Tuesday, December 27, 2005

More New Years Ramblings

Christopher Hitchens -- once the darling of the left, now hated by them for daring to disagree -- makes a terrific point in his most recent article. He points out that Syria and Iran are working hand-in-glove (publicly acknowledged by both camps) which, once again, debunks the outright lie of the leftists that Saddam and Osama couldn't have been working together because one is religious and the other secular.

To those who still foolishly vote Democrat: How many decent Democrats have to "defect" to the side of reason -- how many insane yahoos like Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan and the pig Michael Moore have to be leading your charge -- until you finally recognize that you are on the side of evil?

When Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, Tammy Bruce, Ed Koch and Christopher Hitchens -- all lifelong Democrats -- are on the other side, how do you justify to yourselves following folks who help fake the rape of children (Al Sharpton), steal money from needy kids (Al Franken's Air America), murder their girlfriends (Ted Kennedy) and engage in the most insane personal attacks including calling the victims of 9/11 all "little Eichmanns"?

If nothing else, at least recognize this reality and rethink the positions you support -- recognize that they are, without exception, anti-everything you supposedly believe in as liberals, and force your party back to a place of reason.

How many forged documents does CBS News have to use before you even begin to question them? How many times must Sandy Berger be caught cramming top secret papers into his pants? How many more deceptions such as CNN's quid pro quo with Saddam Hussein and John Kerry's invented tales of having been sent to Cambodia are you willing to pretend you don't know about?

How many more Republicans are you going to call "Hitler" and "fascist" only to see their terms end with great accomplishment. That's what you called Rudoloph Giuliani and, by the end of his tenure, he hadn't annexed New Jersey nor were there death camps. All that he left was a New York City that was better than it had ever before been.

And you called Ronald Reagan "Hitler" and by the time he left office there were no death camps nor had we annexed Canada. All that he did was liberate half of Europe (over the Democrats' objections) and stimulate the economy to the point that unprecedented growth took place for the next twenty years.

And you call George Bush Hitler and here we are, five years later, almost the entire run of Hitler's "thousand year reich" and there are no death camps and we haven't annexed Mexico. All we've done is liberated fifty million human beings from the horrors of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, frighten Syria into ending its brutal occupation of Lebanon, brought about elections in the West Bank, saw the unilateral withdrawal of the Israelis from Gaza, the turning of Pakistan from enemy into friend and the spread of democracy to Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

At what point do you finally say "you know, these insane attacks where everyone who disagrees with me is a 'lying liar,' a "fascist" or "Hitler" has been wrong every time. I think I'll stop it?

18 comments:

MiamiMiami said...

Evan,
HAve you ever seen a little kid who closes his eyes real tight and covers his ears yeling at the top of his lungs? That is the modern liberal.

No matter how much reason is thrown at them they still want so desperately to cling on to the idea that they were cheated in 2000. That's where all of this stems from. Sure liberals have always had this wapred sense of reality but the modern liberal really is still focused on one thing only. They still can't handle that Bush won fairly in 2000. So they claim everything they can to try to make his presidency ilegitimate.
It starts off innocently enough with the claim that he stole the election. That was easily debunked. Then they state that Bush caused 9/11. Easily debunked again. Then they go off the deep end with Michael Moore's very emotional plea to convince us that Bush went to war for oil. Then it goes wilder from there.

To be truthful for you I am very upset for the rank and file Democrat. They are being screwed left and right here. If I was a Democrat (besides seeing me cry hysterically) I would leave the party if not only just to separate myself from that type of insanity.

Evil Right Winger Blog

Evan Sayet said...

mi --

I don't agree that this all "started" with the attempts by the Democrats to steal the 2000 election that went bad.

This has been a long time coming. The problem is that, until the advent and rise of alternative voices in the media, we just weren't aware of it.

Remember, the three non-leftist media forums -- Fox News, center-right talk radio and the blogesphere are all relatively new.

Fox News is just now celebrating its ninth anniversary (I think) while the blogesphere is still emerging. Ten years ago there was perhaps one or two non-leftist voices on talk radio (Rush and maybe another) but otherwise there were NO voices pointing out the lies, slanders and anti-American hate that is today's Democrat party (dominated as it is by the far-left).

Once these small voices were heard the insanity of the leftists began to be exposed and the entire country began to get it. This frustrated the Dems so that they had to increase their attacks. But, because they are wrong and lying they had nothing logical with which to attack. So they began to simply scream louder and with more hatred.

Bush is HITLER was all they had. But with Fox and radio and the blog this only made them appear more ludicrous (as they were) and thus increased their frustration.

Still, with nothing factual or logical to offer all they did was scream even louder...making their insanity only that much more obvious.

Now the leftist media outlets that were happy to simply "spin" stories to the left when there were no other voices have had to engage in outright lies. But with the other voices those lies have been exposed time and again. Only weakening them further and, thus, resulting in even MORE lunacy.

So Dan Rather who used to just lie now has to use forged documents. He gets nailed using forged documents so then the NY Times has to invent other stories. They put forth a Cindy Sheehan and try to sell her as a "peace mom." But Fox News interviews her or the blogs dig up her history, etc. and America sees she's just another lunatic leftist.

And the Dems become even MORE frustratted and filled with hatred and their lies only increase.

It wasn't the election, it was the fact that the leftist monopoly on information had been broken and their lies that had kept them in power for years were exposed.

Ed said...

