[AngelinaLip]

Right, pointing out that the Federal Budget went from record surpluses under Clinton to

An amusing lie, but one that the Democrat posters keep making, since the federal debt increased every single year Clinton was president.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

If there had been "a surplus" like you claim, the debt would have decreased.

[_tppga_]

It seems here that he was parroted by an extremist "conservative" cheerleader.

Better than listening to an extremist leftist cheerleader bellyache about "poopieheads".

[NikkitaZ]

native, to be as bigoted and prejudiced as you, I would suggest that you are the one who is unhinged and pathological.

And to be as bigoted and prejudiced as you, I suggest you are the one who is unhinged and pathological.

Which planet do you claim to be native of??? Are you perhaps native amartian???

What planet do you claim to come from??? Are you perhaps donidoodiehead?

(I'm not even going to bother reporting you to the moderators. I'll simply give you back exactly the same treatment you just gave me - you attacked me personally, rather than address the issues I raised. I had not attacked you personally, but you decided to attack me personally.)

[HenriRow]

Better than listening to an extremist leftist cheerleader bellyache about "poopieheads".

Zing!!! Your as wit is surpassed only by your gentle sensibilities.

However, if you're talking about me, I'm a centrist, and not a cheerleader for either party. The fact that my tongue isn't soiled with dirt from the shoes of GOP leaders does not mean that dirt from that of Dems is there instead. In fact, despite the fact that I don't like the Bush administration and liberal neocons in general, the GOP platform is closer to my ideaology than that of the Dems. Rather than picking a party and rooting for it like a football team, however, I recognize that neither party has the market cornered on corruption, incompetence and stupidity.

And, as for my "bellyaching", I like to think of it more as literary coaching for you. I'm trying to help you express yourself better by focussing your thoughts, such as your main one, "Democrats are stinky-pantses!"

[ditpiler]

Are you perhaps donidoodiehead?

Well, now you're on the right track! I always feel that people are most comfortable when they drop false pretenses and converse in a manner appropriate for their maturity levels. You get a smiley face!

[appletango]

Your objection would be much more effective if you were to point out the rabid partisanship on both sides and try to get the cheerleaders from both sides to tone their rhetoric down and think instead of react. I believe that’s your intention, but it’s hard to tell from your posts here.

Generally I do. There are certain posters from the left (I won't name names) that post tripe that mirrors this thread. However, it seems that a lot of those have toned down their posting lately, for some reason or another, and that a new wave of right-wingers is in.

However, I will admit that it probably seems that I'm more inclined to argue with the right, but that is likely because I don't like Bush's administration (a lynchpin for these partisan crap fests). If a moderate Republican or a fiscal conservative Republican occupied the white house, you would probably view me as more idealogically "right". There are plenty of Republican ideas that I'll defend to the hilt, such as capping malpractice suits, privatizing social security, getting rid of welfare, etc.

[furious1]

Zing!!! Your as wit is surpassed only by your gentle sensibilities.

However, if you're talking about me, I'm a centrist, and

LOL! Good one, drgoodtrips! (like we believe you)

[Intiltern]

LOL! Good one, drgoodtrips! (like we believe you)

I'm glad you referenced the bit about your wit in that last post. It continues to sparkle for all to see with each 'pearl' that you drop. Do you mind if I ask, in point of fact, who you mean by "we"? I can't imagine too many people wanting you to speak for them.... {shrug}

[FuXA8nQM]

Generally I do. There are certain posters from the left (I won't name names) that post tripe that mirrors this thread. However, it seems that a lot of those have toned down their posting lately, for some reason or another, and that a new wave of right-wingers is in.

However, I will admit that it probably seems that I'm more inclined to argue with the right, but that is likely because I don't like Bush's administration (a lynchpin for these partisan crap fests). If a moderate Republican or a fiscal conservative Republican occupied the white house, you would probably view me as more idealogically "right". There are plenty of Republican ideas that I'll defend to the hilt, such as capping malpractice suits, privatizing social security, getting rid of welfare, etc.

Cool! A real anarchist!

[Qnpqbpac]

Cool! A real anarchist!

Not anarchy - just not entitlement programs.

[gundorana]

Malkin is a fraud.

Unhinged indeed
Wednesday, November 02, 2005

One of the reasons Michelle Malkin fails the test of being an actual journalist lies in the way she conducts her work: There is simply no evidence of any attempt at fairness.

A serious journalist -- theoretically, at least -- tries to operate with an open mind. It's essential when approaching a subject to gather the available evidence first, and if a conclusion is to be reached, it is only done so when all the evidence is in and weighed. Typically, this means when a reporter is assigned a story, he or she looks first to gather as much information about it as possible.

