Liberal Idiots
« Previous EntriesODub’s Selective Vision
Monday, January 31st, 2005In the minutes following the new of Hillary collapsing, ODub goes over to FreeRepublic to gauge their reaction, and cherrypicks quotes to suit his stereotype.
I’m not going to defend the quotes he selected to put on his site, but I’ll just show you he decided to ignore completely:
“Offering prayers”
“Wish her the best in regards to her health…”
“OMG Prayers for her!”
“I hope she is alright and wish her a speedy recovery.”
“Let’s be gracious and generous and send best wishes for her recovery.”
“All politics aside, I wish her well.”
That’s just a few within the first 100 comments…
Do Liberals Ever Focus on The Point?
Sunday, January 30th, 2005As pathetic as it is that liberal bloggers didn’t have anything else to talk about besides Vice President Dick Cheney’s attire at Auschwitz, another dumb liberal blogger criticized my defense of Cheney… and was so completely off the point I have to wonder if he even read my blog entry… This blogger seems to think my beef was the actual use of a photo to criticize someone. In a blog entry titled “It’s almost as if they’re too stupid to realize their blog has a search button,” August J. Pollak writes,
Blogs for Bush is pretending to be outraged at Oliver, Kos, etc. for pointing out how ridiculous (and damaging) Dick Cheney’s decision to whip out his 9/11 Tourist of Death costume was.
For the record, I was not pretending. Nevertheless, the moron goes through the process of sifting through Blogs For Bush (B4B) locating blog entries that include photos—as if that somehow means something:
Which, I guess, makes sense, as pointing out a photo of someone is just juvenile.
We post photos all the time… Is he that stupid he needs to use the search button to figure that out?
Okay, so it’s just the responses from their commentors. They can’t be held responsible. I mean, the actual site owners wouldn’t post a picture and talk about how badly it affects a candidate.
Of course we do. And when it’s funny, we post it under the ‘Humor’ category. Again, I never suggested I had a problem with a liberal blogger posting a photo.
And they would certainly never link to other blogs that did the same.
This guy clearly wasted his time trying to prove that we use photos at B4B… I could have told him that and saved him the time and effort.
In fact, the entire “let’s make fun of ridculous photos” thing is totally beneath them.
It’s amazing isn’t it? We used a photo for caption contest… Wow…
Why this guy obsessed over B4B’s use of photos and completely avoided address the defense of Cheney’s attire is beyond me. This idiot blogger wasted all that time searching for posts on B4B that contained photos, instead of addressing the real issue. If morons like ODub and Kos want to post photos and criticize what’s depicted in them then good for them… we all do it.
They’re so pathetic.
Hey Boxer, Learn To Read
Tuesday, January 18th, 2005Senator Barbara Boxer, today, during Condi Rice’s confirmation hearing:
SEN. BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.
What does the resolution supporting the use of force in Iraq actually say? A much larger case was made than just “WMD, period.”
Senator Boxer should go read what she voted on.
Barbara Boxer Signs Democrats’ Death Warrant
Thursday, January 6th, 2005I have to say I’m shocked she actually decided to do it…
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., signed a challenge mounted by House Democrats to Ohio’s 20 electoral votes, which put Bush over the top. By law, a protest signed by members of the House and Senate requires both chambers to meet separately for up to two hours to consider it. Lawmakers are allowed to speak for no more than five minutes each.
“I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio’s election,” Boxer wrote in a letter to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, a leader of the Democratic effort.
Pro-Abortion Groups Fear Bush’s Nominees
Friday, December 24th, 2004Andrea Yates and Susan Smith may be in jail, but the armies of women who consider themselves mainstream—but think it’s okay to kill unborn children—fight on, and they are angry as ever. Earlier today, Nancy Keenan, president of the pro-abortion group released a statement in response to President Bush’s renominating twenty for federal judgeships whom Senate Democrats denied an up-or-down vote. “”It looks like Jerry Fallwell got his Christmas wish list into the President on time,” Keenan said, “but even if he drops these nominations down the Senate’s chimney, there’s nothing he can do to make them any less out of the American mainstream. Why doesn’t the President understand that all anyone is asking for is judges who’ll respect personal freedom and privacy?”
The President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Gloria Feldt, is another Scrooge this holiday season. “The holidays are supposed to be a time of peace and community,” she said, “Instead President Bush has decided to re-nominate judges who do not uphold our fundamental human and civil right to make our own childbearing choices.”