Wow feel the mindless hatred on this blog. If you had squeezed out one ounce of humanity and paid more attention to what is happening to your country--and less attention to what lies within your bank account-- you would see just how much your fellow Americans are getting screwed every which way there is currently by our government. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue nor a republican/democrat issue. What we are seeing is the abuse of the individual by corporate control of government. And if any of you out there, who may happen to crack open a history book now and then, would see this is fascism ala Mussolini Style.

And all this goes counter to the US Constitution, which is still a worthy document that maybe more than a few americans need to read and learn.

MiamiMiami said...

Maybe you're right but I guess from a personal point of view I didn't notice how ridiculous they were until the 2000 election. Or maybe more accurately I hadn't really paid them any mind until the 2000 election. It seems to me however that they seemed to have focused so much of their arguments against Bush based on their belief that he wasn't legitimately elected. I think that in this way they can somehow make the connection that he is like Hitler and "ready to take over the world" in some sort of scheme for world domination or something. I see this as their attempt to argue their view that Bush is "evil" because first he stole the elcetion and then he lied about WMD's and now he is wiretapping Americans, etc. From my point of view it's like they are trying, in vain, to establish some sort of alternate universe historical timeline to show Bush's "Fourth Reich" rise to power.

It's silly but that's how it appears to me.

Actually to compare Bush to Hitler is not even close. Hitler militarily did a lot for his time. I don't think Hitler would have allowed much criticism of his "administration" the way Bush has. There was no way that the Times would have existed after leaking out Hitler's wiretapping plans.

Evan Sayet said...

Ed,

You are a fool. You say absolutely nothing. Offer not a single example of "hate" and then talk about my "bank account" something you know nothing about.

That's you typical leftist for you. Hatred for anyone who dares to not hate America. No facts, completely wrong (I am FAR from rich) and always on the side of America's enemies.

Evan Sayet said...

The "Bush not legitimately elected" was just a handy hate-piece for the Dems.

The great irony, of course, is that it was the Democrats who tried so desperately to steal that election. They tried to change the rules, their brethren in the media called the election before the panhandle had had the chance to vote, etc.

Recognize, too, that the alternative voices to the left -- talk radio, blogesphere, Fox News, all came about VERY recently. Yes there was Rush a while back but he was the ONLY non-leftist voice of any prominence. Fox News only STARTED much less became known 9 years ago. That means that the election of 1996 was PRE-blog, pre-Fox and only the tiny, antiquated AM radio offered ANY opposition to the leftist liars.

Until then Dan Rather would forge documents and get away with it. Until then CNN was engaging in a decade long fraud in a quid pro quo with Saddam Hussein. Until then the NY Times would spew their outright lies (Howell Raines, Jayson Blair, et al) and get away with it.

The Dems are DESPERTATE because all of the lies and the tricks and the frauds that they had perpetrated are no longer going unchallenged and now all they have is hate (Bush is HITLER. Giuliani is HITLER. Ashcroft is HITLER. The victims of 9/11 are all "LITTLE EICHMANNS", etc.

MiamiMiami said...

Wow feel the mindless hatred on this blog.
===>Hatred? By calling someone what they are is hatred?

If you had squeezed out one ounce of humanity and paid more attention to what is happening to your country--and less attention to what lies within your bank account-- you would see just how much your fellow Americans are getting screwed every which way there is currently by our government.
=====>What do you know about any of the writers on this blog? How do you all-of-a-sudden question my humanity? I have been invovled in some sort of public service since before I graduated high school. 6 years of that was in the US Army with the Corps of Engineers, and just recently with FEMA helping people in Mississippi put their lives back together after having suffered through the same hurricane that had hit my neighborhood weeks earlier. And who the hell mentioned anything about bank accounts?

This isn't a liberal/conservative issue nor a republican/democrat issue. What we are seeing is the abuse of the individual by corporate control of government.
=====>Huh? Where in the world is this going? Seriously? What individual is being abused by the "corporate control of the government?" Which freshman year college rant did you steal THAT from?

And if any of you out there, who may happen to crack open a history book now and then, would see this is fascism ala Mussolini Style.
======>Are you drinking when you write this stuff?

And all this goes counter to the US Constitution, which is still a worthy document that maybe more than a few americans need to read and learn.
======>This is what happens when you get your information about the Constitution from an eighth grade social studies book. If you can't offer specific examples of this mindmush you are doling out please do us all a favor and stop drinking the bong water while posting.

Alva is a good example of a coherent, although very misguided, liberal. While he generally doesn't make much sense either we can at least follow his thought pattern and decipher the main theme of his rant.

Evil Right Winger Blog

MiamiMiami said...

Evan,
I will agree with you on the desparation of the Democratic party. I have never seen this party so desparate in a real long time. You would think however that in their desparation they would somehow manage to forge a common thread, a common leader, or at least a common front. They are truly all over the place. I mean DEan is SUPPOSED to be the chairman but they have so many outspoken ( for lack of a better word) "leaders" and so much division within their own party.

The only point of contention I have with Bush is that his administration really has not, in my opinion, fully taken advantage of this division enough. We saw a little of it in the past two weeks but it is a little late and not enough.

I have said it before and I tuly believe it....liberalism=duplicity.

Found this quote the other day....

"A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment."
Willis Player

Evan Sayet said...

The problem the Liberals have is that the very definition of being a Liberal today is to believe in nothing.