This doesn't mean the journalist is necessarily "objective," or that bias can't creep in. The very selection of a subject of inquiry may represent a certain bias; and the interpretation and presentation of the data may also be slanted. But the core of the journalistic enterprise revolves around honest inquiry.

Malkin forgoes all this. Throughout her career, her approach has been thesis-driven: She latches onto a potential story or scandal, settles on an angle to pursue, then sets out from the start to prove her thesis, ignoring or tossing aside all contradictory evidence along the way. This was the trend in her column-writing career at the Seattle Times, and it came to full fruition in her execrable In Defense of Internment, which ignored a mountain of evidence contradicting her thesis, and in the process became nothing less than a historical fraud.

Now her latest book is out, and the trend not only continues, it evidently intensifies, if the preliminary material she has made available on her Web site is any indication. [My copy is supposed to be arriving in the mail soon. Yes, dear readers, I'll be reading Malkin so you won't have to. It's a sacrifice, but someone has to make it.]

Titled Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, it's supposedly an expose of those angry lunatics of the left. Malkin says:

I'll probably have to say this a million times, and those predisposed to attack the book (without reading it, natch) will ignore it, but I do not argue that we on the Right have never gone overboard in political word or deed. The book is about turning MSM conventional wisdom on its head and showing that the standard caricature of conservatives as angry/racist/bigoted/violence-prone crackpots is a much better description of today's unhinged liberals than of us.

Fair enough. But just a little later, she writes this:

It's not Republicans taking chainsaws to Democrat campaign signs and running down political opponents with their cars. It's not conservatives burning Democrats in effigy, defacing war memorials, and supporting the fragging of American troops. And it's not conservatives producing a bullet-riddled bumper crop of assassination-themed musicals, books and collectible stamps.

It's not a Republican who invoked Pol Pot and Nazis and Soviet gulag operators when discussing American troops at Guantanamo Bay. That was Democrat Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who kept his Senate Minority Whip position and who continues to blame an “orchestrated right-wing attack” for what came out of his mouth.

It's not Republicans who suggested that President Bush had advance knowledge of the September 11th attacks or that Osama bin Laden has already been captured. Those notions were advanced by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and current Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean.

And it wasn't a Republican who asserted that the war Iraq was "just as bad as six million Jews being killed." That was Democrat Rep. Charlie Rangel, who has refused to apologize and whom no Democrat leader has denounced.

So, you see, despite her earlier disavowal, Malkin does intend to show that it isn't Republicans who have gone overboard in stoking the current political fires. It's just Democrats and the "wacky left."

This is reminiscent of Malkin's disclaimer, with her last book, that she wasn't arguing in favor of race-based internment of Arab Americans -- she was simply justifying the race-based internment of Japanese Americans.

Well, Michelle ...

It isn't Democrats who sprayed racist, pro-Bush graffiti on Democratic campaign HQ in Sacramento, or stole computers from Democrats in Ohio, or set campaign signs afire in Louisiana, or spread blood and innards around the front door of Bush critics. It isn't Democrats firing workers for their presidential choices.

[In fact, I tried keeping a running tally during the election of reports of thuggery from both right and left, and tracked it at a post called Thug Watch. Though I'm sure there were some reports that I missed on both sides, the reports of thuggery from the right, as you can see, outnumber those from the left by a factor of more than 2-to-1.]

It isn't Democrats, Michelle, who have denigrated the service of war heroes; it's people like you. And it isn't Democrats who are delivering a steady stream of "bestselling" books attacking liberals as subhuman scum: calling them innately treasonous, identifying them with terrorists, the "enemy within" with a "mental illness." Going on talk shows and saying that the best way to talk to a Republican is "with a baseball bat, preferably."

As for the "assassination" themes, Michelle, it wasn't a left-wing blogger who posted the following remark at the height of the 2004 campaign:

Rope. Tree. Justice. The only three things that Qerry deserves for his "service".

No, as a matter of fact, that was a blogger who resides on your blogroll.

It was that same blog, in fact, that earlier urged the use of violence against another blogger and even provided directions to that person's home on his blog. I'm not aware of any left-wing bloggers having done that.

Indeed, for all the left-wing wackery out there -- and there's no doubt plenty of it -- what you don't see is this kind of eliminationist rhetoric.

