November 29, 2005
-
This Is The Same Game
Libs Play Same Game Over And Over Again
The left leaning media is in a frenzy. They’re in a frenzy over the Presidents poll numbers, over the recent Murtha incident and over this Cunningham story. They posses this belief, that the American people will ignore their failure to acknowledge the importance of this war effort. These people still can’t decide if they are for or against this mission! They yell at the tops of their lungs when a marine calls a coward a “coward”, but they are too afraid to vote for a legislation that would legislate everything they’ve been saying since we invaded in
They are playing the same game they’ve been playing for years. It will not result in a victory. They are not taking into account the millions of people who will truly appreciate a conservative on the Supreme Court, they are not taking into account the millions of people who will support strengthening the limits on our borders. These people wont stay home on election night, these people are the backbone of our country and they will not allow liberal lunacy spread throughout our federal government.
Morrison
Comments (37)
Well they don't want a true conservative on the Sumpreme Court because then our country might follow that pesky Constitution for the first time in at least half a century.........
Atta boy, Morrison!
The libs actually think that they can win with slogans and protestations. I just hope they keep it up and not learn from their continued use of old and tired methods. The last time this loyal American was swayed by a "have and have not" lib philosophy was when my playmate had a lollipop and I wanted one. I've grown up since then, and I think most Americans have.
The Dem party is a party of childlike behavior (ooh, ooh) who deal in emotion, short term comfort and immediate gratification. They are into dependency, blame and irrational statements.
The Reps are a party of adult behavior (there, there, kid)who know how to do problem solving, tolerate short term discomfort and have learned how to defer gratification. They are into self-reliance, personal responsibility and rational thought.
I await some adult comments and a few childish tirades.
Merry Christmas to all. God bless America.
"I await...a few childish tirades."
-See above.
" too afraid to vote for a legislation that would legislate everything they’ve been saying"
-???? (Well put)
-Nobody fell for the partisan gimmick of the vote anyhow.
"The Reps are a party of adult behavior"
-As clearly evidenced by all the corruption of late. Or the recent antics in Congress. Never fear - hubris, corruption, and a sprinkle of wasted political capital will do plenty to sink the current Republican majority. And for the record, it doesn't help when Arlen Specter suddenly declares that NFL treatment of Terrell Owens is somehow a violation of antitrust statutes.... well there is some adult behavior for you.
But don't worry, the left will get their chance again, as the pendulum of control continues to swing inevitably, irrevocably, eternally.
What do you think of the united states's use of white phosphorous in fallujah? for confirmation, video is available here: http://www.rainews24.rai.it/Notizia.asp?NewsID=57929
2 things:
1. It might be a good iddea to link articles that are written in English.
2. I don't see the video you're talking about, but the photographs shown on that page are of white phosphorous being used as a smokescreen. There is nothing to even discuss with such a practice - it is neither illegal for the US to use in such a capacity, nor is it dangerous to combatants on either side.
Hell, I'd be damn proud if the used white phosphorous to burn the flesh off a towelheaded terrorist. They need to learn the definition of suffering.
"They yell at the tops of their lungs when a marine calls a coward a “coward”, but they are too afraid to vote for a legislation that would legislate everything they’ve been saying since we invaded in Iraq."
hehehe... rewriting history... beautiful... how do I dissect this? Um... Col. Dan Bubp (the person whom the esteemed Rep. Jean Schmidt quoted) never referred to John Murtha and upon hearing Schmidt's comment, Bubp immediately came out and said that he "would never call a fellow Marine a coward." Secondly, the "afraid to vote" comment isn't even worth discussing since you have spun it out of control... you have once again stepped over the reality line with it... and why you are at it, want to toss in a few comments about oreos again?
"The media is out for the GOP, they’ve always been. The lib media will have you believe that these are the last days of the GOP, the lib media will have you believe that the members of the Republican Party are on the dark side."
Paranoia does not do you well, Mikey... the idea that there is a mass conspiracy by the "liberal media to get the GOP" is hogwash... anyone with common sense knows it and for some reason I pegged you to at least have that... if you wanted to, you could sit here and pick out all the instances in which one side or the other was given the good graces of the media including what it seemed to be a free pass on a lot of the transgressions of the GOP leadership...