This is why they vote FOR the money for our soldiers before they vote AGAINST the money for them.

It's why they scream the most miserable vitriol supporting the Murtha bill and then vote 406-3 AGAINST the Murtha bill (with Murtha voting against it).

Believing in nothing the only thing that matters is how they can win power for themselves...but in politics that requires longterm calculations that are very difficult to make.

In the past it didn't matter. They knew they had the corrupt leftist media to lie for them. Now they don't know what to do. So they're all over the place. One (Hillary) thinks it politically expedient to (today) support the liberation of Iraq another (Pelosi) thinks it best (today) to be against it. Etc.

Republicans can offer coherent and cohesive policies because we are rooted to the truth by our belief in a higher power, by our belief in America's exceptionalism, etc.

Believing in nothing leaves the Democrats rutterless and thus all these little paddleboats are just going round and round.

MiamiMiami said...

Evan,
You did just touch on one thing that really struck me as absolutely true. The liberals that where screaming for the immediate pullout of our troops as Murtha had screamed for himself wouldn't vote for it. I mean talk about the ultimate example of duplicity. It's even funnier than that though. They refused to vote for it, if you ask the liberals, because it was introduced by a Republican. Wait it gets funnier I promise. The funnier part is that when a Republican says to them "Put up or shut up" they choke including Murtha himself!

I just think that it's hilarious!

Then recently the House of Representatives wanted to pass a resolutiono to be committed to victory in Iraq and 108, that's not a typo, one hundred and eight, Democrats voted against it. SO now there are 108 Dem's on record as being against vicotry in Iraq!

EPorvaznik said...

Mister Ed,

If this country is drifting down the fascist Mussolini path, as you claim, it is primarily the fault of Democrat leaders like Hillary, Kerry and who-not. They, and to a smaller degree select Republicans, want to transform this nation, once filled with a do-it-yourself mentality, into a Euro-modeled statist government, with the sheeple's hands stretched out to mommy in gimme-gimme-gimme fashion. That, my friend is socialist, which is where fascist governments have always had their origins.

So, please, if you're going to visit here with more accusations of anger, I merely ask that you put down your history books as penned by victim-minded and US-hating people like Krugman, James Loewen, Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Carter. Only then will you be able to realize that all your cries of fascism point squarely at the people whom you probably and unwittingly support.

May I humbly suggest starting with Larry Elder's "10 Things You Can't Say in America," which is what ultimately brought me over from the land of modern liberalism or Jim Wallis' "God's Politics," which takes shots at both sides on the issue of religion.

tampaindependent said...

Hey, Evan, miamimiami, and eporvaznik:

I heard Evan this morning on Thom Harmann's show. Interesting stuff.

I'm a registered independent in Florida, and when I showed up here I found pretty much what I expected. So many falsehoods, so little time... I'll try to be brief.

1) Re: Bush didn't win anything in 2000. By a vote of 5 to 4 the supreme court threw it back to the state of Florida, and one bought and paid for woman -- Secretary of State Katherine Harris -- refused to count all of the votes. We have no idea how the election ended up, because all of the votes weren't counted AND because a goodly percentage of the votes were cast on Diebold machines -- machines that have been easily hacked on national television, and which just this month were dumped by 2 of the counties in Florida that used them.

So there's no way that we can PROVE if Bush won or he didn't. But there were several seperate studies looked into the whole debacle. One commissioned by the Washington Post. Another commissioned by Tribune Co., which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. The Post endorsed Gore editorially in the November election, while the Tribune endorsed Bush. Another comissioned by the Associated Press.

All three came to the same conclusion that Gore would have won Florida, with AP being the most compelling: "In the review of all the state's disputed ballots, Gore edged ahead under all six scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide." See a nice discussion at http://www.chicagomediawatch.org/01_4_gore.shtml or on about 25 other well researched websites.

2) Re: Michael Moore/War For Oil. Anybody that I know who has read the PNAC report http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf sees the logic. Of course, I don't hang out with neocons, but I do have a rather broad spectrum of well educated friends -- many of whom teach college, as I do -- who come to a very rational rather than a "very emotional" conclusion that domination of the region's oil reserves is key to the whole strategy.

What do you suggest was the foundational precept for going to war? The WMD's we never found? The Saddam/terrorst connection that has been disproven over and over again? Or was it nation building, like George said he WASN'T going to do in the campaign up to the 2000 elecition? ( http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263 See Bush Flip Flop number 21 of 30)

3) Re: Praising the right wing media that only existed on "tiny little am radio stations" before 2000, and "once these small voices were heard the insanity of the leftists began to be exposed and the entire country began to get it."

SMALL VOICES?! Excuse me, but the radical right has dominated radio -- and we're talking clear channel 50K watt multi state radio -- for years. The radical shift began in 1987 when Regan vetoed an attempt by Congress to make the Fairness doctrine law. Then Bush senior did the same thing. With Republicans dominating congress through the 90's "fairness" always lost to "corporate monopolization" in media. And now? It's not even an issue in congress.

I find it amazing that the very folks who seemingly would try to "balance the liberal media" were the same ones who vote against a "fairness" doctrine. If the media's so "liberal", don't you conservatives want it to be more "fair"?

Oh, I forgot. THE MARKET takes care of that. The fact that Rush, Hannity, and the rest of the unending list of right wing demogods -- see http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm and just try to make a list of "leftist" media folks that's as long -- spew a corporate line that's fine with media monopoly is why they're carried in every market in the country to the detriment of heterogenous intellectual discourse for all.