After all, Michelle, it wasn't a prominent Democrat who publicly hypothesized about what would happen to the crime rate if all black babies were aborted. It wasn't a prominent Democratic radio talk-show host in Seattle who said of a U.S. Senator -- yes, the same Dick Durbin whose remarks you find completely out of line: "This man is simply a piece of excrement, a piece of waste that needs to be scraped off the sidewalk and eliminated."

It isn't the most prominent liberal talk-show host in the country who jokes that we shouldn't "kill all the liberals" -- instead, we should "leave enough so we can have two on every campus -- living fossils -- so we will never forget what these people stood for."

It wasn't a prominent member of the "liberal" media who opined that we ought to incarcerate everyone who works for Air America.

It wasn't a Democratic congressman who opined that we ought to ship liberal dissenters to Iraq to serve as "human shields."

It wasn't left-wing letter writers who attacked former USA Today editor Al Neuharth and recommended he face execution for treason. Al Neuharth, mind you -- not exactly Mr. Liberal.

And kooky theories? Well, Michelle, what about the forthcoming tome from a well-known conservative postulating -- against all known historical fact -- that fascism is a liberal phenomenon. Of course, you know all about ignoring the weight of historical evidence, don't you?

It isn't liberal bloggers, Michelle, who have waxed wroth at the General Ripperesque notion that the Flight 94 memorial is actually a tribute to the terrorists, or who have whipped up groundless fears about Islamist terrorists in Oklahoma and elsewhere; no left-wing moonbats groundlessly attacked the Pulitzer winner in photography or attacked USA Today with conspiratorial accusations for a badly retouched photo.

No, Michelle, that would be you and yours. Moonbats, wingnuts, take your pick: The shoe fits -- you.

Look, there's no use in pretending that there isn't excess on the left as well. Unlike Malkin, I probably would be more than willing to acknowledge its presence and denounce it when it occurs if people like Malkin and Co. weren't so ready to spring into action at the first imagined slight (and more often than not, they are imagined) -- and yet so consistently fail to acknowledge similar behavior on the right.

Indeed, the pattern has been rather the opposite: When the acts of violence that the right wants to link to liberals turns out, in fact, to be the work of right-wing extremists, there's no acknowledgement made, much less apologies issued. Witness, for instance, Malkin's handling of an arson case in Maryland which she and other prominent bloggers presumed to be the work of eco-terrorists; but when it turned out that these were race-related arsons, the subject went away quickly with a brief semi-acknowledgement of error. Likewise, Malkin waved all kinds of accusations about regarding a murder of a Coptic Christian family in New Jersey, and then quietly shut it down when it turned out not to be the work of Islamist radicals after all.

And that's the problem, isn't it? It would be nice to have pleasant, reasonable debate in which facts and evidence and reason all play a role and are all respected -- but in recent years, the right hasn't been playing by those rules. Not since the Republican Congress ignored the popular will and proceeded to impeach Bill Clinton. Not since Republicans quite literally stole the 2000 election. Not since their incompetence left us exposed to the worst terrorist attack on American soil. Not since they subsequently shoved a misbegotten war in Iraq down our collective throats.

Because in the pursuit of that agenda, the conservative movement has become a take-no-prisoners, scorched-earth entity, whence so much of the ugliness in our current discourse arises. A lot of it, as I've examined at length previously, is deeply personal stuff, and the effect on our personal lives has been lasting and profound.

The chief, overarching argument of the conservative movement, in essence, has been that liberals are the sole and primary cause of everything that is wrong both with America and with the world at large. What kind of reasonable discourse is possible, really, when that is the starting point of the conversation?

Malkin's book, it's clear, is simply going to be another contribution to that liberal-bashing trend, even as it pretends to shame liberals for behavior that is rampant within the ranks of conservatives -- behavior, indeed, encouraged from the very top. After all, it wasn't a Democratic vice president who pointedly, and publicly, told a prominent U.S. Senator to go fuck himself.

A serious journalist would have examined the ugliness in the discourse and recognized that it's rampant on both sides. I also think an honest accounting would find that, if anything, it's more pronounced and far more aggressive from the right. Much of the ugliness from the left seems, if anything, largely reactive to the nasty provocations and threats of elimination coming from the right.

But Malkin, as we know already, is not a serious journalist. As with her last book, she has simply chosen snippets of evidence that support her thesis and ignored substantial contravening evidence -- which is never mentioned, let alone confronted. The result is a blinkered and ultimately false version of reality.

There's only one thing to call that: propaganda. Malkin's book not only is unlikely to end the ugliness in discourse -- it virtually guarantees that it will get worse. http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/11...ed-indeed.html

Go to the site to look into the links. Very interesting.

