What Explains Left’s Obsession with Bush?
Just over two weeks ago, I observed that for the Left & MSM, McCain is the new Bush. So eager are many on the left (and their allies in the MSM) eager to elect a Democrat to the White House that they’ll savage whatever Republican wins his party’s nod in the presidential contest. Even if he has departed from conservative “orthodoxy” on any number of occasions. Even if the MSM has heralded his “maverick” stance over the years.
Now that he is the Republican nominee for President of the United States, Senator McCain is learning that the kid-glove treatment he had come to expect from the MSM is no longer forthcoming. Not only that. Whenever I check left-of-center blogs, I see advertised a slew of books attacking that courageous veteran.
Yesterday, when I chanced up the term “JohnMcBush” (A google search yields 37,700 hits), I wondered if these attacks on the Arizona Senator involved more than just a desire to defeat the Republican nominee and elect a Democrat to the White House. I wonder if it some on the left really want to run against George W. Bush again so they can finally defeat him. After all, one site (advertising John McBush paraphernalia claims, “Bush. McCain. The result will be the same.” They’re engaged in the “fight to get the Bush Crowd out of the White House.“
Um, guys, that crowd will be leaving the White House in less than a year. I don’t expect President McCain to keep many of his predecessor’s advisors when he takes office.
Maybe they’re still obsessed with W that they need to keep running against him. George W. Bush will not be on the ballot this fall. While Senator McCain has long supported the president’s broad goals in the Middle East, he had (until the surge) criticized the president’s tactics there, favoring a different military strategy. And he has opposed the president on any number of initiatives and issues, most notably federal spending.
On January 20, 2009, in fewer than ten months, George W. Bush will be leaving the White House. They, to paraphrase another much maligned Republican, won’t have him to kick around any more.
Or will they? So obsessed are some people with George W. Bush that they may continue to compare other Republicans to this object of their animosity for years and years to come. Why is it wonder that they so hate this man? Why do they so need to run against him this year? What is it about the president that so arouses their antipathy?
Or is it something in themselves they need to express and they find it easy to project their own feelings of insecurity, alienation or some other anxiety onto the current President of the United States?
78 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
A hint.
What are the great problems of the world? Racism. The oppression of women. Poverty. Imperialism and colonialism. Religious intolerance. Violence, especially war. Environmental degradation.What are the seven pillars of current Liberalism’s response to these evils? Multiculturalism, feminism, redistributionism, transnationalism, secularism, pacifism and environmentalism.
Who is behind these evils? Racism? Whites. Poverty? The rich, and their preferred economic system, capitalism. Oppression of women? Males, especially traditional straight males.
Imperialism and colonialism? The nation-state and its jingoism, aka, Amerikkka.
Religious intolerance? Christianity, especially Heartland Protestantism, aka "Fundamentalism"?
Violence, especially war? The military and guns.
Environmental degradation? Consumerism in the developed world.
So, if you want to know who the great enemy of the world is, you have the elements for a profile: A white, capitalist, male, patriotic, Christian, pro-military Western consumer,
aka, George W. Bush.
Comment by EssEm — March 28, 2008 @ 2:17 pm - March 28, 2008
It’s hard to tell if you’re being satirical.
Comment by Vince P — March 28, 2008 @ 2:26 pm - March 28, 2008
No, I’m not. I think he is the incarnation of everything the Left hates.
Comment by EssEm — March 28, 2008 @ 2:27 pm - March 28, 2008
I should have made it clear that I do not buy the 7 Pillars or any of that. I was describing the world from the commonplace perspective of lefties and liberals.
Comment by EssEm — March 28, 2008 @ 2:31 pm - March 28, 2008
I consider the Left to be the most degenertae hypocrites there are in the world. Everything they hate is done by Islam many times worse than anyone else and the Left is more than willing to turn a blind eye.
So I come to the conclusion that the left merely uses those items you listed as a pretext for something that is more fundamental to them. And to me it seems to be a deep-rooted hatred for America, Israel, Christians and Jews.
Comment by Vince P — March 28, 2008 @ 2:35 pm - March 28, 2008
What Explains Left’s Obsession with Bush?
Absence of anything even remotely approaching a reasonable policy position that the American people would support. Vastly increasing taxes on working people to support free everything for illegal immigrants and those who refuse to work is not going to fly, so they go on their Bush-bashing frenzies instead, just like Hitler blaming the Jews.
That, and as their primary is showing, absent a common enemy, they turn their knives on each other.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2008 @ 2:38 pm - March 28, 2008
Has anyone coined a phrase: "McCain Derangement Syndrome"? "Post Traumatic Bush Disorder"? etc.
On the other hand, a refrain among some Democrats (in offline conversations) is, "I like McCain the most of the Republicans." Those people need to be probed, however, as to whether they like him primarily because of his compromises with Senate Democrats or whether they are genuinely considering voting for him vs. HRC or BHO.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — March 28, 2008 @ 3:54 pm - March 28, 2008
EssEm’s words in #1 are an excellent exposition of style over substance and feelings over hard facts which stoke the vanities of the liberal effete. Liberals are so blinded by the ambition of government encoded and enforced egalitarianism that they fail to understand that the realization of their goal would reduce them to the fringes of misery at a third world level.
The democrats are really the "demagoguecrats" and their only game plan is to stoke up the "misery index" and to make people feel rotten. Their "hope" and "change" mantra is the same old snake oil they have always peddled. "Hope" is tacitly undergirded with the accident of "luck." Change for the sake of change is the ideology of the cancer cell. But you can not blather about the "new day" while taking the risk of outlining the details. So, the demogoguecrats are reduced to smoke and mirrors and demonizing the opposition.
Comment by heliotrope — March 28, 2008 @ 4:05 pm - March 28, 2008
It all goes back to 2000. Most leftists were really ignorant of the rules and laws of our Republic. They were ignorant of the Electorial College. When they won the popular vote but lost the EC they were dumbstruck. When they learned of that possiblity election night, they went into a frenzey. Florida chads, stolen votes, count all the votes…twice, etc. When the Supremes noted that you can’t change the rules of an American election after the fact, they again went nutts. Don’t ignore the fact also that they were hysterical that they lost to a hick from Texas. Remember they blamed the stupid and dumb people from middle America as well. Then this same guy, BUSH won again in 2004. And he must have done it simply by stealing OHIO this time. Instead of looking inward to find the fault with your own candidate and platforms it is much easier to blame the evil Bush for stealing an election.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 28, 2008 @ 4:12 pm - March 28, 2008
Viewing our country in terms of Left versus Right or Liberal versus Conservative or Democrat versus Republican tends to oversimplify the conversation about politics. Both parties offer reasonable solutions to make the USA an even better place in which to live. Let’s try to work together to find common ground.
Comment by Christopher (Chino, California) — March 28, 2008 @ 4:45 pm - March 28, 2008
Whenever I check left-of-center blogs, I see advertised a slew of books attacking that courageous veteran.
Just a few years ago, nobody was allowed to speak ill of a Vietnam veteran. My how times change for political benefit.
So obsessed are some people with George W. Bush that they may continue to compare other Republicans to this object of their animosity for years and years to come.
Well, you can’t criticize Clinton since he’s no longer president. We should fully expect liberals to live up to the standard they espouse, right?
