Confederate Yankee
April 14, 2010
NY Times About To Put American Lives at Risk?
I sure hope that Brad Thor's tipster is wrong, but considering the recent track record of the leftist media giant, I won't be surprised if the New York Times really is considering publishing a list of names of Americans working to protect U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
The release of this information serves no practical purpose other than to expose these individuals and their families to threats of violence. The intent can only be to undermine and distract those individuals. This puts the lives of our soldiers and Marines in greater danger.
How can they morally justify this?
Update: CIA Deputy Director suddenly "
retires." Thor seems to think this was the man who leaked the names of DoD personnel to the press.
I would not want to be him.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:50 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
They don't even try. Just remember, they're the enemy.
Posted by: Seagypsy at April 14, 2010 10:04 AM (DTiX/)
2
You know, I'm not approving of what the NYT is doing, but I bet if we withdraw ALL U.S. personnel from Afghanistan including our troops, there would be a lot fewer American lives put at risk over there. Just a thought, courtesy of Ron Paul, hardly a liberal.
Posted by: TomG at April 14, 2010 10:27 AM (AHA+z)
3
MORALS?
WHAT "morals"? You're talking about the NYSlimes, right?
Posted by: dad29 at April 14, 2010 10:52 AM (6nQNP)
4
They justify it by saying that an open society should have no secrets. Of course, if you were to publish Pinch's home phone number and private email account information, then you'd have a fight on your hands.
Posted by: Trent at April 14, 2010 10:55 AM (0JsTF)
5
Just a thought, courtesy of Ron Paul, hardly a liberal.
Yes, and hardly sane, too.
Posted by: ECM at April 14, 2010 11:52 AM (nYKDd)
6
but I bet if we withdraw ALL U.S. personnel from Afghanistan including our troops, there would be a lot fewer American lives put at risk over there.
Yes, over there fewer American lives would be at risk. Over here, however, is a different matter. Since Muslim jihadists reached out from Afghanistan all the way to NYC (and Africa and Yemen and the first NYC bombing). Not to mention the impact on Pakistan and India of abandoning Afghanistan to fanatics like the Taliban.
Posted by: iconoclast at April 14, 2010 05:11 PM (yTmCE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Setting the Stage For An American Neda
When I wrote on CrashTheTeaParty.Org for Pajamas Media I thought it was vile that so-called "liberals" were organizing to smear and misrepresent Tea Party protesters as crazies and racists.
I privately suspected that the Democratic Party approved of such behavior with a wink and a nod, but never has any suspicion that they may get directly involved in such underhanded scheming.
Apparently, my expectations of Democrats were
set too high.
New Hampshire Democrats are engaged in a statewide search for liberal activists willing to attend so-called tea parties on Thursday and carry signs expressing racist or fringe sentiments, a Democratic source with knowledge of the effort tells NowHampshire.com.
According to the source, who sought anonymity for fear of reprisals, the Dems last minute scramble reflects a growing obsession among party leaders that they need to discredit the tea party movement soon or it will overwhelm them come the November election.
Former Democratic State Party Chairman Kathy Sullivan is heading up the search, the source said. Sullivan has been calling and e-mailing liberal activists trying to get them to attend tea parties in different parts of the state and hold signs denying the authenticity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate and make racially disparaging comments to reporters.
"This is Kathy's [Sullivan] project," the source told NowHampshire.com. "She is absolutely obsessed with painting the tea party people as racists."
Liberals are open—even proud—about their plots to foment false charges of racism and
misappropriate Social Security numbers and other personal information, championing identity theft to harm Tea Party protesters.
If they are willing to proudly go to these extremes in their public statements, it is only logical to wonder if they are plotting violence in private, like the Molotov cocktails liberals
planned to hurl at cops and delegates of the 2008 Republican National Convention before that plot was thwarted.
The Iranian people became rightly inflamed when Neda Agha-Soltan was callously
shot in the heart by a thug supporter acting on behalf of the Iranian regime.
If Democrats think that the Tea Party has little use for them now, imagine what the sentiment will become if some bomb-throwing left-wing sociopath splashes a peaceful group of Tea Party protesters with homemade napalm.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:13 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That's great reporting. Unnamed "source." No evidence to support the case whatsoever. Doesn't call the accused Dem official for a comment or response. Well done!
Posted by: Beet at April 14, 2010 09:33 AM (aklb4)
2
Funny. I do perscribe to the Democrat liberal conspiracy to defraud and defame opponents.
"What is hidden shall be made known."
Posted by: rpn at April 14, 2010 09:47 AM (bK+zc)
3
Well, they may get their violence they been claiming the TEA Party is capable of when one of these Moby Moles gets their self beat to a pulp for doing something truly stupid. How will the MSM cover that?
"TEA Party Protesters beat, Racist Sign Carrying Anarchist senseless"
But I doubt they'll be truthful. Like those Hitler/0bama posters blamed on conservatives that have printed on them a communist website.
Posted by: JP at April 14, 2010 10:30 AM (VxiFL)
4
As CY pointed out, political violence is a staple of the left. The planned violence at the Republican National Convention is an excellent example--though Kenneth Gladney is good as well.
So, is there more than this unnamed source? Hopefully, yes. As news reporting this leaves a lot to be desired. As a warning to all of provocateurs causing racist incidents at protests tomorrow--it is very timely. We all know how desperate the Left is to be able to point to a clear incidence of racism--particularly since every other attempt has ended up with the Left beclowning itself. The closer we approach Nov 2 the Left will be frenzied to create an incident with which to denigrate the entire limited government movement.
I hope that citizen journalists will ferret out the proof for this allegation in the coming days. If one source exists, there are others. Maybe in the next week or two someone will nail down better proof.
Posted by: iconoclast at April 14, 2010 05:58 PM (yTmCE)
5
f Democrats think that the Tea Party has little use for them now, imagine what the sentiment will become if some bomb-throwing left-wing sociopath splashes a peaceful group of Tea Party protesters with homemade napalm.
...at that point, all bets are off and everyone of the thugs pushing for attacking us are up for payback.
Don't do it pinheads...
Posted by: Toaster 802 at April 15, 2010 08:17 AM (ObeRh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Reasonable Men
Bill Whittle—one of my favorite thinkers, writers, and PJTV personalities—has transcribed his latest Afterburner segment entitled "Reasonable Men."
I found myself especially drawn to a line drawn from a collaboration between Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson, where Dickinson smoothed over the rhetoric of a too militant Jefferson.
"We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers or resistance by force. Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us."
The document this was drawn from was the July 6, 1775
Declaration of Taking Up Arms of the Second Continental Congress. It was a warning to England that the rights of men—not the newly-imagined "rights" of today's usurpers that involve the appropriation of the rights of others—are not forfeit to any government, but granted by our creator and not to be surrendered. This was not yet a call to revolution, but a clarification of intent.
It is worth noting that this declaration took place even after the battles at
Lexington and Concord that left more than a hundred dead and hundreds wounded. At this late hour, they still strove for a peaceful accord.
Peace was always the goal... but not at the expense of liberty.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:20 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Foul
As a rec league soccer coach the past six seasons I can assure you that there are other options than just school-related teams, and so I think that this attempted controversy proves mostly nothing.
Mostly.
But As
Don Surber astutely points out, President Obama made the following
statement about the incident, which could be very worrisome.
President Obama Sunday seemed to shrug off the brouhaha after he broke with White House tradition and ditched his press pool earlier this weekend to watch one of his daughter’s soccer games.
Prior to Obama’s bilateral meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, Obama told his colleague, "Apparently I caused quite a problem," adding something about his secretary not telling the Secret Service, according to, ironically enough, the pool report.
Surber notes that Obama made it sound like he ditched the Secret Service to attend a soccer game, unattended, in a rough part of town, leaving himself defenseless against any possible assassination attempt. If that was the case, that would indeed be extremely irresponsible of the President... but I suspect that isn't what occurred.
Despite Hollywood's insistence that member's of the first family can slip away from the Secret Service without really trying, I find it very hard to believe that Obama slipped away from 1600 Pennsylvania without his bodyguards in tow. For starters, what car would he drive?
No, I suspect that Obama's muttered comment about not telling the Secret Service he was going to a game is either a mistake by the Politico writer, or more likely, simply the latest lie by a man serially uncomfortable with telling the truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:24 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And what of the military aide holding "the football"? No, Obama didn't go off alone, nor did he go to a soccer game. The truth WILL out, and we the public likely won't like what we learn.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up....
Posted by: arb at April 14, 2010 07:36 AM (BQ0wk)
2
Who cares? And who should care? No one. This country has bigger problems that are more important than a soccer game.
Posted by: hiscross at April 14, 2010 08:07 AM (fGAa3)
3
Who Cares?
I do. . . two words. . . President Biden.
There are reasons this is not done.
But it is but one screw up in what is now the worst president's long line of screw ups.
Carter must be skipping with glee to know he no longer is the Worst President Alive/Ever.
Or if your minds will allow, think about this occurring with GWB and he disappears with no explanation at all. The one time he did wander off he took a few members of the pool who could be trusted not to blab on a jaunt to Iraq.
Obama claims to have gone to a game no one cane find proof of, in an area that did not have a game that day, but is noted for high crime.
If GWB had done this, we'd not hear the end of the conspiracy theorist's whining, or the media's, or the left's. . . but I'm being redundant.
Posted by: JP at April 14, 2010 10:21 AM (VxiFL)
4
I read somewhere, and I don't remember where, that his daughter's school did not have a soccer game scheduled for that time. And there was a picture of the field, but it was a baseball field that was not set up for soccer (no lines, no goal posts in site - of course for young kids they might use cones and the goal posts could have been the portably kind). If I find the article I will link it.
Posted by: Penfold at April 14, 2010 11:36 AM (1PeEC)
5
Obama's muttered comment about not telling the Secret Service he was going to a game
So you're concluding that the "muttered comment" that wasn't quoted is a lie? How objective of you.
Posted by: g at April 14, 2010 08:59 PM (ToOKY)
6
"How objective of you."
Hear that, guys? You MUST remain neutral regarding Mr. Soetero's credibility, regardless of how mendacious he's been in the past.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 16, 2010 11:07 PM (Eg9Id)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 13, 2010
Jindal Staffer and Boyfriend Badly Beaten, Hospitalized After Leaving Fundraiser
Bobby Jindal's campaign finance director Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend Joe Brown were hospitalized this weekend after they were badly beaten leaving a Friday night fundraiser at Brennan's Restaurant being held for the Louisiana Republican Party.
