Subscribe By Email

Worthy Causes


Categories

October 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« The Subject of Subjectivity | Main | Blackfive: Reason to Delay Airforce One... »

Friday, August 29, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

ford

More experience to lead than Obama? What a fundamentally stupid statement. You are full of it.

Morgan K Freeberg

Okay NOW, I'm seriously thinking about jumping in. Up until this, I would've just as soon written in Genghis Kahn's name. (Scrambling around for someone to the political right of Karl Marx.)

NEXT STEP: Put McCain and Palin in a room together somewhere, and slam the hell out of both of 'em (figuratively) until they drop the global warming hooey.

Morgan K Freeberg

And ford, kindly stick a sock in it. We know you people deal with bullying, and not with truth; if there was room for disagreement on that before, there is no longer.

Tim Chesterton

Hmm. As someone who, were I an American, would probably be voting for the other team, I still have to say that this is a smart move from McCain. She'll appeal to the right wing crowd who are a bit unsure of McCain's own conservative credentials, she'll capitalise on Hillary Clinton's glass ceiling rhetoric, and - assuming she performs well - she'll be an obvious contender for the nomination after McCain retires.

I really hope they aren't elected, but I have to agree with your hat tip, Rick. Not in the same sense as you, of course!

Mommynator

Imagine VP Paline as president of the Senate.

Take THAT, Nancy Pelosi!!!

Morgan - she's all for drilling ANWR and the coastlines of Alaska. I don't think she's into the global warming hooey.

I also think it speaks well of McCain that he is confident enough to pick a strong woman who may disagree with him on some issues.

NOW who's the party of progress with the big tent?

I haven't been excited about the campaign until now.

tim aka The Godless Heathen

ford just upset 'cause Palin is more of a man than Obama (and can probably kick his wimpy ass).

McPalin '08.

Like a sledgehammer this news hits the Dem's. Great move Maverick!

Now I'm REALLY ready for the Labor Day weekend.

Fuquod (who once again posted as tim)

well, a nice pick if your going for the white trash vote (almost for you, Rick-heh)
no wonder the choice plays well with you and your readers. and if you were really honest, you never heard of her before today.

Yeah, let's take a clueless person from corrupt Alaska and put that person a heartbeat away from the presidency.

McCain has a history of illness, now we know he's sick in the head.

Mommynator

As usual, Fuquod shows us his monkey bum ignorance.

I've been reading about Palin for months now. I've been hoping against hope that she would be the VP nominee.

And to enlighten your silly ignorance, I was born and raised in NYC, I still live here, have a bachelors degree and am working towards another one even as we speak. My family is also well educated and read.

What do you read besides DailyKOS?

Fuquod

a monkey can get a bachelors degree in NYC. Heck, I bet Rick could even get one...

so what's your point?

Morgan K Freeberg

Leftists are sexists. Anyone who's been paying attention has already known it for awhile. Now everyone else is going to find out too. White trash? Palin's "clueless" just because she's a woman?

Heh. You guys are runnin' scared. Don't think it doesn't show. Millions of voters just like me, who were ready to write in "Daffy Duck" and are now ready to punch McCain's chad. Plus more millions of disenfranchised women, PUMA. Most of them are voting for McCain too.

Plus after his convention that looks like something Xerxes would be sitting on in 300, Obama's lead against McCain is one point. On a poll with a two-percent margin of error.

Cry, cry you desperate liberals. Running scared you are...lick...lick...yum. Sweet, sweet tears.

http://tinyurl.com/6gwzzk

Mommynator

Don't forget, little dipwad, the gods disapprove of hubris and punish those who usurp the worship of the gods. (gotta go with that motif since we had a Greek temple and all).

I guess you're jealous because you couldn't even get a GED certificate from the local print shop.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tim Chesterton

Leftists are sexists

Morgan, that's the kind of absurd generalisation that gets blogs like this a bad name. I know lots of leftists who are not sexists. I hope I'm one of them.

Zossima

Well I popped over to see the reaction to McCain's pick. I'm surprised at this positive outpouring, though I won't critique it or even try to understand your explanations. I'm confounded enough that you fawn all over a man that you only recently vilified. Apparently the obvious pandering of his position changes is music to your ears. That's the way it goes with people who are interested in power over truth. Well, I'll say, it's at least a way better pick than Lieberman or Romney. Peace.

chuck aka xtnyoda

The sad refrain would be something like:

Rock a by
And good night...
It is good...by...Obama...