What say you, Kevin?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 28, 2008 @ 6:13 pm - March 28, 2008
EssEm, I think you’ve nailed the mindset of the left, or I should say, the feelings of the left, since I believe very few of them actually think through their politics at all. For if they had they would surely notice their policies exacerbate if not cause all these "great problems " they claim to care so much about. And the real greatest problems of the world — terrorism, oppressive government in all its forms– real threats to freedom and to life and liberty that Bush has made the priority of his presidency — dont even register on their list.
Nice post and impressive blog.
Comment by American Elephant — March 28, 2008 @ 7:47 pm - March 28, 2008
I honestly think they like him because for so many years the MSM told them to. It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the MSM increasingly tells them not to this election cycle — whether they will drink the kool-aid and abandon their integrity or if they will wise-up to the ways of the media.
Comment by American Elephant — March 28, 2008 @ 8:10 pm - March 28, 2008
oh, and one last thing, "What Explains Left’s Obsession with Bush?"
latent sexual attraction.
Comment by American Elephant — March 28, 2008 @ 8:11 pm - March 28, 2008
Maybe one of you can tell me. Is there a conservative blog or site that doesn’t spend the majority of it’s time in the sandbox saying "liberals are poopie"?
Comment by Dave — March 28, 2008 @ 11:02 pm - March 28, 2008
Ha funny, we say liberals are poopie, the leftist blogs say we are facist pigs and murderers, etc.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 28, 2008 @ 11:04 pm - March 28, 2008
Is there a conservative blog or site that doesn’t spend the majority of it’s time in the sandbox saying "liberals are poopie"?
If they weren’t, I suppose nobody would say that they were.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 28, 2008 @ 11:08 pm - March 28, 2008
So the Democrat Governor of Puerto Rico is indicted on 19 counts of corruption. He is a superdelegate to the Democrat convention. I have labeled 2008 the year of the Democrat corruption scandals. Might it be easier for the Dems to hold their convention near a maximum security facility instead of Denver? Kilpatrick, Spitzer, Paterson, Jefferson, Vila, Burger, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, the ex Democrat Governor of Alabama today was released from prison on bond after being convicted of bribery. Can we get an AMEN!
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 28, 2008 @ 11:35 pm - March 28, 2008
We need change. I hope for change. Yes we can.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 28, 2008 @ 11:58 pm - March 28, 2008
11: Well, let’s see:  I found it pretty interesting that for several years after Bush took over and people blamed him for something, you all blathered on with "well, Clinton did that" - I’m personally not a 100% endearing fan of Bill Clinton.  DOMA was the worst legislation enacted and DADT was a lame attempt at what should have been a sweeping policy change.  As much as folks here love to bash him for it, I’ve not noticed any plans from the Republicans in power after Clinton to remove or alter either policies.  In fact Bush was very supportive of an anti-gay amendment in the constitution. (Even though Prohibition proved that putting an amendment in the constitution to deny something  to US citizens was a bad idea).  Bush at the helm has accelerated turning us into a poverty/debt ridden nation - greed has been king during his tenure and the credit/mortgage crisis today bears this out.  In short, while all politicians (regardless of political party) have their faults, having people at the helm of a government who are contemptuous of that government is a pretty bad thing for the citizens in the end.  It’s laughable that the poster talks about the need to run against Bush when he’s not on the ballot.  I find that pretty funny since this site has done the same thing against Bill Clinton for years, even long before Hillary Clinton got in the race for president.
If you compare the negative effects post-presidency of Bush and Clinton, I think history will show Bush did far worse to this country than Clinton in that respect.  Back in 2000, the biggest battle cry was to bring back integrity to the White House after what was essentially a extra-marital affair blown up out of proportion.  Nary a word could be said about the state of the economy, the feeling of the nation, foriegn affairs, etc.  Look what we’ve got today:  not only a recession but the dollar in its worst place in US history, disenfranchisement of the poor, working and middle class of this country, a war waged in the wrong place (Bin Laden still not caught after more than 6 years), our foreign relations with allies in near shambles, etc, etc.
The original posting talks about people projecting insecurity, alienation and anxiety on the President. Â I don’t think that’s much of a surprise since Bush & company have used the last years to engrandize themselves, feed at the public trough and create a wedge of divide unseen previously in this country’s history. Â For me it can be summarized in just one scene (out of many): Â In the short time after Hurricane Katrina, while thousands (many poor and uninsured) were homeless, without food, water, or other basic necessities, what was Bush talking about? Â How the hurricane had affected his friend Trent Lott - his home had been destroyed and how he couldn’t wait to see it re-built so he could sit on the porch with him. (something he repeated a number of times for about a year afterwards by the way). In a national crisis, the most sympathy he could muster was for a person who had not only the insurance, but clearly the personal finances to rebuild easily. Â Ya know, it’s great to be the king.
Comment by Kevin — March 29, 2008 @ 8:30 am - March 29, 2008
"Nary a word could be said about the state of the economy, the feeling of the nation, foriegn affairs, etc. "
Thank heavens there was no dot/com bubble that burst and that the NASDAC was sailing higher and higher. The Palestinians were acting civil, there were no US ships or embassies blown up, UBL was doing quiet missionary work for his religion, North Korea was tearing its nuclear program down, Saddam was minding the UN and improving life for his people, troubles in the Balkans were solved, there was no genocide in Africa, and the UN was in charge of international peace and brotherhood and exceeding all expectations. At least that is how the democrats remember it.
Comment by heliotrope — March 29, 2008 @ 9:34 am - March 29, 2008
Kevin the liar would have us believe there was no recession in 2000! There was no attack on the US Cole in 2000! That a war wasn’t waging between Israel and the wretched Palestinians in 2000! Blah blah blah..
Kevin: Give it up.. you’re so boringly partisan.
Comment by Vince P — March 29, 2008 @ 9:52 am - March 29, 2008
lefties also hate the fact that President Bush seems at ease with who he is…something the demented left never are.
Comment by thud — March 29, 2008 @ 10:50 am - March 29, 2008
"Kevin: Give it up.. you’re so boringly partisan."
Isn’t that pretty much the pot calling the kettle? Well, maybe you’re not boring.
Gene, your comment in #16 is absolutely correct. And in my original statements I mentioned that but I foolishly clicked on a link in the article and lost the whole brilliantly written comment :) I believe if we do not move beyond this name-calling nonsense and work together the future is bleak. Neither "side" is innocent.
"If they weren’t, I suppose nobody would say that they were."
Really TGC? Obama and Hillary are handing the White House over to McCain because their need to be "the one" takes precedence over the needs of the country. That’s the funny/sad thing about this way of relating to those you disagree with, ultimately it cause more damage to you than to the opposition. Worse things have been said about McCain by fellow Republicans than the MSM has ever thought of, now he’s the nominee which could result in losing the election. The Clintons are playing cutthroat with Obama when if they truly want Dems in the White House they should be targeting McCain (that’s not an endorsement of their tactics, I despise what they do).
