is what you will get if he has his way in Washington.
Remember, obama used to be a constitutional law professor in Chicago but professed earlier this year to have been in 57 states. Perhaps we can presume that if asked how many amendments to the Constitution are in the Bill of Rights, he might say 20 and that the right to keep and bear arms is in the 32nd Amendment (which to anyone who has read the Constition knows it doesn't exist).
This is your brain. This is your brain fried with obama nonsense.
Posted by: Nedd at September 07, 2008 11:57 AM (LJaTI)
22
Well said, Nedd! I just don't understand how so many otherwise intelligent people are being taken in by this impostor! CHANGE? Do you honestly believe that he is a "different" kind of politician? He spent about 130 days in the U.S. Senate before he started running for president! His 20 years of mentorship under J. Wright - and items in his own book, Dreams of my Father, show that he is a black separatist....his campaign "promises" are overtly Socialist...he has (when he thinks we won't hear about it!) made fun of we, "little people" who ARE believers in God....saying in front of his SF audience that we "cling to our ....religion" out of bitterness! Is that really who you want in the White House - directing this nation's policy. I wish I could find the video of his statement on what he's going to do to our National Defense....END anti-missile programs, get rid of all of our nuclear weapons...we will be so weak, we'll be like sitting ducks!
PLEASE AMERICANS! WAKE UP! You may not like McCain....but I honestly believe he'll listen to Palin on many issues...and he won't destroy this nation!
IF YOU WANT TO GIVE UP HALF OF EVERYTHING YOU HAVE - to give to thsoe who are too lazy to work....then go ahead and vote for Obama....but don't you DARE complain when he takes away your guns, your money, and half of your savings (which means YOUR retirement!)
Posted by: Litl Bits at September 07, 2008 01:23 PM (6lH59)
23
A more telling slip is that he said "I don't have the votes" rather than "I wouldn't have the votes". To me, that phrase is the one that takes it from the hypothetical to the dream denied. So the question has to be, if he were to find the votes, "WWOD"?
Posted by: MikeM at September 07, 2008 03:30 PM (7vlbD)
24
To repair the damage, the Dems need to get Barry decked out in cammies and stick him in a duck blind with a shotgun. That tactic worked marvelously for Kerry.
Of course, they'd have to make sure the shotgun was unloaded, since Obambi has a habit of shooting himself in the foot.
Posted by: Donna at September 07, 2008 06:57 PM (opjs7)
25
The word "sportsmen" concerns me. Is Obama talking about hunters? If so what about people who own hand guns for target shooting and protection? What about people who have a permit to carry a concelled weapon? These questions need to be answered.
Posted by: Frank at September 07, 2008 08:22 PM (zv5ji)
26
It's the difference between knowing what someone CLEARLY meant using your own, God-given, common sense, and making excuses for yet another unintentional peek into the REAL Obama because you're an Obamapologist.
Note that few are denying Obama's piss-poor record on the Second Amendment: They're attacking YOU. YOU'RE the problem, not his record, not his intentions, not his poor choice of words -- if that's what they want to call it -- (and WHY are we promoting someone who cannot choose his words wisely?): It's you, and I, and the rest of the unwashed masses that's to blame.
He slips up and it's OUR fault for saying, "Hey, wait a minute!"
Classic technique.
Posted by: DoorHold at September 07, 2008 08:32 PM (4iTOP)
27
Taken in concert with all that is known about Obama's views on guns, including his own recent comments on Heller, it would certainly be reasonable to characterize this as a Freudian slip. It surely comports with everything else he has ever said and everything political stance he has taken (when not voting "present") on the topic.
Posted by: Mike at September 07, 2008 10:13 PM (Ftgjp)
28
He slipped here. Had he said "wanted," it would make more sense.
He slipped when he spoke of Clarence Thomas' "exp..." (cut off "experience"). And I believe he slipped in that "my Muslim faith" statement in the ABC interview.
Posted by: Lee at September 09, 2008 03:19 AM (EHqdp)
29
At best it's highly ambiguous, at worst he is in fact allowing what he "wants" to do, even though he doesn't (currently) have the votes.
"Want" vs. "wanted" lends greater, not less, ambiguity.
It's the type of noncommital circumlocution and ambiguity used by politicians such that, after the fact, they can retrospectively take either side of an issue, "re-interpreting" a past statement, putting a new gloss on it, etc.
Posted by: Michael B at September 09, 2008 05:34 PM (5ATLX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Much Ado About Nothing
TS Hannah certainly may have had a more substantial impact south and east of here (and certainly along the beaches), but what I've seen thus far isn't anything you'd recognize from the ground as anything more than a series of showers... and I've got a pretty good vantage point:
In this satellite image snagged the image from the Weather Channel just a few minutes ago, I'm just inside the right side of the nasty little red dot, and we're not seeing much of anything right now, even though we've had an estimated 4 inches of rain overnight.
Let's hope everyone makes it out with as
little damage as we have thus far.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:48 AM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Rain in Kill Devil Hills. Kind of like a mild tropical northeaster
Posted by: Delphine Amrhein at September 06, 2008 07:43 AM (e9C0j)
2
Clarification - the wind is now blowing from the southwest in mild gusts in Kill Devil Hills on the Outer Banks of North Carolina.
Posted by: Delphine Amrhein at September 06, 2008 07:51 AM (e9C0j)
3
Steady rain here in Durham. Occasional strong gusts of wind, but so far, no damage that I have seen or heard about. Getting some rain is a good thing.
Posted by: Nothere at September 06, 2008 07:54 AM (j5r0p)
4
Steady light to moderate rain, in Stafford, VA. Right on I-95, approx. 40 miles south of DC.
Posted by: Mark at September 06, 2008 08:11 AM (pJnZQ)
5
Yeah, I'm here in Apex, NC - blogging about it - taking some video.
No much to it. Still, it helps alleviate our drought situation.
Posted by: Dean Peters at September 06, 2008 08:21 AM (OvUft)
6
Well, I'm in Glendale, AZ, where it's 77, sunny, and nary a cloud in the sky! Go figure! ;-)
Actually, I originally from eastern NC and glad to hear that there's been little damage. Hopefully the rain will help with the current drought.
Posted by: formertucsonan at September 06, 2008 09:25 AM (141qm)
7
Pouring down rain now (11 am) in northern Chesterfield County (just south of Richmond). It rained all night, too, but not as hard. The sump pump hasn't kicked in yet, but I expect it to shortly. Suits me - we need the rain.
Some wind, some higher gusts. So far it's brought down several small already-dead limbs from the trees in my yard, and one decent-sized still-living (until now) limb. Radio says 4000 without power in the Richmond area, & downed power line across I-95 near Atlee interchange has northbound 95 completely stopped (about an hour ago - dunno if it's fixed or not yet).
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at September 06, 2008 10:03 AM (0OyH0)
8
11:30 am - sump pump just kicked in. Glorious rain! :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at September 06, 2008 10:30 AM (0OyH0)
9
Steady rain up here in Faurfax, VA...20-25 miles outside DC. No real winds though
Posted by: Nico at September 06, 2008 10:49 AM (qOSkY)
10
Not a thing here in Monroe North Carolina (just southeast of Charlotte)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 06, 2008 11:21 AM (kNqJV)
11
I'm in Holly Springs. We didn't even get significant flooding here. The creek in our back yard never rose above its banks, which it certainly did during the hurricanes that have come here in the past.
Posted by: Pat Berry at September 06, 2008 11:11 PM (0suEp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 05, 2008
Races High
The only card in his deck.
As a far-left liberal, Obama just can't help himself. Identity politics is simply part of who he is.
Update:comments closed due to spammers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:34 PM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He can only play the hand he's dealt. Like a Bishop on a chessboard he doesn't know any other direction or way to move, and everything he's done and learned up to this has been informed by Leftist identity politics.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 05, 2008 07:27 PM (VNM5w)
2
See your post below: Media Play Dumb To Smear McCain/Palin
You say that Obama supporters attacking Palin count as Obama/Biden Democrats whether or not they are formally members of the campaign, but when Obama says that Republicans are whispering about "muslim connections," he is wrong because the McCain campaign hasn't said it.
Can't have it both ways, Bob.
