Just a quick note about why only idiots vote Democrat.
I was listening to Air America yesterday for about as long as I could stand it. It was coming up on the end of the hour when the "nay" to cloture vote was announced. The leftists in the studio (who had apparently gathered for the news) were cheering the event (understandably) when someone "discovered" that Republican Bill Frist had cast a nay vote along with the Democrats.
For the next several minutes (until the commercial and then news break) the people on Air America began to viciously attack Frist as a hypocrite who had sold out his party for political gain. The hosts went on and on (and on and on) about how this proves that Republicans are scum.
Of course the reason Frist voted no had nothing to do with a change of position or his "selling out his party" and everything to do with parliamentary rules. Once again the Dems were on the attack (and viciously so) against a member of the United States government without having a clue what they were talking about.
Then, after a break for the news, Janeane Garofalo began her program with a vicious diatribe against Tom DeLay. She went on and on attacking him and calling him names -- never once, of course, offering any facts or evidence to back up her hate.
And then we found out why. She didn't know who Tom DeLay is much less what he might or might not have done.
I'm going to have to paraphrase here because I was driving in my car and not taking notes but the great voice of Liberalism said something to the effect of "and, of course you all know who Tom DeLay is, right? He's like, the majority leader or, like the whip or something in the House or the Senate or something...I don't know..."
This was two different shows -- six or eight hours of prime time programming with the nation's premier Liberal "minds" and it was filled with people who not only don't "play fair (and balanced)" but they don't even know the rules of the game or who the players are!
And, folks, these ignorant people are the best Liberal minds that George Soros' money could buy!
Could anyone even imagine Dennis Prager or Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Larry Elder, Michael Medved or Hugh Hewitt not knowing who Tom DeLay is? Is it even within the realm of possibility that, seeing something like Frist's vote they wouldn't investigate the reason before engaging in vicious, mindless and hateful slanders?
That's the difference between the left and the rest of us right there. The left cares nothing about the truth. They don't need to know the truth. If someone agrees with them they are great and if anyone dares to disagree with them they are to be viciously attacked. Period. No need for further investigation.
8 comments:
You know, if you switch the words "left" and "right" in that last sentence, it wouldn't make any difference. The fact is that neither the Democrats or the Republicans give a rat's you-know-what about the truth. If it wasn't for the incomptetence of the Democrats the Republicans wouldn't be running amok and allowing the First Ammendmant to take such a beating, among other things. Conservatives and Liberals can't-or won't-admit that there are other ideas out there, moderate ones. They don't have to be "left" or "right." They have to be sensible, and for the people, not for special-interest groups, religious fanatics, and politicians and their wealthy constituants (ALL politicians do it, not just Republicans). But more and more, it sounds like a pipe dream, doesn't it?
By way of Lashawn Barber I cam across a column written by a Jon Qwelane from www.news24.com. Take a gander at it and you will see that America is really evil and deserved 9/11. Not only that but the incidents at Abu Graib and GITMO were atrocities and barbaric in nature. Although, as far as GITMO is concerned, nothing has proven to be true....
J. Silverstein,
Re: the "First Amendmanat" ... whatever, you know, the one that talks about free speech ... we conservatives opposed the evisceration of that amendment by one John McCain, and we were called "extremists".
Moderates? Pls don't use moral equivalency to argue that Republicans are doing the same as the Demo left. You insult our intelligence.
Best quote of the day ... and the funniest thing I have heard on radio in a while came from Rush today: "Moderates yell their own name during sex."
Rock on.
To DC,
Hello? The Republicans' M.O. is EXACTLY the same as the Democrats. It's called Politics. For example: All I hear from Conservative talking heads is that the Dems are trying to tear down the president simply because they hate him. Really? What makes the Republicans so innocent after the Bill Clinton Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky farces? That was the same thing, and I was most offended by the Republican Congress spending $70 million of taxpayer money to play marriage counselor. I'm not defending Slick Willie either; we all knew he was a sleaze before he was even nominated. We also know that Whitewater was a lame attempt to get Bob Dole elected and Lewinsky was just to make him look bad - which he didn't need any help with, anyway.