I, for one, would like to find a place where I can read sound political thinking from a conservative standpoint without all the other crap. I’m not interested in opinions of the Left, I can make my own. But there must be reasons why you believe about what the best is for the US and the world that are based on more than opposing what liberals say. I suppose the nature of a blog is for expressing the personal opinions of the one(s) who started it so maybe there’s a different avenue for me to take.   I haven’t run across much news analysis from a gay conservative perspective though  :)
Comment by Dave — March 29, 2008 @ 10:56 am - March 29, 2008
Dave: My main criticism of Kevin is the boring part. Nothing wrong with being partisan but it’s like.. please.. change the script a little bit.Â
I, for one, would like to find a place where I can read sound political thinking from a conservative standpoint without all the other crap
If you read the archives you will occasionally find these abstract discussions. If you have any particular questions , feel free to ask them. Otherwise , I think, you may not see frequent restate of principles becuase for the most part we’ve already had those discussions in the past, and without some special circumstance coming up, it’s natural that the a restatement of princples would not be the norm.
Comment by Vince P — March 29, 2008 @ 11:50 am - March 29, 2008
If you folks want to see a good blog thread about how the Left is absolutely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their Bush hatred (and in this case, it’s in a hetereosexual context), check out this blog post:
http://neoneocon.com/2005/03/28/condescension-and-leaving-political
Comment by Vince P — March 29, 2008 @ 12:07 pm - March 29, 2008
Dave sounds the clarion call for bipartisanship: "Â I believe if we do not move beyond this name-calling nonsense and work together the future is bleak."
I would agree. Here are some topics: The war on terrorism. Social Security and Medicare bankruptcy. Border security. Curtailing ILLEGAL immigration. Managing the problems associated with ILLEGAL immigrants in the country. Getting pork barrel government spending under control. Giving parents an alternative to government schools and easing the education tax on those who opt out of government schools. Rolling back the federal stranglehold on how the states operate.Â
Oh, maybe I have just listed a bunch of Bushchimphitler stuff that is aimed at lining the pockets of Cheney and his Haliburton pals while tossing the poor homeless out to freeze in parks.
Comment by heliotrope — March 29, 2008 @ 12:39 pm - March 29, 2008
This is what happens when Leftists are allowed to go amok:
PATRIOTIC squaddie Craig Briggs has been barred from joining the police — because he’s got an ENGLAND tattoo on his arm.
The Iraq veteran, 22, had wanted to be a cop since childhood and was advised to join the Army to get experience first.
But when he applied he was told: “Unfortunately, some people feel intimidated by the word England.â€
Last night Craig, who has just completed 4½ years with the 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, said: “I am shocked and disgusted.
“I don’t understand how it can cause offence. It is our country, after all.â€
Comment by Vince P — March 29, 2008 @ 1:44 pm - March 29, 2008
Yo, all the lad (mentioned in #28) need do is to have the word "sucks" added to his tattoo and he is a certain hire.
Comment by heliotrope — March 29, 2008 @ 2:08 pm - March 29, 2008
 Look what we’ve got today:  not only a recession but the dollar in its worst place in US history,
I’d be curious to know what metrics you use to conclude that we’re in a recession. Further, I’d be curious to know if you have any idea what one is.
disenfranchisement of the poor, working and middle class
Who was it that recently told them not to bother doing anything to improve their lives?
a war waged in the wrong place (Bin Laden still not caught after more than 6 years),
Did you do that Google search I recommended a few weeks back? Faqir of Ipi.
our foreign relations with allies in near shambles, etc, etc.
So we cut off our "allies" from their illegal Oil For Fools trust fund. So what?
Who, exactly, are these "allies" of which you speak? Further, could you offer examples of how our foreign relations are "in near shambles".
If you don’t want to touch the other questions, I’d appreciate it if you would sack up and answer the first. However, I sincerely doubt your testicular fortitude and don’t think you’ll answer.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 29, 2008 @ 3:22 pm - March 29, 2008
Also, please include examples of said "disenfranchisement of the poor".
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 29, 2008 @ 3:23 pm - March 29, 2008
21: Â That recession period began in the last quarter of 2000 and continued into 2003. Â The dot com bubble burst was seen by economists for years; it also was only a single economic factor; recessions are made of several factors, not a single event. Â There are several events right now that point to a recession.
Sorry, no I didn’t read that. Â It’s a lame response to a question millions of Americans have been asking.
America has received more of "love America and it’s people, but not your current president" Â than we have in any period in our history. Â The swell of support we had from our allies and other countries throughout the world after 9/11 quickly deflated due to George Bush’s "coalition of the willing" and "if you’re not for us, your against us" attitude he took in the time leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Â If our support amongst allies is so great, why didn’t they commit more troops to this cause, with some of them starting the removal of their troops? Â Even the best support from one of our greatest allies, the UK, has been tempered with a feeling of tepidness to the whole situation and their keeping their troops in for the time being.
And no, I don’t know - who was it that told them not to do anything to improve their lives?
31: Â I think my discussion of Katrina answered that one. Â That was a microscopic view of how the top leaders of our government responded to those people with nothing but contempt for their situation in the aftermath of that hurricane. Â A photo of a concerned looking president looking out of airforce 1 as he winged his way back to DC without bothering to actually land and take a look at the damage. Â The director of FEMA who was more interested in what shirts to wear to press conferences than how to lead people and get food and water to these people; and subsequently the President giving his unqualified support to "Brownie"
Comment by Kevin — March 29, 2008 @ 5:33 pm - March 29, 2008
Is something brewing
Saudis Prepare For “Sudden Nuclear Hazards” After Cheney Visit
Empire Burlesque ^ | March 23, 2008 | Chris Floyd
Posted on 03/29/2008 3:21:09 PM CDT by Fennie
Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings with the Saudi king and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council — the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle — is preparing “national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts warnings of possible attacks on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactors,” one of the kingdom’s leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based dpa news service relayed the paper’s story.
Simple prudence — or ominous timing? We noted here last week that an American attack on Iran was far more likely — and more imminent — than most people suspect. We pointed to the mountain of evidence for this case gathered by scholar William R. Polk, one of the top aides to John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to other indicators of impending war. The story by Okaz — which would not have appeared in the tightly controlled dictatorship without approval from the top — is yet another, very weighty piece of evidence laid in the scales toward a new, horrendous conflict…
Comment by Vince P — March 29, 2008 @ 5:53 pm - March 29, 2008
The left is obsessed with Bush the same way the right was obsessed with Clinton (Bill but I guess Hillary too come to think of it). It’s only different because you can’t imagine how people could hate your favorite loser fuck-up.
Comment by Houndentenor — March 29, 2008 @ 7:04 pm - March 29, 2008
Woo hoo , aint this exciting? Who wants the guess that the Demonrats will prohibit drilling?
NEXT ENERGY NEWS: Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x
America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.
In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.
Comment by Vince P — March 29, 2008 @ 11:27 pm - March 29, 2008
During Clintons Presidency more people died during a heat wave in Chicago than died in Katrina. And Mr Clinton didn’t even bother to fly over. President Bush 43 freed 48 million Afganis and Iraqis from tyranney. President Clinton freed Monica from her blue dress. And peed away 8 years. His top 4 accomplishments were, family leave act, DADT, Nafta, and freeing 46 Puerto Rican terrorists. And I’m being fairly objective.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 30, 2008 @ 12:02 am - March 30, 2008
Katrina, leftists and liberals were to blame. They created an underclass of humans who couldn’t do anything for themselves. After massive flooding poor souls were shown dumbstruck, their main question, how is the postman suppose to find us? Now how does that happen in a liberal bastian like New Orleans. A dependant underclass simply wondering through each day…their only hero, the postman who brings their sustanance.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 30, 2008 @ 12:05 am - March 30, 2008
Vince P, why aren’t liberals blamed for $3.50/gallon gasoline? If W had got his way 7 years ago, we would be pumping a million barrels of oil a day out of the wilderness of Alaska. Gasoline would probably be a dollar less simply because of that. So every day we should ask the liberals who are complaining about gas prices, why they did that to us. Lay the blame at their door step where it belongs.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 30, 2008 @ 12:08 am - March 30, 2008
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/443213in.html
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 30, 2008 @ 12:11 am - March 30, 2008
#32
You still didn’t answer my question about which metrics you use to back up your claim that we’re in a recession. You merely stated There are several events right now that point to a recession, but you never stated what they were. The fact of the matter is that there are actually none right now.