Posted by: Evan at September 05, 2008 08:17 PM (GT59m)
3
Evan, this post is titled "Races High," and features both a text link with the cue "The only card in his deck," and a visual aid of a "race card." What do you suppose it is about?
Origami?
Dive tank etiquette?
The finer points of a free safety blitz?
There is nothing else here other than mocking the "post-racial" candidate for his continued fallback on far left identity politics, so please, if you're gunning to abuse (or be abused by) your strawman, do it somewhere else.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 05, 2008 08:44 PM (HcgFD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
This is Your Brain on (D)
(H/t
The Crescat via
The Anchoress)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:10 PM
| Comments (66)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bwahahahahaha!!!!!Cant..........stop.............laughing......can't.......catch........my ........breath......Bwahahahahaha!!!!!
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 05, 2008 03:22 PM (kNqJV)
2
Strange but true, these are the only Democrats that do not scare me to death. There are actually some that think raising the minimum wage is GOOD!
However this video is hilarious, imagine how much funnier it could be if about 40 SWAT guys repelled out the trees and started shooting them with riot guns loaded with rubber bullets and then throwing nets, big nets, over them and hauling them off to the nuthouse. Not that would be a laugh buffet.
Posted by: Two Dogs at September 05, 2008 03:27 PM (L1RVq)
3
Okay... is this satire? An alive rock?
Sounds like they've got the primal scream therapy thing down though.
Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at September 05, 2008 04:55 PM (yiMNP)
4
If only the guys from Deliverance showed up, now that would be funny.
Posted by: TarHeelRepub at September 05, 2008 07:11 PM (5EyBQ)
5
What a bunch of losers.
Morons.
Posted by: 1IDVET at September 05, 2008 09:17 PM (KVjIH)
6
LOL! What are these people, the Luddite Circle of the local UU Church?
Posted by: Zhombre at September 05, 2008 09:30 PM (SeBzj)
7
She forgot the "Bring me the yellow fever, the leeches, the malaria..."
Posted by: RicardoVerde at September 05, 2008 10:27 PM (PBTsv)
8
Somebody with some film expertise needs to re-edit this with a simulated bear attack at the end.
Incidentally, did anyone tell that guy what Native American drums are made of?
Posted by: tbrosz at September 05, 2008 11:25 PM (eii6A)
9
Did the trees answer?
Fifty years ago, we would have taken these people to a hospital to get them help and if they could not be cured, we had state hospitals in which to put them. In the name of human rights, we abolished this part of our health system.
My prediction is that in ten years half the people in this video will be eating out of garbage cans and pushing all their belongings through the streets of some city. The other half will be in prison for torching some SUV dealership or attempting to blow up a hydroelectric plant.
Being eccentric or expressing (in some rational way) an unpopular position is one thing, but these people are literally dangerous to themselves and others.
Posted by: arch at September 06, 2008 06:24 AM (fKThr)
10
I can't hear the trees for the hippies.
Posted by: jaujau at September 06, 2008 12:48 PM (4wteF)
11
These folks need some serious psychological help. They are clearly not wired correctly.
Posted by: joated at September 06, 2008 02:10 PM (GAf+S)
12
Thorazine... large doses... administered regurlarly, ought to clear up that "living rock" b.s.
Or maybe just light them up with commercial grade doses of halucinagens, then maybe they can tell us what the rocks are saying.
Posted by: Murphy(AZ) at September 07, 2008 11:47 AM (X+QmQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Organize This
Some folks are having way too much fun making light of (or tearing apart) the community organizer line on Barack Obama's already thin resume, and left-wing bloggers and media types are not amused.
They got their marching orders (no doubt an "important action alert!"
and have begun
astroturfing blogs and news sites with the following absurd comparison virtually overnight:
Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.
That's a fun gross exaggeration to play with.
Let's do our own moronic comparison, using actual Democrats from this millennia for comparison instead of religious figures born thousands of years ago.
Bull Conner was a community organizer and George Wallace was a governor.
Their work, of course, was assisted by decades-earlier work of another Democrat community organizer, Nathan Bedford Forrest. Does anyone remember the community he helped pull together?
Of course you do.
Is it fair in any way to put Obama into this company? Of course it isn't. But Barack Obama has as much (or more) in common with these segregationists and Klansman as he does Jesus.
Actually, that isn't true.
To the best of my knowledge, none of these men were part of to a cultish theology that said if God didn't favor their race, then he should be murdered. Barack Obama went to a radical church that practiced this God-threatening Black Liberation Theology for more than 20 years.
A little more relevant for Barack Obama are a few other folks a little closer to his physical and ideological homes.
Charles Manson organized a community of his own, one that Bernadine Dorhn was certainly impressed with. You remember Bernie Dorhn, don't you? She and her husband Bill Ayers had helped form yet another community, one called the Weather Underground. Years later, when they were done with their declared war against the United States, they helped community organizer and friend Barack Obama organize his first political fundraiser in their home.
If liberals want to play games about the meaning and definition of the words community organizer, then by all means, lets play.
It will be a lot more fun for us than them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:14 PM
| Comments (74)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There are bad community organizers and good one. It would be easy to make a list of both. The same goes for Governors.
The example is nonsensical to anyone except Obama's cult followers who think he is the second coming of the Messiah. But since they like to play this game:
Pilate was an oppressive community organizer hired by Rome and Jesus was (is) the loving Governor of all things who was sent by His Father.
Posted by: Dusty at September 05, 2008 12:50 PM (Mlw0p)
2
There are bad community organizers and good one. It would be easy to make a list of both. The same goes for Governors.
The example is nonsensical to anyone except Obama's cult followers who think Obama is the second coming of the Messiah. But since they like to play this game:
Pilate was an oppressive community organizer hired by Rome and Jesus was (is) the loving Governor of all things who was sent by His Father.
Posted by: Dusty at September 05, 2008 12:52 PM (Mlw0p)
3
Sorry about the double post. The first time gave me the high levels of traffic notice.
Posted by: Dusty at September 05, 2008 12:54 PM (Mlw0p)
4
I know I may be invoking Godwin's Law here but wasn't Hitler a community organizer at first?
Posted by: Gary at September 05, 2008 12:54 PM (3LSsS)
5
[Gary at September 5, 2008 12:54 PM]
Sounds about right. He ran an outfit that tried to take over the government and succeeded.
The thing is, when you think about it, there are tens of millions of community organizers in our country from a vast array of organizations, mostly volunteer and not paid who do great work in their communities via their organizations.
As quick example that just came to mind, the Law Bar is an organization that serves the community and they go out of the way to organize their members to do work, such as pro bono work for the poor and indigent, in their respective communities.
Pro bono, meaning for free. I wonder how much of that work Obama did in addition to his previous work as a paid community organizer.
Posted by: Dusty at September 05, 2008 01:04 PM (Mlw0p)
6
An estimated 125 people were shot and killed over the summer. That's nearly double the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.
According to the Defense Department, 65 U.S. soldiers were killed in combat in Iraq. About the same number were killed in Afghanistan over that same period.
Perhaps Biden can come up with a plan to partition the city while we withdrawal all Americans ... from Chicago.
Sounds like they really need a "community organizer".
Posted by: Neo at September 05, 2008 01:36 PM (Yozw9)
7
Almost forgot ..
Don Corleone was a “community organizer” .. Elliot "Client #9" Spitzer was a governor
Posted by: Neo at September 05, 2008 01:40 PM (Yozw9)
8
There was a letter in the Boston Globe today claiming that the problem was people don't know what community organizers actually do. The problem is that people do know what community organizers actually do. Exactly 2 people benefitted from Obamas organizing. Both named Obama.
Posted by: Bandit at September 05, 2008 01:41 PM (/R+6i)
9
It's hard out here for a community organizer.
Posted by: McGehee at September 05, 2008 02:04 PM (K13Au)
10
As I recall, Jesus did not rake in a lot of cash as some of our modern day c.o. types. Millions of us volunteer in our community each year but it takes a "special" sort of person to make that their "day" job and of course expect the rest of us to foot the bill for their "work."