A recent study suggested that conservative talk radio was on 15 times as many total hours of broadcasting per week than liberal.

And I've seen somewhere on this site that you consider Chris Matthews a commie, or such. Yet one of OReilly's infamous hit list members, Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/) has named Matthews their "Misinformer of the Year". Can't win with the right, and evidently can't win with the left. Poor Chris.

4) Re: Dems not voting for "victory resolution".

Perhaps the dems didn't vote for it because it was a vaguely worded platitude. Define exactly what "victory" means. The president can't seem to do it. The defense department can't seem to do it. And the Repubs in the House cryptically defined it (like the administration) as having something to do with "standing down when they stand up". (Exact quote: "the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose")

Just what exactly does stand up mean? When the majority of the Iraqi political elite says leave? They've already said it.

When the majority of the Iraqi people in the street say leave? Already between 60 and 80% -- depending on which poll you use -- say they want us gone yesterday.

If the benchmark we use is zero violent activity in the region, then we'll need to be prepared to stay for years and years to come.

The troops don't want that, the American people don't want that, and the Iraqis don't want that. Only this administration, neocon imperialists and corporatists, and the defense contractors want that.

So, I wouldn't have voted for some fuzzily defined resolution spewing nonsense about "victory" either. We need an exit strategy, not platitudes. And that's why, I believe, Dems didn't vote for it.

5) Re: Dems not voting for resolution that Rep. Murtha "screamed" for. Again, read the legislation. Murtha's plan was calling for strategic redeployment at the first "practicable date" with an over the horizon presence established. Cynical repubs drew up the bill that they voted on, stating simply that we would pull out now. Of course that wasn't what anyone wanted -- including the Democrats -- and THAT'S why the Dems were screaming. Repubs were forcing them to vote on a bs bill just to give them the opportunity to spin the whole thing into the lie that you're promoting.

6) Re: Cindy Sheehan. I was in Crawford with her. She is a woman of uncommon courage, character, and vision, unlike the counterprotestors I came in contact with, many of whom who regularly threatened her and others in our group with physical violence. Of course, that was until one of our 6 ft. 4 inch trained-to-kill-with-their-bare- hands Veterans For Peace would get involved.

In fact, the only violence that the local police department had to deal with was amongst the pro Bush people. They roughed up one of their own because he had a sign they didn't understand. No bull.

And I'm not saying that any of the right-inclined bloggers here are prone to inappropriate violence, but it is kind of sad to see that -- in my experience -- whenever your side shows up in the streets, there's always a group of stormtrooper wannabes who are just itching for a fight.

For me, that's reason enough to make your side less attractive to me.

7) Re: Democrats don't believe in anything. I think Democrats believe in lots of things.

One man or woman, straight, gay, or otherwise, one vote.

Every American has the right to have their legal vote counted and verified.

Nobody is above the law, and that includes the rich and powerful. (Jefferson would have said,"Most IMPORTANTLY not the rich and powerful.)

A just society is judged not by the standard of living of it's wealthiest, but by the standard of living of it's poorest, and the disparity between the two should be made smaller, not larger.

That freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion are equally valued. That everyone has the right to believe whatever they choose, but religion belongs in church, not science class, and not in tax dollar supported facilities.

That the individual's rights supercede the state's in matters of crime and punishment.

That everyone should have food, clothing, shelter, and reasonable access to healthcare as a birthright. (I would argue for life, but can easily see centrist Dems fighting for this only for children.)

That every human being deserves clean air to breathe and water to drink, even if it's not as profitable for business.

That the future for our economy and energy needs is not found in the ground. Oil is evil, and the sooner we ditch this addiction the better.

That abortion is an awful thing. But the state taking control over a woman's womb is even worse.

Ok, so this wasn't so brief...

Evan Sayet said...

Welcome to the board, Tamp.

I must admit it's not the least bit surprising that you teach college.

There's not a single take that you offer that is honest or well thought out.

President Bush won the elections according to the laws of the United States.

You have no evidence that Kathleen Harris was "bought and paid for." That's just the kind of slander that is typical of the leftists. There are only two choices: either agree with a leftist or you're a liar.

(Thus England, Poland, Austalia, Spain, Italy and forty other nations were all the "bribed and coerced" when they refused to allow the French -- the Dem's friends -- to continue their corruption in cahoots with Saddam Hussein).

The leftists invent or accept any lie that is anti-American. This, of course, requires some conspiracy theory about the voting Machines (no evidence), some wrong doing in the Supreme Court when it was decided that Al Gore couldn't indefinately attempt to keep changing the rules and demand recounts (but only in selected counties) until he finally got a decision the Democrats liked.

And, of course, even with the leftist media "calling" Florida for Gore after the leftists in South Beach voted but before the Republicans in the Pan Handle got to vote meant that the election wasn't even close. Tens of thousands of Republicans, being told by the forged document users at CBS and the Pro-terrorist forces at CNN that their vote wouldn't matter, went home to their families rather than taking the time to go and vote.

Notice that reason -- (e.g. Al Gore shouldn't be allowed to pick and chose which counties he wants recounted over and over and over again) plays no part in this leftist college teacher's "thinking" but insane, unproved, utterly without evidence slanders and lunatic conspiracy theories are the heart and soul of her arguments.