David Neiwert is a legitimate respected journalist that used to edit Malkin's smut.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, she is just flat out stupid. She writes all the political smut that the right loves to consume - Enter poster Native American.

Native American, boy oh boy, are you getting you chained pulled. Although it's believable that you would fall for her crap. She writes exactly the radical sensational crap that you live and breath for.

I can hear Malkin's book sucking the life out people as they read it. She's pure hype, nothing more. She continuously makes historical errors and always goes off the deep end.

[Kissntell]

Right, pointing out that the Federal Budget went from record surpluses under Clinton to record deficits under Bush is "The politics of personal destruction" Boy...goober is indeed the right name for you. The record surpluses of the 90's didn't happen because of Clinton...they happened despite Clinton. His tax hike of '93 stalled any immediate hope of economic recovery...it wasn't until Newt & the boys took power in '94 & started rolling back the hikes in '95 that the economy took off. The last Democrat that knew jack shit about free market economics was Jack Kennedy, anyway.

Doctor DieHard


BTW - I couldn't happen but notice today...that brilliant economic "genius" from the Carter administration, Paul Volker (remember...???...the one responsible for double-digit inflation, record high unemployment, long gas lines & the misery index???)...has a few troubles over at the U.N. Oil-For-Food Investigation himself, with two of his close money buddies. Seems he looked the other way concerning their bribery digressions, while condemning everyone else involved…(& while taking a few "vouchers" himself):

""AP — A conflict of interest involving Oil-for-Food investigator Paul Volcker may be the reason why an oil company involved in paying illegal surcharges to Saddam Hussein received no punishment.

News organizations have obtained copies of interviews in which two senior employees of the French oil company Total tell an investigating Paris judge they used two Swiss companies -- Genmar and Mero -- to illegally funnel bribes to Saddam Hussein for oil contracts.

One of the executives told the judge: "Through companies like Genmar and others, Total retained the possibility of buying second hand Iraqi crude. The Iraqis did not care who the buyers were as long as the surcharges were paid."

The other Total executive said: "These two companies [Genmar and Mero] carried out successive contracts from which they extracted a profit of two cents a barrel."

France's former interior minister Charles Pasqua, named by Paul Volcker as an alleged recipient of Iraqi oil vouchers, believes Total and Genmar used his name to legitimize their dealings.

"Total used Genmar" Pasqua told FOX News. "If Genmar used my name, Total took advantage of it the same way. Since I was not involved, I want to know who used my name."

It was discovered that Volcker, who spent 18 months investigating the oil for food scandal, was aware of the admissions by the Total executives, yet failed to issue an adverse finding against the company, as he did against many others accused of the same thing.

Earlier this year FOX News reported that Volcker is a friend of, and has been a paid advisor to Canadian businessman Paul Desmarais (search), whose Power Corporation is one of the largest shareholders in Total oil. Volcker has not responded to repeated requests for an interview on this subject.""

[MariaBeautys]

Hey conformfailure...

We really said all those things ???

Hot damn...we're some witty motherf_ _k_ rs, ain't we ???

But I really don't think it's necessarily what you say in life, conformfailure...it's what you believe.

And I would contend that the following beliefs are proof positive that the left has indeed been UNHINGED...for a very, very long time:

Belief #1) The pre war Iraq intelligence shared to Congress is somehow different than the pre war Iraq intelligence shared to the White House:

It must be...John Kerry viewed the same intelligence as the President (along with Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller & Ted Kennedy)...& at first, came to one conclusion (which was the same conclusion that the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense; & a host of random politicos on both sides of the isle came to)...

...& then later, John Kerry (& the remainder of the UNHINGED left), came to a very different conclusion.

Belief #2) Adhering to the absurd notions & conspiracy theories of Michael Moore is very good...but adhering to the balderdash which claimed Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered is very, very bad:

This one sort of speaks for itself...nutballs come in all flavors. [And; since the 9/11 Commission (along with the help of testimony from famous Bush hater: Richard Clark) has debunked most of Moore's theories...I guess they're in on the fix too, eh?]

Belief #3) A Woman can be trusted with decisions about her own body...but to hell with the man who partnered the living thing she is making a life & death decision about:

Well...I think we should at least consult with the fathers, too...maybe? Whadda yu think?