As far as Katrina is concerned, you might remember that Bush flew over MSY only two days after the storm hit. That would be when there was still looting, civil unrest, reports of shootings, stabbings, rapes etc. Even if he wanted to stop by to survey the damage, I seriously doubt Secret Service would have allowed it. Remember when Bush was undercover immediately after 9/11? People ASSumed it was because he was a coward. What the ignorant didn’t know was that it was because Secret Service kept him away from the WH. I remember a news report that they were actually pissed off because he went back to the WH as soon as he did.
I’ll also remind you that after hurricane Floyd in 1999 (at that time, the costliest storm to hit the U.S.), it took sweet lord BJ 4-5 days to show up in N.C. to survey the damage and it took FEMA 3 weeks to bother to show up. With Katrina, FEMA USAR teams were in south Louisiana while Mississippi was still getting its ass spanked. Not to mention that about five hours after Katrina’s landfall, Brown was requesting 1,000 more rescue workers within 48 hrs and 2,000 more to be sent within a few more days. Long story short, "Brownie" was doing a far superior job than county judge James Lee Witt (can you say cronyism?).
Don’t even go there with hurricane Katrina. I can, and will, chew you up and spit you out on that. All you got is liberal lies and bumper sticker slogans. You don’t bother with reality and truth. If anything, Katrina proved that liberalism is a lie and a complete and total failure. If you don’t want to expose liberalism for the complete and utter failure that it is, you might want to avoid that "example".
However, if you think you can take on an Emergency Management professional, by all means, Gofrit. But I guarandamntee you that one of us will come out looking like an ignorant sonofabitch and it sure as hell won’t be me.
BTW, I’ll also remind you which president couldn’t be bothered to show up at WTC after it was attacked by terrorists.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 30, 2008 @ 2:41 am - March 30, 2008
<blockquote>I, for one, would like to find a place where I can read sound political thinking from a conservative standpoint without all the other crap. </blockquote> Try American Thinker, National Review and their various blogs for starters. They are very widely read and respected by most conservatives. If you want to see how "conservative thinking" differs from "gay conservative thinking" compare what you read there with what you read here. Something I hope you will notice is that there is very little difference because, as gay conservatives have learned and gay lefties have not, being gay really isn’t relevant to the vast majority of political issues.
Comment by American Elephant — March 30, 2008 @ 4:30 am - March 30, 2008
Kevin, is there any issue on which you are not 110%, demonstrably, factually wrong?
He never did any such thing. There is nothing whatsoever "anti-gay" about Bush’s position. If it helps you absorb that, consider that both Bush and Cheney held exactly the same position as Kerry and Edwards. (And unlike Kerry/Edwards neither Bush nor Cheney has ever said of gays that they are "not comfortable around ‘those people’") Then do try to actually understand what their position is (which you clearly don’t) before crying that you are victimized by it.
Which is it? are we a greedy nation or a poor nation? you even contradict yourself. But the fact is that while debt has risen sharply under Bush, so has the gross domestic product, and the nation’s debt is still lower as a percentage of GDP than throughout most of our history. The fact also, and this is incontrovertable, the "tax cuts for the rich" was a smaller percent tax cut than the tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets, something like 7 million of the lowest income tax-payers under Clinton were taken completely off the tax rolls by Bush, and it is incontrovertable that the national tax burden as a result has shifted MORE to the rich than it was before. It is also fact that tax revenues have experienced the greatest increase in history and charitable giving has skyrocketed under Bush. In other words, the poor are getting even more of a free ride, the rich are paying more and Americans are more generous. You are wrong on every single count.
Exactly bass-ackwards as usual. Having people at the helm of government who are contemptuous and distrusting of government is the best thing for citizens. About the most contemptuous and distrusting people of the government you will ever encounter were the framers of our constitution. Do pick up a abook sometime and try to learn something about the nation you are so eagerly trying to destroy.
No, it was to bring back the integrity of the white house after the former occupant(s):
* was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury
* was disbarred
* was banned from ever practicing law before the Supreme Court
* had his SOTU boycotted by all 9 members of the Supreme Court
* sold pardons for donations
* sold nuclear missile technology to the Red Chinese for campaign donations
* sold white house visits for campaign donations
* illegally campaigned from the white house
* illegally used FBI files to destroy political opponents
* illegally used the IRS to punish political opponents
* sought to personally and professionally destroy anyone who opposed them
* fired the entire WH travel office so they could hire their cronies
* fired every US Attorney to get rid of those who were legitimately investigating Democrats
* were caught hiding documents they claimed to know nothing about in their residence
* was credibly accused of sexual harrassment/rape by something like 7-9 women
* payed off one of the aforementioned to make the case go away
* was accused by the special prosecutor of telling "false and misleading statements" to a grand jury (this time it was Hillary)
* were miraculously able to get away with obvious insider trading
* were miraculously able to get away with their obvious involvement in a scandal that sent over a dozen of their closest associates, including a sitting Democrat Governor to prison.
* stole the White House furniture, art, china and silverware on the way out.
The economy was in recession, the dot.com bubble had burst — a burst which began not coincidentally, immediately after the resolution of the anti-trust lawsuit the clinton administration brought against the cornerstone of the tech sector, Microsoft, in order to enrich their trial-lawyer donors.
North Korea was enriching uranium while Madeline Albright danced and drank champagne with Kim Jong Il and while Clinton was paying him billions in US taxpayers’ money to not enrich uranium. Saddam Hussein was using the oil for food program to bribe liberal leaders across the west to push to drop sanctions. Clinton was refusing to kill/take custody of Osama Bin Laden for fear of political drawbacks, this after the US had been attacked by terrorists every 2 years under his administration, and al Qaeda was already finalizing their 9/11 plans while Clinton was putting up "walls" between the FBI and CIA to protect his illegal foreign campaign contribution racket.
Do you even know what a recession is? its two consecutive quarters of economic growth. Despite all the hysteria, we havent even had ONE quarter of negative growth yet. And as usual, anytime a liberal uses the phrase ever in US history" what they are actually saying is that they’ve never cracked a history book in their life. Maybe you should actually try actually knowing what you’re talking about for a change?
do you even know what the word disenfranchisement means? clearly you don’t
the war was waged to remove Saddam from power. He was in Iraq. Should we have attacked France?
Or perhaps like Obama you mean we should attack our fragile ally Pakistan and deliver that nuclear armed nation into the hands of radical fundamentalist terrorists? Unfortunately, unlike Clinton, President Bush didnt have Bin Laden handed to him on a silver platter 8 times.