I'm not talking about "Moral Equivalency," I'm talking about COMMON SENSE! I'm talking about growing up and doing the right thing. Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, Leftists, Rightist, extremists, this-ist or that-ist..Everyone wants to be part of the put-down game, and accuracy doesn't even have to be a factor. But selective memory is vital. Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken are the prime examples. Like it or not, both sides have very important issues as well as weak ones. Common sense - even in the guise of moderate veiwpoints - is imperative to solving what's wrong. But as long as Republicans and Democrats alike keep ridiculing each other and calling each other names like a bunch of spoiled school brats, the Government will forever be a playground for fat-cats who wouldn't otherwise give a damn unless the donation money dried up.
If that insults your intellegence, then maybe it's time to look inside your party for what's wrong instead of blaming the incompetant Liberals for everything.
P.S.
"Making him look bad" meant clinton, not Dole
J. Silverstein I think that your example may not be the best one simply because what Clinton did was perjur himself when he was under oath, Bush hasn't done that. The "modern liberal" hates Bush and this hate is based on nothing more than rumor and falsehoods. I can see that both sides play the politics but you do have to question seriously who does it worse. I mean look at this "deep throat" guy. He leaks information and is heralded as a hero because it meant that a Republican was toppled. Linda Tripp catches the President in a lie and causes him to be impeached and she's tried in court. Why wasn't Felt charged?
At least Nixon had the decency to resign...
J.Ginzo
I also found it interesting that as much as these pinheads and double-speakers on Air America love to tear down the evil corporations they forget to mention that they are owned by the largest media corporations, Clear Channel.
The responses of the right to any criticism has become so defensive lately that anybody can't help being suspicious in light of some clear facts that have emerged in recent months. Facts, not "rumors and falsehoods." And the questions are not just from the leftists in America. People all over the world are wondering what's going on here. If the out-and-out denial of some questionable policies of this president wasn't so dangerous it would be comical. There are some serious issues that need addressing, and soon. But the Democrats won't do anything. They're crippled by their own ineptitude, and so the denial happily continues. Everything is hunky-dory.
Oh yeah?
There's no mistaking Bill Clinton's blatant perjury and the morality issue, and protecting the image of the President of the United States is vital. But it was a PERSONAL issue. If Hillary had sued for divorce like any respectable wife would, Bill's perjury would have won her the bank. But she has her agenda (2008). Other than the Republicans though, nobody, not even Hillary, really cared about Clinton's personal life, and Clinton's 65% approval rating during the Lewinsky hearings was proof. Why? Because regardless of how bad it looked, America knew that Clinton's infidelity was not Watergate. It was not Iran/Contra. It was not the Savings and Loan scandal. It was a spiteful move by the Republicans. At the same time, the Republicans did all they could to protect a scum like Robert Packwood, and the person put in charge of the Whitewater hearings was none other than Al D'Amato, who himself was right smack in the middle of the HUD scandal. These obnoxious acts of hypocrisy angered many Americans. But the Democrats did nothing. In spite of himself, Clinton was actually doing a decent job. He erased the previous Bush administration's huge deficits and created a budget surplus. The economy was rolling. THAT'S what the people were looking at. THAT'S what was important. And the Republican Congress gets some credit too because Clinton couldn't be as lazy as he was when the Democrats had control. The Lewinsky case was a personal issue not a political one. And you call that an impeachment? The only reason Nixon resigned was to avoid a REAL impeachment - getting kicked out of office.
And who is heralding Deep Throat as a hero? I've heard mostly ridicule because of the timing and the suspicion of financial gain. The Democrats and Republicans play the political game equally as venomously. Questioning who's worse is like a kid saying, "He started it!"
Post a Comment