Belief #4) (& one of my personal favorites) In the 70's & 80's, the Sandinistas were really "Agrarian Reformers"; & came to power in a free election:

& let's see...they also didn't really murder landowners & turn profitable coffee plantations into Stalin style collective farms...they didn't really "remove" thousands of Nicaraguan teachers & replace them with Cuban socialist "educators"...they didn't really brutalize the native Mikisto Indians & burn their villages...they didn't really set up neighborhood "Defense Committees", using Che Guevera style tactics against neighbors & folks who just didn't want to be fuckin' socialists...they didn't really set up a soviet style military...they didn't really aid & abet Marxist uprisings in El Salvador, Guatemala, etc....

...&...oh yeah...Ronald W. Reagan was a really, really bad man for puttin' a stop to it.

Belief #5) Jimmy Carter is an honorable man; & has worked tirelessly toward world peace:

Yes...yes...we especially admire the "great naive one" in his brokering of the nuclear power deal with North Korea...the one the North Koreans used to begin building nuclear weapons about 10 minutes after Carter's jet was over international waters.

Belief #6) George H. W. Bush & Manual Noriega conspired to bring crack cocaine into the inner city...to kill off all the minorities:

I'm surprised Michael Moore or George Soros hasn't picked up on this one...don't they socialize with Maxine Waters or Alec Baldwin?

Belief #7) Health care should be a national "right":

Yeah, buddy...it's worked wonders in France & Canada. I'm wondering though...why is it that R & D for new & innovative pharmaceuticals in countries with socialized health is one-tenth of what it is in the United States...or why health care professionals in those countries are plagued by a lack of incentive; & find it difficult to learn & practice model medical skills...why they can't obtain state-of-the-art treatment gear...or why rich foreigners come the good ol' U.S.A. for high tech surgery?

Belief #8) George W. Bush is a stupid, inarticulate man:

Yeah...and Nancy Pelosi & Ted Kennedy are really brilliant mother f_ _kers, too!, ain't they? Why..."W" is so goddamned dumb...40 million Afghanis & Iraqis became free citizens before John Kerry realized what he was up to.

Belief #9) If you're a hip-hop emulatin' druggie or a steroid poppin' hillbilly in the sports industry, you're rationalized away by the press...idolized by kids...applauded by your peers...& pardoned by your employers.

If you're a conservative talk show host with a substance abuse problem...you become the subject of ridicule by the pointy chinned; & the victim of an illegal witch hunt by overzealous/partisan law enforcement officials.

Dit-a-lit, dit-a-lit, dit-a-lit, dit-a-lit...

Belief #10) George W. Bush stole the 2000 election:

Correct us if were wrong here...but didn't hundreds of members of the liberal media comb the entire state of Florida looking in every crevice for "disenfranchisement", without finding a drop? And didn't the so-called disenfranchisement & supposed voter fraud occur in counties that were run by Democrats? And wasn't the vote counted in those counties 4 times...

...by Democrats...

...& Bush won every time?

Now...what we'd like to know is: Those absentee ballots from Florida's U.S. military men & women stationed overseas...the ones the Florida Democrats wouldn't permit to be counted...doesn't that count as disenfranchisement?

Hey conformfailure...the list goes on & on & on & on...

The left is doomed...everybody knows it. The polls are skewed...the war is righteous & succeeding (I know Marines & fly boys (both Republican & Democrat) who tell me the American & European press is full of shit]...you're gonna' loose seats in 2006 (& the Supreme Court in January of the same year.) We're taking this country back from a failed ideology...an ideology run by anti-Americans & criminal deffense attorneys & immoral elites & phony, entrenched educators who don't really care about poor kids & socialist apologist academics & race hustlers, etc., etc., etc.

Doctor DieHard


BTW - Update...Update...Update: Joe Wilson told a Canadian newspaper (not long after his infamous New York Times op-ed piece criticizing Bush over no WMD's) that, finding WMD's could be viewed as "immaterial"...considering that the main focus should be regime change, coupled with a democratically stable mid-east region.

Nah...never mind...that's not #11 on the list of whackleftist beliefs...that's actually sensible.

[Fegemiembendy]

Hey conformfailure...

We really said all those things ???

Hot damn...we're some witty motherf_ _k_ rs, ain't we ???

But I really don't think it's necessarily what you say in life, conformfailure...it's what you believe.

And I would contend that the following beliefs are proof positive that the left has indeed been UNHINGED...for a very, very long time:

Belief #1) The pre war Iraq intelligence shared to Congress is somehow different than the pre war Iraq intelligence shared to the White House:

It must be...John Kerry viewed the same intelligence as the President (along with Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller & Ted Kennedy)...& at first, came to one conclusion (which was the same conclusion that the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense; & a host of random politicos on both sides of the isle came to)...

...& then later, John Kerry (& the remainder of the UNHINGED left), came to a very different conclusion.