This is because Liberals "think" in reverse. The start with America is wrong, Bush is evil (and the victims of 9/11 are all "little Eichmanns") and then work backwards and slander, lie, invent, forge, propagandize, steal 9/11 documents, etc. until they can justify their preordained positions.





Not surprising that this

Evan Sayet said...

I wrote that the very definition of being a Liberal is to believe in nothing. The college teacher responded with a list of things she believes in. Let's address them.

>>>One man or woman, straight, gay, or otherwise, one vote.>>>

Simply not true. Half of Florida was denied the right to vote when the forged document users in the Old Media falsely called the election for Al Gore. There was, of course, no outrage from these "one person one voters" because that "one person" was likely a Repulbican.

Instead the lefties want to invent votes by recount after recount after recount -- but ONLY in those counties where they think Republican votes won't be found. Those "one people" don't count at all.


>>>Every American has the right to have their legal vote counted and verified.>>

Just addressed above. Where is lefty's outrage at the forged document users cheating half of Florida out of their vote?

>>>Nobody is above the law, and that includes the rich and powerful. (Jefferson would have said,"Most IMPORTANTLY not the rich and powerful.)>>>

Here we get to the point. It's a lie! When she says "nobody is above the law" she doesn't mean, of course, Tookie Williams or Al Sharpton. And the idea that the "rich and powerful" should be EXCEPTIONALLY singled out for punishment gets to the heart of leftism. Rich and powerful should be punished. Poor (typically through their own actions) should be coddled.

>>>A just society is judged not by the standard of living of it's wealthiest, but by the standard of living of it's poorest, and the disparity between the two should be made smaller, not larger.>>>

This is KEY. What's important to the Democrat is not that everyone do better than they did yesterday but simply that the disparity between rich and poor be lessened. This is accomplished by the Democrats by making everyone poor. That way there IS no disparity.

Republicans care more that everyone have more than they did. If that means a Bill Gates gets filthy rich by inventing something that allows me to make a few extra bucks by writing better and more quickly I like Bill Gates. The Dems would destroy Bill Gates because he causes a DISPARITY. Meanwhile I have less money thanks to the Dems.

>>>That freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion are equally valued. That everyone has the right to believe whatever they choose, but religion belongs in church, not science class, and not in tax dollar supported facilities.>>>

Nowhere in our constitution (or in common sense) does it say that there is freedom FROM religion. In fact nowhere is there a "separation of Church and state."
The attempt to destroy religion is part and parcel of the leftists' belief in NOTHING.

>>>That the individual's rights supercede the state's in matters of crime and punishment.>>>

Excuse me? What?

>>>That everyone should have food, clothing, shelter, and reasonable access to healthcare as a birthright. (I would argue for life, but can easily see centrist Dems fighting for this only for children.)>>>

The question isn't want do you WANT it's how does one go about it? The leftists, believing in nothing, seek to guarantee these things by destroying the very mechinisms that have made food, clothing, shelter and medical care in America unprecedently provided.

You may wish in your fantasy world (believing in nothing Democrats -- like children -- revert to fantasy --) that all of these material things simply get created with the wave of a wand. In the REAL WORLD resources are scarce and must be CREATED. The Dem's method of punishing the creative, the hard working and the successful (who they ESPECIALLY want to punish -- see earlier -- and who they wish to deny the rewards of their hard work and efforts -- see earlier) ends up with none of these things being available. (See France's Moslems, and, of course the Soviet Union which the Democrats so adored).

>>>That every human being deserves clean air to breathe and water to drink, even if it's not as profitable for business.>>>

This is so silly it is laughable. The idea that a leftist college professor cares more about "clean and and water" than does the farmer in Kansas or the Boy Scout troop leader in Nebraska" is so self-serving. The idea that Republicans are from another planet and breathe through holes in their necks and love polluted air is just the kind of slanders that the forged document users in the media and the lefties on college campuses have been selling for decades.

The reality is that the leftists don't care one whit about the envicronment. INstead they use it as a tool to undermine what they hate...capitalism...which, of course, is the system that is built on beliefs such as hard work should have its rewards.

>>>That the future for our economy and energy needs is not found in the ground. Oil is evil, and the sooner we ditch this addiction the better.>>>

And here we get to it. "Oil is evil"??? No, oil is just an amoral goop. It's what is done with that oil. It is who is controlling that oil. If we could put a little pin prick into the ground in Alaska oil would be "less evil."

But in the guise of caring about the environment (there was NO environmental risk whatsoever) then capitalist America would be more secure and THAT'S what the liberal hates. (Because America stands in the way of their "multiculturalism" --- the belief that nothing is better or worse than anything else.)

Notice that this lefty college professors (living in a bubble as she herself says "a lot of her friends are also lefty college professors) uses every example to attack AMERICA. Not a single word about Islamic fascist terrorists, not a single word about how much good business has done in and for America. All of her attacks are on the successful and a call to provide for free to the failed.

This is because, believing in nothing, success is never earned and failure is always a helpless victim.

I repeat, the very definition of Liberal today means believing in nothing. It's why they so adore the United Nations where the Sudan is made the head of the "human rights commission". Why not, hey, "one man's genocide is another man's mulch..." It's why in the schools they control they demand that "diversity" be celebrated as if all differences are equally good and equally right.

It's why they hate "inequaltiy" as if those who work hard, create and provide should be "equal" to those who sit around all day smoking crack.