Posted by: kent at September 05, 2008 02:10 PM (Jfxjt)
11
The Obots blew it. With their witless and demeaning insistence to refer to Palin as the former mayor of a small town, utterly ignoring that she is the elected Governor of AK they begged for this. And Barry then complains that they have skipped his many other endeavors. Only no one has ignored anything. We have asked Barry just what he did as a community organizer and he will not answer. He will respond but he will not answer. Why? Because the answer will reveal he was connected to ACORN which has been blatantly falsifying a)votes, b)grant applications and c)their operational/financial records. And sadly, not much beside that. I seem to remember Gingrich was nearly forced from office because a course he taught "To Renew American Civilization" was considered a partisan activity since it actually endorsed America as a decent place. Obviously this harms the electoral dreams of Democrats and makes it ineligible for non-profit status. ACORN commits crimes and lesser frauds that strip the public coffers, empty the pockets of the gullible and produces NOTHING of benefit to their supposed constituents. But as a Leftwing group, they are exempt from scrutiny. If he cannot mention ACORN someone else will. That will be yet another unfair and racist attack.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 05, 2008 02:16 PM (LF+qW)
12
Let's keep it to South Chicago organizers like Capone or Alinsky. Illinois governors? Take your pick. Most went to jail.
Posted by: i b squidly at September 05, 2008 02:17 PM (KXZyh)
13
I saw a list of qualifications for a community organizer the other day and after reading it, realized, yippee, I've been a community organizer. Only thing is, we called it "volunteer coordinator" and I didn't get paid.
Oh and on the quals listed the job required a h.s. diploma or G.E.D. No requirement for a Columbia/Harvard grad with a law degree. Didn't even require someone with a degree from the Univ. of Idaho.
Posted by: Sara at September 05, 2008 02:27 PM (Wi/N0)
14
Hmmm, now that I think of it, Bill Ayers was a community organizer, too.
Posted by: Dusty at September 05, 2008 02:31 PM (Mlw0p)
15
Aside from the fact that this idiocy again goes in the Messianic direction that camp Obama really wants to avoid, let's note that Obama was in fact a failure as a community organizer who took credit rightly belonging to others for rather meager accomplishments. And that Obama himself recognized that community organizing is an ineffectual BS gig -- or used that as the rationalization for his failures.
Posted by: Karl at September 05, 2008 02:44 PM (qje1A)
16
1. OBAMA as President
2. Pelosi as Speaker of the House
3. Reid as Senate Majority Leader
The last time we had a triple threat was during Jimmy Carter when the prime rate was in the 20 % range. History speaks louder than campaign rhetoric. Let's not repeat it!
Posted by: Christine Luke at September 05, 2008 02:54 PM (cxufH)
17
Al Capone was a community Organizer in Chicago and God is the governor of Heaven.
Posted by: Greg H. at September 05, 2008 02:55 PM (xQqx6)
18
Using Obama's loose definition of "community organizer", Stalin, Mao, Atilla the Hun and Al Capone were "community organizers" and they were all in favor of "change". To be fair it should be pointed out that John McCain and Sarah Palin were also noted "community organizers". As commander of his fighter squaderon, McCain organized his pilots to fly to North Vietnam and regularly reorganize Hanoi. And Sarah Palin was a "community organizer" as a PTA member, mayor, state commissioner and state governor. In each new position she took on more responsibility and accountability. Obama never even got to PTA.
Posted by: Greg Preston at September 05, 2008 04:30 PM (/Ad8O)
19
I believe, in the southside Chicago sense, "bagman" and "community organizer" are pretty much synonymous. I have a childhood friend who did 3 years in the federal penitentary for being "bagman" for a black state senator. The senator is doing ten. What's in the Annenberg papers, and where did the Annenberg millions go, BO? 'Cause hope and change is so pricey, yo!
Posted by: twolaneflash at September 05, 2008 05:05 PM (05dZx)
20
Ahem... You folks are forgetting the ultimate American community organizer of the 20th century... Jim Jones!
Posted by: Ted Balacci at September 05, 2008 09:00 PM (EHyXT)
21
All this talk about community organizers, so let me add my two bits. If we are to believe the New Testament, then, yes, Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was the historical governor. The problem is how many of us really believe the New Testament, and, oh, let's throw in the supposed prophet Mohammed of the Quran as well. A good story, but a bit questionable when we look at "real" documented history.
I for one am tired of the jabs at Barack Obama over his time as a community organizer. So what, folks, what is really important is what did he accomplish as a result of this effort? It appears not much, but let's let him tell his side of the story.
Posted by: Mescalero at September 05, 2008 10:28 PM (4pBs8)
22
Let's put it this way, I've met many people from many different occupations. Bartenders, construction workers, vice presidents, teachers, engineers, architects, busboys, waitresses, hostesses, cab drivers, truckers, soldiers, etc....You get the idea, not once have I ever met a "community organizer." What the hell is a "community organizer?" How much does it pay? What are the hours? Benefits? Travel? 401K's? Expense account? What are you supposed to wear? I can answer most these questions for every other job.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 06, 2008 01:08 AM (kNqJV)
23
Excellent minds on this site!
I smile seeing that some born Americans are started to get the picture – still NOT clear enough!!!!
I was born and lived 30 years behind the IRON CURTAIN – let me help you out.
A "community organizer" is a “POLITICAL AGITATOR” a Communist Party Representative who has supreme control over that community and keeps VERY detailed files for each household.
NO one is his own person or should dare to act independent of the Communist Party agenda. Everyone who visits you is put on "community organizer's" list of suspects and traced down for investigation – they must learn the “true reason” you have been visited by someone NOT living in that neighborhood.
The Community Organizer = Political Agitator put everyone under his hill for the "common cause and community’s benefit" which in fact is a HORRIBLE LIE.
Everything you have is taking away to be "equally distributed" - in fact the Communists control the food, water, electricity, gas rations as you should sacrifices for the “common wellbeing” WHILE they are MOVING UP in mansions and AWAY from the “working class community” in closed neighborhoods living like kings do!
They are NOT ACCOUNTABLE to ANYONE – NOT even to God as their society is a PROGRESSIVE Sophisticated the most advanced SECULAR society (in their own words) – simply put – it is a GODLESS society.
People have the RIGHT to FREELY PRAISE the Communist Party BUT if you question their action, or bring in light facts in away way disagreeing with their propaganda – then the PUNISHMENT is necessary to "protect the common good"
If you stand your ground - the Communists KILL YOU and there is NO record of what happened with you.
Complete SUBMISSION is required under their control – a sort of Radical Islam!
This is NOT a joke – sure we can laugh at IF AND ONLY IF we are 100% DETERMINED to expose and STOP this IMPOSTOR!
Barack Hussein Obama is for America what Mohammed Atta was for the 9/11 attack – just a nice man no one had a clue!!!
He acted normally ALL the way through the Boston Airport and even when sitting down on his reserved seat waiting for the right moment to ACT.
YEARS of PREPARATION had paid off – we ALL watched the Twin Towers with pain and tears.
Using the American culture and system, American AIRPLANES, American fuel, American flying crew and American Passengers – the HIT was COMPLETE success we were ALL PERTIFIED.
Osama Bin Laden has a bright DIABOLIC mind – he PROMISSED us that “the NEXT hit will make 9/11 like a kindergarten play – the WHOLE planet will watch us STUPEFIED”.
I truly believe that this time OSAMA uses as agent OBAMA and his tool to achieve the MISSION will be the American VOTES.
That is the ONLY way OSAMA will get to replace the American Flag on the White House with the Islamic crescent flag – as OSAMA told us he will NOT rest until it will be done.
OBAMA and a humongous network work hard to PAVE his path to the White House – he ALREADY DISCARDED the American Flag from his airplane and put his HIDOUS BUBBLE on it.
Visit www.dontvoteobama.net – see his airplane.
We were watching John McCain live and his roots – WHY Obama has NO PAST revealed?
When did he change his name from Berry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama? Why he is ANGRY if we call him Hussein? He is 7/8 Arab Kenyan (from Black African Slaves Traders linage that continued to sell Blacks long after America gave them freedom) , he is 1/2 White and only 1/16 Black African.
To be considered a Black descendent one must have at least 1/8 of his blood coming from Black ancestors. The Black Americans is his ticket to the White House to fulfill his mission - the Islamic to replace the old American flag.