Belief #2) Adhering to the absurd notions & conspiracy theories of Michael Moore is very good...but adhering to the balderdash which claimed Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered is very, very bad:

This one sort of speaks for itself...nutballs come in all flavors. [And; since the 9/11 Commission (along with the help of testimony from famous Bush hater: Richard Clark) has debunked most of Moore's theories...I guess they're in on the fix too, eh?]

Belief #3) A Woman can be trusted with decisions about her own body...but to hell with the man who partnered the living thing she is making a life & death decision about:

Well...I think we should at least consult with the fathers, too...maybe? Whadda yu think?

Belief #4) (& one of my personal favorites) In the 70's & 80's, the Sandinistas were really "Agrarian Reformers"; & came to power in a free election:

& let's see...they also didn't really murder landowners & turn profitable coffee plantations into Stalin style collective farms...they didn't really "remove" thousands of Nicaraguan teachers & replace them with Cuban socialist "educators"...they didn't really brutalize the native Mikisto Indians & burn their villages...they didn't really set up neighborhood "Defense Committees", using Che Guevera style tactics against neighbors & folks who just didn't want to be fuckin' socialists...they didn't really set up a soviet style military...they didn't really aid & abet Marxist uprisings in El Salvador, Guatemala, etc....

...&...oh yeah...Ronald W. Reagan was a really, really bad man for puttin' a stop to it.

Belief #5) Jimmy Carter is an honorable man; & has worked tirelessly toward world peace:

Yes...yes...we especially admire the "great naive one" in his brokering of the nuclear power deal with North Korea...the one the North Koreans used to begin building nuclear weapons about 10 minutes after Carter's jet was over international waters.

Belief #6) George H. W. Bush & Manual Noriega conspired to bring crack cocaine into the inner city...to kill off all the minorities:

I'm surprised Michael Moore or George Soros hasn't picked up on this one...don't they socialize with Maxine Waters or Alec Baldwin?

Belief #7) Health care should be a national "right":

Yeah, buddy...it's worked wonders in France & Canada. I'm wondering though...why is it that R & D for new & innovative pharmaceuticals in countries with socialized health is one-tenth of what it is in the United States...or why health care professionals in those countries are plagued by a lack of incentive; & find it difficult to learn & practice model medical skills...why they can't obtain state-of-the-art treatment gear...or why rich foreigners come the good ol' U.S.A. for high tech surgery?

Belief #8) George W. Bush is a stupid, inarticulate man:

Yeah...and Nancy Pelosi & Ted Kennedy are really brilliant mother f_ _kers, too!, ain't they? Why..."W" is so goddamned dumb...40 million Afghanis & Iraqis became free citizens before John Kerry realized what he was up to.

Belief #9) If you're a hip-hop emulatin' druggie or a steroid poppin' hillbilly in the sports industry, you're rationalized away by the press...idolized by kids...applauded by your peers...& pardoned by your employers.

If you're a conservative talk show host with a substance abuse problem...you become the subject of ridicule by the pointy chinned; & the victim of an illegal witch hunt by overzealous/partisan law enforcement officials.

Dit-a-lit, dit-a-lit, dit-a-lit, dit-a-lit...

Belief #10) George W. Bush stole the 2000 election:

Correct us if were wrong here...but didn't hundreds of members of the liberal media comb the entire state of Florida looking in every crevice for "disenfranchisement", without finding a drop? And didn't the so-called disenfranchisement & supposed voter fraud occur in counties that were run by Democrats? And wasn't the vote counted in those counties 4 times...

...by Democrats...

...& Bush won every time?

Now...what we'd like to know is: Those absentee ballots from Florida's U.S. military men & women stationed overseas...the ones the Florida Democrats wouldn't permit to be counted...doesn't that count as disenfranchisement?

Hey conformfailure...the list goes on & on & on & on...

The left is doomed...everybody knows it. The polls are skewed...the war is righteous & succeeding (I know Marines & fly boys (both Republican & Democrat) who tell me the American & European press is full of shit]...you're gonna' loose seats in 2006 (& the Supreme Court in January of the same year.) We're taking this country back from a failed ideology...an ideology run by anti-Americans & criminal deffense attorneys & immoral elites & phony, entrenched educators who don't really care about poor kids & socialist apologist academics & race hustlers, etc., etc., etc.

Doctor DieHard


BTW - Update...Update...Update: Joe Wilson told a Canadian newspaper (not long after his infamous New York Times op-ed piece criticizing Bush over no WMD's) that, finding WMD's could be viewed as "immaterial"...considering that the main focus should be regime change, coupled with a democratically stable mid-east region.