According to various reports, Bautsch and Brown left the restaurant and were going to their car parked two blocks away when the incident occurred. One of Bautsch's legs was badly broken, and required surgery. It will be 2-3 months before she recovers. Brown suffered a concussion, broken nose, and broken jaw. It sounds as if he was very lucky to avoid a fractured skull, or worse.
Some commenting on the story have implied that the couple was targeted for wearing Sarah Palin pins, and that the assailants were left wing protestors that has been outside the restaurant earlier in the evening.
There is absolutely no evidence that supports either of these contentions at this time. In fact,
Michelle Malkin reports that they were not wearing Palin pins.
There simply isn't enough information to know what occurred or why at this time, and the NOPD and Jindal's office are refusing to provide more details because of the assault investigation.
If it turns out that they were targeted for being part of the fundraiser and suspects can be identified, it will be interesting to see if hate crimes charges will be filed.
Update: More details of the assault have been
released:
New Orleans police say that the incident began about 10:45 p.m. when a group of three to five men made "derogatory comments" to Bautsch and her boyfriend. When the man described as the male victim "turned toward" the group of men, at least one of the men struck him repeatedly. The woman "fell to the ground and screamed," the news release said.
Police released a description of one suspect, saying he was in his 20s, looked "dirty," and wore his hair in an auburn-colored ponytail. The man was 6 feet, 1 inch tall with a thin build, police said. He wore a light-colored T-shirt and dark pants.
Update A
slightly different description:
Police said they only have a description of one of the suspects, who was described as a white man who appeared to be dirty, in his 20s, about six feet tall with a thick build and thin face. He had a beard and auburn-colored hair in a pony tail. His accomplices were also said to be white men
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:59 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Okay, someone has to ask. Were the attackers black? If so, well, we will know they were not attacked because they are republicans.
Posted by: Bob at April 13, 2010 11:23 PM (88yqk)
2
There are a number of things that suggest this might not have anything to do with Left/Right politics at all.
Let’s not jump just yet.
Posted by: Rob Miller at April 13, 2010 11:36 PM (MUJYx)
3
So auburn colored pony tail? The perp was white? I know I know I'm a bastard for asking about this, but I want to get an idea what's up with this.
Posted by: Bob at April 14, 2010 01:55 AM (88yqk)
4
Police released a description of one suspect, saying he was in his 20s, looked "dirty," and wore his hair in an auburn-colored ponytail. LOL.
Posted by: limo at April 14, 2010 06:53 AM (0M1Bd)
5
"...he was in his 20s, looked "dirty," and wore his hair in an auburn-colored ponytail. The man was 6 feet, 1 inch tall with a thin build..."
1) Twenty-something college slacker? Check.
2) Passing acquaintance with personal hygiene? Check.
3) Long hair? Check.
4) Typical skinny vegan build? Check.
Sounds like one of them Lefty hippy types to me.
Posted by: Scott at April 14, 2010 08:14 AM (EBCRo)
6
It is going to get really hard to hold back the tide of smashing the liberals if their violence doesn't stop. For starters time to never let the liberals back into political power. They are lacting much like the faciists they say we are.
Posted by: Ron at April 14, 2010 09:53 AM (bK+zc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Man Behind CrashTheTeaParty.Org
My latest article is up at Pajamas Media, providing some of the details about the man who created a Web site dedicated to organizing left-wing radicals to smear their fellow Americans.
As disgusting as their tactics are, the group has preemptively failed in their April 15 mission. By making a public declaration of their plans to create the worst stereotypes possible, they've already identified and marginalized themselves, creating a situation where the media knows well in advance that these agent provocateurs will be the likely sources behind any disturbances at famously sedate and friendly Tea Party rallies.
Tea Party protestors champion liberty, delight in each other's company, and relish the expression of American exceptionalism, past, present, and future. The other side champions deception, delights in fraud, bigotry, division, the creation of paranoia and distrust, and desires to radically remove this nation for it's core principles to align with lesser states they admire.
Chose your side, and chose it wisely as
reasonable men should, America.
You cannot afford to do nothing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:20 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
By making a public declaration of their plans to create the worst stereotypes possible, they've already identified and marginalized themselves, creating a situation where the media knows well in advance that these agent provocateurs will be the likely sources behind any disturbances at famously sedate and friendly Tea Party rallies.
You don't think they're going to actually report it that way, do you? Have you seen any of the broadcasts (excepting Fox) airing out the Gallup poll?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx
Posted by: Pablo at April 13, 2010 09:31 AM (yTndK)
2
These "Crash The TEA Parties" people aren't very bright.
I'm wiling to bet there's more children involved than actual voters.
Posted by: Dr. Kennible Lecter at April 13, 2010 03:13 PM (lq8LM)
3
If you look into any of the anti-white leftist antifa organizations you'll find that they do what they do because they're supplied with free drugs for doing it. They are very, very sketchy people with severe drug problems.
Posted by: Chad Gadya at April 13, 2010 03:55 PM (ZnkEB)
4
I have spent some time on their web site. One of the most vulger I have ever seen. Anyone going to their web site will immediately see for themselves that this organization is composed of nothing but trash.
Posted by: Wayne Leeper at April 13, 2010 05:36 PM (2hQPc)
5
Tinfoil hats, brothers. Tinfoil hats.
If you look behind you, you can see the line marking the deep end that you crossed a loooong time ago.
Now about that Palin contract...... Lear Jets?
Posted by: CJ at April 13, 2010 08:16 PM (jsQWZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Fool House
Too perfect:
In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the "personal health insurance coverage" of senators, representatives and their staff members.
For example, it says, the law may "remove members of Congress and Congressional staff" from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.
The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?
See what they did there, right at the end? That is what you call a rhetorical question.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:15 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
One has to wonder what other time bombs are waiting to be discovered. No wonder 58% of Americans want Obamacare repealed.
Posted by: marc at April 13, 2010 06:04 AM (wFfr7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 12, 2010
Get That Man A Spine
How many times has this occurred now? Three? For someone who tries so hard to cultivate the image of a intellectual and sophisticate, he seems doggedly determined to cast himself as an unteachable buffoon, once again bowing to a foreign dignitary that is his equal.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:48 PM
| Comments (51)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Eeeeek!!! YOU ARE A RAAAAACIST!!!! He is the smartest president in history!!!
Posted by: paul mitchell at April 12, 2010 09:13 PM (8Drws)
2
Wait, so you honestly think Hu Jintao feels like he's got the upper hand on the leader of the world's most powerful nation because he received a courteous bow? How delicate are your sensibilities?
Posted by: Jefff at April 12, 2010 10:26 PM (8/jG/)
3
God forbid our leader should show some courtesy to another foreign leader. Handshakes and bows are the same thing in Asian countries.
Your President is being courteous. Period.
What are you, a wilting flower or an unintelligent cowboy? Would you have Obama wrassle him to the ground to show superiority?
Posted by: CJ at April 13, 2010 01:57 AM (jsQWZ)
4
An inferior always bows to a superior. It is meant to show that the other is so much greater than you!!
Posted by: gDavid at April 13, 2010 04:40 AM (Vfgxp)
5
You don't bow as you're shaking hands, you do one or the other, not both.
Doing both at the same time is the diplomatic equivalent of wearing a belt and a suspender with your shorts.
And he keeps doing it.
Posted by: Veeshir at April 13, 2010 07:34 AM (+EM+p)
6
Thank you, Veeshir. I didn't realize that the actual etiquette breach was the bowing and shaking hands. Akin to not looking a European in the eye when you toast, I guess.
Still, the whining about superiority and getting him a spine is a separate issue, right? And I still don't get the fuss about it. Seems willfully petty.
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 08:14 AM (8/jG/)
7
It's some kind of a fetish with this guy. Anyway, leave him alone, he will need the practice, because he is going to have to bow quite a lot to the new Congress coming in after the November elections. Hehe. I will enjoy it oh-so-much more then.
Posted by: templar knight at April 13, 2010 09:05 AM (2fJ/e)
8
Wait, so you honestly think Hu Jintao feels like he's got the upper hand on the leader of the world's most powerful nation because he received a courteous bow? How delicate are your sensibilities?
Posted by Jefff at April 12, 2010 10:26 PM
I think Hu Jintao feels as though Obama has properly learned his place.
Bowing is not courtesy. Holding a door open is courtesy. Bowing is an act of deference which is why heads of state don't do it. Until Obama.
Posted by: Pablo at April 13, 2010 09:38 AM (yTndK)
9
Now, Obama may think it's a courtesy, which makes him a rube.
Posted by: Pablo at April 13, 2010 09:38 AM (yTndK)
10
Handshakes and bows are the same thing in Asian countries.
Uh, no. Find an Asian head of state bowing to anyone, ever. Good luck.
Posted by: Pablo at April 13, 2010 09:41 AM (yTndK)
11
Four if you include the mayor of ... Tampa?
Posted by: Gus Bailey at April 13, 2010 11:44 AM (B5Wgp)
12
Good points Pablo.
Bowing is a sign of deference. When our leader and representative bows, it shows that the US defers to King Fahd(sp), Emperor whatshisname or Premier Hu and subsequently Saudi Arabia, Japan and China. (apparently Tampa as well, but whatever.)
Posted by: Gus Bailey at April 13, 2010 11:47 AM (B5Wgp)
13
Has anyone outside the conservative American community put forth this interpretation of the gesture? I've been searching, and I'm only seeing conservative web sites making a deal out of it. I'd be particularly interested to see if any Chinese people are interpreting the bow to mean they've put Obama in his place.
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 12:07 PM (Atigr)
14
You can tell nobody respects him by how he's treated by world leaders. They don't have to say it, they show it all the time.
What foreign policy coup has he achieved?
Sanctions on Iran? Russia and China are playing the shell game and Obama still hasn't figured it out.
The point of what I wrote was to add some background on his ignorance.
Not only is it obsequious to bow all the time (notice the Chinese guy ain't bowing back), but he's doing it ignorantly.
He's done the same thing over and over.
That tells me he's not listening to the career protocol people (neither is Hillary, you can tell from her "overcharge" button and asking who painted Our Lady of Guadalupe).