Republicans care about justice. It is the foundation of civil life. Democrats don't believe in justice but rather "equality" because, beliving in nothing, then all things should be equal.

That abortion is an awful thing. But the state taking control over a woman's womb is even worse.

Ok, so this wasn't so brief...

6:03 AM

MiamiMiami said...

Warning: A Conservative is going to exercise his freedom of speech. It is usually labelled as "hate speech" whenever a conservative voices his opinion against the rantings of a liberal but in truth it is my freedom of speech being exercised.





Hey, Evan, miamimiami, and eporvaznik:
======>Hi. Welcome. Please take a moment to visit me at my blog whenever you like Evil right Winger Blog


I heard Evan this morning on Thom Harmann's show. Interesting stuff.

I'm a registered independent in Florida, and when I showed up here I found pretty much what I expected. So many falsehoods, so little time... I'll try to be brief.
=======>I am a registered Republican. I am not for sitting on the fence on things. Are you a re member of the "Independant Party" or Non-Party Affiliated?

1) Re: Bush didn't win anything in 2000. By a vote of 5 to 4 the supreme court threw it back to the state of Florida, and one bought and paid for woman -- Secretary of State Katherine Harris -- refused to count all of the votes. We have no idea how the election ended up, because all of the votes weren't counted AND because a goodly percentage of the votes were cast on Diebold machines -- machines that have been easily hacked on national television, and which just this month were dumped by 2 of the counties in Florida that used them.

So there's no way that we can PROVE if Bush won or he didn't. But there were several seperate studies looked into the whole debacle. One commissioned by the Washington Post. Another commissioned by Tribune Co., which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. The Post endorsed Gore editorially in the November election, while the Tribune endorsed Bush. Another comissioned by the Associated Press.

All three came to the same conclusion that Gore would have won Florida, with AP being the most compelling: "In the review of all the state's disputed ballots, Gore edged ahead under all six scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide." See a nice discussion at http://www.chicagomediawatch.org/01_4_gore.shtml or on about 25 other well researched websites.


======>Yeah. That's nice and all. But please read this. Newsparper's recount shows Bush prevailed.
You see? This stupitiy that Bush never won is so silly that it makes one wonder why in the world are people still up in arms over this. You also forgot the that Diebold complany was somehow under the thumb of Halliburton! can't miss the possible Halliburton connection there or else it would lead people to believe that there wasn't a corporate connection here!


2) Re: Michael Moore/War For Oil. Anybody that I know who has read the PNAC report http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf sees the logic. Of course, I don't hang out with neocons, but I do have a rather broad spectrum of well educated friends -- many of whom teach college, as I do -- who come to a very rational rather than a "very emotional" conclusion that domination of the region's oil reserves is key to the whole strategy.

======>HAHAHA. The fact that you teach college does not surprise me at all. Let's examine that statement shall we? You say that "of course you don't hang out with neocons..." but have a "...rather broard spectrum of well educated friends..." So that means that you basically hang out with other like-minded people as yourself. I am not criticizing you for that because that is basic human nature to hang out with people who share your common interests. But a broad spectrum that does not make. The fact that you are trying to make the case that we at war for oil is very much based on "emotion." The oil industry has not benefitted from this so-called regional domination of the oil in the area.




What do you suggest was the foundational precept for going to war? The WMD's we never found? The Saddam/terrorst connection that has been disproven over and over again? Or was it nation building, like George said he WASN'T going to do in the campaign up to the 2000 elecition? ( http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263 See Bush Flip Flop number 21 of 30)
=======>Um no. Now before I go into this thing called "truth" I must warn you to self-administer about 100mg of Benadryl as I have found that liberals tend to become anaphylactic when hearing it.
We went to war because ALL of the intel pointed to Saddam having WMD's. That's intel from France, Germany, Russia (who coincidentally blocked the UN from acting to protect their Oil-For-Food scheme), Japan, England and the UN itself. But did we even need that? No. After the Gulf War Saddam had agreed to play nice under the treaty he signed. Since that time he violated it by shooting at coalition aircraft on a weekly basis. THEN there were those 17 UN resolutions that were passed by the UN when he kicked the inspectors out. Bush simply put it on the table and told the UN either enforce these resolutions or we will. And we did.


3) Re: Praising the right wing media that only existed on "tiny little am radio stations" before 2000, and "once these small voices were heard the insanity of the leftists began to be exposed and the entire country began to get it."

SMALL VOICES?! Excuse me, but the radical right has dominated radio -- and we're talking clear channel 50K watt multi state radio -- for years. The radical shift began in 1987 when Regan vetoed an attempt by Congress to make the Fairness doctrine law. Then Bush senior did the same thing. With Republicans dominating congress through the 90's "fairness" always lost to "corporate monopolization" in media. And now? It's not even an issue in congress.

I find it amazing that the very folks who seemingly would try to "balance the liberal media" were the same ones who vote against a "fairness" doctrine. If the media's so "liberal", don't you conservatives want it to be more "fair"?


Oh, I forgot. THE MARKET takes care of that. The fact that Rush, Hannity, and the rest of the unending list of right wing demogods -- see http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm and just try to make a list of "leftist" media folks that's as long -- spew a corporate line that's fine with media monopoly is why they're carried in every market in the country to the detriment of heterogenous intellectual discourse for all.