Nah...never mind...that's not #11 on the list of whackleftist beliefs...that's actually sensible.

Defending your book Mrs. Malkin?

[Dayreive]

Defending your book Mrs. Malkin? That's all you got..."Mrs. Malkin"?

Typical. No substance from the left, only malevolence & innuendo.

Doctor DieHard

[Gymnfacymoota]

There are a lot of parroted talking points through which to weed, but I'll take a shot, as "devil's advocate". Note that "devil's advocate" is exactly what I am, as my aim here is not to defend Democrats as much as it is to point out the problem with partisanship for its own sake. Also, in the future, if you're going to repost the same thing, please provide a link to it, rather than re-posting it.

Belief #1) The pre war Iraq intelligence shared to Congress is somehow different than the pre war Iraq intelligence shared to the White House:

Regardless of the intelligence, the decision to go to war was Dubya's, which puts him uniquely on the hook. While it's a tempting cop-out to say "So-and-so woulda done the same..." it's irrelevant conjecture. The Congress voted to give Bush authority, and Bush went. Bush is the only one who went, ergo this line of hypotheticals is meaningless.

Belief #2) Adhering to the absurd notions & conspiracy theories of Michael Moore is very good...but adhering to the balderdash which claimed Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered is very, very bad: Occam's Razor tells us that believing in any conspiracy theory is bad.

Belief #3) A Woman can be trusted with decisions about her own body...but to hell with the man who partnered the living thing she is making a life & death decision about: This is a strawman, and consequently not something a democrat "must believe". On the wedge issue in question, someone will always get a raw deal no matter how it is legislated. Citing the person who gets the raw deal under the policy you oppose is equally meaningless to an adversary citing the person who gets a raw deal under the policy you support (i.e. the woman who is forced to carry an unwanted child to term because some guy raped in a perverse plan to have a child).

Belief #4) (& one of my personal favorites) In the 70's & 80's, the Sandinistas were really "Agrarian Reformers"; & came to power in a free election: I don't see this esoteric point in the lines coming from the Dems very often. Your claptrap is entitled "things every Democrat must believe...". Do you really think that the average voter is informed enough to have beliefs one way or another on this matter?

Belief #5) Jimmy Carter is an honorable man; & has worked tirelessly toward world peace: IMO, Jimmy Carter is a good man and was a lousy POTUS. While I'm not a Democrat, I'm willing to bet that a lot of them would agree with that statement. Are you asserting that reasonable people must believe that Jimmy Carter is evil?

Belief #6) George H. W. Bush & Manual Noriega conspired to bring crack cocaine into the inner city...to kill off all the minorities: That's preposterous, and it's scary to think that people believe that and vote.

Belief #7) Health care should be a national "right": No argument here - my beliefs line up with yours on this subject.

Belief #8) George W. Bush is a stupid, inarticulate man: George Bush is a stupid, inarticulate man. Whether Pelosi and Kennedy are as well is immaterial. As for your "proof" of his intelligence, your reasoning is circular. You say that George Bush is intelligent because only an intelligent person could have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, but you don't prove either statement. This would be akin to me saying that Bush is stupid because only an idiot would have twin daughters.

Belief #9) If you're a hip-hop emulatin' druggie or a steroid poppin' hillbilly in the sports industry, you're rationalized away by the press...idolized by kids...applauded by your peers...& pardoned by your employers.

If you're a conservative talk show host with a substance abuse problem...you become the subject of ridicule by the pointy chinned; & the victim of an illegal witch hunt by overzealous/partisan law enforcement officials. You're missing the essential point. Hippies, druggies, and rhoid-heads do not pretend to be a beacon of "conservative family values" to the breadbasket of America. When someone bases his image and his stature upon moral superiority, he will necessarily fall farther than the average man when he falls. If Rush wants to be given the same "pass" as the groups you mention, than he should bag the moral superiority act. Your argument here is like saying "it's okay for 10 year olds to shoplift and not go to jail, but a CEO who bilks millions of people out of their pensions is crucified!"

Belief #10) George W. Bush stole the 2000 election: No argument here - I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories.


The left is doomed...everybody knows it. Click your heels together and repeat this three times.

The polls are skewed... I see. What was it you said about conspiracy theories?