:-)

Morgan K Freeberg

Morgan, that's the kind of absurd generalisation that gets blogs like this a bad name.

I stand by it.

They run up a woman, they act like they invented womens' rights. Hell -- they act like they invented women. Republicans put a woman on the ticket, and suddenly that's a sign the Republicans "know they've lost."

The only possible conclusion to draw is that liberals feel they own women. Not at all unlike the guy who cheats on his girlfriend, and then when she gets tired of him and hooks up with someone new, says "If I can't have you nobody can."

Come to think of it -- exactly like that.

Tim Chesterton

That's ridiculous. Without thinking very hard at all I can name you at least a dozen people who embrace left-wing politics who are not sexists at all. How can you possibly make a blanket statement that 'leftists are sexist'? Do you know them all? Have you done research into their supposed sexism?

I mean, I'm just a foreigner and all that, but even I can see a different explanation for the phenomenon you're describing. It's called 'political spin', and people on all sides of the spectrum do it all the time. Tip of that hat to the guy I hope will lose: McCain made a smart move in picking Palin. The Dems have to make it out to be less smart than it is, so they spin it as 'knowing they've lost'. Pure spin; I expect to see more and more of it as the campaign progresses, since politics, on all sides of the spectrum, tends to rely more and more these days on the ability to lie and smear convincingly. All the more reason for Christians to remember the verse from the Psalms: 'Put not your trust in princes, nor in any child of man'.

Zossima

Tim, you don't even have to bother to think of the names. Just examine Morgan's statement: "The only possible conclusion..." There are dozens of other conclusions to draw from fuquod's statement above or the statements being issued by Democrats in response to this choice. One might be that rather than being about women in general, it's a statement about Palin. That she is the most unqualified person to be VP in the history of this country. That

See, Morgan exemplifies the GOP mindset: Question the war? You must be a terrorist-abetting libbrull. Question Bush's fiscal policies? You must be a tax-raising socialist. Question the choice of Palin? You must be a sexist. It's bizarro world where the waking goal every day is to tell obvious falsehoods (pursuing more oil is a good idea) and then defend them with vigor. Shout it loud enough and apparently enough people believe.

It's hard to argue with it, because apparently it has worked as a tool for keeping power. Unfortunately, it has also blown up the deficit, overextended our military, reinvigorated al Qaeda, made us pariahs on the world stage, enriched the Chinese, rearmed the Russians, and on and on. A tree is known by its fruit. This is a vile tree.

Now with respect to McSame, what Beevis Rick and Butthead Morgan and the rest of the right are cheerleading is some juvenile political "f you" to Obama and those evil librulls. It doesn't matter that McCain passed over Christy Whitman, Elizabeth Dole, Condi Rice, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and numerous other infinitely more qualified GOP women (and men) to be one step away from the presidency. Somehow picking Palin is a "maverick" move. Woo-hoo.

See, it quit being about the good of the country a long time ago for these guys.

Mommynator

Just for the record, nobody here has vilified McCain personally.

We have had disagreements on some of his policies that we deem important.

But he seems to be listening. And by appointing Ms. Palin as his running mate, that's been confirmed.

He's right about a couple of important things - national defense and cutting taxes and spending.

The rest we can argue about.

For people who say we generalize, saying we vilified McCain is the pot calling the kettle black.

Rick
Morgan, that's the kind of absurd generalisation that gets blogs like this a bad name.

This blog's "bad name" is the direct result of it's getting in the faces of liberals who can't handle the truth. It's a "bad name" I appreciate immensely. And it's a "bad name" earned largely by the wisdom imparted by it's participants.

I expect to see more and more of it as the campaign progresses, since politics, on all sides of the spectrum, tends to rely more and more these days on the ability to lie and smear convincingly.

This blog has chronicled the lies put forth by Obama and his minions. You let me know when you stumble across a lie being bandied about by McCain or his campaign concerning Obama. Or one that I'm putting forth. Tim, part of the problem with the left today is that when they're caught in behavior that's less than acceptable, they quickly jump on the everyone's-doing-it excuse bandwagon. You've just done the same.

There is right and there is wrong and though conservatives have, infrequently, done wrong, leftists seem to make wrong part of their make-up.

Mommynator

The other part of the problem is that lefties can't handle people like Morgan in whom logic reigns, based upon research, and solidified by evidence.

That's the scientific method, and there is an assault upon that as well. I think of the first lecture in my biology class where we briefly touched upon evolution. Natural selection and all that is observable and manipulable and therefore makes sense and is true.