======>Sounds like a liberal who is mad that NO ONE is wanting to hear the left-wing radio. Must be why Air America's ratings are in the toilet. She is mad that people want to hear the "neocons" and after listening to the silliness of the likes of Air America who is stealing money from Boy's Charities! This is the same kind of liberal that still thinks the story Dan Rather tried to pass off with forged documents was a valid story! If the media was NOT so liberal tell me when the last time you heard ANY outlet INCLUDING Fox that keeps a toll of how many enemy we have killed?

A recent study suggested that conservative talk radio was on 15 times as many total hours of broadcasting per week than liberal.
======>The market is speaking and voting! Guess what? No one likes liberal talk radio. Porbably because all they do is whine and moan all day long! WAHHHHHH!

And I've seen somewhere on this site that you consider Chris Matthews a commie, or such. Yet one of OReilly's infamous hit list members, Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/) has named Matthews their "Misinformer of the Year". Can't win with the right, and evidently can't win with the left. Poor Chris.
=======>Probably because he is seen for what he is by the right and despised by the left for not being dishonest enough.

4) Re: Dems not voting for "victory resolution".

Perhaps the dems didn't vote for it because it was a vaguely worded platitude. Define exactly what "victory" means.
======>Sorry had to break in here. This is what the resolution termed as victory
The house just passed House Resolution 612 "Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq."

The text of the bill states:
expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq.

Whereas the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, the first to take place under the newly ratified Iraqi Constitution, represented a crucial success in the establishment of a democratic, constitutional order in Iraq; and

Whereas Iraqis, who by the millions defied terrorist threats to vote, were protected by Iraqi security forces with the help of United States and Coalition forces: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved, That--

(1) the House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq;

(2) the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, was a crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy, and a defeat for the terrorists who seek to destroy that democracy;

(3) the House of Representatives encourages all Americans to express solidarity with the Iraqi people as they take another step toward their goal of a free, open, and democratic society;

(4) the successful Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, required the presence of United States Armed Forces, United States-trained Iraqi forces, and Coalition forces;

(5) the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose;

(6) setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;

(7) the House of Representatives recognizes and honors the tremendous sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed Forces and their families, along with the members of Iraqi and Coalition forces; and

(8) the House of Representatives has unshakable confidence that, with the support of the American people and the Congress, United States Armed Forces, along with Iraqi and Coalition forces, shall achieve victory in Iraq.


And then the Democrats saw this and gasped and remembered that we are the criminals and voted with their conscience.

The president can't seem to do it. The defense department can't seem to do it. And the Repubs in the House cryptically defined it (like the administration) as having something to do with "standing down when they stand up". (Exact quote: "the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose")

Just what exactly does stand up mean? When the majority of the Iraqi political elite says leave? They've already said it.
=======>When and where did they Iraqi government tell us to get and leave? And if they really wanted us to leave don't you think that with the amount of Iraqi soldiers they would have forcably removed us already? Think about it...

When the majority of the Iraqi people in the street say leave? Already between 60 and 80% -- depending on which poll you use -- say they want us gone yesterday.
======>Yes. According to the leftist media. But I wonder if that question was posed right now what they would say considering that they would most defitely plunder into chaos.

If the benchmark we use is zero violent activity in the region, then we'll need to be prepared to stay for years and years to come.
======>Hey I hate to break it to you but we are still in Germany, Japan, France, the Phillipines, South Korea. So what? And let's say we did find those WMD's that he moved prior to the invasion ? We would have STILL been there anyways!

The troops don't want that, the American people don't want that, and the Iraqis don't want that. Only this administration, neocon imperialists and corporatists, and the defense contractors want that.
======>How many troops have you spoken to? How do you know what they want?


So, I wouldn't have voted for some fuzzily defined resolution spewing nonsense about "victory" either. We need an exit strategy, not platitudes. And that's why, I believe, Dems didn't vote for it.
=====>Typical. I could expand on that but why?

5) Re: Dems not voting for resolution that Rep. Murtha "screamed" for. Again, read the legislation. Murtha's plan was calling for strategic redeployment at the first "practicable date" with an over the horizon presence established. Cynical repubs drew up the bill that they voted on, stating simply that we would pull out now. Of course that wasn't what anyone wanted -- including the Democrats -- and THAT'S why the Dems were screaming. Repubs were forcing them to vote on a bs bill just to give them the opportunity to spin the whole thing into the lie that you're promoting.
=====>What happened was the crybaby wanted something so the Republicans called his and every other Dem's bluff. Conversely the only ones that actually showed their ability to stick to their guns was Democrats Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), Robert Wexler (Fla.) and Cynthia McKinney (Ga.). So when it came down to "put up or shut up" they folded. Spineless.

6) Re: Cindy Sheehan. I was in Crawford with her. She is a woman of uncommon courage, character, and vision, unlike the counterprotestors I came in contact with, many of whom who regularly threatened her and others in our group with physical violence. Of course, that was until one of our 6 ft. 4 inch trained-to-kill-with-their-bare- hands Veterans For Peace would get involved.
======>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. She is a flipping coward! To protest the government in this country is NOT an act of courage. She already has that right thanks to the bravery and courage of her son who would probably be very upset that his mom is carrying on like this. I really doubt that anyone physcially threatened her. They probably voiced their opinion and that was the actual threat.