"It will not result in a victory."
Much like your endorsement of Harriet Miers, I take this comment with a big old grain of salt...
"They are not taking into account the millions of people who will truly appreciate a conservative on the Supreme Court, they are not taking into account the millions of people who will support strengthening the limits on our borders."
Or the millions of people who feel that ultra-conservative on the court is a dangerous thing... or the millions of people who don't care who is on the SCOTUS as long as it does not effect their paychecks... or the millions of people who do not live in the world of absolutism that you do... or the millions of people who have screamed for years about the borders only to have it ignored by the current administration... or the millions of people who like RC Cola over Coke... you see, this generic use of millions can be fun... let's all give it a shot and since it doesn't add any substance to the debate, you can pick any subject...
"These people wont stay home on election night, these people are the backbone of our country and they will not allow liberal lunacy spread throughout our federal government."
I guess it is the same people who are not happy with the current administration or state of our government, right? Liberal lunacy? Check again... see who has the power and double check the baseless idea you are trying to present here...
"The libs actually think that they can win with slogans and protestations. I just hope they keep it up and not learn from their continued use of old and tired methods. The last time this loyal American was swayed by a "have and have not" lib philosophy was when my playmate had a lollipop and I wanted one. I've grown up since then, and I think most Americans have."
Yeah... it is better to be swayed by Guns, God, Gays and Fear as the main issues... you are right... you should run for office...
"The Dem party is a party of childlike behavior (ooh, ooh) who deal in emotion, short term comfort and immediate gratification. They are into dependency, blame and irrational statements."
This is actually funny... don't run for office, do stand up.... the backtracking that is being done by the war apologists right now falls directly in line with what you are talking about... No Cheney did not say that we would be greeted as liberators... no Rumsfeld did not have anything to do with the planning of the war... No the administration never tried to tie terrorists with Iraq... all of these are lies made by the liberal war revisionists who are anti-American and unpatriotic...
"The Reps are a party of adult behavior (there, there, kid)who know how to do problem solving, tolerate short term discomfort and have learned how to defer gratification. They are into self-reliance, personal responsibility and rational thought."
Sigh... the idea that either party can be one extreme or the other without a fault is not only dishonest but plain ignorant... especially in light of the some of the corruption charges that are being passed around right now... while the GOP and their standard bearers proclaim these are their truths, the reality is much different but I guess anyone can suckered in to a PR strategy... right?
"I await some adult comments and a few childish tirades. "
Don't worry, some of your followers will make a comment similar to yours that will fall in line with the childish tirades you wish for...
The bottom line is this... anyone who really thinks that the either party represents the ideals that you have pushed here is completely suckered in to the myths or are too blinded with the football cheerleader team mentality to accept that it isn't true... I am sure you represent all of those qualities but there plenty of other cons (I guess that is the shortened version of conservatives like libs is to liberals, right?) who have some or none of those qualities... so when you start painting with that brush of absolutes (as you do seem to have the knack for doing) you are not presenting an accurate picture but one of invention that I am surprised that you do not discuss the magical unicorns in your world too...
I am not questioning your intelligence but questioning on why people must make these absolute statements as if it is real instead of just hogwash...
"Hell, I'd be damn proud if the used white phosphorous to burn the flesh off a towelheaded terrorist. They need to learn the definition of suffering."
Never mind those innocent men, women and children who might fall under that WP attack... I guess it was there fault for being there or they might be secret terrorists... kill'em all, right? I guess it should be mentioned that one of the crimes that has been leveled on Saddam is the use of WP... yes, in the same way that the US did... I personally am not calling the troops who used it "war criminals" but would it not make more sense that if you want to make charges such as that against Saddam that you would not use the same tactics?
From an article at the loonie liberal NY Times...