He's making us look foolish, and deservedly so.
Posted by: Veeshir at April 13, 2010 12:18 PM (EAHqV)
15
How about looking up the practice of bowing, Jefff? Nah, that'll never work.
Posted by: Pablo at April 13, 2010 12:24 PM (yTndK)
16
Does anyone have any pictures of other heads of state bowing to Obama? This sort of thing happens all the time, right?
Posted by: Pablo at April 13, 2010 12:26 PM (yTndK)
17
The snark in me wants to say the President has vision problems. In everyone of the bows, his eyes are focused on the hands. Almost like he is afraid he will miss.
Posted by: steve b at April 13, 2010 12:32 PM (uGg6R)
18
Right, and all the assertions you're making probably seem very obviously true to you. From my perspective and from what I've read, it is not obvious at all that world leaders don't respect him. I'm sure we could have a long and heated exchange of news stories from an array of sources with all kinds of conflicting analysis and never come close to agreeing on that.
But I'm just curious to see some concrete evidence that anyone outside of the conservative media actually thinks Obama made himself look weak by bowing.
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 12:33 PM (Atigr)
19
Pablo - the assertion you are making is not about what the bow might mean generally. You are making a claim about what it means in this instance. I'll grant that Obama is not fluent in the Chinese custom of the bow. But if you want to make a deeper claim than that -- say, that Hu Jintao feels he's put Obama in "his place", I would just like to see some evidence. Or maybe even see someone without a declared antipathy for Obama agree with you.
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 12:41 PM (Atigr)
20
Jeff, do you understand what bowing means or not? Did you bother to look into it?
And yes, while I hypothesized what Hu might think of the thing, the fact is that heads of state do not bow to each other, except for Obama.
From my perspective and from what I've read, it is not obvious at all that world leaders don't respect him.
So, other world leaders bow to him, then? Who? When?
Posted by: Pablo at April 13, 2010 02:01 PM (yTndK)
21
Pablo, I never said that other leaders bow to him. Clearly, it's something that Obama likes to do. A style thing, I guess. Does this make him look weak? It does TO YOU. It's very obvious you don't like Obama's style. But you're claiming something about how it makes him look to others. If your claim were correct, I'd imagine there would be a better way to show me than by bare assertion.
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 02:12 PM (Atigr)
22
And yes, I understand what bowing often means in certain cultures. But it doesn't necessarily follow that what it means between two Chinese citizens is the same thing it means when the President of the US does it. But again, if it did mean the same thing to anyone but American conservatives, it should be pretty easy to demonstrate.
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 02:28 PM (Atigr)
23
BTW, I love the circular logic.
A: I can't believe Obama bowed!
B: Why does bowing matter?
A: Because then no one else respects him.
B: How do you know they don't respect him?
A: Because they don't bow!
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 02:42 PM (Atigr)
24
Bowing is exactly what you do to someone who owns your butt, and could unload your t bills.
Posted by: Old Rebel at April 13, 2010 03:17 PM (eTIZJ)
25
Does this make him look weak? It does TO YOU.
So, you still don't understand the tradition of bowing, then?
Posted by: Pablo at April 13, 2010 03:43 PM (yTndK)
26
Pablo, you could smugly sniff your nose at me or you could unequivocally prove that I'm wrong. If I am, it should be easy to do.
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 04:12 PM (Atigr)
27
Hmm. Let's us recall, please, that the founders of our nation were determined that there be no remnant of class or fealty to royalty in America. To that end, various of the founders, including our early presidents, went out of their way to avoid such shows of subordination as bowing. The point? Americans, particularly American presidents, bow to no one. Prior to Obama, no one has so broken from the protocol and practice of America.
Bowing, in Asian cultures where bowing is common, have a variety of rules. Bowing, when done mutually, is a demonstration of mutual respect, but even then, status is always a factor with those of lower status bowing more deeply or longer.
Notice in the photograph that only one person is bowing. To those cultures that do bow, such as the Chinese, this indicates that both people involved know who is subordinate and of lower status. You don't suppose the fellow to whom Obama is bowing is so happy merely because he's glad to see Obama, do you? He's delighted, perhaps even amused, that Obama continues to prostrate himself--and his nation--at every opportunity.
Bowing, particularly when done by an American president, is anti-American and sends precisely the wrong message to our allies and enemies, unless that is, that president is trying to send a message of weakness and subordination.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at April 13, 2010 05:15 PM (qjRSd)
28
Actually, Mike, Obama is not the first president to bow. At least HW and Nixon also did. Though Nixon didn't make the handshake mistake.
Once again though, you're all conjecture about what this particular bow means to anyone but yourself. And I can see why all of you conservatives are prone to take each others words for it, but what about outside your little planet? Does anyone here know how to support an assertion?
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 05:27 PM (Atigr)
29
Pablo, you could smugly sniff your nose at me or you could unequivocally prove that I'm wrong. If I am, it should be easy to do.
Oh, yes it should. Is bowing an act of deference? Yes or no?
Posted by: Pablo at April 13, 2010 05:40 PM (yTndK)
30
Pablo, if you think I have been saying that bowing is not generically a sign of deference, then you have either not read or not understood my comments.
My question to you is whether this bow actually meant Obama was declaring himself weak or inferior or anything else to anybody but the conservatives who already hate him.
And actually, that's a weaker version of my original question, but let's just start with something easy.
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 05:54 PM (Atigr)
31
Is there any leader of any hostile country that this weak fool has met and hasn't bowed to?
Posted by: emdfl at April 13, 2010 06:22 PM (vwRFo)
32
My question to you is whether this bow actually meant Obama was declaring himself weak or inferior or anything else to anybody but the conservatives who already hate him.
Does anyone think he was declaring himself weak or inferior when engaged in an act that signifies deference? There are only two reasonable conclusions: either he's deferring to the person he's bowing to (which would be a "Yes") or he doesn't understand what he's doing (which would be a "No, he's just ignorant.")
Neither of them are helpful. If he wants to break the protocol mold, he should start teaching world leaders to fist bump, because they're not going to bow back to him. Which, then he looks stupid.
Posted by: Pablo at April 13, 2010 06:40 PM (yTndK)
33
Oh, and was that what Obama really meant? Either it was, or he's ignorant. You make the call.
Maybe you'd like to review some apology tour greatest hits, or his diplomatic outreach to the new Kazakhstan govt.
Posted by: Pablo at April 13, 2010 06:46 PM (yTndK)
34
The leader of a huge slave state that has adopted some crony capitalism to keep from collapsing under its own population, and that has created a 30 million male surplus in its population, is arguably not the equal of even the worst president of the United States...Jintao is still a dictator who stifles dissent and crushes real improvements in his people's lives...like free speech on the Internet.
Posted by: kalashnikat at April 13, 2010 07:15 PM (TU1Od)
35
Ok Mr. Apology Tour, now we're getting somewhere. If all you were trying to show me is that Obama made some perhaps-ill-advised but still superficial and ultimately meaningless sign of deference to the leader of China (about whom I agree with kalashnikat), then there'd be no argument.
But that's not what you're saying. You're trying to project your view of Obama as weak and overly-apologetic on the rest of the world. And while I'm sure you could perform a right-wing liturgy reciting why we all should see the man as weak, you can't even quote or link to one person outside of the American conservative scene saying this particular gesture was symbolic of anything real at all. Come on! Even if I'm right and this isn't a big deal, there's got to be one lone voice you can point to out there.
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 07:49 PM (8/jG/)
36
"...project your view of Obama as weak and overly-apologetic on the rest of the world. "
no need to do that - statements by Ahmadinejad(sp), Chavez, and the Russian leadership prove that they DO view him as weak. In a way I agree that the bowing is not as important as the radical anti-Americanism that mars 0bama's past associations time after time. You can bet that foreign nations have researched who exerted a formative influence on the Kenyan when he was young, and what sorts of policies they espoused. Based on their research it's likely that they see a man at best ambivalent about his nation, and at worst deeply dismissive of it. Barring, of course, some miraculous repudiation of the poison he's ingested from Reverend Goddam America, Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Sunstein, & countless others.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 13, 2010 08:02 PM (Eg9Id)
37
"You can tell nobody respects him by how he's treated by world leaders."
Seen the Medvedev/Stephanopoulos interview?
STEPHANOPOULOS: What do you make of Barack Obama the man?
MEDVEDEV: He's very comfortable partner, it's very interesting to be with him. The most important thing that distinguishes him from many other people – I won't name anyone by name – he's a thinker, he thinks when he speaks. Which is already pretty good.
Search youtube, since I can't post a link here. Video evidence the enemy too?
Nice try, though.
Posted by: CJ at April 13, 2010 08:21 PM (jsQWZ)
38
Guys, Jefff is a classic butt-kissing idiot, and you'll never confuse him with the facts. Heck, he's so smart he figured out the "Nixon did it, too!" defense all by himself, never mind several million spineless apologists beat him to it a few weeks ago...
All Hail Obama! Master Of Our Fates! Supreme Leader of our Country!
Never Question The Supreme Leader!
Posted by: Casey at April 14, 2010 12:11 AM (k/2dm)
39
No Casey, I didn't bring up Nixon to defend Obama's bow. There are enough differences between the two to give you guys room to argue for why Obama's bow was worse -- if you were interested in that.
I mentioned Nixon because it was evidence that disproved a specific claim. You want to talk about facts? That's a fact. Another fact is that nobody here has been able to produce evidence that this bow matters to anyone outside the American right wing, much less in foreign countries. Yes, you've explained to me how it fits in oh so snugly with the rest of your world view, but you've also shown that you're helpless in explaining yourselves to someone who doesn't already share that world view.
Is there a better test of whether you're in an echo chamber?
Posted by: Jefff at April 14, 2010 08:48 AM (8/jG/)
40
"Another fact is that nobody here has been able to produce evidence that this bow matters to anyone outside the American right wing"
False. A conservative website (smalldeadanimals, possibly) quoted a reliable source as saying that 0bama's first bow in Japan WAS in fact a gaffe that confused and embarrassed the Japanese onlookers (who will, no doubt, be maligned by present company as part of Amerikkka's right wing). Of course, the Japanese were kind enough to "go along" and not embarrass the Kenyan. Will try to dig up the link.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 14, 2010 11:00 AM (Eg9Id)
41
Did Jefff (or others with hypocritical views) make all kinds of judgements about W Bush's "swagger" and his manner of Texas-English?