However, the professor, who stated that cells always come from cells, could not tell us where the first cell came from and why it should change suddenly. And until they can put a cell in a solution and it spontaneously not only divides, but turns into something completely different, it's still a theory up for grabs and intelligent design is just as plausible.

Morgan K Freeberg

There are dozens of other conclusions to draw from fuquod's statement above or the statements being issued by Democrats in response to this choice.

...and the only possible conclusion to draw from that, is that there is something reprehensible to liberals about actually coming to a conclusion about something.

Unless the something is conservatives, and the conclusion is negative. Then it is okay.

Go on. Examine the pattern if you don't believe me. It's true. See what liberals want to have done about the guy who was convicted of raping and killing a little old lady for thirty dollars in her purse. There's always an "ooh," there's always an "aah," there's always an excuse not to recognize things the way they are. "Dozens of conclusions to draw" typifies the liberal mindset.

And regarding the subject under discussion -- if Palin had a (D) after her name instead of an (R), the rhetoric would be all different. And Tim, you know this is true. Watch our politics with respect to conservative blacks sometime. Take a look at how much worse our liberals treat Clarence Thomas than Antonin Scalia. They have a mild, dull sense of inimical hostility toward the white conservative -- but really deep-seated white-hot anger and loathing for the black conservative.

The same is true for women. It comes from fifty-five years of using groups of people, and the grievances of those groups of people, to win elections. Liberals think they OWN those people. They think certain groups of people ought to vote for liberals, and are traitors to some kind of cause if they don't.

I saw a LOT of resentment from liberals that Sam Alito got the seat in the Supreme Court that a woman was "supposed" to get.

I saw a LOT of resentment from liberals that Joe Biden was named to the spot Hillary was "supposed" to get.

Resentment from conservatives that they "gotta vote for a girl" now...I have seen...ZERO. Not just a tiny bit. Not just something close to zero. ZERO.

Oh and Zossima, you didn't finish all your sentences in that screed (need some more final editing) but you did hit almost all of the talking points. Almost. You left out a couple. You'll be spanked five times for each at the next moonbat meeting this coming Wednesday, so bring the wooden paddle.

Leslie

Morgan, you are ringing true with what I've seen.

As one example, Canada's Conservative Prime Minister first appointed a woman as Minister of Environment (Rona Ambrose) and the Liberals ate her alive until it was entirely necessary for Stephen Harper to shuffle her off the radar. He replaced her with a man, who proceeded on the exact same track as Rona.

And all was quiet on the leftern front.

Zossima

Morgan, I hardly think you should be critical of anyone for regurgitating talking points. You've sold your soul and mind to do so. I haven't read the talking points. I happen to know who are qualified women in the GOP. I've been hoping for 20 years they would pick one of them for VP.

In all your speculation, you didn't address the point that Palin is uniquely unqualified for the job. All you do is throw out softballs about what if she had a (D) after her name. Well she doesn't; it's a nonissue. The Democrats didn't nominate someone who is incompetent for the job. "What if?" doesn't qualify her to do the job.

Zossima
This blog's "bad name" is the direct result of it's getting in the faces of liberals who can't handle the truth.

RFLMFAO. Rick you wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the ass. I don't think the blog has a "bad name"; it's just known as a source of stupid blathering. Posts like this which blindly support someone with the equivalent of a PTA board membership for the White House are pretty much the reason why.

You let me know when you stumble across a lie being bandied about by McCain or his campaign concerning Obama.

Um, gee, okay. Wow, I had to dig hard for these:
* Lies about Obama's tax plan
* The deception about Obama snubbing wounded troups
* The lie that Obama and the Dems are responsible for high gas prices

God, you're such a sorry shill. Drop the piety.

Tim Chesterton

Rick, I'm not jumping on any bandwagon. I'm not an American and it's not my election. Furthermore, as the New Testament says, I'm an alien and a stranger here, a citizen of another kingdom. I vote, yes, but I don't expect any side to produce the Messiah. And I simply know from long experience that in the politics of this fallen world it is very, very rare for all the virtue to be on one side and all the vice to be on the other.

Hence the warning from the psalms I have a few months back: put not your trust in princes nor in any child of man. Liberal or Conservative, Socialist or Capitalist, Democrat or Republican.

Rick

Tim... it's your side that seems hell bent on producing the messiah... Obama supporters are religious about the man... and I've chronicled it...

I put not my trust in princes nor any child of man... but I do trust the existence of good and evil and I'm convinced that there are right and wrong sides to choose from on the issues of the day.