[Zaxsdcxs]

There are a lot of parroted talking points through which to weed, but I'll take a shot, as "devil's advocate". Oh no...another so-called MODERATE. Hey goodtrips...let me provide you with a bit of political tutelage. First of all...none of my stuff (writing) resembles "parroted talking points", even in the most remote form. It's all original thought, assembled from what I read, what I have read [going all the way back to Ayn Rand (even as far back as Hayek & Mises)]; & what I know in my gut. Secondly...despite what you may think (and eternally hope for)...nothing is accomplished in politics via MODERATION...Nothing !!!

The wings drive the bus...period.

[Actually, there has been some good that came as a result of moderation...one such triumph that comes to mind would be the urging for bi-partisanship (& the hard work behind the scenes) from Republican bigs like Everett Dirksen on the Civil Rights Act of 1964...but they're few & far between.]

[BTW - Did you know that more Democrats voted against the C.R.A. of '64 than Republicans?]

But I digress.

Anyway...someone said in one of these threads (maybe it was you) that there's no difference between Moore & Limbaugh. A larger point might be attempted by our so-called moderate friends that, there's really no difference between the far left & the far right.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

The far left has always been driven by anti-Americanism. This is a truth that cannot be denied...even when they said it wasn't so...

...IT WAS SO.

Take a look at the real truth behind H.U.A.A.C. & then the Hollywood black list & even the red scare in general. They taunted (& even censored) McCarthy...saying that he went far too far. They said their first amendment rights were being violated (the commies', that is.) They said that Communism wasn't a real threat.

We now know (thanks to the Venona papers) that, not only was the threat real...it reached the highest levels of American government; & that McCarthy didn't go far enough. Yes we do have a right to free speech...but we don't have a right to overthrow the f_ _kin' government. There were spies not only in every major administrative, military & intelligence department...there were spies in F.D.R's major cabinet positions !!! There were spies in the O.S.S. & even at the head of the goddamn State Department. [That would be like saying today that Condeleeza Rice is secretly a member of Al-Qaeda !*!*!...think about that.] And they were all taking their marching orders from Stalin...[Stalin even had a state-based hit out on John Wayne...which wasn't rescinded 'till Khrushchev came in.] They had allies & mouth pieces in academia & the press...& ESPECIALLY Hollywood...a true "fifth column". Their aim was to overthrow the government of the U.S. & transform our way of life to theirs...to cure us of our love for individual liberty & move us into collectivism & devotion to the state (which was their religion, incidentally.) These directives showed up in document after document after document, gleaned from KGB archives & Soviet policy strategies...hundreds & hundreds of them...it's an undisputed fact.

Unbiased historians look back on the period & wonder what we were thinking about...it was going on right under our nose. They even moved in a monolithic political mass...first, when Hitler attacked Russia...the American left went around railing about fascism, urging us to attack Germany. Then, when Stalin & Hitler formed their pact...the American left mysteriously became pro-fascist & outspokenly anti-war (sound familiar yet?) After the war, when news of Stalin's gulags came filtering in...the American left became Stalin apologists !!!

Now put this all in contrast with the American right...& you cannot even begin to compare the two.

See...I don't trust these people...it's that simple. Old battles aren't forgotten...they're re-fought. The same people that hate free market capitalism, the Christian right & American foreign policy today are the same people that planted stories in the press about Prescott Bush in the '30's. In the last 10 months of the Viet Nam war...we were winning (did you know that?...another fact.) But these same people had the American political landscape so polluted with propaganda that the politicians caved in & pulled out. These are the same people that fought us tooth & nail during the cold war. And the same people who used the freedom found in our system to try & bring us down...were supporting a system that would have not permitted that very same freedom. Michael Moore is one of these people...he would tear us down with lies; & then what? George Galloway is one of these people. Limbaugh is not.

And the worst thing of all ? The modern day Democrats have thrown in with the Moore/Galloway mentality.

Sorry...I don't trust 'em (& there's no comparison.)

Doctor DieHard


A,BTW...please don't come back with a laundry list of bad things from the American right...I've heard them all...we know them all. But at the end of the day...we stand with America. Who does the left stand with?

[avavavava]

Just one more thing...

The left is a real collection of some highly mixed up mo-foes I think that says it fairly well.


Another quick thing...

When the Venona papers were finally declassified in 1995 [thanks to one of the great Democrats of all time (I might add)...Daniel Patrick Moynihan]...it wound up on page 4 of the N.Y.Times & page 6 of the L.A. Times. This might have been the single most important story of the century...not just to the people who fought the cold war...but anyone who knew anything about American politics from mid-century on...AND IT DOESN'T WIND UP ABOVE THE FOLD ON THE FRONT PAGE IN THESE PUBLICATIONS (& OTHERS) ???

My point ? The left still controls the press.

Doctor DieHard