Jefff clearly defends a bowing protocol which, on the surface doesn't have deep meaning to Americans, but does to other cultures.
Was Bush showing signs of weakness or arrogance or ignorance, as so many liberals are wont to claim, because of his body language and manner of speaking?
If so, prove it. Other than at a littany of liberal, lefty websites and the lefty MSM will you find anyone who thought so....
In your own, similar words Jefff, "My question to you is whether Bush's "swagger" or "Texas English" actually meant Bush was showing himself arrogant or ignorant or anything else to anybody but the lefty liberals who already despised and hated him.?
Works both ways....but the big difference is, Bush's "swagger" and English didn't exhibit, purposefully or otherwise, any major American weakness. Nor did it give off an air of "I'm President, I'm weak, and I apologize for America" like Obama does.
Posted by: sharprightturn at April 14, 2010 05:31 PM (dP1uw)
42
Yes, you've explained to me how it fits in oh so snugly with the rest of your world view, but you've also shown that you're helpless in explaining yourselves to someone who doesn't already share that world view.
I don't read Chinese, and I suspect you don't either, but how do you suppose the Chinese State media is framing this? Keeping in mind the radical right wing history of bowing...
Your worldview is an Etch a Sketch, Jefff.
Posted by: Pablo at April 15, 2010 09:12 AM (yTndK)
43
The fact that the bow was not returned speaks to what the Chinese Premier thought. Additionally, where is the Office of Protocol in all of this? Certainly they know the meanging of the bow - its their job not only to know, but to advise Ubumma accordingly. So is he not listening to his staff, or are they incompetant too?
Posted by: Michael Smith at April 16, 2010 03:30 PM (T4ASz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Great Depression Ended Because Roosevelt Died and Couldn't Extend It
That's the soundbite take-away from this WSJ article that runs counter to the great liberal myth that make-work government programs do anything other than prolong economic downturns and stifle the prospects for recovery.
FDR had every intention of ramming through "New Deal II," and after he expired, Truman asked Congress to carry out his wishes.
Congress said "no" and instead undertook strategic tax cuts that spurred the private sector growth that finally pulled the nation out of the Roosevelt-lengthened Great Depression. That's something to keep in mind as we head into 2010.
The President can propose any budget he wants, but it is ultimately Congress that makes the laws and has the power to cut taxes and repeal or de-fund bloated federal spending.
If we want to power our way out of our current economic malaise, our best course of action is to elect fiscally responsible representatives that favor cutting bloated federal programs and taxes, no matter which party they represent.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:10 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The main thing we must learn about the great depression is how it happened. Many controls were put into place for our economy to help lessen the effects of a depression or even a recession. But when those controls were dismantled or even ignored look what happened. We found ourselves in the midst of another great economic collapse.
Furthermore if you look at the countries that were climbing out of the great depression before the war they all did that through government creation of work and by restricting the free markets.
The free market system is not an efficient system as well and does need some checks and balances to help lessen the ups and downs.
Posted by: JAB at April 12, 2010 01:39 PM (y9FQi)
2
Even though FDR tried a public works program and other subsidies to try and restart the economy he also tried to keep a balanced budget as well. Some economist say this fact alone only hindered FDR's programs and if FDR would have spent more during the worst years then it would have done a lot more to get the US out of the great depression earlier. Once the world war broke out then the US government started pouring much more money into the economy in the name of national defense.
An example of this was the country of Sweden which fully embraced Keynesian economics during the great depression and was one of the first countries to emerge from it before the war.
Posted by: JAB at April 12, 2010 01:53 PM (y9FQi)
3
Post World War II economic success was due in large measure to the Marshall Plan, and to the fact that European countries did not have to spend much on defense, because the U.S. was providing most of that.
It was not due to government control in their economies.
Governments can print currency, and ensure stability and fairness by enforcing contract law and promoting competition. Beyond that, governments usually hinder the economy.
Posted by: MKS at April 12, 2010 02:18 PM (+hPIb)
4
JAB,
You are wrong. Period. Government is distructive. It does not create a single thing and is as inefficient as can get. The two societies you are referring to in the pre-war period are Germany and the USSR, enough said. Other than the fact that when Stalin and Hitler wanted fewer mouths to feed, they just killed them.
The other economies in the world recovered in the classic manner of a typical downturn, except for the US. What was unique about us was the interference of FDR and his group. There is very good reason to believe he intentionally manipulated the economy to keep it is the hole. This was not corrected until about 1952, well after his death and after the Repubs had been able to bring some sanity to the government.
A good book on this is "The Forgotten Man". Caution, it will make your blood pressure go up.
Also, consider that Obama and group are doing everything in their power to distroy our system. This could not be more clear, Why?
Posted by: David at April 12, 2010 02:42 PM (jHK8i)
5
David
Sorry but if you just look at the history of the great depression you will see the governments that came out of it the soonest were governments that spent money to generate jobs, which is what Keynesian policy dictates. Sweden was foremost among them and Germany as well.
As for the Republican policy why does it seem that we have major economic issues when this party happens to be in control?
As for MKS we are on the subject of the great depression which was before World War II not after so your comments clearly do not apply here.
Posted by: JAB at April 12, 2010 04:40 PM (y9FQi)
6
JAB - Your comments clearly do not apply either. You know little of what you are espousing about emerging from the depression or the economic growth leading up to and as a result of WWII, or the impact of Keynesian economics. Lots of good books out there on FDR/Great Depression, etc... Open your mind and eyes and seek and you will find. Clearly not enough space to educate you here.
There is a second point which always blows you and your liberal friends out of the water. Libs like you always like to compare the USA with a Sweden, a Denmark, a France or even Germany - but the great flaw is the HUGE difference in the size and diversity of the countries - which has an even BIGGER impact on the application of social control economics. The USA is 3.794 million square miles compared to 173,000 square miles for Sweden(thats 22x bigger), and the U.S. population is 33x larger, and VERY diverse compared to a totally homogeneous population in Sweden. This applies in 1929, 1934, and 1945 and even today in 2010. Comparing the USA to Sweden is like comparing a battle ship to a dinghy. Nice try, better luck next time trying to sell that old, failed socialism system.
Posted by: mixitup at April 12, 2010 05:40 PM (Z21cb)
7
JAB - The government ran consistent budget deficits under Roosevelt during the 1930s. Spending rose continuously except for a brief drop in 1937 and 1938. If you contend the formula worked for Europe, why did it not work here?
You are just flat out wrong. Check your data.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 12, 2010 05:41 PM (OlESl)
8
Oh, I see, we edit out the posts that call you revisionist kooks.
And we mark progressive blogs as "questionable content".
Insecure much?
Posted by: CJ at April 12, 2010 07:15 PM (jsQWZ)
9
JAB,
I don't think you have any idea about what you are commenting on. Get out of Wikipedia and read a book.
Posted by: David at April 12, 2010 07:38 PM (jHK8i)
10
JAB,
Since you like Wikipedia so much, try this one on for size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321
Interesting that this depression only lasted 1 and a half years, considering how bad it was. And why was that? Maybe it was Harding's response to it? Shrink Government, cut spending, tax cuts, etc. Compare that to Roosevelt's response, and how long the Great Depression lasted. Yep, sure is interesting.
Posted by: Jim at April 13, 2010 05:54 AM (YTe8V)
11
Jim - From reading that article, it looks like that depression lasted 7 months, which is much shorter than the span from the beginning of the Great Depression and FDR taking office (over 2 years). Wouldn't it be fairer to compare Hoover's response with Harding's rather than Roosevelt's?
I do see the part of the article that talks about Harding's response of non-influence being a positive factor, but I also see that it's an argument made by only one scholar and not necessarily a consensus.
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 08:26 AM (8/jG/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Rising Disgust: 58-Percent Want to Repeal Obamacare
The latest from Rasmussen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:57 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Stoner Obama Quoted Reggae Artist In Nuclear Arms Screed
Wow. He's so deep.
In his article Obama praised the nuclear freeze movement and celebrated the work of two groups: Arms Race Alternatives and Students Against Militarism. By Obama's description of them, the groups were among the "useful idiots" promoting the Soviet line on Reagan's build-up: "These groups, visualizing the possibilities of destruction and grasping the tendencies of distorted national priorities, are shifting their weight into throwing America off the dead-end track."
Obama expressed and dismissed a possible reservation regarding the "narrow focus" of the groups, citing the deep wisdom of Peter Tosh that "everybody's asking for peace, but nobody's asking for justice." Heavy, man.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:05 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Are you saying you don't think justice is important for peace? Or just that you don't like reggae? Have you never quoted a song to emphasize a point?
Posted by: Jefff at April 12, 2010 10:29 AM (cHEw0)
2
I haven't, no, because when I'm dealing with very serious topics, I don't reach into my bag of 80s song lyrics (Gen X here) that would weaken my argument. (How about, I dunno, quoting from, say, a work of philosophy or, say, a famous statesman--Churchill, for example, seems just about Obama's speed.)
Posted by: ECM at April 12, 2010 11:16 AM (nYKDd)
3
Ok, but how does quoting a lyric weaken an argument? I mean, if all you're doing is making fun of Obama's taste, that's fine. But the sentiment linking peace with justice seems pretty salient to me.
Posted by: Jefff at April 12, 2010 12:48 PM (cHEw0)
4
...So you're not at all concerned about how easily the Great Kenyan Hope was duped by "peaceful" Communist front groups, took a knee-jerk anti-American position, and failed to understand the benefits of nuclear deterrence. The fact is, quoting from a reggae artist reflects the Kenyan's inability to take complex national security issues seriously - an inability that continues to this day.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 12, 2010 09:40 PM (Eg9Id)
5
I was addressing the main point of the post. But certainly, I would be concerned if the situation at all resembled what you describe, but it's pretty clear that Obama (what is the kick you get out of calling him by his ancestry?) does understand the benefits of nuclear deterrence, as demonstrated by the details of the recent nuclear treaty (which maintains deterrence, contrary to some shabby reporting and analysis) and by his work on the issue in the Senate.
And seriously, is anyone actually going to argue that justice isn't an excellent way of achieving peace? Is it so hard to admit you agree with a reggae singer?