In fact, the only violence that the local police department had to deal with was amongst the pro Bush people. They roughed up one of their own because he had a sign they didn't understand. No bull.
======>Yeah I mean there has NEVER been a violent peace protest out there right??
Hmmm




And I'm not saying that any of the right-inclined bloggers here are prone to inappropriate violence, but it is kind of sad to see that -- in my experience -- whenever your side shows up in the streets, there's always a group of stormtrooper wannabes who are just itching for a fight.
======>Actually my family left one of those left-dominated countries, Cuba. It was kind of hard to protest there because the left-minded government would bash your skull in. Hmmm. Talk about your stormtroopers?

For me, that's reason enough to make your side less attractive to me.
====>I think the fact that your silly rants and your ineffective emotional arguments are exposed for what they are make our side unattractive to you.


7) Re: Democrats don't believe in anything. I think Democrats believe in lots of things.
=====>Hmmm this should prove interesting....

One man or woman, straight, gay, or otherwise, one vote.
======>Umm ok?

Every American has the right to have their legal vote counted and verified.
======>Ummm that's not quite true. I know that the Dem's would love illegal immigrants and convicts to vote.

Nobody is above the law, and that includes the rich and powerful. (Jefferson would have said,"Most IMPORTANTLY not the rich and powerful.)
======>Oh. I see. It's always the "rich and powerful" that are trying to be above the law is it? My my my I was wondering when it would eventually come down to the core beliefs of the bourgeoisie and the proletariet being in constant struggle and the ideas of redistribution of wealth.

A just society is judged not by the standard of living of it's wealthiest, but by the standard of living of it's poorest, and the disparity between the two should be made smaller, not larger.
======>Yes and this is why we need to redistribute the wealth amongst everyone so that no one has any more than anyone else! In this way every one is equal! Yes my comrades! As soon as I march into Havana Cuba will finally have justice! And this is precisely why such and idea fails considering that Fidel is personally worth approximately 550 million dollars!

That freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion are equally valued. That everyone has the right to believe whatever they choose, but religion belongs in church, not science class, and not in tax dollar supported facilities.
======>So if there is freedom of religion and from religion why not teach both ideas and just let the kids decide what they believe in? I thought you libs were for inclusivity and freedom of speech?

That the individual's rights supercede the state's in matters of crime and punishment.
======>They already do. What are you talking about?

That everyone should have food, clothing, shelter, and reasonable access to healthcare as a birthright. (I would argue for life, but can easily see centrist Dems fighting for this only for children.)
======>Oh like how the Dems are for abortion? Yes what about the reasonable access to healthcare, food, clothing, and shelter for that unborn child?

That every human being deserves clean air to breathe and water to drink, even if it's not as profitable for business.
======>Yes and if we had signed the Kyoto treaty then it would have all magically come true! HAHAHAHA

That the future for our economy and energy needs is not found in the ground. Oil is evil, and the sooner we ditch this addiction the better.
======>Oil is evil? Did you really write that? Really you didn't write that, that was a little kid that wrote that when you went to get something from the fridge right? Oil is most definitely NOT evil. Oil is an inanimate object. It has no internal intentions or emotions.

That abortion is an awful thing. But the state taking control over a woman's womb is even worse.
======>Huh? Do you even read the duplicitousness in that very statement? That's like saying murder is awful but the government should have no control over yourt decision to do so.



Ok, so this wasn't so brief...
=====>No but very telling of the kind of college professor that has taken over most of academia. Please let me know what Florida college you are teaching at so that we can avoid sending our kids there in the furture. Liberalism truly equals duplicity!

Evan Sayet said...

You'll notice that the Liberal college teacher follows all of the Liberal mantras...

EVERYTHING is anti-American.

It doesn't require fact, evidence (or even logic) it's all a conspiracy.

It doesn't require fact, evidence (or even logic) but corporations are controlling the world.

It doesn't require fact or evidence but any decision against the leftists is by people who were "bought and paid for" (such as the 45 nations that joined the coalition of the willing). The irony, of course, the nation they adore (you know, the one where the Moslems are rioting in the streets of Europe) France really was bribed and coerced by Saddam Hussein, with their beloved French stealing money from starving people in aiding and abetting the mass murder of millions in Iraq.

Truth, fact, reason and evidence are utterly meaningless to the Democrat. More terrifying is that these are the folks who teach our vulnerable children and control the entire Old Media of forged document users like Dan Rather, et al.

Evan Sayet said...

One more thing...

The good news is that thoughtful Democrats ARE leaving the party. Joe Lieberman, Tammy Bruce, Zell Miller, Ed Koch, Bernard Goldberg, David Horowitz, and so many others have come to recognize that their TRUE liberal values are far more threatened by the mindless anti-Americanism of the Howard "Yee-ha" Deans and the insanity of the Cindy Sheehans and the outright liars at CBS and CNN than they are by the caracitures of the Republicans who think cutting taxes is good for the people and fighting mass murderers seeking nuclear weapons is a rightful cause.

Democrats win only when there is hysteria and hate (that's why they must portray a good and decent man like George Bush with whom they might have policy disagreements, as nothing less than HITLER!!!!

Since leftism only wins in those places it goes unchallenged (that's why colleges won't hire non-leftist professors and when groups invite non-leftists to speak they are physically attacked) it is OUR job to talk to people -- one on one -- and exposed the utter folly of these folks...even when these folks (especially when these folks) have "college credentials".

MiamiMiami said...

ust want to wish everyone a Happy and safe New Year. Let's not forgot those who went into that great night in 2005.

God bless America!