Monday, May 31, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Finally, Democrats blame George W. Bush for Gulf oil spill--Chris Dodd video as the blather spreads
Of course, Democrats haven't stopped blaming George W. Bush for what's wrong with the country...
We'll get to that in juuuust a second.
The reason behind this new push to blame Bush is simple: to take attention away from the multitude of blunders committed on President Obama's watch with regards to the oil spill. The longer this story goes, the more inept the Obama Administration looks. And after the Left spent all that time demonizing George W. Bush's slow response to Katrina?
I see. According to you: If it's on Obama's watch, then he's responsible.
Fine, then you're admitting 9/11 is Bush's fault. It's about time!
But in all seriousness, the MMS Official that resigned? Bush official. Self-regulation? Bush. And (again) which administration asked all those oil companies to write up a wish list of what they would most like the Bush administration to do for them, and one of them was to get rid of the very fail safes (such as acoustical shutoff regulators) that would have stopped this very disaster in its tracks? Hint: It wasn't Obama's administration.
Including this column from Los Angeles Times columnist Ronald Brownstein. Surely, Mr. Brownstein has similar comments about President Obama's response to Katrina, right?
Um... Obama wasn't President during Katrina.
Or are you making one of those "Obama's Katrina" right-wing jokes? Just checking since earlier you said it wasn't his Katrina. But if you mean the Obama administration's response to the oil spill: Well, it was just fine, thanks.
Not so much. But I'm sure he's writing a scathing critique very soon!
You have a point. Or rather, you would have a point if Obama ignored begging from the people that needed help, and having several days notice in advance of the rig explosion.
Once again, the Obama Administration gives us an insight on how seriously they're taking the Gulf Coast oil spill. Politico reported yesterday that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson was scheduled to headline a fundraiser for Senate Democrats in Manhattan, but canceled her appearance after Politico broke the story. The fact that she waited this long to cancel her fundraiser appearance in light of the Gulf Coast oil spill isn't all that surprising. If Politico hadn't run the story, I have every reason to believe Jackson would have gone without even a twinge of guilt.
Based on nothing, but it's all about the truthiness, right?
Then again, she's only following the lead of the guy who appointed her. It's also come out recently that President Obama went to California for a fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer.
Of course, there's always a possibility that Jackson and Obama could focus on the oil spill and still do fundraising, but that's not the point. The point is that the Administration and its media minions have been complaining about BP's lack of speed in addressing the oil spill, relishing in each failure.
How about the fact that BP is responsible for the spill?
Yet, if you look at a full and honest account of what has happened to date, you'll find plenty of failures to act from the Obama Administration.
Let's hear 'em!
And while we're here,
let me take on another Leftist excuse for the failure of the Obama Administration to adequately address the Gulf Coast oil spill. The New York Times stated that the Administration's hands were tied by BP on cleaning up the spill and sealing the leak. As incompetent as I think the federal government is generally, I don't buy this line at all.
Of course you don't. Based on nothing, but what else is new?
It's a convenient excuse for an Administration whose priorities are clearly with raising money, not with addressing the ecological disaster they lament in public.
Based on nothing.
Besides, isn't the EPA supposed to be able to address this sort of thing? The very EPA that Ms. Jackson heads?
You continue to leave out the fact that it's BP's responsibility.
In 1989, when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska. "Leftists" (and everybody else on the planet outside of an Exxon board room) blamed Exxon and Captain Joe Hazelwood, not Bush Sr.
It's nice to see Conservatism means taking the side of criminally negligent polluters over the Federal government... again.
All of that oil leaking into the Gulf is the property of BP. If the rig hadn't exploded they would own 100% of the profits off of its sale. That's their oil, therefore it's their responsibility when it spills and poisons the country.
That's the 'risk' part of Capitalism. If your business kills a part of the ecosystem you lose all of your money and it's Game Over.
But no, according to Conservatives, the blame that accrues to Obama in this disaster, is that as a Democrat coming into office after a Republican, he did not assume that every government regulatory body was infiltrated with pro-business, anti-regulation, brain-dead, Republican Palin-Americans, hell-bent on lining the pockets of their big-business cronies at the expense of the health and wealth of everyone else in America.
In the end, this disaster, and every other recent disaster, shows the need for great government regulation of big business, as espoused by Democrats, and opposed by Republicans.
Get back to us when one of you Conservatives understand what responsibility is.
From Reuters yesterday:
The U.S. government on Monday ordered BP Plc. ( BP.L ) to "significantly scale back" its use of chemical dispersants to fight a giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency said.
From The Hill today with a hat tip to the Washington Post:
Since the oil rig exploded, the White House has tried to project a posture that is unflappable and in command.
But to those tasked with keeping the president apprised of the disaster, Obama's clenched jaw is becoming an increasingly familiar sight. During one of those sessions in the Oval Office the first week after the spill, a president who rarely vents his frustration cut his aides short, according to one who was there.
"Plug the damn hole," Obama told them.
Hmmm...isn't that what BP is trying to do while you run off on a "break from Washington," Mr. President?
Mr. President didn't cause the explosion. Nice try.
The regulators in charge of monitoring the oil rigs were Bush appointees, not Obama appointees. But no, Obama is to be blamed, therefore, for not immediately firing every single one of these jagoffs and not halting and reviewing every single one of the regulatory changes or actions sought by the Bush administration on day one of his administration.
I hope the next time a Democrat enters office after a Republican he does not make the same mistake.
They're at it again, this time defending Barack Obama taking money from BP. Their spin? Media outlets are spreading a lie about Obama being the single biggest recipient of BP's campaign contributions.
One tiny problem: he was the single biggest recipient of BP's campaign cash in 2008. And not by a slight margin, either.