Posted by: Jefff at April 12, 2010 10:15 PM (8/jG/)
6
Let us first hear the definition of "justice" that you and obumble favor, Jefff.
Posted by: emdfl at April 13, 2010 06:17 PM (vwRFo)
7
In the interest of finding common ground, how about we let you choose the terms? I would bet that a society you would call just would also be more likely to be what you would call peaceful. Fair? (Or whatever your idea of "fair" is.)
Posted by: Jefff at April 13, 2010 06:42 PM (Atigr)
8
"does understand the benefits of nuclear deterrence, as demonstrated by the details of the recent nuclear treaty"
False. Putin & company rolled the Kenyan big-time at the recent "summit". Russia Reserving the right to build weapons-systems that 0bama wants the US NOT to build clearly marks the US as an inferior partner in this agreement. Judging by his past conduct and statements, this does not bother 0bama - after all, a nation that is "bitter", "high-handed", "dismissive", etc. probably cannot be trusted to use its power responsibly. Once again, a reflection of the quasi-Marxist anti-Americanism that he inherited from his pedophile mentor, racist priest, and absentee mother.
"justice isn't an excellent way of achieving peace"
Meaningless. Multiple cultural & strategic interests mean that one party's idea of "justice" will be irreconcilable with another. Consider Iran's position on a "just" solution to the Mideast crisis vs. that of Israel and the United States.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 13, 2010 07:55 PM (Eg9Id)
9
It's an interesting point about differing ideas of justice. Perhaps that's a defining attribute of justice -- that all parties feel they are being treated justly. Or at the very least, you are right that peace is difficult between those with different ideas about what is just, but I think the point remains that if you can get people to agree on a model of justice, peace is a short step away.
Forgive me, I am not familiar with which weapons system you're talking about that Russia can build and we can't. Link?
As far as the rest of your comment goes, I'm sure all of that makes sense to those already versed in the right wing narrative, but it reads like a mix of hyperbole and selective reading to me. Obama has certainly talked about America's greatness more than he has its weakness.
Posted by: Jefff at April 14, 2010 10:16 AM (Atigr)
10
www.colony14.net, April 2010 section
Whereas 0bama as an undergraduate and a presidential candidate has advocated blanket eliminations of nuclear weapons, Putin and others seem to take a different view. Refer to paragraphs preceding section 10196:
"(In December 2009 Russia announced that it will be building new offensive weapons and missiles; China has been increasing its arsenal at a rapid pace. Neither Russia nor China is likely to follow Obama’s lead.)"
"While Obama hopes for the best with his nuclear policy, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov states that although his nation intends to sign a new arms control treaty with Obama, “Russia will have the right to opt out of the treaty if …the U.S. strategic missile defense begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces.” (No treaty signed by a U.S. president becomes effective until approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.) Russia has clearly snookered Obama on the arms reduction treaty. The Associated Press notes that Russia had demanded “an explicit link between strategic arms cuts and development of the U.S. missile defense system. …Moscow eventually agreed to have just a general statement noting a link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons.” As Obama prepares to travel to Prague to sign the agreement with President Dmitry Medvedev, Russia announces that may ultimately ignore it—knowing full well that Obama will not back out just two days before the ceremony. [10210, 10222]"
In short, Russians will continue to build up OFFENSIVE systems (which 0bama has derided & demanded that the US stop doing)while the Kenyan continues to pursue his undergraduate pipe dream. In addition, 0bama was a fool for letting Russia opt out AND choose the circumstances under which it may opt out. Russia is likely to act in bad faith (based on its prior conduct between 1945-present) and will almost certainly use some pretext as a reason for asserting that American actions are affecting the global nuclear ballance.
Once again the Kenyan is exposed as a rube, as are the legions of apologists here and elsewhere with a quasi-totalitarian loathing of any 0bama criticism.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 14, 2010 11:11 AM (Eg9Id)
11
Nine,
How many more OFFENSIVE (why the caps???) weapons do you thing the US needs to be able to deter Russia? We've had 1000s fewer warheads than Russia for decades now and it doesn't seem to have prevented us from deterring them.
As for China, they have what, 250 warheads to our 9500? We're talking about reducing that number by 25-30%. So if China builds 10 times what they currently have, and we cut our arsenal by 30%, we'll still have roughly three times as many warheads.
We are doomed!
Posted by: Jim at April 14, 2010 09:30 PM (TNxYU)
12
"How many more OFFENSIVE (why the caps???) weapons do you thing [sic] the US needs to be able to deter Russia?"
I THING that redundancy is important - multiple warheads need to be directed at a single target. Hardened shelters & large military complexes (such as those on Kamchatka (sp) will require more than one warhead. You're guaranteed that many delivery vehicles and missiles will be lost due to countermeasures, ground fire, SAM's, and mechanical failure. Thus, during a nuclear exchange AT LEAST several hundred warheads will either fail to reach their destinations or fail to destroy their targets.
"We're doomed?" Good one. Almost as funny as observing the Affirmative Action copy-boy who only got in based on his skin - lol.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 16, 2010 11:05 PM (Eg9Id)
13
Both countries are cutting about one third of their systems, leaving the US with roughly 6500 warheads. Redundancy is important, and 6500 H bombs is pretty darn redundant.
Posted by: Jim at April 17, 2010 01:10 AM (TNxYU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Finally! Audio Exposes Racist Comments Hurled at Black Prof During Obamacare Debate
Unlike the faked cries of racism ginned up by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, these were actually recorded.
A
related article is also worth your time.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:18 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Pimp My Rifle
I know that cultures throughout world history have decorated their weapons, but the gentleman to the left in this article is a great example of going over the top, with artistic license taken with his rifle, its magazine, and the underslung grenade launcher.
It probably would have been more impressive if he'd actually taken care of the AK, which appears to have a field-repaired cracked wood stock and the finish worn down to bare metal almost everywhere.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:58 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Colors mean alot to those ppl..I purchased a dvd called "Guns of Afghanistan"..and it pretty much shown the old muskets that were handed down generation to generation and they were decked out..the Afghanistani ppl who have the AK rifles now were mostly confiscated from the Russians..also on the dvd it shows them building AK rifles with the most primitive conditions and tools and they are none better as it showed at this..they even get the serial numbers or insignias correct in the metal..I was amazed after watching the dvd what these ppl can do with almost nothing in the way of tools or a building to do it in..almost always handmade..skilled and they have plenty of ingenuity...which is obvious as they kicked russian butt and is in the process of doing same to us
Posted by: azurevirus at April 12, 2010 09:58 AM (R17kw)
2
These kinds of incidents are all too common over there, as General McChrystal recently reminded us. Perhaps they are inevitable in this kind of warfare, which is a damn good reason for us not to be there in the first place. Even if we "win", and I can't imagine what victory would look like, there are any number of piss-poor countries with the same problems that could also serve as terrorist havens. We have neither the time, resources or will to take them all on, so why sacrifice another Afghan or American life needlessly?
Posted by: Will Butler at April 12, 2010 06:56 PM (LgpMF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 11, 2010
Planned Parenthood: Don't Tell Anyone you Have HIV. Just Do It.
Patterico has found just another facet of the Responsibility-Free Lifestyle™ that the left always champions, where no one should have to account for their actions and everything becomes a "right," from the "right" to marry whoever you want to the "right" to health care to the "right" to affordable housing to the "right" Planned Parenthood is trying to create, the "right" of HIV-positive people to have sex with someone without informing them that their life may be put at risk.
CNS News cites the
shocking claim:
"Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else," the guide states. "These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges."
Under the heading "Sexual Pleasure and Well-Being," the guide declares that it is a human right and not a criminal issue as to whether a person decides if or when to disclose their HIV status, even if they engage in sexual activities.
According to this most favored and revered of liberal institutions, it is your "right" to put someone else's life at risk for your pleasure.
Warped?
Beyond belief.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:06 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
No CJ, we are American. Murder is a capitol offense. Free sex without informing the consensual partner that you are carrying a deadly disease is PREMEDITATED MURDER. In this world (and the next) there are consequences for your actions. It's time you liberal freaks learn that lesson, sit down, and shut up!
Posted by: CMe at April 11, 2010 09:38 PM (qMWAQ)
2
Lol-we can only hope that CJ's partner is more honest than (s)he thinks other human beings ought to be. On the other hand, if said partner DOES give CJ a nice little gift, IMO the collective IQ around here would go up a bit.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 11, 2010 09:44 PM (Eg9Id)
3
CJ put down the Kool-Aid, it's warped your brain.
Anyone diagnosed with a STD should be required by law to inform their partner before they engage in sexual activity.
Those that are non-life threatening should be liable for any medical costs incurred treating the disease they passed on. Those with AIDs or any future life threatening STD that may come along should be held criminally responsible.
Sorry but STDs aren't like the cold or flu and those that have one should be responsible for not spreading it to others. If said other person decides to go ahead and play Russian roulette then they have no liability.
Posted by: Scott at April 12, 2010 07:55 AM (EBCRo)
4
Just to clarify. If you had the clap back in 1995 there is no need to disclose that. If you have herpes, syphilis, HIV, or some other incurable STD or are currently being treated for a curable one but are still contagious then you should have to inform your partner.
Posted by: Scott at April 12, 2010 07:59 AM (EBCRo)
5
While being in agreement in general, let's examine the statement 'it is your "right" to put someone else's life at risk for your pleasure.' for just a second.
I claim in fact, that it is. In the sense where 'right' = 'behavior allowed by the state' (perverse leftie definition).
Consider the lowly automobile. I can take two tons of steel, get it going over 88 feet per second, and point it right at you (remember those muslims who did?). And I am allowed to do so by the state if I merely desire to 'drive', as it's called. I am allowed to 'drive' with no perticular destination, at my pleasure and leisure.
So the state approves of me putting you in danger of harm in pursuit of my own pleasure in this instance, why not in others?
Posted by: Bill Johnson at April 12, 2010 09:00 AM (gOKhC)
6
However you are also held accountable for any injuries you may inflict while behind the wheel.
Also engaging in behavior like drinking alcohol and driving which increases the chances of you injuring someone while behind the wheel is illegal.
Bad example BJ.