You mean like how the biggest opponents of the war, France and Germany have both gotten rid of anti-american leaders and elected staunchly pro-American conservatives?
LOL! Please cite even one penny Bush has pinched from the public trough? and the word is aggrandize
Once again I think you are thinking of Clinton selling nuclear tech for campaign contributions, selling pardons for library contributions, or perhaps you mean Feinstein steering billions in contracts to her husband?
A wedge not seen since the last time Democrats were out of the white house, or the time before that, or the time before that. Funny how "divided" we get whenever Democrats dont get their way. Heres a better idea. How about Democrats just grow up and learn the meaning of the phrase, "loyal oppostion" instead of being treasonous bastards every time they lose power?
poor because they have been stuck under exclusively democratic rule for decades, and without food, shelter, water because their mayor and governor refused to follow their own disaster plans which called for mandatory evacuation, and multiple emergency shelters supplied with all the necessities, which were specifically NOT the superdome, and who refused repeated attempts by the Bush administration including as much as personal intervention on the part of the president to evacuate and to prepare. And Bush used Lott as one of many examples. He met with many victims personally and has done a great deal to help people get on their feet after first Democrats and then Katrina destroyed their state and their lives. You’ll notice how incredibly different the story was in Mississippi, which was also directly hit, but which evacuated and prepared and accepted the federal help offered it.
No wonder you liberals are so angry when your politics force you to rape and mutilate the truth and history so brutally!
Save yourself! Turn away from the dark side. Embrace the constitution which the founders crafted precisely to prevent the kind of all-powerful central government you lust after and which they knew destroys liberty.
Comment by American Elephant — March 30, 2008 @ 7:20 am - March 30, 2008
that should read "2 quarters of negative economic growth".
Comment by American Elephant — March 30, 2008 @ 7:24 am - March 30, 2008
because we have a mute leadership in the White house, inept Republicans in Congress and a complicit MSM
Comment by Vince P — March 30, 2008 @ 10:23 am - March 30, 2008
American Elephant: you’re a patient man.
You should save a copy of that for tomorrow when kevin runs through the same litany again, as if you never refuted it.
Comment by Vince P — March 30, 2008 @ 10:28 am - March 30, 2008
Kudos, American Elephant–a spectacular rebuttal based on nothing but objective facts. Unfortunately, I expect Kevin’s worldview–built exclusively on feelings, speculation and the rhetoric of bumper stickers–to remain stubbornly impervious to your logic, but I appreciate your diligent efforts nonetheless.
Comment by Sean A — March 30, 2008 @ 12:18 pm - March 30, 2008
"If W had got his way 7 years ago, we would be pumping a million barrels of oil a day out of the wilderness of Alaska."
And if the Reagan adminstration hadn’t stomped on research into alternative energy sources 27 years ago our dependence on gasoline might be so low that we wouldn’t even have to consider tapping into oil in places were doing so can cause major environmental damages. And we wouldn’t need to in bed with disgusting governments that represent all we are supposedly against. Then again if we weren’t some folks pockets might not be as well lined as they are. Yes, I do concede that it is the liberals who are in a large part responsible for the lack of nuke plants in the country.
"being gay really isn’t relevant to the vast majority of political issues."
Indeed not, and I think most "lefties" know that also. The issue is, how do you support people who you agree with on many issues but also represent forces that are dangerous if not deadly to you. A decision we all make I realize that.Â
Comment by Dave — March 30, 2008 @ 1:19 pm - March 30, 2008
And if the Reagan adminstration hadn’t stomped on research into alternative energy sources 27 years ago
Wow.. that’s useful. Thanks Lefty for the usual uselessness.
Comment by Vince P — March 30, 2008 @ 2:18 pm - March 30, 2008
47: "The issue is, how do you support people who you agree with on many issues but also represent forces that are dangerous if not deadly to you."
That’s easy. By thinking like a rational adult and recognizing that there is no "force" in the Republican or conservative agenda that is "dangerous" or "deadly" to me. Or maybe I just don’t know what you mean by "dangerous" or "deadly." Are you referring to the Islamic Republic of Iran proudly hanging gays in the town square in broad daylight pursuant to Sharia law while on a break from developing nuclear weapons? Is that what you mean?
Comment by Sean A — March 30, 2008 @ 3:32 pm - March 30, 2008
* were miraculously able to get away with obvious insider trading
Well, it’s not so much a miracle when you hide your tax returns until the statute of limitations expire.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 30, 2008 @ 5:38 pm - March 30, 2008
And if the Reagan adminstration hadn’t stomped on research into alternative energy sources 27 years ago
I pray you, what exactly did he do to stomp on said research?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 30, 2008 @ 5:54 pm - March 30, 2008
"you’re a patient man….You should save a copy of that for tomorrow when kevin runs through the same litany again, as if you never refuted it."
Lol, very true. Fortunately I enjoy smacking liberals down
Comment by American Elephant — March 30, 2008 @ 6:18 pm - March 30, 2008
"Unfortunately, I expect Kevin’s worldview–built exclusively on feelings, speculation and the rhetoric of bumper stickers–to remain stubbornly impervious to your logic, but I appreciate your diligent efforts nonetheless."
I don’t know, I think the facts actually register somewhere with liberals — albeit on a deep, DEEP subconscious level. Its why they get so angry — only refutation by facts can cause that kind of anger. My hope is that the truth will fester and gnaw there, deep in the subconscious levels of their pea brains, and one day, perhaps when the State crosses them, they will have the type of epiphany many of us former liberals have already had.
Comment by American Elephant — March 30, 2008 @ 6:27 pm - March 30, 2008
#51: TGC, I’m sure you already figured this out but the expression "stomped on" is liberal-speak for "failing to lavishly fund a bottomless hole government program to do badly and inefficiently with taxpayer funds what the private sector has already elected to do with its own money without being compelled to do so by an act of Congress." It is true that one of Reagan’s changes to Carter’s legendarily incompetent energy policy was to cut government funding for research into alternative fuels. Reagan did this because he correctly observed that the government’s role in energy should be subordinate to the private sector, which had a clear financial incentive to build cars that were more energy efficient (you may recall that smaller, more fuel-efficient foreign cars were taking over a market of eager consumers who had spent the last few years waiting in lines at the gas pump–thanks Jimmy!)
As with every issue he tackled, Reagan was correct–the American automotive market did exactly what companies under siege by competitors always do–they regrouped and started innovating. So, as you may have guessed, Reagan didn’t "stomp on" anything–he just let the free market do what it does best because unlike Carter (and apparently Dave) he understood that government is not the answer to every societal, economic or political challenge.
So it’s easier for people like Dave to blame U.S. oil dependence on one aspect of the energy policy of a beloved, spectacularly successful leader 27 years ago than it is to explain how in spite of Reagan’s "stomping," somehow electric cars, biofuels, hybrids and zero-pollution automobiles are part of our daily lives in 2008. Do those evil corporations get any credit from liberals for developing these technologies on their own dime? Of course not. These developments are ignored and naturally, liberals will turn against these technological marvels soon enough–when they find out that the companies might actually be MAKING A PROFIT FROM THEM (GASP!) I guess the theory is that if Reagan had increased government spending on alternative fuel research then today we might be able to fly around the air without cars, teleporting here and there. Yeah right, that’s where Carter’s energy policy was leading us.