Obama's side is pushing one lie after another and to what end?

Obama's ambition.

Morgan K Freeberg

Morgan, I hardly think you should be critical of anyone for regurgitating talking points. You've sold your soul and mind to do so. I haven't read the talking points.

Right. I use talking points, and you don't.

You're from what planet again?

The sheer desperation with which you hover around, laboring, white-knuckledly, at hitting everything. EVERYTHING.

Question the war? You must be a terrorist-abetting libbrull. Question Bush's fiscal policies? You must be a tax-raising socialist. Question the choice of Palin? You must be a sexist. It's bizarro world where the waking goal every day is to tell obvious falsehoods (pursuing more oil is a good idea) and then defend them with vigor. Shout it loud enough and apparently enough people believe.

It's hard to argue with it, because apparently it has worked as a tool for keeping power. Unfortunately, it has also blown up the deficit, overextended our military, reinvigorated al Qaeda, made us pariahs on the world stage, enriched the Chinese, rearmed the Russians, and on and on. A tree is known by its fruit. This is a vile tree.

Well, okay. You say you're not regurgitating talking points because you haven't read them. Can you tell me, please: What do the Chinese and the Russians have to do with Sarah Palin?

Your desperation is palpable. You want to hit every talking point the "Dimwit Liberal Club" expects you to, so you don't have to take a paddlin' at the next weekly meeting. Well, you forgot to work "Karl Rove" in there and you didn't mention "Halliburton," so grab your ankles.

In all your speculation, you didn't address the point that Palin is uniquely unqualified for the job.

What's to address? She admitted she's inexperienced, but that she isn't running to be the next President. Barack Obama is.

She's been Governor for less than two years, Obama's been Senator for less than two years. She's gotten things done. Obama hasn't done squat. Not unless racking up hundreds of "Not Present" votes is somehow equivalent to rooting out corruption in the state of Alaska by vetoing bills and firing people who need firing.

It's called EXECUTIVE experience. And she's got more of it than Obama, Biden, and Hillary. And McCain, too.

All you do is throw out softballs about what if she had a (D) after her name. Well she doesn't; it's a nonissue.

Oh, I think it's a bulging, rancid pustule of an issue for you, and a painful one. If a woman or ethnic minority supports conservative causes, you liberals can be just as sexist and racist as anyone. Except now, you're a wounded sexist, bellowing like a wounded boar, because Obama probably lost the election on Friday morning and deep down you know it's true.

Now, then...

And I simply know from long experience that in the politics of this fallen world it is very, very rare for all the virtue to be on one side and all the vice to be on the other.

Tim, this would ultimately make you a "Dime" person (as in, "not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties") and I can't believe a smart guy like you would accept that. You'd have to tune out what has become the great-grandfather issue that divides conservatives and liberals on just about everything, at least, so long as the conservatives don't make the mistake of cooking up new ways to be more similar to liberals for the sake of being better liked. I'm referring here, to the championing of individual concerns over group concerns, and vice-versa.

Recall what Obama's running mate Joe Biden said when he stepped in it two years ago: You can't go into a Seven-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you've got an Indian accent. that's that left-wing open-minded, sensitivity and tolerance for you.

Well in context, poor Joe was trying to talk up the accomplishments of the East Indian community in Delaware. And that makes his remarks even more scandalous than they were perceived. Liberals think accomplishments are made by groups of people, not individuals. Women get more representation in the Senate; unions negotiate a higher wage and longer vacations; East Indians immigrate and reproduce faster, and eventually take over all the convenience stores.

It becomes quite bizarre when you talk to liberals about the "middle class" -- their vision of victory for the middle class is that it gets bigger. If they stopped gulping the group-koolaid for just a minute or two, they'd be able to see that if enough people got rich, that'd be good for them of course...and meanwhile the middle class would shrivel. But liberals think a group diminishing in size, is equivalent to failure, and when it swells in size that's equivalent to success.

Which causes all manner of vices to appear on their side and not on the conservative side. I mean, look what happened here. They spent thirty years jibber-jabbering about "womens' rights"; Clinton came along and started abusing and exploiting women for sexual favors, using his powerful positions to make sure he'd never have to face justice. The liberals told us all to look the other way, and cooked up excuses for him.

And THEN, nine years later, McCain comes along and puts a woman m-u-c-h closer to the presidency, in a single hour no less, than any democrat ever did. Conclusion: Liberals have vices conservatives do not have. They make a lot of noise about supporting people, but since they only see people as aggrieved groups of complainers, they don't manage to get it done.