“If the political wind turns ugly I will ALWAYS STAND with the MUSLIMS” –Barack Hussein Obama wrote in his memoir. WHY he wrote this?! Because he is a CHRISTIAN?!
Posted by: Sabrina at September 06, 2008 01:53 AM (RXMHY)
24
Community organizer is a polite way of saying 'ward-heeler'.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 06, 2008 11:14 AM (TUWci)
25
gRoftS mfjmnxsxoatt, [url=http://unpbfvzynuop.com/]unpbfvzynuop[/url], [link=http://zyrgrjwhjpoq.com/]zyrgrjwhjpoq[/link], http://wlzyuhbrrbfi.com/
Posted by: asxtqmu at September 09, 2008 09:08 AM (ONLZ0)
26
mFSwDB nfppcolpcqer, [url=http://wfghzpktayxp.com/]wfghzpktayxp[/url], [link=http://xvkbghxooema.com/]xvkbghxooema[/link], http://pcuslvrjtfjd.com/
Posted by: ghfffopych at September 09, 2008 12:48 PM (ONLZ0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Texas Family Kills Guns Down Home Invaders With Their Own Guns
Or as Sarah Palin calls it, "trash day."
With Kellie Hoehn clinging to the weapon's muzzle, her husband tackled the man who held the shotgun. She knocked the intruder in the head with a jar candle, giving her husband a chance to wrest the shotgun.
By then the tussle had spilled out onto the front lawn. Keith Hoehn shot one of the men who had a pistol, police said. Wounded, that man ran away.
Then the intruder who initially had the shotgun charged Keith Hoehn.
Kellie Hoehn told The Dallas Morning News that she screamed at her husband, "Shoot him, shoot him, shoot him."
Her husband fired the shotgun and the man fell to the ground. Then the shot man lunged a second time.
"Well, I shot him again, and I guess that was it," Keith Hoehn said.
Over at
The Atlantic, a certain blogger just launched an "investigation" demanding that the Hoehn's provide DNA to prove that they are the parents of their children, and paperwork showing that the home is really their own.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:35 AM
| Comments (50)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Between this incident and the Joe Horn affair, I hope that would-be home-invaders get the message: if you invade someone's home (at least in Texas), you will probably be shot.
Posted by: Eric at September 05, 2008 09:58 AM (hZ8gX)
2
Seems like you've got your own trash to take out CY ...
Posted by: Dan Irving at September 05, 2008 01:46 PM (Kw4jM)
3
Seems like you've got Yankee community organizer problems.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at September 05, 2008 01:48 PM (LHaZf)
4
Wow. That was the first time I've ever had a comment from Olbermann. ;-)
Deleted it, lest someone get the idea I tolerate such things.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 05, 2008 01:53 PM (zqzYV)
5
Had a similar thing happen in Killeen TX outside of FT Hood when I was stationed there... two scumbags broke into a buddy of mines house and went after his wife... (we were in the field and they, the scumbags knew it) They chased her into the bedroom thinking they'd be having a 'good time' but when they got in there, she had been 'playin possum' and whipped out a .357 magnum that she knew and liked to use... score, Good Guys 2, Bad Guys, Zip. She shot 'em both DRT and the Chief of Police gave her a "Marksmenship Award" for saving him the trouble of a trial and jail... I LOVED living in Texas for stories like that and this... Even the Libs should too... just think of the taxpayer savings on this!
Posted by: Big Country at September 05, 2008 02:44 PM (mhjyr)
6
Fabulous news, thank God that couple wasn't killed, and that there is one less piece of garbage in the world.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
you may not defend yourself
guns are for criminals
just hope police show in time
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
prosecute citizens
when they kill home invaders
threatening their families
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
women shouldn’t carry guns
their attackers and rapists
don’t deserve their brains blown out
.
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
.
Help Halt Terrorism Today!
.
USpace
.
Posted by: USpace at September 05, 2008 11:47 PM (CbFii)
7
Kellie Hoehn said,"I am not happy that someone is dead....".
I am. Home invasions are vicious, violent crimes. The non-violent variation is called “burglary”. The reason these criminals armed themselves was to leave no witnesses. (My cousin his wife and 12 year old son were murdered in a home invasion in 1981.)
Exterminating this scum is, in my view, a public service. Does anyone believe that had the invaders been successful, they would have retired? If so, you are mistaken. The data in the NCVS and FBI murder statistics say they would continued until apprehended. Usually, they get caught trying to sell the items they have stolen.
As Americans we have the right to defend ourselves. If you are the head of a family, it is an obligation. I have flood lights, motion detectors, an alarm system and two large dogs (63 and 85 lbs). If intruders get past all of that, I will set off the alarm, call 911, and attempt to get my family and pets out of the house. Should someone try to stop me, I will empty my shotgun first then my Model 1911. My wife, who is a better shot than I, will also be armed. Lives will be lost.
Posted by: arch at September 06, 2008 07:10 AM (fKThr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama/Biden Email Spam Machine Blast Out Another Whopper
Talk about phoning it in:
Bob --
John McCain just accepted the Republican nomination and adopted the most conservative platform in the history of his party.
After days of negative attacks -- and no mention of real proposals to fix our economy, get more people health care, or make America safer -- the party that brought you eight years of disastrous policies is asking for four more.
Well, not if we have anything to say about it.
Across this nation, people like you have joined this movement because you believe that we are better than the past eight years. And now that we are entering the final stretch, it's going to take all of us to bring the change we need.
Step up at this crucial moment and make a donation of $5 or more to change our country.
After the last eight years, it's up to you to keep America's promise alive.
How can John McCain pull us out of the deep hole we're in when he voted with George Bush more than 90% of the time?
The American people deserve more than a 10% chance at change.
No matter what McCain says, we can't bring about change by relying on the same ideas that have failed us for the last eight years.
Show the McCain campaign that people coming together, giving what they can afford, and working toward a common purpose will transform this country.
Change begins with you. Please make a donation of $5 or more now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/changeweneed
Thanks for everything you're doing,
Joe
Seriously, "the most conservative platform in the history of his party"?
John McCain?
I knew some were alleging that Barack Obama was smoking again due to the pressures of the campaign trail, but I'd just assumed they meant cigarettes.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:39 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Since Obama and Biden have voted "Liberal" 97% of time ... don't he American people deserve more than a 3% chance ??
Posted by: Neo at September 05, 2008 07:56 AM (Yozw9)
2
It's certainly the most conservative GOP platform with regard to pro-choice/pro-life.
Well, that may not be true. Lincoln's was probably as conservative on that issue.
Posted by: larrys at September 05, 2008 09:08 AM (38ALT)
3
Bullcrap.
McCain/Palin are no more conservative with their pro-life plank than any other Republican ticket in history. You're just flat pulling things out of your butt now.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 05, 2008 09:11 AM (zqzYV)
4
If it's the most conservative platform in Republican history...GOOD. It's not, of course, but what would be bad about it? The liberals have screwed up this country badly. We might go broke due to entitlements, we are on our 3rd and 4th generation of welfare recipients..and at least Palin's kid is getting married, and even if she wouldn't, she would have a supportive family and wouldn't be on public aid; I work in an emergency room and I see MANY young women in their early 20's, even late teens, having their 3rd baby; they will never work, and they have no support outside of welfare.
We have inner cities trashed due to these policies, though of course, the evil "fat cat Republicans". Does anyone remember what New York City was like under Mayor Dinkins, vs. how Guiliani cleaned it up? See now how Detroit looks...and I do not want this to be construed as a race issue, because I see white girls having their 3rd babies at age 20 also.
Bring on conservative values, the real ones (not the cronyism of the Washington DC culture; McCain is smart to attack it, as it has also hurt us). Bring on better educational choices vs. the control of the NEA, bring on personal responsibility and other ideas of conservatism.
Posted by: Maurice at September 05, 2008 09:35 AM (A1bX5)
5
Well, Obama did admit to smoking crack so my guess is he just had to take a few tokes after watching Palin's speech.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 05, 2008 11:18 AM (kNqJV)
6
Since Obama's voted 96 percent for Peelousy and Reid, doesn't that mean he's the most ineffectual Senator in history and responsible for this slump?