Same old illogical, child-like argument. They want to pay a buck for a gallon of gas, but with:
-no drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
-no drilling off the coast of California
-no new refineries built for the last 30 years
-NO nuclear power (for Godsakes! Nukes?! Are you crazy!?)
-no drilling in ANWR
-AND no wind farms to block the view from Ted Kennedy’s summer home, by the way
Quite frankly, I’m shocked we’re not paying $10 a gallon for gas, but as usual, the private sector has found a way to get us our fuel at $3.50 a gallon (which is sounding more and more like a STEAL considering the tireless war the liberals have been waging on those big, bad oil and energy companies for the past 30 years).
Yeah. It’s all Reagan’s fault. That and AIDS.
Comment by Sean A — March 30, 2008 @ 7:09 pm - March 30, 2008
And if the Reagan adminstration hadn’t stomped on research into alternative energy sources 27 years ago our dependence on gasoline might be so low that we wouldn’t even have to consider tapping into oil in places were doing so can cause major environmental damages.
Unfortunately for that argument, Dave, there was a source of alternative energy available twenty-seven years ago that was more than capable of meeting the vast majority of our country’s energy demands — indeed, one of liberals’ favorite "allies" generates over three-quarters of their power from it — all without releasing an ounce of greenhouse gases, all without touching a drop of oil, and all without major drilling operations.
And one party stomped on it.
The power source is nuclear, and the party that stomped on it — and continues to stomp on it is the Democrat Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 30, 2008 @ 9:29 pm - March 30, 2008
And so it comes back to liberals are brainless scum responsible for all the woes of the world , Reagan was a god and there is no anti-gay sentiment in the conservative world. It doesn’t matter how many words you use and "facts" you use to justify your position, it’s obvious that the first sentence clearly defines the foundation of your beliefs. You’ve got the hear no evil, see no evil down pat, the speak no evil you need to work on a bit. Disappointing to say the least. Yeah Sean, Sharia is disgusting and inhuman but it isn’t the only twisted version of religion that threatens us and you ignore the others at your own peril. Whatever, I’ll just continue my search for "conservatives" who have the ability to rise above the rhetoric and the namecalling. There’s got to be some somewhere.
Comment by Dave — March 30, 2008 @ 9:33 pm - March 30, 2008
#56: "And so it comes back to liberals are brainless scum responsible for all the woes of the world"
You said it, I didn’t. I just catalogued the liberals’ approach to energy policy, a position you admitted to, at least with regard to nuclear power.
"Reagan was a god"
He would dispute that, however, yes, I think he was at least a minor deity.
"…and there is no anti-gay sentiment in the conservative world."
Wrong, Dave. I never said that. Of course there is anti-gay "sentiment" in the world because it is not, and never will be, perfect. So, is that why I should be a liberal Democrat? Because they’ll love me more? Sorry, I’m gonna need a little more than that. Plus, it didn’t escape my attention that what you previously identified as "dangeous" and "deadly" threats we purportedly face from conservatives, has now been downgraded to anti-gay "sentiment." Dave, I don’t consider the alleged "anti-gay" feelings of random, unidentified people somewhere out "in the conservative world" to be either dangerous or deadly.
I do, however, consider the Islamic Republic of Iran hanging teenagers for being gay "dangerous" and "deadly." I believe such a regime should be prevented at all costs from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Conservatives understand and agree with this. Liberals don’t and have been unequivocal in their condemnations of the Bush Administration’s efforts to bring those psychopaths into line. The liberals did everything but blow "his Excellency" Ahmadinejad, welcoming him to speak at Columbia, interviewing him exclusively on CNN and giving him a column in Newsweek. Oh…but that’s right.  I’M THE ONE who "hears and sees no evil."
"It doesn’t matter how many words you use and "facts" you use to justify your position, it’s obvious that the first sentence clearly defines the foundation of your beliefs."
Translation: Sean disagrees with me and has used facts to support his position. Therefore, to avoid losing this argument, I have no choice but to act pious and dismissive and as though there’s no point in further discussion because Sean is clearly beyond hope.
"You’ve got the hear no evil, see no evil down pat,…"
So enlighten me, Dave. The "evil" I am supposedly in denial about is exactly what I’ve asked you to identify and you have refused. According to you I am in "danger" of a "deadly" threat. So, what are you waiting for?
"Yeah Sean, Sharia is disgusting and inhuman…"
Well, it’s nice to see a liberal go on the record about how "disgusting and inhuman" Sharia law is, but it’s meaningless lip-service without also going on the record and agreeing that governments who rigidly practice Sharia cannot have nukes, period. But I suspect you are unwilling to do so, primarily because your supposed "condemnation" of Sharia law includes this silliness:
"…but it isn’t the only twisted version of religion that threatens us and you ignore the others at your own peril."
There’s that ominous "peril" and "threat" language again. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that you are referring to evangelical Christians, here, right? Once again, I’m still waiting on you to explain exactly what those evil Christians have planned for me (putting me on an island and blowing it up? denying me the right to bridal registry at Crate and Barrel? Oh, the horror.)  Anyway, the fact that you (like all liberals) have no problem equating Sharia with Christianity reveals two things: (1) you’re a moral relativist seeking to diminish the "disgusting inhumanity" of Islamic fundamentalism by comparing it to Christianity simply because it upsets you that Christians believe your lifestyle is sinful and incompatible with their religious beliefs; and (2) you’re just not ready to look at the world like a grown-up.
"Whatever, I’ll just continue my search for "conservatives" who have the ability to rise above the rhetoric and the namecalling."
Rhetoric and namecalling, huh? So, when you say: "Reagan stomped on research into alternative energy sources 27 years ago," I guess that’s "rising above it," but when I explain that what your vague, emotional accusation about Reagan is apparently referring to is actually a change in U.S. energy policy that left the private sector free to develop the technologies that have, in fact, reduced our dependence on foreign oil despite Reagan’s "stomping," then I guess that’s just "rhetoric and namecalling."
Good luck, Dave, but if the discourse you’re seeking from conservatives is less "rhetoric and namecalling" as you’ve called it (ummm……facts, evidence, logic), you’re going to be disappointed.
Comment by Sean A — March 30, 2008 @ 11:48 pm - March 30, 2008
Yeah Sean, Sharia is disgusting and inhuman but it isn’t the only twisted version of religion that threatens us and you ignore the others at your own peril.
Obviously, Dave, you believe the Democrat Party propaganda that there are internment camps for gays "in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho".
http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17006244&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=8
Where, I have no idea, since liberal gays and their masters like Pelosi and Obama can’t tell us or provide us any proof — but they know they’re there, and apparently that’s all the evidence they need.
As for threats, when you have gay and lesbian couples arguing that taking their two-year-old children to sex fairs dressed as sex slaves is an "educational experience", as well as gay and lesbian rights groups arguing that not only is sex with fourteen-year-olds by gays and lesbians over twice their age normal and "common", but that criminalizing it would be a violation of gay rights, darn right you should expect some "antigay sentiment".
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/004352.html
http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=4379&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=9
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 31, 2008 @ 3:14 am - March 31, 2008
#54
Yeah, but I was hoping he’d tell us in his own way.
(you may recall that smaller, more fuel-efficient foreign cars were taking over a market of eager consumers who had spent the last few years waiting in lines at the gas pump–thanks Jimmy!)
Dude! I was 7-14 years old.