Posted by: Scott at April 13, 2010 09:33 AM (6yHgW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
CNN Commentor: Confederate Soldiers Were All Terrorists
How horrible it must be to view your world through a prism like that that blinds CNN's Roland Martin. The poor man is so conflicted by his own bigotry that he can't tell the difference between Confederate soldiers of the Civil War and al Qaeda terrorists.
When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for "invading" its "homeland," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil. He has objected to our bases in Saudi Arabia, and that's one of the reasons he has launched his jihad against us. Is there really that much of a difference between him and the Confederates? Same language; same cause; same effect.
If a Confederate soldier was merely doing his job in defending his homeland, honor and heritage, what are we to say about young Muslim radicals who say the exact same thing as their rationale for strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up cafes and buildings?
If the Sons of Confederate Veterans use as a talking point the vicious manner in which people in the South were treated by the North, doesn't that sound exactly like the Taliban saying they want to kill Americans for the slaughter of innocent people in Afghanistan?
Defenders of the Confederacy say that innocent people were killed in the Civil War; hasn't the same argument been presented by Muslim radicals in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places where the U.S. has tangled with terrorists?
We can't on the one hand justify the actions of Confederates as being their duty as valiant men of the South, and then condemn the Muslim extremists who want to see Americans die a brutal death. These men are held up as honorable by their brethren, so why do Americans see them as different from our homegrown terrorists?
Implied Roland Martin's bizarre comparison is a direct parallel between Fort Sumter and the 9/11 terror attacks.
Does CNN really want to stand behind this view?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:08 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CNN's rating are so low, not too many people even know about this except those die-hards who still live in a cave and haven't discovered other cable news! But it is still an outrage, and this will (or should) hurt their ratings even more, at a time that they need to do something POSITIVE.
Enough of that, I am outraged that it was even said, no matter who or where. My grandfather, his brothers, uncles, and great grandfather all served in WWII, WW1, Civil War... They were ALL generals, colonels, have multi-purple heart awards, just to name a few. I can't take it when people actually believe this - they aparently had no one in their family serve who could tell them stories of what they went through to keep us free and safe. My grandfather wouldn't even tell me some of them, but he didn't particularly enjoy the beach much if that tells you anything.
I guess I shouldn't let people like this bother me since they are simply showing their ignorance. Like I said at the beginning, at least there aren't many people who saw it!
Posted by: Jennifer at April 11, 2010 04:09 PM (Grw8Q)
2
Well the CNN guy is making a much more nuanced argument than saying that Ft Sumter = 9-11, and you know that of course, you're just going for full outrage mode to try and frame the conversation.
However, you have to realize you leave yourself open to this sort of thing when you call Iraqi men who fire upon the US Army in Baghdad terrorists, but want to call the men who fired upon the US Army at Ft. Sumter heros.
Posted by: Jim at April 11, 2010 04:20 PM (TNxYU)
3
Evidently, CNN has abandoned anything like a mainstream audience in pursuit of MSNBC's four or five nutjob viewers. Wonder how long their parent company can keep footing the bill for their losses.
Posted by: Dr. Horrible at April 11, 2010 05:02 PM (Dj4BX)
4
Jim,
Whoever is using the term terrorists in the way you describe is obviously using the wrong term. Insurgents or rebels (since they are against their own country also)would be proper phraseology until they set off the bomb in a market to kill civilians in order to make civilians fear their actions. Then they are terrorists because their actions are not targeted at opposing military forces or industrial capacities for the production of war material. In this vein (and the laws of war at the time) the better example of terrorism in the civil war would be "Sherman's March to the Sea" in which the civilians were purposely targeted.
South Carolina had formally seceded (thus meeting the standard of the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence). Federal troops were not in Ft. Sumter when South Carolina seceded. On 21 Dec 1860 (just after the secession) an eeditorial in the "Philadelphia Press" stated:
"The government cannot well avoid collecting the federal revenues at all southern ports, even after the passage of succession ordinances..."
On Christmas night 1860, a small garrison of 100 men were moved from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter. As Lincoln stated in his inaugural address, taxes were foremost in his mind. He would collect the taxes. (please note that the tariff on goods imported to the south was the primary source of funds for redistribution to the north such as the fishing subsidies for New England). On April 12th, 1861 (the inaugural address was 4 March), South Carolina conducted an artillery bombardment on Ft. Sumter that killed absolutely no one. When the troops in Ft. Sumter ran out of ammunition shooting back, they surrendered the fort and South Carolina shipped them home.
So, I fail to see much of anything to compare.
Posted by: RRRoark at April 11, 2010 06:05 PM (Y/4ua)
5
Unfortunately, CNN will stand behind this ass, Roland Martin... For the record, it wasn't a Civil War...It was a war between the states...BTY...who said it was over???
Posted by: dgj at April 11, 2010 07:03 PM (kNev5)
6
Roark,
Good reply. To add to it. Secession is legal via the Constitution. SC excerised its right to withdraw from the contract made with the other states. The only thing that historians disagree on is the method used to secede. So for a parliamentarian step, 600,000 or more people lost their lives.
As to Sumter, Lincoln actually sent three different sets of ships to invade Charleston harbor. This was the catalyst that set off the war, much as when Hitler said that Poland tried to invade Germany in 1939.
As to terrorist, Lincoln was the man on this. His actions can only be compared to Hitler, Stalin and the Japs.
Posted by: David at April 11, 2010 07:10 PM (jHK8i)
7
Also don't forget that Lincoln was an ardent supporter of secession and self-determination... when he was in Congress and the subject was Texas' right to those. Like almost every politician, though, once living up to his alleged principle would have cost him something, he dropped it like a hot potato. "Honest Abe," indeed.
If most of us tried to "preserve" our marital unions like Abe tried to "preserve" the Union, we'd be executed.
Posted by: Dr. Horrible at April 11, 2010 07:59 PM (Dj4BX)
8
There's one huge difference Mr. Martin and others here seem to miss: The North and the South were - supposedly - part of the same country. We here in the U.S. are not part of the same country as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The North invaded the South as one group of countrymen attacking another. They were supposed to be our brothers, we were all supposed to be on the same side. That's not true of our occupying troops. So while the Muslims could have a point, it is not at all the same point the Confederates made with respect to the North.
Sumter was fired on b/c Lincoln broke his promise and tried to reinforce the fort. He had given his word to South Carolina reps that the fort would not be reinforced, lying through his teeth all the time b/c he'd already sent the reinforcements. SC warned Lincoln that the fort would be fired on if he tried to reinforce. So it's clear Lincoln baited the South into firing. The firing on the fort was not an act of terrorism. In fact, the people of Charleston fed the soldiers inside the fort when their rations ran out, and relations b/w the city and the fort were amiable. The attack on the fort was bloodless - no one was hurt and it was over very quickly.
As an aside, anyone who says secession isn't legal has never sat down and thought things through, or read his/her Constitution. Secession is exactly what we did when we declared our independence from Great Britain. If that was legal, so is any other act of secession.
Posted by: KSterling at April 11, 2010 08:32 PM (XE19V)
9
KSterling I commend your accuracy of the events that started of the War of Northern Aggression however at the point the Confederate States seceded they were in fact sovereign nations. When they formed the CSA they then became one sovereign nation. So they were in fact no longer "countrymen" no more than France, Italy, and Spain are "countrymen" even though at one point they were all under the Roman rule. I hate to seem to nit pick but this is a point that is often glossed over, that Lincoln invaded a sovereign nation that had legally seceded from the United States.
If American Troops in Afghanistan were like the US troops during the War of Succession then they'd go around robbing the Afghan people, destroying their homes and crops, villages, and infrastructure. Martin has his head placed firmly in his posterior. Confederate Troops stuck to rules of engagement and Lee flatly refused to engage in the tactics used by US commanders against the civilian populace.
Posted by: Scott at April 12, 2010 07:41 AM (6yHgW)
10
Thank you Bob. This just reaffirms that CNN are nothing but shills and hacks hawking to the lowest common denominator.
Posted by: Gus Bailey at April 12, 2010 12:10 PM (B5Wgp)
11
Scott, you make a good point. However, the "countrymen" part is relevant, because it was Lincoln's call for troops that pretty much decided several states in favor of secession. They felt that if their countrymen were willing to invade fellow states, then they wanted no part of the United States any longer. This is the case for Va. NC, and Tennessee, which seceded after the Lincoln's call for troops (in response to the firing on Sumter). Also, because so many soldiers on both sides had family members fighting for, or living in, the other side, it felt to many, if not most, soldiers that they were fighting their own countrymen. Certainly they were all former countrymen. The distinctions you make, while technically true, were not part of the Southern, or Northern, psyche at the time of the firing on Sumter. The state of the nation, and of the Confederacy (which was so fledgling at the time that it had no real structure) was in rapid flux. Certainly the Confederacy had no real ability to defend its borders, and had no governmental structure in place except on paper - and even that was minimal. At the time of the firing on Sumter, representatives from several Southern states were negotiating with Lincoln in hopes of restoring the Union.
Even after the war had gone on for years, people on both sides continued to think of people on the other side as their fellow countrymen. And in fact that was part of the rhetoric, on both sides, when the war ended.
The various states, whether in the North or the South, sprang from the same initiating event (ie, the Revolutionary War), spoke the same language, and had similar cultures. The comparison of North and South as being equivalent to France and Spain is inaccurate, b/c those nations have no common origin, no common language and no common culture.
Posted by: KSterling at April 12, 2010 01:55 PM (XE19V)
12
Sterling,
Good points. I might point out that the Yankee army was really not populated by Northern men. About half the arm were immigrants and another quarter were freed slaves.
Posted by: David at April 12, 2010 07:41 PM (jHK8i)
13
Pretty laughable that CNN would take this tack. I'm not sure they really want to go there, considering the conduct of some Federal units on Southern soil during the war. I studied under James McPherson - definitely no Southern apologist - and the reading materials for his civil war class detailed some pretty graphic instances of Union troops' vandalism, pillage, and rape. These atrocities were often perpetrated against the blacks whom the Northerners were supposedly "liberating". But, no, it's the Southerners alone who wore the black hats in CNN's warped world...
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 12, 2010 09:46 PM (Eg9Id)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 10, 2010
So Who Really is More Dangerous for America?