He hasn't passed any policies to get us out of it and wouldn't be able to do so as (God forbid) President.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at September 06, 2008 03:33 PM (W88Qb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Media Play Dumb To Smear McCain/Palin
MSNBC's Mark Murray and ABC News' Jake Tapper seem to have found a new way to help Barack Obama, playing dumb and purposefully misconstruing a McCain/Palin fundraising letter in order to claim the Republican ticket is being dishonest.
Murray writes:
This afternoon, the McCain campaign issued a Palin fundraising solicitation for the joint McCain-Palin-RNC fund. (After this week, McCain no longer can raise money after accepting $84.1 million in public funds, but the Republican National Committee and state parties can.)
"I cannot tell you how special last night was for me and how enthused I am to be John McCain's running mate," Palin said in the email solicitation, adding: "Unfortunately, as you've seen this week, the Obama/Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain. The misinformation and flat-out lies must be corrected."
Unless we're mistaken, neither Obama nor Biden nor the campaign has attacked Palin's family.
Echoing Murray hours later with unerring precision, Tapper writes:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin sent out a fundraising solicitation today that charged that "the Obama/Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain."
I asked spokespeople of the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee just which "Obama/Biden Democrats" they're referring to.
The response I got was that Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski erroneously attacked Palin as a supporter of Pat Buchanan.
That's it. That's the evidence.
An attack on Palin herself.
In other words, they can't name one person affiliated with the Obama-Biden campaign who attacked the Palin family.
So, the only "Obama/Biden Democrats" in existence are those staffers in the Obama campaign?
Sorry, all you folks with Obama '08 bumper stickers, Obama buttons, and Obama-Biden bumper stickers on your car, you aren't "Obama/Biden Democrats." Even though you've contributed money to the campaign, and think Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, and your proudly think of your self as an Obama Democrat, you aren't. Why? Because Jake Tapper and Mark Murray say so.
As I wrote to Tapper in his comments (and this being ABC News, we'll see how it stays up):
Please, Jake, you're better than this.
The actual candidates will of course take the high road, but it is rabid Obama/Biden supporters in the blogosphere and media--including your counterpart Brian Ross--that smear Palin and her family.
On the Blotter, Ross tried to portray a 1997 lawsuit filed against thrown out by a judge as a current scandal. The judge dismissed it for having no merit. But spin away, boys! It is what you do.
Gust this week Obama-supporting media have accused Obama of slashing funding for special needs programs when she actually raised them 175%, just as she was accused of slashing funding for pregnancy prevention programs when she raised those as well.
The Obama media lies about Sarah Palin, and then won't retract.
But are you referring to lies against her family only? How about the fevered insistence of left-wing "journalists" that Trig Palin was the son of his sister? How about media claims that Levi Johnston was being forced into a "shotgun marriage" with Bristol Palin, when they were already hoping to get married before they found out she was pregnant?
Americans have had a declining respect for the media at least since I was in j-school in the early 1990s. That decline is part of the reason I switched majors.
It looks like I made a smart choice.
John McCain and Sarah Palin have terrified the mainstream media/leftwing blogosphere, to the point they are now reduced to reporting direct lies.
CNNs Soledad O'Brien claimed that Palin, the mother of a Down's Syndrome child, cut funding for special needs programs 62-percent, a lie so blatant that even the openly pro-Obama partisans at the Daily Kos felt compelled to
call them on it.
The
Washington Post tried to claim that Governor Palin slashed funding for teen moms, when the very documents they show prove that she
expanded funding by $3.9 million dollars.
At
The Atlantic, the same out-of-control Obama partisan-who-will-not-be-named who demanded medical evidence to prove that Bristol Palin wasn't her brother's mother (even after she revealed her own concurrent pregnancy) doctored the headline of old news story to insinuate that while Sarah Palin was a mayor of town of thousands, that she was at fault for a rise in methamphetamine in an area the
size of West Virginia.
Mainstream media journalists at the Associated Press lied and claimed Palin said the Iraq war was a mission from God.
They lied. The truth of the matter is that only three suited fools from Chicago think they're on a mission from God, and Jake and Elwood aren't running.
The media—yes,
those cheering fans spotted during Obama's acceptance speech—are more willing than ever to lie, cheat, and steal their way to an Obama advantage in this election.
It is pathetic. But it is what they have become.
Update: The comment cited above at ABC News? Deleted in less than a half-hour. Good thing there are such things as screen captures.
The last time this happened, Jake Tapper wrote to tell me he wasn't responsible for deleting comments and that he'd ask ABC News about it. Now he has another example to cite. He also just said via email that referring to him a s a member of the Obama-supporting media was "nonsense."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:31 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Your comment is already gone.
I really can't believe that he posted the Chelsea Clinton joke.
Posted by: Neo at September 05, 2008 08:04 AM (Yozw9)
2
I enjoyed the comment by LA2000, claiming that the Republicans don't trust Sarah to answer inpromptu questions...
I can't wait for the debates. She'll tear Biden a new one.
Posted by: Jayne Cobb at September 05, 2008 09:49 AM (/j9KS)
3
The other poster you screen captured above says that Obama faces reporters and takes questions. The fact is Obama is NEVER asked anything of a serious nature or that is specifically about his past, his record, his association with ACORN and W. Ayers, allegations of voter fraud and corruption and so forth. Palin will be hit with smirking questions already having the smear in the question. Obama has never been seriously specific in his policy plans - just talks in generalities. Does the press ever ask him why he wrote two memoirs already? If Palin did they would be going over it with a fine tooth comb. Has the press ever dug into Obama's background to see if he has DUI's, love children, arrests, etc as they have to Palin.
Reporters are not our government - they act as if they are governing the people and we should do as they say. They are supposed to REPORT, and do that truthfully and unbiasedly.
Posted by: Krystal at September 05, 2008 09:57 AM (D2TAc)
4
Would you like a Link Exchange with my new Blog COMMON CENTS. Hope so...
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/
Steve
Posted by: Steve at September 05, 2008 10:46 AM (3HayH)
5
How can he call it nonsense after you proved your assertion with facts?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 05, 2008 11:23 AM (kNqJV)
6
It's easy to get fired up over the McCain, Palin ticket. I can't say enough about Sarah Palin. I liken her detractors to skaters who go down hard; legs akimbo, that look of disbelief. Again, we’re seeing them fold like lawn chairs. It’s long overdue. Anyway, here's a clip from Jan & Dean. I found it apropos. Bet you can’t watch just once: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX7X4FovYRA&NR=1 And how ‘bout them Dems: true tales from the Pork-master General: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Posted by: Peggy McGilligan at September 05, 2008 02:16 PM (d0ikC)
7
When ABC mis-reported the auction of Congress smear letter vs Limbaugh, ABC didn't just delete comments they didn't like, ABC edited them to change the meaning.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/244053.php
I'll never forget that.
Posted by: Looking Glass at September 05, 2008 06:13 PM (/j9WY)
8
I can't tell if the media is in denial or just running scared.
Posted by: usinkorea at September 06, 2008 01:24 AM (ENHH0)
9
These claims of cutting funding usually mean that the requested budget increase for the current year was reduced, not that the funds were cut below the inflation adjusted level of the prior year's budget.
Word games.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 06, 2008 11:24 AM (TUWci)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
McCain vs. Bush?
We all know Barack Obama is a lightweight, but even his own partisan cable news channel sometimes forgets he's running.
Nice job, morons.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:07 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
September 04, 2008
Like Hell
At The Politico, NBC political director Chuck Todd weighed in on last night's speech by Republican Vice Presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin, and claimed that "Conservatives have found their Obama."
The Republican National Committee and conservatives in both parties should angrily demand an immediate retraction.
Less than seven years after the terror attacks of 9/11, no conservative would dream of nominating for president a candidate who has a deeply-layered 21-year relationship with a terrorist who managed to bomb the U.S. Capitol Building that Obama bin Laden failed to strike.
No conservative would tolerate the ascension of a candidate who belonged to a radical cult whose pastor shrieked that God should damn America, or who followed a theology for two decades that said their God must chose their race alone above all others, or be murdered.
No conservative Democrat or Republican would stomach the though of an insufferable first spouse whose patriotism just arrived as a current event, and that exists only as a fickle emotion that will evaporate away again with a November loss.
Sarah Palin has a real track record as a reformer in two elective offices, not just empty words.