And so it comes back to liberals are brainless scum responsible for all the woes of the world
Well what has liberalism (i.e. Socialism/Communism) done to improve the world?
I eagerly await your answer.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 31, 2008 @ 3:46 am - March 31, 2008
I mean we’ll ignore, for now, idiotic liberal energy policies like increase CAFE standards, which results in the deaths of thousands of people per year and totally fucks over their union base. We’ll also skip over the asinine lightbulb mandate designed to unleash poisonous mercury across the land.
For now, please explain what the hell liberalism has done to benefit mankind.
Quiet please, Sean. Let him answer. That is if he has the balls to do so. I think we’d all like to know.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 31, 2008 @ 5:04 am - March 31, 2008
How is it that bazillions of acres of environmentally sensitive habitat for the corkscrew pigmy tse-tse fly and the rabid arctic meadow shrew can be ripped asunder to mine diamonds? Artificial diamonds are so good and so cheap that DeBeers has taken to laser signing the "real" diamonds.
I ask this, because pumping oil from a small footprint is going to destroy the planet before the next commercial break, but mining for granite countertops is ….. Â ? And by the by, why is coal and coal gasification given such a huge pass by the anti-oil harpies? You really want to teach the US Â a hard lesson? Ban coal and all of its by-products.Â
Comment by heliotrope — March 31, 2008 @ 11:17 am - March 31, 2008
I still think the answer to our dependance on foreign oil AND global warming is all the leftists and liberals…park their cars and SUV’s and start riding bikes everywhere they go. Ah what a site that would be, come on Democrats…show some leadership!
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 31, 2008 @ 11:53 am - March 31, 2008
Sean, I did not compare Sharia and radical Islam to Christianity.  There is not, despite multiple denominations who claim they are the only true church, ONE way of Christianity being practiced in this country today. And some of them are so far apart that it’s hard to believe the supposedly worship the same God. The extreme right wing, wrap the cross in the American flag and beat others over the head with it, which is not fringe as so many would like to claim, is most certainly a danger to LGBT people and many others for that matter. You fuss about Wright because of a few harvested and carefully put together video clips but you write off for more venomous statements from preaches on the right. You can call them kooks but AFA, AFTAH, FRC, Repent America, Renew America, what ever psycho Flip Benham is running now, FOTF and many more all hate us with a passion. Oh, I know, love the sinner hate the sin. Bull. The want us gone, converted or at the very least so far back in the closet that they never have to know we exist. And like it or not they influence millions of people in this country.  I certainly don’t believe they represent all of Christianity or all Evangelicals but they have power and one of their favorite targets is us.
I won’t bother answering any more claims of things I said that I never did. Creative reading is one of the major issues I’ve always had with conservatives - read the words not what your mind (falsely) says, all liberals believe.
"Well what has liberalism (i.e. Socialism/Communism) "
Incredibly ignorant association, unless it is as acceptable to say that Christianity = Fred Phelps or Republican = white power militia. Rational people don’t think that way, and I thought that all your conservative beliefs were based on logic and fact?! TGC, having the balls to answer you isn’t the issue. I have seen enough of your posts to know that 1) there’s nothing I can ever say on that topic that you would agree with 2) you’re really not interested because you already know that I’m wrong and 3) I don’t want to hurt you.
Believe me I wasn’t calling Reagan names "stomped on" is simply how I see his actions in this case. Honestly as much as you admire his actions, I despise them. It’s got nothing to do with left wing "propaganda" or what the Dems think or anything else because I am not led by anyone (as much as folks on here like to claim the opposite). I hated what I saw in him before he was elected and there was little he did in office to change that. Whatever, it is what it is and I’m not challenging anyone’s opinion, as adults we make our own judgments - yes, even liberals do.
No doubt, the refrain will be that I avoided answering specific requests or accusations. Could be, or I just forgot what they were.
Comment by Dave — March 31, 2008 @ 5:26 pm - March 31, 2008
Ban coal and all of its by-products.
Miners are union (democrat contributors) aren’t they?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 31, 2008 @ 6:59 pm - March 31, 2008
#63
Yeah, you dodged the question. Also Phelps is a liberal. He’s one of you guys, not us.
Incredibly ignorant association,
One of your candidates believes in taking money and profits away from people and companies "for the common good". Where’s the ignorant association?
TGC, having the balls to answer you isn’t the issue.
Then what is the issue since you refuse to do so?
I have seen enough of your posts to know that 1) there’s nothing I can ever say on that topic that you would agree with
Well if liberalism is so damn great and wonderful and conservatism is so wrong, I would think that you would jump at the chance to tell us. Libs tend, more often than not, to hide what they are, what they believe in rather than telling people up front. One would have to wonder how they can be such "proud" liberals when they don’t dare tell anybody what they truly believe in.
2) you’re really not interested because you already know that I’m wrong
How the hell should I know? You won’t bother telling me anything.
and 3) I don’t want to hurt you.
As I’ve said many times before, I don’t particularly care what you or others think of me and you can’t hurt me.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 31, 2008 @ 7:11 pm - March 31, 2008
"I still think the answer to our dependance on foreign oil AND global warming is all the leftists and liberals…park their cars and SUV’s and start riding bikes everywhere they go."
I have often thought if I were to start an initiative, it would be one that requires all state, county and city employees to ride transit to work. They are so busy trying to force us from our cars, lets see the mayors and city councils practice what they preach. I wonder if it would be legal?
Comment by American Elephant — March 31, 2008 @ 7:32 pm - March 31, 2008
I will start one. Here in San Francisco, the "progressive" liberal Democrats do everything in their power to make driving miserable and charge exorbitant prices for parking….except around City Hall, where there are literally acres of freebie spaces for them and their cronies.
I am actually thinking of writing a ballot initiative that would revoke all parking privileges in the entire Civic Center area — which means if they want Doris Day parking, they have to pay the same rates that everyone else does.
Since the money from the meters would go directly into the public transit system, what exactly are they going to argue?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 31, 2008 @ 7:42 pm - March 31, 2008
AEÂ the thing is that liberals always expect people to adhere to their laws and regs but not them oh no not them. Examples abound like ALGORE flying everywhere and his huge carbon footprint. Babs Streisand’s suggestion that we all go back to drying our laundry on an outside clothes line to save energy but she keeps all 6 of her mansions at 62 degrees even the ones she isn’t staying at. John Edwards of the 48,000 mansion…..on and on and on.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 31, 2008 @ 8:33 pm - March 31, 2008
NDT, if you do, let me know how it goes. Seattle is just as bad., I can’t list all the ways the democratic legislature and democrat city council are pushing to punish drivers and at the same time intentionally refusing to relieve congestion and instead spending the majority of transportation dollars on "mass transit" that has been proven not to work. Drastically raising gas taxes, fighting voter-approved cuts on license tab fees, raising vehicle sales taxes, theyre working on taxing based on mileage with transponders in your car telling the govt God knows what about how far and fast and where you travel, and other taxes based on fuel-efficiency, proposing HUGE new tolls, and other user fees, working to reduce your ability to park, you name it.
And I would bet not one of these vile bureacrats rides transit. They just want to force US to.
Comment by American Elephant — March 31, 2008 @ 9:35 pm - March 31, 2008
#63: "Sean, I did not compare Sharia and radical Islam to Christianity."