Both Keenan’s and Feldt’s sentiments are morally equivalent to saying slavery should be legal because Americans have right to own property.
It’s very sad that the Pro-Abortion Gestapo have to demonize people who are so “out of the mainstream” to believe that all life is valuable and precious.
Bush Photo Offends Lancaster Democrats
Monday, December 13th, 2004Well, they can just cry me a river…
A Democratic city councilman has demanded that a baker remove photos of President Bush from his stand in Lancaster’s venerable farmers’ market, saying the city needs a “healing period” following the bitterly contested presidential election.
City Council member Nelson Polite approached David Stoltzfus last month and asked him to remove the pictures. When Stoltzfus refused, Polite vowed to pursue a city ordinance that would ban all political items from public places in the city.
Polite said the photo offended city Democrats.
“I just feel that since it was a close election and the city’s so divided, that we should have a healing period,” Polite told the New Era of Lancaster.
Awww, poor baby. What’s next, are Democrats going to protest history books in public schools that show Bush’s picture in the back of the book amongst all the other Presidents?
Oliver Willis Doesn’t Pay Attention To The Democratic Party
Thursday, December 9th, 2004He must be threatened by my opinions or something… he just loves to blog about me and whine…
In response to my previous blog entry on how the Democratic Party is responsible for dividing this country, Oliver, probably trying to convince himself more than anything, suggests that what I said was “dumb” and rebuts with this little rant:
One of the two major political parties in America made a decision to push for war with Iraq in the Summer of ‘02. Said party drew a line in the sand and said that anyone who didn’t think war with Iraq was warranted was against America, never mind how strongly they supported invading Afghanistan. That, I think, would contribute significantly to divisions in America. The party that engaged in these tactics wasn’t the one with the donkey as its logo.
Of course, he clearly seems to have forgotten (or probably really just ignored) that members of his party were warning us about Saddam Hussein for years. Including Clinton and his adminstration throughout the 1990s, as well as Tom Daschle, and yes, oh yes John Kerry — even leading up to the war. Things changed when the primaries started heating up and Howard Dean was pulling ahead in the polls. Gradualy, all Democrats had changed their views on taking action against Saddadm Hussein. Yeah, Oliver doesn’t want to remember that now does he? No, it makes him feel better to believe that Republicans divided this country. It’s pretty sad… but I guess I can’t blame Oliver for desperately wanting to blame Republicans for something that his own party is responsible for.
We all have our own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own truth — and the undeniable truth is that Democrats were advocating taking action against Saddam Hussein for years before Bush actually did take action… they just decided to change their minds when it was politically convenient to do so.
It’s the Democrats who put politics before national security. There’s no use in denying that.
Who’s Really Putting Politics Before Security?
Tuesday, December 7th, 2004The Washington Times reports that the disgraced chairman of the DNC has used Pearl Harbor to slam Republicans…
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, in a special Pearl Harbor Day statement, said national unity 63 years ago enabled Americans to go forward and defeat the country’s enemies, but the same kind of unity needed now was being undermined by Republican disagreements over provisions of the yet-to-be-voted on intelligence reform bill.
“While we as a nation are united in this fight, there are clearly deep divisions within the Republican Party, divisions that are impeding our fight against terrorism,” he said.
If Terry McAuliffe wants to have a debate over who really has put politics before security, and which party really is behind the bitter division of this country, I’ll tell him right now to bring it on. The country did come together in the aftermath of 9/11, and who then decided to divide the country back up? The Democrats. Which party worked with Republicans on bills like the PATRIOT Act and the No Child Left Behind Act - only to completely turn the tables when the election got closer and opposed those bills.
One criticism in particular about the PATRIOT Act was there was little time to adequately debate the measures of the bill - some have since been selectively singled out by Democrats as a means to blemish the bill and paint is as evil and connect it solely to Bush and Republicans. Now, Terry McAuliffe are saying that it’s okay to rush through debate on the 9/11 Intelligence Reform Bill and just vote on it? For what? So in 2008 they can wash their hands of all the bad things in the bill they don’t want to take credit for and blame it on Republicans?
Is this part of a plan by Democrats to try and capture the White House in 2008? Are they going to do to the 9/11 Intel Reform Bill in 2008 what they did with the PATRIOT Act in 2004? Let it pass with bipartisan support then pick out the things they don’t like about it later and blame it on Republicans?
UPDATE: David Limbaugh has more on this McAuliffe gaffe.
« Previous Entries