"White phosphorus, which dates to World War II, should have been banned generations ago. Packed into an artillery shell, it explodes over a battlefield in a white glare that can illuminate an enemy’s positions. It also rains balls of flaming chemicals, which cling to anything they touch and burn until their oxygen supply is cut off. They can burn for hours inside a human body."
"They yell at the tops of their lungs when a marine calls a coward a “coward”
I guess I should add something to this that I forgot... when Jean Schmidt made her comment, the jeers and boos from the Democratic side of the aisle were virtually matched by those from the Republican side of the aisle... not only had she stepped across the line of Congressional rules but she also insulted a decorated Marine... and it seems here you have no problem with doing it either... and you call the Democrats as unpatriotic...
"They posses this belief, that the American people will ignore their failure to acknowledge the importance of this war effort."
Oh... since announcing that you want the troops removed from Iraq is un-American and dangerous, what say you about General Casey, the legitimate Iraq Gov't or the Arab League who have all asked for this to be done? There are many in this country (I believe it is that word called "majority") that now question our involvement there... on whether it was a good thing to do... but I guess you possess the belief that you can ignore the American People on their opinion since it doesn't follow your own...
The battle being fought in Iraq is a civil war and not terrorism... the facts are increasingly becoming clear even as our own armed forces are admitting that this is what is happening... but again... they probably don't understand it like you do, right?
"Never mind those innocent men, women and children who might fall under that WP attack... "
Well first, civilians always die during a war -- that's just an unfortunate side effect. If you go into a war with the goal of not killing any civilians, you will lose. Secondly, regardless of the President's denials, this is a war against Islam. The western world has been at war with Islam for centuries. The history of Europe and the Middle East is that of Muslims invading and killing for several decades to a few centuries, then Europeans getting sick of it and beating them back (rinse and repeat). The problem is that the Europeans were too nice to them. The west always figured "Ok, we beat them back. They learned their lesson this time. Now they'll be peaceful." -- but unfortunately this has never been the case. Sadly, the entire world is threatened by their lust for destruction and absolute domination. So no, I won't shed any tears for them being killed. It's a war after all and as General Patton said "The point of war isn't to die for your country; it's to make the other poor bastard die for his".
"The western world has been at war with Islam for centuries."
-In that case, you're aiding and abetting the enemy every time you fill your gas tank.
I am not naive enough to think that civilians do not die in war but it is to be avoided... the use of WP in civilian populated areas--to me--isn't trying to avoid that...
Let me get a few things straight... when you say "war" you are talking about the action in Iraq or on terrorism? To me, the two are not interchangable and by all accounts the "war" in Iraq ended long ago... the insurgency is a different thing than a war but here I am, splitting hairs...
Secondly, you are making the point that the action in Iraq is a continuation of the great global war between the west and Islam, correct? This is another crusades then right? Or is that word not allowed to be used... since to me, using that word would be a boon for the fringe groups of Islam to latch on to and be a disservice to the moderate and liberal Muslims who do not exhibit these "world domination" ideas...
Once again to split hairs, the quote from Patton was "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
1) I'm talking about terroristm
2) The crusades were launched in retaliation to a 300 year campaign by the Muslim world to dominate Europe. I think if we sat around just taking hit after hit for 300 years, you'd get pissed off enough to start a massacre yourself.
3) I've heard the right qoute but I was talking to someone the other day who said it that way and it stuck in my head for some reason. I'm gonna have to kick him now :p
1) The use of WP was used against insurgents and not terrorists, does this change your outlook at all or since this is part of the whole neo-crusades movement, they are still fair game? BTW- I don't think that the US was looking to kill civilians with the use of this tactical weapon but it is hard not to think that it could have been avoided...
2) "The crusades were launched in retaliation to a 300 year campaign by the Muslim world to dominate Europe. I think if we sat around just taking hit after hit for 300 years, you'd get pissed off enough to start a massacre yourself."
Like most policies or reasons for actions in history, there are different theories on why the Crusades took place... the one you have posted is one such idea while others include imperialism, protecting economic interests and social upheaval... I think, along with most historians of the time period, that it is a combination of all of these that led to the Crusades... be that as it may, the invasion of Spain by the Moors to me doesn't link up to what is going on now just as I would not say that the colonization of Africa, Americas and Asia by Christian nations is a direct result of religion...