But you have confirmation-bias that closes your eyes to the possibility liberals have vices conservatives don't have. You just announced it. So you don't see this.

You're way too smart a guy for that, Tim.

Tim Chesterton

Morgan, I'm smart enough to figure this one out.

You said, 'Liberals are sexist'. Blanket statement, no exceptions offered.

I am a liberal. And I am not a sexist. I know quite a few other liberals who are not sexists too.

Therefore your blanket statement is disproved. More than that, it becomes the sort of smear that Rick asked me to point out, if I ever saw one on this blog.

Jack London

Once again Americans are being ridiculed internationally. Thanks again Republicans. I can't travel outside my country without being laughed at. I am embarrassed for all of you. Palin is an ignorant choice unless you're a militant brainwashed conservative religious person. Guns, religion and bigotry. Luckily, there aren't significant numbers of those outside of the Taliban. Guns, religion, bigotry. Ring a bell? That's the Taliban. Think for yourselves. Don't believe everything that the TV or your father tells you. Polls are unreliable. Just watch- landslide. You will be shocked.

Leslie

Tim, Morgan said "Leftists are sexist." One might do well to have a discussion about the idiomatic differences between a leftist and a liberal.

But, about liberals Morgan did say: Liberals think accomplishments are made by groups of people, not individuals.

This is such a pivotal point that can't be stressed enough.

About liberal ideology Robert Bork said, "it is liberal institutions, not the character of citizens, that make democracy work."(#)

The entire liberal paradigm rests on the function of its collective institutions...sure you can name individual left-leaning liberals who are not sexist, but they spend their time busily operating in a spirit of unity and collectivism that demands they own up to the tendencies of the group that makes them who they are. So if those enlightened, non-sexist individuals aren't busily making themselves part of the solution, then they're part of the problem.

And whether or not it is intentionally oppressive, if you look at the record of liberal political parties -- advancing abortion rights, affirmative action, downgrading job/school entry requirements in the name of equal opportunities, making it socially disdained to stay home and look after children -- none of that is helpful to women and in fact, displays a lot of underlying assumptions about women's worth.

Sexism. I believe it is called.

Congratulations America on Sarah Palin's arrival to the election. I get goose bumps every time I hear her speak.

Morgan K Freeberg

And we need make no such critical distinction between people, and the groups to which they belong, if I say something flattering about liberals right? Like, that they care about people? You will not insist we stop everything and discuss the liberals who don't?

This is a clever way to prop up poorly thought out policies that don't work, and I've seen it put to use for years. It need not be an intentional thing, and Tim, I know you aren't laboring so hard to deliberately deceive people. In your case, I think it's passive.

But either way, it isn't intellectually sincere. I say something positive about "liberals," and it's understood I'm referring to the liberal school-of-thought; how it's pre-disposed to be tolerant and compassionate. I say something negative -- suddenly the rules change. I'm making a "blanket statement" about each and every liberal on the face of the globe, so you can make my statement into a straw man you can knock down.

Nope, I reject this. The same rules apply. I'm commenting on the liberal school of thought. It is inherently sexist, because it looks at women as a disenfranchised group, and by looking at them that way, it refuses them the honor of being perceived as individuals.

If you still have trouble understanding my point, Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore helped out by producing another example for you to ponder. They don't see women as on the same footing as men. In liberal-land, men are individuals -- women can never be.

Rick

When I say the sky is blue... the fact that occasionally it might be overcast, gray or cloudy should not diminish the truthfulness of the original assertion.

That applies to what Morgan is saying, in my less than humble view.

Rick

Zossima wrote:

Um, gee, okay. Wow, I had to dig hard for these: * Lies about Obama's tax plan * The deception about Obama snubbing wounded troups * The lie that Obama and the Dems are responsible for high gas prices

God, you're such a sorry shill. Drop the piety.

The first link to the tax plan contains the following:

'A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year'

The second states:

A new McCain ad says Obama "made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras."

McCain's facts are literally true...

And finally, the third:

The ad opens with a shot of an old-fashioned gas pump standing on a shimmering, moving, body of – water? desert sand? petroleum? It's hard to tell. The female narrator says: "Gas prices – $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil."

"Some" are indeed opposed to lifting the moratorium on new drilling in the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, and they include Obama.

Interesting.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

BlogAds


Tip Jar


Plainly Offsetting Costs


Search Brutally Honest


  • Google

    WWW
    www.brutallyhonest.org

BlogStuff

Visitors


Creative Commons License

Plainly Quotable