Sarah Palin lives as a proud example of what America's heartland can produce, not as arrogant elite who laughs at American workers when he thinks no one is listening.
No sir, Sarah Palin is not our Barack Obama.
And you, sir, owe the Governor an apology.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:46 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This reminds me of the liberals who reacted to Palin's selection with "Sarah Palin isn't Hillary Clinton!" As if she was meant to be. No, Palin isn't Hillary -- and thank God for that!
Posted by: Pat at September 04, 2008 04:17 PM (0suEp)
2
I know Hillary Clinton and you Sarah Connor Barracuda Palin are no Hillary Clinton!
Thank God.
You did not use your husband in a marriage of convenience to further your own political career.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at September 04, 2008 04:45 PM (W88Qb)
3
You did not use your husband in a marriage of convenience to further your own political career.
for completeness' sake, it should be noted that Hillary! also used her marriage to further her legal career at Rose Hill. Without Bill Clinton, Hillary! would just be another failed attorney working long hours on irrelevant contracts in the bowels of an anonymous Chicago law firm trying to live down the fact she was fired for dishonesty from the Watergate investigation.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 04, 2008 04:53 PM (ex0JG)
4
I just got off the phone with a senior advisor to B. Hussein Obama, I should have taped the conversation, how he praised Cuba & Raul Castro, how he belittled Roman Catholics, I tried to speak to Axelrod in Chicago...btw, he would not deny the relationship between the Daily Kos and the Obama campaign!!!
Posted by: Carlos Echevarria at September 04, 2008 05:14 PM (CsNoJ)
5
Before you go too far, you might want to check out Palin's pastor. Rick Warren he ain't.
Posted by: larrys at September 04, 2008 06:21 PM (PMlL4)
6
Sarah Palin has a real track record as a reformer in two elective offices, not just empty words.
And unlike Obama, there are probably full sets of files for her tenure in both those offices. Whereas his records for his Illinois State Legislature term have mysteriously been "lost" or "disappeared", or shredded, or whatever's most convenient to the erasing of his detailed activities. What's he hiding with those missing records, and why has he voted "present" so much in the US Senate instead of for/against specific bills? Come out, Obama dear, tell us your secrets, what are you hiding?
Posted by: Micropotamus at September 04, 2008 08:14 PM (fuC1N)
7
You cannot vote "present" in the U.S. Senate.
And McBush has the worst attendance of any U.S> Senator with the exception of Senator Johnson, who had a near fatal incident with bleeding into his brain.
Posted by: larrys at September 06, 2008 05:35 PM (PMlL4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Andrew Sullivan Lies Again
Andrew Sullivan, never been burdened with the weight of intellectual honesty, feels attacking a 17-year-old girl and the paternity of her Down's Syndrome infant brother in a national publication is fair game.
Rightfully ridiculed and mocked for his below-the-belt personal attacks again Sarah Palin's children, Sullivan moved on to another smear against Palin, in an entry he titled (and one which will not be linked) "Wasilla: The Meth Capital Of Alaska"
The problem with this
particular smear?
The original article is called
Troopers dub Mat-Su area the meth capital of Alaska, and Sarah Palin was only in charge of the small town of Wasilla. Mat-Su or more formally, the Matanuska-Susitna Valley area, is
roughly the size of West Virginia.
Frankly, Sullivan's continued willingness to lie in support of naked partisanship for Barack Obama is an embarrassment for
The Atlantic, and an affront to the other talented writers who call the magazine home, and I wonder if the magazine's advertisers appreciate the kind of writing with which their products are now being associated.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:07 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Oh yes, Sully, PLEEEEASE go there...after all, if Sarah shall be held responsible for all the bad things that occur in her time zone, turn about is fair play with the Messiah is it not?
How then shall we understand the lack of progress towards a worker's utopia, an end to poverty, and a failure to ferret out racism, sexism, and corruption in OBAMA's district?
If the great "change agent" and messiah didn't effect any major "hopeful change" in Illinois during his years there and achieved nothing brilliant even in his own district... shall he not also be held accountable?
I didn't think so.
The problem with most liberals is their refusal to consider that two can play their games.
Posted by: John at September 04, 2008 03:04 PM (xgQeg)
2
There are no drug problems in Chicago's south side, eh?
Posted by: ptg at September 04, 2008 03:10 PM (rVWj9)
3
If we really want to torture those guys in Guantanamo we need to force them to read Sullivan's commentaries for the last five years.
Of course, Sully is a real Torquemada when it comes to the use of logic. His alleged "facts" always seem to confess.
Posted by: WJO at September 04, 2008 03:37 PM (+kP2/)
4
ptg -"There are no drug problems in Chicago's south side, eh?"
Not after Hussein got them organized. LMFAO!
Posted by: GL at September 04, 2008 03:45 PM (vpAFg)
Posted by: jeff at September 04, 2008 04:35 PM (E+uf1)
6
that's the convenient thing a freshman senator with zero executive experience - he has no record by which to judge him. Not only can you tar and feather Palin for things she had no control over, you can be sure no one can hang anything on Obama.
The cognitive dissonance in the press this election is staggering.
Posted by: zach slaton at September 04, 2008 06:27 PM (4xdLf)
7
I am an Atlantic subscriber, and I just might cancel my subscription.
Posted by: Zach slaton at September 04, 2008 06:30 PM (IE79Z)
8
Hey! Don't you people know that Excitable Andy is the only real conservative left? He actually had the "cajones" to pimp his book the other day.
He is disgusting, and, glad you gave him no link, CY.
Posted by: William Teach at September 04, 2008 07:30 PM (NaHh8)
9
Somehow I don't think the Confederate Yankee ought to be lecturing Sullivan about intellectual honesty. Palin is a walking disaster. Bush in drag. The McCain campaign knows it, which is why they're keeping her in the basement, far away from media scrutiny. This is unprecedented and scary, but you folks are too in love with your hockey mom to realize what a disaster this would be.
Posted by: Howard B. at September 09, 2008 07:37 AM (TqT86)
10
Fendi On Sale provide Louis Vuitton Handbags,Fendi Handbags,Gucci Handbags,UGG Shoes informaton,
Burberry On Sale provide information about Fashion brand about Gucci,Ugg ,Chanel and Louis Vuitton,
Clarks On Sale ,Converse On Sale tell you about Converse Shoes,UGG Shoes,Gucci Shoes and Handbags Information,
Dansko On Sale have Ugg Shoes,Louis Vuitton Handbags ,Gucci Shoes On Sale,
Discount Converse is dedicate in Converse Shoes,UGG Shoes,Gucci Shoes ,Louis Vuitton Information,
Fossil On Sale has Ugg Shoes,Louis Vuitton Handbags ,Gucci Shoes On Sale,
Frye Shop , Frye Store is a Fashion World about most fashionable brands like Louis Vuitton,Gucci,Chanel And UGG Shoes,
Heelys Sale have News about Gucci Shoes,UGG Shoes and Louis Vuitton.
Prada Handbags ,Keen On Sale , Lacoste on sale and
MBT On Sale provide you Louis Vuitton Handbags,Gucci Handbags informaton,
Miu Miu Store , New Balance On Sale are for Shoes And Handbags Fashion,
Prada On Sale provides Prada Shoes,Gucci Shoes,Louis Vuitton Handbags,Gucci Handbags information,
Prada Sell is a blog About gucci shoes,gucci jewelry,gucci handbags and other fashion informatoin,
Stuart Weitzman Store , The North Face On Sale ,
Cheap Gucci Shoes provide News About Cheap Gucci Shoes and Discount Gucci Men Shoes
Replica handbags also provides you news about Replica handbags,Replica Wallets,Replica Shoes,Replica Tiffany,Replica Louis Vuitton, Gucci Shoes is a site About gucci shoes,gucci jewelry,gucci handbags and other gucci fashion informatoin,
Discount Handbags Including Louis Vuitton Handbags,Gucci Handbags and Chanel Handbags,
Best Designer Handbags Guide you To Buy Designer Handbags,
Shoes Design provide Louis Vuitton Handbags ,Gucci Shoes On Sale,
Shoes fashion including Gucci Shoes,UGG Shoes and Louis Vuitton Handbags Fashion,
Handbags Fashion supply Gucci Handbags and Louis Vuitton Handbags,
Footwear collection , Jewelry Trends says Tiffany Jewelry,Louis Vuitton and Gucci Shoes.