3) no problem on the quote... I was just pointing out that the meaning is slightly different...
PREDICTION
Morrison will write a big thing about the President's Speech in which he (Morrison) will claim to a slap in the face to the "lunacy of liberals" who still believe that there is no plan or strategy... while I admit that Bush gave a good speech today, it really wasn't ground breaking and repeated the same themes (just different wording) that he has used for the past year...
END OF THE WORLD?
I just saw a roundtable discussion concerning the President's speech on MSNBC's Coast to Coast... the guests were Pat Buchanan and Morgan Fairchild... MORGAN FAIRCHILD???
Hi WSR and A/S/D - "the good shepard" and "the rebooter"
Bimmer - get your head down --- INCOMING!
There is another way to describe party behavior.
On the political left (liberal), followers see the state as the "mother". Therefore they have the automatic right to benefits and services (mothering). On the right (conservative), we have the state as "father". Rewards and benefits are only given when deserved or earned (fathering).
Basically, Liberals and Conservatives see society and its citizens very differently. A liberal regards the citizen as a needy child, one who is dependent and needs parenting. The conservative sees the citizen as a responsible adult.
OK, that having been detonated, let's look at your comments.
"Sigh... the idea that either party can be one extreme or the other without a fault is not only dishonest but plain ignorant..."
Those are pretty safe generalizations I made about the party philosophy, platform and values. I WOULD be ignorant if I believed the "without a fault" item. But, it's OK. You guys have got to fight back somehow - I understand.
"The bottom line is this... anyone who really thinks that the either party represents the ideals that you have pushed here is completely suckered in to the myths or are too blinded with the football cheerleader team mentality to accept that it isn't true..."
I'd really be guilty if I had "pushed the ideals". My describing the general characteristics of the party make-up is not the ideal, but the reality of their behavior.
"when you start painting with that brush of absolutes (as you do seem to have the knack for doing) you are not presenting an accurate picture but one of invention that I am surprised that you do not discuss the magical unicorns in your world too..."
I admit to using my broad brush, but I could never be guilty of dealing in absolutes in a political discussion. I know, all too well, about the fragility of man. BTW, I love magical unicorns, I just don't discuss 'em.
"I am not questioning your intelligence but questioning on why people must make these absolute statements as if it is real instead of just hogwash..."
Hey, it's OK, you can question my intelligence. All we are doing here is exchanging opinions. What we think is usually a lot different than what we know, or think we know. No problem.
Merry Christmas and God bless America.
"I love magical unicorns"
-ME TOO!!!
"On the political left (liberal), followers see the state as the "mother". Therefore they have the automatic right to benefits and services (mothering). On the right (conservative), we have the state as "father". Rewards and benefits are only given when deserved or earned (fathering)."
-Now let's take for granted that your "mother" and "father" assignments to the respective parties are correct, and approach this in another way.
-The liberal mother is doting and concerned. She recognizes the need to nurse the young and underdeveloped/unestablished of society so as to give them the opportunity to fend for themselves later in life. She is not a dog with seven teats and nine pups, but there is still competition that would leave the smaller and disadvantaged children undernourished and helpless. But she is a benevolent mother and wants them all to drink the milk of progress and opportunity equally.
-The conservative father wants his kids to grow up right, but he wants them to do it themselves. He does not give them love or attention, because he views these things as self defeating. Rather, he wants them to work hard to make their own way, and he fails to see the iniquities that exist in their situations. And when they do wrong, he is quick to blame, punish, and move on, without due consideration for the factors that led to the wrong in the first place.
sorry about the italian language link. it was the first place that i heard the story.
with the video, sorry, they moved it. here it is in english.
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/en/video.asp
also, just to throw it out there, there is a firsthand account from a pilot who dropped mark 77 napalm in iraq.
"Those are pretty safe generalizations I made about the party philosophy, platform and values. I WOULD be ignorant if I believed the "without a fault" item. But, it's OK. You guys have got to fight back somehow - I understand."