Dave, obviously what you meant to say was, "Sean, I did not compare Sharia and radical Islam to Christianity YET," because that’s precisely what you proceeded to do in your comment.
Again, you talk of "danger" and allege that "they want us gone, converted or at the very least so far back in the closet that they never have to know we exist," but the only groups that are proudly exterminating gays are the sovereign nations of Islam.  Your rank speculations about these fundamentalist groups being an actual threat to gays is based on nothing more than the fact that they happen to practice a religion that condemns homosexuality.  In this country they have every right to believe whatever they want and IF, one of these groups actually decided to physically target gays (they have not), our nation (liberals and conservatives) would not tolerate it.  In this country, violence against gays is against the law and in many states the penalties are more severe than the penalties for the same crimes against heterosexuals.  So, your baseless, ominous warnings about some growing, real threat to gays is just plain silly and is nothing more than your desperate need to be validated and celebrated wrapped up in the usual victimization rhetoric.  Why do you so desperately need approval from these people who supposedly hate you?  How does it affect your life in any way?
Comment by Sean A — March 31, 2008 @ 10:20 pm - March 31, 2008
#63: "Believe me I wasn’t calling Reagan names "stomped on" is simply how I see his actions in this case. Honestly as much as you admire his actions, I despise them. It’s got nothing to do with left wing "propaganda" or what the Dems think or anything else because I am not led by anyone (as much as folks on here like to claim the opposite)."
If it’s got nothing to do with liberal propaganda, surely you could manage to name exactly which of Reagan’s actions you so "despise."
Comment by Sean A — March 31, 2008 @ 10:38 pm - March 31, 2008
"they want us gone, converted or at the very least so far back in the closet that they never have to know we exist,"
That was referring to the Islamists, right? Because no intellectually honest person could think it applies to more than a tiny minority of U.S. Christian groups today. We know it applies to the Phelps fringe - but even they don’t seem to be killing gays. Unlike the Islamists, who do.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 31, 2008 @ 10:47 pm - March 31, 2008
It’s like opposite-world with liberals. They believe everyone, including people like Ahmadinejad are basically good and can be talked out of mass murder if we just use "diplomacy." The only people who they believe are evil to the core are evangelical Christians who are just biding their time until they can unleash their "final solution" on the gays. Meanwhile, Iran is ACTUALLY murdering gays in broad daylight before the international press and the only thing liberals can think to say is, "who are WE to tell another country they can’t have nuclear weapons?!"
And it’s no surprise that Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Congregation (consisting entirely of members of Phelps’ own family) didn’t make Dave’s list of "dangerous" Christian cults because he’s a lifelong, committed Democrat, as reported by the liberal rag, Mother Jones:
"Phelps remained prominent in state and local politics, working for years as a major organizer for the state’s Democratic Party. (He still calls himself a Democrat, refusing to change just because his party has.) In 1988, Phelps housed campaign workers for Al Gore’s first presidential run; in 1989, his eldest son, Fred Jr., hosted a fundraiser for Gore’s Senate campaign at his home.
Phelps has frequently run for public office — for governor in 1990, ‘94, and ‘98, for the Senate in ‘92 — always losing the primaries by a landslide. Because of their years as loyal Democrats, the Phelpses have even been invited to — and attended — both of Clinton’s inaugurations. They protested at the second one. But Phelps’ campaign against homosexuality actually began in earnest just before the 1992 campaign, when politicians, especially Democrats, began to openly court gay voters."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html
The fact that liberals like Dave just can’t accept is that there will always be people like Phelps in the world no matter how tolerant, accepting and free a society like the U.S. is. And he somehow thinks that if we all support liberal candidates and policies, people like Phelps will somehow cease to exist. It’s not enough for him that conservatives and liberals alike have universally condemned Phelps and effectively marginalized him and his lunatic family to the fringes of society.  Phelps and his ilk do not "influence millions of people"–they’re banished and ridiculed by everyone, starting with conservative radio hosts like Michael Medved and Mike Gallagher (who actually gave Phelps an hour of radio time to make a fool of himself and his organization, in exchange for his agreement to cancel a planned protest at the funerals of the five Amish girls who were murdered two years ago). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217760,00.html
I fail to see how by becoming a brain-dead Democrat, I would help rid the world of people like Phelps, especially since Phelps actually BEING a Democrat did nothing to stop him.
Comment by Sean A — April 1, 2008 @ 1:54 am - April 1, 2008
Sean, why are you unable to distinguish between an "all" statement and a carefully delineated statement of SOME. There is no way, with a sound grasp of the English language, one can read what I said and claim I am comparing Sharia with Christianity.   Sharia is practiced by SOME Muslims, and SOME Christians are guilty of what I described in my post. The day one of you can see outside of your black and white, good or bad with nothing in between mentality will be the day conversation is actually possible.
Comment by Dave — April 1, 2008 @ 8:20 am - April 1, 2008
Actually, the word I should have used instead of comparing is equating. I’m not equating the Christian religion with Sharia.
Comment by Dave — April 1, 2008 @ 8:23 am - April 1, 2008
A slight correction, Dave: Sharia is at the core of Islam. It is practiced by all Muslims. Some governments impose a civil law that forces Muslims to play by different rules than Sharia would permit and encourage. Some Muslims have drifted far from Sharia; but, if the religious police were to come around the corner, those Muslim-lite folks would fully understand how they had strayed.
Comment by heliotrope — April 1, 2008 @ 10:10 am - April 1, 2008
So there’s no good or evil. Just a nice, happy shade of gray.
Hitler wasn’t so bad. He did, after all, invent the Volkswagon. Dan has one, so he couldn’t have been all bad.
I don’t know what the hubub is about the Darfur Genocide. I mean, we can’t call anything evil, so it must not be all that bad, right?
Apparently Saddam Hussein wasn’t all bad. Despite the fact that half a million children starved to death, Morbidly Obese Moore found a few flying kites along chocolate streams flowing through the Big Rock Candy Mountains.
Bush and Cheney obviously aren’t as evil as you liberals say, because we can’t say that people are evil.
How about China and Tibet? Must not be that big of a deal.
How about Castro, Guevara and company? Sure they slaughtered lots of people including gays, but look at the wonderful island they have now as opposed to 50 odd years ago.
Sure "Uncle Joe" Stalin slaughtered millions, but look at the great country he helped build. Not to mention he had plenty of top notch people working for FDR and Truman.
Right, Dave?
I could go on and on if you like.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 1, 2008 @ 4:46 pm - April 1, 2008
"I could go on and on if you like."
You usually do TGC, and you don’t need my permission. You also usually choose to interpret what I say just warped enough that you can "go on" with examples that don’t at all make sense. I didn’t say there was NO black, NO white, NO good or NO evi. If you look at everything in terms of the extreme only good or evil, then where does that leave gay folk. Many say we are all evil, is that true, are you evil? You must be according to those people. If you say you aren’t evil, then you must be good. Are you completely good, have you never done anything "bad". Where is the dividing line and who gets to define it? What about killing, can you define that in good/evil terms. I don’t think even you can do that.   It’s good (or at least understandable ) when we killed Saddam’s soldiers, but bad when they killed ours. If someone breaks into your house and you kill them you wouldn’t call it evil but if they kill a member of your household then you for sure would call it evil.
I could go on and on if you like
Comment by Dave — April 3, 2008 @ 8:57 pm - April 3, 2008