Fashion World says most fashionable brands like Louis Vuitton,Gucci,Chanel,Gucci Shoes World talks about News about Gucci Shoes,Ugg shoes.
Find Ugg information at Ugg Boots News , Chanel Jewelry Shopping for Chanel Jewelry and Gucci Jewelry, Jewelry Brands is the best place to comparison blog for Jewelry Brands.
From Uk Tiffany Jewellery ,you can get how to Pick the Tiffany Jewellery, Tiffany World is heading for Tiffany Jewellery Web site Comparing. Sunglasses and Share jewelry
Fashion World says Handbags,Shoes and Jewelry fashion style. Find Latest Fashion about Lv,Gucci,Tiffany,Chanel. Tiffany Jewelry is a Tiffany Jewelry Jewellery Guide Blog, Louis Vuitton online blog for most valueable information, Handbags Mall tells about louis vuitton handbags,Gucci handbags,.etc.
Posted by: Daviad caller3w at July 24, 2009 11:30 PM (K70lq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Questioning His Judgment
Barack Obama's "great friend" is off to jail.
Tony Resko?
A good guess, but no, I wasn't talking about Obama fundraiser, friend, and kickback artist Tony Rezko. He's
in jail already.
Bill Ayers?
No, Barack's friendly neighborhood terrorist, part of a group who formally declared war upon the United States before joining Obama in a close 21-year relationship spanning multiple left-wing organizations, is still "guilty as hell,
free as a bird."
Bernadine Dohrn?
No, the Weather Underground terrorist and Charles Manson groupie that
idolized Sharon Tate's murder—especially the part where a fork was stabbed into Tate's eight-months-pregnant womb—who spent time on the FBI's Most Wanted list before hostessing Barack Obama's very first political fundraiser, was never charged with any of the bombings she is though to have been a part of, including the San Francisco Police station bombing that killed one police officer and wounded many more.
Um... Corrupt Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick?
Took you long enough:
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick pleaded guilty to two counts of obstruction of justice and will step down as the mayor of the nation's 11th-largest city as part of a plea deal in a sex-and-misconduct scandal that has plagued the Motor City for months.
As part of the deal, Kilpatrick also pleaded no contest to assaulting or obstructing a public officer. He'll serve two concurrent four-month jail sentences and pay the city $1 million over a five-year probationary period.
Barack Obama talks about having the "judgment to lead."
The question is, which cell block?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:15 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, that's one down: now about William Jefferson, Monica Conyers, Ted Stevens, etc. ad nauseam...
Posted by: ECM at September 04, 2008 12:47 PM (q3V+C)
2
It is indeed and Embarassment of Riches on this score. That is what has the Lefties flummoxed. They think this is all a tactical exercise and if they can just manage these Felon Eruptions everything is jake. But even when they are successful with one, there is another. This is not any action fo the Reps, simply reality catching up with Barry. Beauty.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 04, 2008 01:38 PM (LF+qW)
3
Oh, that mayor with no party affiliation.
Posted by: Neo at September 04, 2008 02:33 PM (Yozw9)
4
Fendi On Sale provide Louis Vuitton Handbags,Fendi Handbags,Gucci Handbags,UGG Shoes informaton,
Burberry On Sale provide information about Fashion brand about Gucci,Ugg ,Chanel and Louis Vuitton,
Clarks On Sale ,Converse On Sale tell you about Converse Shoes,UGG Shoes,Gucci Shoes and Handbags Information,
Dansko On Sale have Ugg Shoes,Louis Vuitton Handbags ,Gucci Shoes On Sale,
Discount Converse is dedicate in Converse Shoes,UGG Shoes,Gucci Shoes ,Louis Vuitton Information,
Fossil On Sale has Ugg Shoes,Louis Vuitton Handbags ,Gucci Shoes On Sale,
Frye Shop , Frye Store is a Fashion World about most fashionable brands like Louis Vuitton,Gucci,Chanel And UGG Shoes,
Heelys Sale have News about Gucci Shoes,UGG Shoes and Louis Vuitton.
Prada Handbags ,Keen On Sale , Lacoste on sale and
MBT On Sale provide you Louis Vuitton Handbags,Gucci Handbags informaton,
Miu Miu Store , New Balance On Sale are for Shoes And Handbags Fashion,
Prada On Sale provides Prada Shoes,Gucci Shoes,Louis Vuitton Handbags,Gucci Handbags information,
Prada Sell is a blog About gucci shoes,gucci jewelry,gucci handbags and other fashion informatoin,
Stuart Weitzman Store , The North Face On Sale ,
Cheap Gucci Shoes provide News About Cheap Gucci Shoes and Discount Gucci Men Shoes
Replica handbags also provides you news about Replica handbags,Replica Wallets,Replica Shoes,Replica Tiffany,Replica Louis Vuitton, Gucci Shoes is a site About gucci shoes,gucci jewelry,gucci handbags and other gucci fashion informatoin,
Discount Handbags Including Louis Vuitton Handbags,Gucci Handbags and Chanel Handbags,
Best Designer Handbags Guide you To Buy Designer Handbags,
Shoes Design provide Louis Vuitton Handbags ,Gucci Shoes On Sale,
Shoes fashion including Gucci Shoes,UGG Shoes and Louis Vuitton Handbags Fashion,
Handbags Fashion supply Gucci Handbags and Louis Vuitton Handbags,
Footwear collection , Jewelry Trends says Tiffany Jewelry,Louis Vuitton and Gucci Shoes.
Fashion World says most fashionable brands like Louis Vuitton,Gucci,Chanel,Gucci Shoes World talks about News about Gucci Shoes,Ugg shoes.
Find Ugg information at Ugg Boots News , Chanel Jewelry Shopping for Chanel Jewelry and Gucci Jewelry, Jewelry Brands is the best place to comparison blog for Jewelry Brands.
From Uk Tiffany Jewellery ,you can get how to Pick the Tiffany Jewellery, Tiffany World is heading for Tiffany Jewellery Web site Comparing. Sunglasses and Share jewelry
Fashion World says Handbags,Shoes and Jewelry fashion style. Find Latest Fashion about Lv,Gucci,Tiffany,Chanel. Tiffany Jewelry is a Tiffany Jewelry Jewellery Guide Blog, Louis Vuitton online blog for most valueable information, Handbags Mall tells about louis vuitton handbags,Gucci handbags,.etc.
Posted by: David caller3w at July 24, 2009 11:26 PM (K70lq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
After Palin Speech, Media Supporters Still Claim Obama is the Better Candidate
Of course, they aren't running against each other, though you would be hard-pressed to notice that in most mainstream media/liberal blogosphere reactions to her speech last night.
Jonathan Alter of
Newsweek tries to argue that Obama's longer exposure as an inexperienced candidate on the national stage some how makes him a more qualified leader than Palin, claiming that Obama's "countless tough interviews" and media-created "reputation for fluency in discussing affairs of state" is in some way a replacement for executive experience. Can you imagine any sane person trying to make that argument outside of the bizarre standards of liberal politics?
Job candidate: "No sir, I don't have any experience running a factory, but I've been going to tough interviews for 18 months, and I can sound like a plant manager in conversation."
Good look with that argument, Jonathan.
At the far left
The Nation, Ari Melber
wrote convincingly, " Owwie!
Stoooooop!" He also (reflexively) mentioned the Karl Rove boogeyman, assuring that some of his readers will splatter their Depends.
Gloria Steinem embarrassed herself and other dormitory feminists in the L.A.
Times this morning,
trying to claim that a highly-successful self-made leader, a governor with a nation-leading 86-percent approval rating, is the wrong woman, with the wrong message. Uh-huh.
Sarah Palin isn't "qualified" in Steinem's rheumy eyes because Palin made her way to the top her own way, on her own merits, bucking all conventions and societal mores. But Palin didn't follow Steinem's approved path, and so an increasingly irrelevant Steinem, like all oppression junkies, frets that other women might begin to ignore the stilted, one dimensional feminism she offers when they see a confident, competent leader of another ideology who has proven she can "have it all," and it well on her way to doing it all. Steinem instead insists that the candidate that calls dismissively addresses female reporters as "sweetie," is the new standard-bearer for women's rights.