I guess those are safe generalizations as long as you thought that way in the first place... otherwise, from my stand point, they are meaningless attempts to try to make your party better than the other party... btw- it's not fighting back somehow, at least for me, it is trying to end the unnecessary BS that gets in the way of real discussions...
"Hey, it's OK, you can question my intelligence. All we are doing here is exchanging opinions. What we think is usually a lot different than what we know, or think we know."
I am not questioning your intelligence... I do respect your opinions as your own rather than as simple phrases heard elsewhere that are just repeated over and over... you have been basically consistant with your views on the different parties and even though I disagree with them does not mean that I do not respect you or your opinions... I question the methods and the reasons on why this information which I consider pollution to the larger discussion is put out there but trust me... it is much easier to swallow your lines than others... and that does include both sides of the aisle...
Hi "reboot"
Thanks. My cup runneth over
Merry Christmas and God bless America.
You are blocked from my site for perpetrating completely false stories on your website because you are so blatantly partisan you don't care about the truth, you just care about making Democrats look bad.
You need to take down the story about the oreo cookies being thrown at the black republican. It never happened. He made it up as a self-victimization story. You have absolutely no credibility. I don't think anyone should continue reading your site or wasting their breath debating you.
Bruinmike,
At least be an equal-opportunity hater and block NathanBiznitch as well.
"Morrison" - what a break!
Getting banned from the "bruin's" site is like being told that you don't ever have to go to the dentist again
The big bear said, "you are so blatantly partisan you don't care about the truth, you just care about making Democrats look bad".
Did I miss a post? Is he referring to Dean, McAuliffe, Kennedy, Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, et al? Their whole purpose in life is to make Bush and the Reps look bad. It's the only issue that they have a consistent position on.
Maybe if they keep bad-mouthing "W", the war, the economy, the job market and those nasty Reps, they can win an election. It won't be easy. They are confusing most thinking Americans.
They keep talking out of both sides of their mouths:
Hillary, "I'm for the war"; "No I'm not". Kerry, "I'm for the war, but not the way it's being handled"; "No, I forgot, it's an illegal war and if I knew then what I know now I wouldn't have voted for it" - Duh! What a strategy!
Merry Christmas and God bless America.
He is referring to the Oreo Cookie post, which refers to an incident that has been shown to never have happened. At least from my point of view, it would be folly to congratulate someone for disseminating fabricated stories.
NOOO! Boymarine, you could get sued by the ACLU!! You just used the C-word!! If you do get sued though, I'll head up the fundraiser to pay for your lawyer.
Their whole purpose in life is to make Bush and the Reps look bad.
I don't know. I think Mr. Bush is doing a pretty good job of that without their help.
BimmerPhile: I just read your post regarding the justification for the Crusades.... oi vey.... please, for the love of Pete, read a history book my friend!
I have -- real history books and not just the textbooks given out in liberal indocrination centers. History is very different than what the textbooks would have you believe.
.... You do realize that I was a history major in university and that I teach history now, right? I'm not talking about textbooks. I'm talking about a multitude of books on this particular subject, as well as primary documents from the period in question.
Since you claim to be well versed in the history of the time period, would you mind if I ask you a question or two? Well, one to start with....
Europe by 1096 was predominately Christian with the exception of much of the Iberian penninsula which had been conquered by the Moors. What was the relationship like between the various Christian kingdoms in Europe at the time?
I laugh when people use the "liberal indoctrination centers" as some sort of fact...
hey... long time no see, guess who this is?
good entry, as always
DAMN u just put up this post and u have 33 comments... thats CRAZY... ur blog, always such a big hit with the fans
ttyl
Nothing? No response? 'Tis a shame...
sd_zonda@yahoo.com
Yes! Hillary and Kerry need to take lessons in patriotism from folks like Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limgaugh, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Dick Armey, Dennis Hastert, Karl Rove, Bill Frist, Roy Blunt, Rick Santorum, Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott and John Ashcroft--they all bravely fought in Vietnam when it was their time to do so. OOOPS! No they didn't!