A fraudulent showman who twists people's emotions with falsehoods in order to get rich as Bob Cesca alleges, or a radicalized neophyte ideologue with his own extensive record of fraudulent and deceptive statements and a residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
Glenn Beck might bankrupt a handful of true believers. Barack Obama seems intent on bankrupting 300 million. If Bob Cesca wants to spend time targeting who is more dangerous for America's future, he needs to change his target.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:58 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Terribly sorry, but I've seen Beck's show. He embodies none of the wild charges so blithely slung by his critics. Obama? He embodies all of them, indeed, relishes them.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at April 10, 2010 06:07 PM (qjRSd)
2
The group-think crowd at PuffHo blocks any comments that hit too close to the truth, so they shouldn't be linked by credible blogs such as CY.
The following was blocked by the PuffHo moderators:
Expose? Could Cesca be just another thesaurus-toting plagiarist trying to sound smart by stringing lots of "big" words together?
Much of what's on Beck's show is unaltered video of Beck's opponents in their own words. Unlike other pundits who lift out-of-context clips to misrepresent what had actually been said, the opposition video clips Beck uses show more than either side cares to watch.
In addition to the clips, another significant percentage of the show's content was written over 200 years ago by the founding fathers. Yep, that's terribly misleading to quote the words of real intellectuals, words that are easily verifiable, as they've been quoted in thousands of books for hundreds of years.
If public schools didn't stop teaching elementary-school civics in the mid-seventies, maybe those in what passes for today's e-media wouldn't be hearing Beck's material for the first time in their lives.
Beck does offer his opinion on the facts presented, but he isn't such a pretentious pseudo-intellectual that he brands those he disagrees with as the "world's worst," nor does he pass off his opinion as any part of news, as is the case day in and day out on the alphabet networks.
All that has been exposed here is incredible jealousy of Beck's success in deriving more revenue from his schtick, than Cesca has derived from his. No inaccuracies exposed, no facts disputed, no original thoughts offered, just another copy, paste and edit job.
I'm so impressed.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at April 10, 2010 11:20 PM (Fnr44)
3
really? obviously you must have redacted all the four letter obscenities from that, otherwise why would they not want to here your point of view in thier echo chamber?////
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at April 11, 2010 12:12 AM (60WiD)
4
No group think around here, that's for sure.
The comments section in the Palin v Obama on the US nuclear weapons policy speaks for itself on the subject of how well differing views are aired and tolerated around here. Pots, meet kettles.
Posted by: Jim at April 11, 2010 12:17 AM (TNxYU)
5
Well........
I've never been a fan of Beck's; he seems to lack a philosophical coherence. (Obviously, that's a matter of nuance and opinion, but hey...) In very general terms, he tends toward 'conspiratorial' thinking.
OTOH, he has a lot of very good moments; his review of the "Progressives" was solid, although not as comprehensive as Goldberg's book.
So you take the good stuff, and leave the silliness. What else is new?
Posted by: dad29 at April 11, 2010 09:55 AM (6nQNP)
6
jim be reasonable. you comment, its here to see, people retort to it. how is it comparable?
just becuase we think your full of it, doesnt mean were an echo chamber unwilling to here the other side, your conflating two different things,
if someone doesnt discard thier ideas and ooh and ahh over your enlightenment doesnt make for group think or an echo chamber
what makes for an echo chamber and group think is the banning of any reasonable opposing views. like at lgf or apparently huffpo where a reasonable argument is not allowed to be displayed.
I dont think your unreasonable I just dont like your arguments, if you were unreasonable I would think you were a troll calling people names insulting or threatening taunting.
so since you comment here and some people respond to your arguments how is it an echo chamber?
I would say this place is just populated by mostly people with opinions contrary from yours,
if huffpo let his comment stand instead of deleating it I would say I dont like thier politics but im not sure I would call it an echo chamber.
i know plenty of people who asked or gave reasonable opposing opinions at lgf who were deleted and all of thier history also
its creepy cult of personality bull and that is to me what constitutes an echo chamber.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at April 11, 2010 12:15 PM (60WiD)
7
@rumcrook - Nope, no redaction, I even tried posting it without the question of whether Cesca was just another thesaurus-toting plagiarist copying and pasting "his" opinion from the talking points at Media Matters, since it was clear that he had never watched Beck's show as broadcast.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at April 11, 2010 12:17 PM (Fnr44)
8
rum,
Like I said, check out the black hole where the comments used to be in the last wisdom of Palin thread. About 90 comments got deleted because CY didn't like having been called out on a fairly silly post.
I have no idea how things are run at huff post, I don't read it. I know how things are run here, if CY feels like someone has gotten the better of him on a topic the posts disappear. In this case he deleted the whole comments section and added two or three updates. If that isn't a case of just wanting to hear yourself talk I don't know what is.
Posted by: Jim at April 11, 2010 02:25 PM (TNxYU)
9
Premium entertainment is to be had watching the right oscillate between calling Obama an evil genius & a clueless tyro.
He certainly is going about "bankrupting 300 million" by a rather unusual route, though: turning around a Grand Canyon of negative unemployment numbers in about one year when it should've probably taken more like 5-10 years? Taking a ton of student-loan financial misery out of the equation overnight? Passing long-overdue reform in a health-insurance industry that rules 1/6 of the US economy? Ending useless Cold War weapons systems that cost many billions each? Going through every federal department with a fine-tooth comb to hunt down & cut waste?
Even for a notorious workaholic like Obama, that sort of thing is gonna take a hell of a long time to bankrupt a country as big as the US, & it looks like he's just going to keep right on doing more of the same.
You know what I'd do if I wanted to bankrupt America? I think I'd fight entire wars on credit when my country is already deep in debt ... do absolutely nothing to reduce outsourcing of high-wage jobs overseas, & even reward the companies who do so ... maybe pass a huge tax-cut or two without reducing government expenditures - in fact, I'd create an entire vast new ministry that does next to nothing useful whatsoever, & pass out LOTS of no-bid sweetheart deals to cronies on the public's dime ... ignore a growing tide of ominous warnings when the stock-market grew more & more like a sidewalk three-card-monte table, for year after year after insane year ... & then for the coup-de-grace, I think I'd tell a nation already in debt up to its eyebrows & living on high-interest credit that their dreamworld lifestyle CAN go on forever, & that the most patriotic thing in the universe is for them to go shopping with money they don't have, to buy even more useless crap they don't need.
* Mission Accomplished *
Posted by: jim at April 11, 2010 09:10 PM (yqh8N)
10
"Even for a notorious workaholic like Obama"
who didn't do jack in Law School, who was an absentee senator, and who has affirmative action'ed his way from job to job. Rich. I mean, it takes EFFORT to be so lazy you don't even write anything of note during the Law Review presidency that was handed to you based on skin color.
"Taking a ton of student-loan financial misery out of the equation overnight?"
So the gov't socializing money-losing endeavors means that said money loss is out of the equation. Uh-huh.
I honestly admire the shiftless Kenyan despite his laziness - he's a terrific showman, has a crude animal cunning despite his ignorance, and really has a knack for putting one over on all the blue state rubes out there. I guess that answers the "evil genius vs. incompetent" paradox.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 11, 2010 09:39 PM (Eg9Id)
11
Jim, Jim? You have something on your nose, you might want to wipe it off...
Starting with the truly moronic idea that the war in southeast Asia (Iraq/Afghanistan) is somehow responsible for the two trillion dollar increase in our national debt since Barry took office. And when did he "turn around" unemployment? Last I heard we were still at 10%+...
Whoops, silly me, it's the work of the International Jewish Conspiracy (AKA Big Business) who farmed out every job in America to Asia. Dolt.
So. It is true that outsourcing has been a significant issue for at least 10-15 years. But. To claim this as one of the primary issues destroying the credit rating of this country is, at best, fatuous.
Jimmy, you're so busy sucking the (er) teat of the Democratic party line that you missed basic indicators like Dubya's attempt to reform our unfunded Social Security obligation, not to mention his attempt (in collaboration with McCain) to do something about Sallie Mae/Freddie Mac several years before the meltdown, with Barney Frank demonstrating hysterical FUD as a form of political comedy. Considering that Barney was literally in bed with the exec of Freddie Mac at the time, one wonders if improper influence was exercised....
This whole mess is a bi-partisan cluster-hump of epic proportions, aggravated by the insane level of power concentrated in DC. This is not just the fault of the Democrats, any more than it is just the fault of the Republicans. Every sorry SOB in Washington for the past fifty years owns this one.
Apparently Jim is buying into the cracker-jack level of Democratic Party reasoning that claims everything is Bush's fault. The Democrats have been running Congress since '06, but it's Bush's fault. They've owned the Executive branch since March of '09, not to mention a super-majority in both houses, but it's still Bush's fault.
Helpful Hint for Jimmy: the President proposes, but the Congress disposes budget changes.
Now go back and double-check when the Democrats gained a majority in the legislative branch. The very people you're knob-jobbing have been jacking spending through the roof for several years, in the name of national prosperity. NOW they're whinging that they need more money to pay for all the insanity.
But never mind me, because I'm just a mindless sheeple forming part of the assimilation of the Greater Borg of CY. Git...
The sad part is that I'm not even a Conservative, as more than a few folks have thrown at me the past couple years.
Posted by: Casey at April 12, 2010 04:39 AM (k/2dm)
12
turning around a Grand Canyon of negative unemployment numbers in about one year when it should've probably taken more like 5-10 years?
How's the weather in your dimension today, Jim?
Posted by: Pablo at April 12, 2010 09:06 AM (yTndK)
13
Yo, Jimbo,
Neither Bush nor O-bot-ma, nor any other administration, can spend the tax rate, they spend the tax revenue. Bush cut the tax rate, and then tax revenues went up. Yes, that eeevull George Bush, he increased the level of tax revenue, over and above the level of inflation.
What, you say that you can't increase revenues by cutting rates? You've never heard of that? It's impossible?
I'll give you the inside secret. Go buy the Sunday paper and look at all the color pages. No, not the comics, the store circulars. Look for the secret code that the stores use to increase revenue by cutting rates. It's just four letters, so you'll have to look close. Pssst: the word is "sale," but don't tell anybody, it's just our secret.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at April 13, 2010 01:52 AM (Fnr44)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A: Crips, Bloods, and the NJ Teacher's Union
Q: Who wants New Jersey Governor Chris Christie dead?
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's take-no-prisoners demand for education cuts got him a whole lot more than he bargained for -- a death wish.