On the air and in print, liberal pundits are attacking Palin today. Some attack her record, some disgusting still attack her family, and some attack her for merely being a woman (prompting Hillary Clinton's aides to go on the record decrying these
sexist attacks). These liberal bloggers/journalists—the line between them all but removed— continue insisting that Obama, a candidate with far less executive experience than Palin, is a better choice.
That's an interesting argument to make... if they were running for the same job.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:41 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"... Obama won 18 million votes, faced countless tough interviews and emerged with a reputation for fluency in discussing affairs of state, whatever one thinks of his politics.... "
That self-referential logic is breathtaking. So running a campaign for president proves that someone is experienced enough to be president? I think I'll try that logic next time I go for a job interview. Better yet, I guess I'll go start a presidential campaign. I may as well start collecting some experience for 2012.
Posted by: scp at September 04, 2008 10:24 AM (zf6OM)
2
It may sound sexist, but if you want to make a Mint, make T-shirts with Sarahs face on them above the caption "The Arctic Fox". Last night, she proved that McCains dog can hunt, and The Arctic Fox has fangs. Touche'!
Posted by: Nostradamus at September 04, 2008 11:21 AM (X8wIJ)
3
You nailed it in the first sentence, the Dems are comparing their top of the ticket to the bottom of the Republican ticket. That's an admission of submission right there; if they just weren't oblivious to it.
I was supporting McCain before Palin, maybe not enthusiastically, but still I was going to vote for him. Let's just say I have now changed gears.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at September 04, 2008 11:41 AM (oba11)
4
Countless tough interviews?
By countless, you mean zero I suppose?
Posted by: xerocky at September 04, 2008 11:44 AM (kX5hh)
5
When I read Steinem's comments, this immediately came to mind ...
Palin is the Gen-X candidate who sounds the death knell for the Baby Boomer dominance of politics.
Posted by: Neo at September 04, 2008 12:10 PM (Yozw9)
6
I have no executive experience, but I did stay at a Holdiay Inn last night.
Posted by: Mikey J at September 04, 2008 12:33 PM (j1ILX)
7
Brillant take down sir.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at September 04, 2008 01:21 PM (LHaZf)
8
Did the "can't I just eat my waffles" interview count as a tough interview?
Posted by: iconoclast at September 04, 2008 01:31 PM (ex0JG)
9
Steinem's problem with Palin isn't that she actually worked her way up, as opposed to Hillary. No, the old-guard feminists hate her for delivering a DS baby, doing it proudly and properly claiming the moral weight of that act as compared to the feckless baby-killers she has attempted to reduce our women to for decades. The success of Palin indicates the failure of Steinem. And it hurts. Hurts so good!
Posted by: megapotamus at September 04, 2008 01:43 PM (LF+qW)
10
Obama still is the better candidate ... for community organizer
Posted by: Neo at September 04, 2008 02:37 PM (Yozw9)
11
Just once I'd love to see someone put together a montage of liberal journalists grilling Conservatives juxtaposed with the same journalists tossing soft-ball questions to liberals....
And then switch on them and actually hit the liberals with 'gotcha' questions like they routinely throw conservative's ways. Something tells me that since liberals NEVER or ALMOST never get hit with tough questions, (without warning) they'd fold like a house of cards in a hurricane.
Posted by: John at September 04, 2008 03:09 PM (xgQeg)
12
Gloria Steinem wrote in her L.A. Times editorial:
"...[McCain's] main motive [in selecting Palin] was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom."
She later wrote: "She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child."
"Reproductive freedom" is a crock. What Steinem really means -- and doesn't have the nerve or intellectual honesty to say -- is the right to "abortion on demand, without apology," as N.O.W t-shirts used to read. In supporting Barack Obama, Steinem supports abortion not only right up to the ninth month (per Roe v. Wade), she not only supports partial-birth abortion, she supports AFTER-birth abortion!
Now, about this "right to have a child" -- WHO in the Republican party or any other political party is suggesting that some people be denied "the right to have a child"? The last people I can remember suggesting a government-sponsored/endorsed sterilization program (that weren't self-confessed white supremacists) are Margaret Sanger and Alan Guttmacher, advocates of eugenics and the driving forces behind so-called Planned Parenthood. If it were up to Sanger, Trig Palin would be classified as medical waste. In Sanger's book "Woman and the New Race" (1920), she described her personal mission as "nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or those who will become defectives."
Once again, Steinem's dishonesty is apparent. To pretend "reproductive freedom" is the raison d'etre of the "pro-choice" movement is like saying a can of pork 'n beans must have more beans than pork because "pork" comes first.
Abortion is EVERYTHING to Steinem; in 1998, in order to come to the defense of pro-choice President Bill Clinton -- who at the time was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones and had just been revealed to be swapping DNA with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office -- Steinem wrote in a New York Times editorial that even if Jones' story that Slick Willie groped her, dropped trou and asked her to kiss little Willie was 100% true, it STILL didn't meet the threshold of "creating a hostile work environment." If after doing all that to a female subordinate, Steinem wrote, if he took "no" for an answer, he was in the clear.
You won't find that Steinem editorial on the New York Times website; it's vanished into thin air there (probably at her request, IMHO). But it WAS published, and was cut-and-pasted on USENET days later: "Feminists and the Clinton Question," March 26, 1998
Posted by: L.N. Smithee at September 04, 2008 03:28 PM (GkA2p)
13
Gloria Steinem wrote in her L.A. Times editorial:
"...[McCain's] main motive [in selecting Palin] was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom."
She later wrote: "She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child."
"Reproductive freedom" is a crock. What Steinem really means -- and doesn't have the nerve or intellectual honesty to say -- is the right to "abortion on demand, without apology," as N.O.W t-shirts used to read. In supporting Barack Obama, Steinem supports abortion not only right up to the ninth month (per Roe v. Wade), she not only supports partial-birth abortion, she supports AFTER-birth abortion!
Now, about this "right to have a child" -- WHO in the Republican party or any other political party is suggesting that some people be denied "the right to have a child"? The last people I can remember suggesting a government-sponsored/endorsed sterilization program are Margaret Sanger and Alan Guttmacher, advocates of eugenics and the driving forces behind so-called Planned Parenthood. If it were up to Sanger, Trig Palin would be classified as medical waste. In Sanger's book "Woman and the New Race" (1920), she described her personal mission as "nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or those who will become defectives."
Abortion is EVERYTHING to Steinem; in 1998, in order to come to the defense of pro-choice President Bill Clinton -- who at the time was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones and had just been revealed to be swapping DNA with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office -- Steinem wrote in a New York Times editorial that even if Jones' story that Slick Willie groped her, dropped trou and asked her to kiss little Willie was 100% true, it STILL didn't meet the threshold of "creating a hostile work environment." If after doing all that to a female subordinate, Steinem wrote, if he took "no" for an answer, he was in the clear.
You won't find that editorial on the New York Times website; it's vanished into thin air. But it was published, and was cut-and-pasted on USENET days later:
http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html
Posted by: L.N. Smithee at September 04, 2008 03:30 PM (GkA2p)
14
God, CY, I hate your server.
Posted by: L.N. Smithee at September 04, 2008 03:31 PM (GkA2p)
15
Neo is right!
For those of us born at the tail end of the baby boom, and like Sarah Palin have lived in the shadow of the most spoiled, narcissistic, self-loathing, non-patriotic, perpetual adolescents on the face of the planet…
Last night, they got a little taste of a generation that's going to help clean up their mess.
Posted by: CN at September 04, 2008 03:36 PM (gyNYk)
16
Whenever I hear Gloria Steinem, I think of the "Crazy Cat Lady" from the Simpsons.
Angry. Lonely. Mean. Desperate. Pathetic.
Sad.
Hurling one of her 547 cats (with itty-bitty claws and teeth) at any intelligent woman who has found love with a 'penis bearer,' gone on to spawn offspring (eeeewwwww!), and worked her ass off for her success.
How dare that bitch Palin find happiness.
How dare she find joy!
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at September 04, 2008 04:10 PM (floZe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 111 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.3261 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3064 seconds, 229 records returned.
Page size 177 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