It was in a controversial e-mail sent by the Bergen County Teachers Union to its members asking that Christie be "taken" by the Lord.
In seven years as the Garden State's pugnacious U.S. Attorney, Christie got only two death threats -- from the bloods and the crips.
It took only three months as governor for an adversary to wish him six feet under.
"To have the leader of the Bergen County Teachers Union send out an e-mail to their 17,000 members asking them to pray for my death I think just goes beyond the pale," Christie said.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:55 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
God (at least the New Testament One) does not approve of imprecatory prayers.
But this is Jersey (I'm a Jersey girl), and our politics gets even nastier than this.
Years ago, the state legislature was considering whether to add toilet paper to the list of items subject to the sales tax. Those reps deemed to be leaning towards a "yes" vote received great quantities of ... ahem ... used toilet paper in the mail, delivered both to the state house and their homes.
Now that's nasty.
Posted by: Grace Nearing at April 10, 2010 11:08 AM (8kQ8M)
2
Some of y'all must run in different circles than I do.
I've gotten that email three or four times already, except that the last line went "...and Barack Obama is my favorite President."
I didn't find it awesomely humorous, but neither was I offended by it. And I'm not notably offended by this version, either.
While it's understandable that a lot of us are getting quite tired of being part of a "violent" Right-Wing, as opposed to the placid and peaceful Left-Wing, there are plenty of worthy examples of leftoid violence and incitement to the same available. Let's not stoop to their level and pick "violence" out of everything the way they do with both that and "raaaaacism".
Posted by: jefferson101 at April 10, 2010 11:32 AM (hym18)
3
Unfortunately by not "stopping" to their level, we lose ground in the collective consciousness that doesn't pay nearly as much attention to this stuff as political junkies do--in other words, if they want to play this game, we're going to have play it, too, as distasteful as that sounds.
Posted by: ECM at April 10, 2010 12:25 PM (nYKDd)
4
Another reason unions should be condemned for all but the most dangerous of jobs. NJ is where the average teacher can earn $91K annualized salary, police officers can earn over $100K, and public utility managers can earn over $300K all because of contractual increases and favorable formulas that bankrupt the state.
Hey, did you like how the AFL-CIO ironically marched against Wall St. "excess" this week? Too funny.
Posted by: Jim at April 11, 2010 10:38 AM (XsJO1)
5
NJ is where the average teacher can earn $91K annualized salary, police officers can earn over $100K, and public utility managers can earn over $300K all because of contractual increases and favorable formulas that bankrupt the state.
Jim: How do those figures compare with surrounding states like NY, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut? -- And what is an "annualized salary"?
Posted by: Grace Nearing at April 11, 2010 02:22 PM (8kQ8M)
6
Jim: Nevermind, I looked up the data myself. Yes, the salaries are roughly equal.
Are public school teachers, especially in NJ, overpaid? Beats me. I'd have to see what people in other occupations in the state earn annually.
I know some good plumbers who make more than the average NJ teacher. Morticians make fabulous money. All the ladies who've ever cut my hair have made good money (plus lots of unreported tips) -- and they didn't even have to go to college and come out with student loan debt.
Personally, you couldn't pay me enough to work with large groups of sulky adolescent kids. But that's just me.
Posted by: Grace Nearing at April 11, 2010 02:37 PM (8kQ8M)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
President Kaczynski, Other Gov't Leaders Killed in Crash
All 96 aboard were killed when the Russian-built Tu-154 crashed short of the runway in heavy fog:
Russian and Polish officials said there were no survivors on the Soviet-era Tupolev, which was taking the president, his wife and staff to events marking the 70th anniversary of the massacre of thousands of Polish officers by Soviet secret police.
On board were the army chief of staff, national bank president, deputy foreign minister, army chaplain, head of the National Security Office, deputy parliament speaker, civil rights commissioner and at least two presidential aides and three lawmakers, the Polish foreign ministry said.
Russia's Emergency Ministry said there were 96 dead, 88 part of a Polish state delegation. Poland's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Piotr Paszkowski, said there were 89 people on the passenger list but one person had not shown up for the roughly 1½-hour flight from Warsaw's main airport.
"We still cannot fully understand the scope of this tragedy and what it means for us in the future. Nothing like this has ever happened in Poland," Paszkowski said. "We can assume with great certainty that all persons on board have been killed."
This is not the sort of blow the crash of Air Force One would have on the United States since most of the domestic duties of their government are handled by the Prime Minister. Commander-in-Chief duties will be taken over by the Speaker of the Parliament, who was running for the Presidency in elections this fall and projected to win.
May prayers go out to the families of the victims and to the Polish people.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:30 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hmm. Would it be unreasonable to wonder if this was actually an accident? File this one under "facts that it would be good to know."
No doubt, Obama will send VP Biden, who will promptly insert his foot in his mouth, outstripping another famous Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who, speaking to a Polish audience, once said (apparently through faulty interpretation), that he desired amorous relations with the Polish people.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at April 10, 2010 11:25 AM (qjRSd)
2
No worse than Ford saying there is no soviet domination of eastern europe in 1976
Posted by: Mike at April 10, 2010 12:56 PM (75mY0)
3
That was certainly a lame attempt to change the subject, Mike.
Posted by: Dr. Horrible at April 11, 2010 08:03 PM (Dj4BX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 09, 2010
Obama Questions Palin's Nuclear Wisdom
He simply doesn't know when to shut up:
President Barack Obama on Thursday made clear he was not going to take advice from Republican Sarah Palin when it comes to decisions about the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Palin, the former vice presidential candidate, has not been shy about criticizing Obama's policies and this week weighed in on his revamped nuclear strategy, saying it was like a child in a playground who says 'punch me in the face, I'm not going to retaliate.'
"I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.
Palin's view of nuclear weapons was shaped by her stint as the commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard, our first line of defense against Soviet nuclear weapons. Obama has held his same views since he was a stoner college student and has showed no signs of maturing.
Which of the two would you trust?
Update: I stand corrected. Palin does
not have any experience with the AANG. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion AANG, Fort Greely is (literally) the first line of defense against Soviet nukes with 25-30 anti-ICBMs, but they do not report to the governor.
Obama? Still utterly untrustworthy, and getting more so every day.
Update: And she zings Dear Leader...
again:
"Last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues," he said.
Palin shot back in her comments Friday, mocking the president for "the vast nuclear experience that he acquired as a community organizer." She said that his alleged experience had not helped him make progress in the issue with Iran and North Korea.
What dim-witted liberals cannot seem to grasp is that Obama simply
isn't any more competent than Palin... or almost anyone else. Nothing in his self-promoting career gave him any leadership experience, nuclear, or otherwise.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:33 AM
| Comments (125)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Breaking: Stupak Retiring
Good riddance:
Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan tells The Associated Press he'll retire from Congress rather than seek a 10th term this year.
Stupak has drawn stinging criticism from opponents of the recently enacted health care overhaul after leading a bloc of anti-abortion Democrats whose last-minute support was crucial to its approval by the House.
The target of Tea Party groups gunning for his seat, Stupak claimed he could have won reelection if he tried.
Uh-huh.
His retirement came
over the objections of Democratic Party leaders:
President Barack Obama called Stupak on Wednesday and asked him not to retire. Stupak, 58, also resisted entreaties from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the dean of the Wolverine State delegation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:57 AM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obama even promised to sign an executive order providing federally funded daily ice cream and cookies to Stupak, as well as a pony, but to no avail.
Posted by: arb at April 09, 2010 08:17 AM (g/NU7)
2
Good riddance, indeed. A resignation in disgrace for the guy whose name replaced Nelson's as the top synonym for "sellout."
Posted by: Dr. Horrible at April 09, 2010 08:59 AM (sTlP8)
3
No such thing as a pro-life democrat
Posted by: don at April 09, 2010 02:12 PM (VVaEq)
4
If it weren't for the fact the guy is going to get even richer than he is now I'd just say "Buh-Bye!" and be done with it. However Stupak is going to turn this into a cash-cow for him. He'll end up on talk shows for the next 20 years playing the victim when he's one of the biggest villains around.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at April 09, 2010 02:33 PM (+xi30)
5
I wonder what nice position Obama has reserved for Stupak in the administration. Granted, while Stupak is dishonest and deceitful--an advantage in this administration--he is not a tax cheat, pedophile-promoter, communist, global warmer, bigot, or obvious supporter of foreign tyrants. All of which is a definite disadvantage for anyone desiring an appointment in an Obama administration.
Posted by: iconoclast at April 09, 2010 04:35 PM (yTmCE)
6
I understand he retired for health reasons -- his constituents were sick of him. It's also called yellow fever.
Posted by: Mark L at April 09, 2010 09:14 PM (nQHAp)
7
Not surprising you toads are ok with Stupak leaving Congress. Clearly, like Pelosi, you were hoping for a more ideologically pure party. So you vent on Palin to hide that fact.
At least it has become clear that (1) no one opposed to abortion can be a Democrat, and (2) there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat. That buffoon Grayson and crooks like Wrangel are the face of the Dems now.
Posted by: iconoclast at April 09, 2010 09:16 PM (yTmCE)
8
How is that any different from the way some Republicans treat RINOs or Romney? Wow, what a shock, people with strong political opinions prefer politicians who share those opinions. Lots of toads I guess.
Posted by: Jim at April 09, 2010 11:43 PM (TNxYU)
9
I would rather see him fired by the people...
Posted by: DGJ at April 10, 2010 07:31 PM (kNev5)
10
"How is that any different from the way some Republicans treat RINOs"
That's a softball. The GOP's leftward edges rarely fall into line and are almost never made to do so. Heck, for most of my life, they and their allies have effectively run the party. That's how the GOP winds up with McCain as the nominee, Steele in charge of the RNC, a centrist Bush 43 as POTUS, Denny Hastert (remember that crook?) as Speaker, etc. (Even then, some nutjobs like Brooks and Frum argue their problem is that they aren't leftward enough.)
The Dems, OTOH, regularly force their supposedly less-extremist pols to abandon their mainstream positions. Remember how Lieberman had to give up every position that made him interesting except support for Israel to be veep?
Posted by: Dr. Horrible at April 11, 2010 08:10 PM (Dj4BX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 59 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1052 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0792 seconds, 175 records returned.
Page size 138 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