Sure, Media Matters is trying their own bit of spin, saying the money came almost entirely from BP employees, not from the company itself, and that it represents very little of the total amount of money he raised in contributions.
And that's the truth. So now the truth is "spin"?
That's as may be, but the fact remains that people connected to BP gave more money to Obama than to any other politician in 2008 by a wide margin.
"People connected to BP"? This, Lindaman, is what spin actually is.
The numbers don't lie, but Media Matters often does.
They haven't lied about a goddamn thing. You, on the other hand, haven't been honest in this post about Media Matters, or the one before it.
Money from employees is not money from the fucking corporation. If you give money to a campaign, it's not from who you work for, it's from you. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Good god, you're just not going to be happy until Luthor drops dead from screaming.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
If you've read my blog for a while, you know that I don't hold Media Matters in high regard because of their frequent lies about conservatives in the media.
Ohhh... this should be fun!
One of their favorite targets is Glenn Beck. I've seen Media Matters twist Beck's works out of context on several occasions,
Cool, let's see it!
but this time, they're attacking Beck for...calling George Washington a Christian.
Uh-oh! I guess you've caught them dead-to-rights! Can't wait to see this! This'll make you famous!
One thing that Media Matters loves to do is to "loop back" on itself to "prove" a particular point of view by quoting themselves. When they go outside of their own misinformation machine, they go to other Leftist organizations. In this case, the source they quote is...Americans United for Separation of Church and State. (And in their "article" that "exposes" Beck's "distorted view of George Washington's Christianity," Media Matters' link to Americans United for Separation of Church and State comes from...Media Matters.)
WTF are you talking about? Let's give Luthor a rest, okay?
Here's the Media Matters link.
Media Matters links to this article link as a source. That article does not link back to Media Matters. Nor is the source from Media Matters.
So how is this "looping back"?
As you might have expected, Media Matters is the one guilty of distorting Washington's Christianity. I present a letter from Nelly Parke Custis, adopted child of George and Martha Washington, that sheds light on Washington's Christianity.
Woodlawn, 26 February, 1833
I received your favor of the 20th instant last evening, and hasten to give you the information, which you desire.
Truro Parish [Episcopal] is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church [the church where George Washington served as a vestryman], and Woodlawn [the home of Nelly and Lawrence Lewis] are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria. Before the Federal District was ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax County. General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed [supported and contributed to] largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother...
He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness]. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and visitors were prohibited for that day [Sunday]. No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect. My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from her early habits. She always knelt. The General, as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.
It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].
My mother [Eleanor Calvert-Lewis] resided two years at Mount Vernon after her marriage [in 1774] with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution. When my aunt, Miss Custis [Martha's daughter] died suddenly at Mount Vernon, before they could realize the event [before they understood she was dead], he [General Washington] knelt by her and prayed most fervently, most affectingly, for her recovery. Of this I was assured by Judge [Bushrod] Washington's mother and other witnesses.
He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war. I have often seen him perfectly abstracted, his lips moving, but no sound was perceptible. I have sometimes made him laugh most heartily from sympathy with my joyous and extravagant spirits. I was, probably, one of the last persons on earth to whom he would have addressed serious conversation, particularly when he knew that I had the most perfect model of female excellence [Martha Washington] ever with me as my monitress, who acted the part of a tender and devoted parent, loving me as only a mother can love, and never extenuating [tolerating] or approving in me what she disapproved of others. She never omitted her private devotions, or her public duties; and she and her husband were so perfectly united and happy that he must have been a Christian. She had no doubts, no fears for him. After forty years of devoted affection and uninterrupted happiness, she resigned him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity [happiness in Heaven].
Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."
With sentiments of esteem,
I am, Nelly Custis-Lewis
If that wasn't enough, Media Matters' source claims that Washington kept his religious beliefs private. Yet, if you do a few minutes of research, you can find any number of statements from speeches and letters that specifically reference God and Christian beliefs. Even Media Matters' own source quotes Philander D. Chase, senior editor of the Papers of George Washington at the University of Virginia, who said Washington "certainly thought of himself as a Christian."
So, we have two sources, one with intimate knowledge of Washington's religious habits, confirming that he was a Christian, and one source that quotes a scholar who confirms Washington's faith as "proof" that Washington wasn't a Christian.
So, who's telling the truth here? It certainly isn't Media Matters.
That's funny, considering you based this entire blog post on a strawman: That Media Matters was claiming that George Washington wasn't a Christian.
Is that why you didn't actually provide the Media Matters link?
Media Matters was not saying that George Washington wasn't a Christian. Go ahead, show where they say that. They readily state that George Washington was probably a Christian. Hell, you wouldn't have even known about the Nelly letter if Media Matters hadn't mentioned it.
Media Matters was showing that George Washington was in favor of separation of church and state. That is the obvious point Media Matters was trying to make. Beck, on the other hand, is just another one of those right-wingers that's trying to make it look like Washington and the other Founding Fathers founded this nation as a "Christian nation". They did not.
Remember when Democrats belittled George W. Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" in dealing with foreign countries who wish to do us harm?
You mean that country he went to war with that never threatened us?
Remember when Democrats heralded Barack Obama's Presidency as a chance to restore respect for us in the world?
Yes, I seem to remember that.
Now, take a look at the news. South Korea reported that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il may have authorized a torpedo attack on a South Korean warship. Even with the long-standing problems between these two countries, this is an act of war. With South Korea being our allies and North Korea being one of the countries involved in international terrorism, the question becomes how America under Obama will react.
Wait for it... wait for it...
My guess? Not so well.
What a shocker!
For all of his vaunted intelligence and the foreign policy expertise of Hillary Clinton (or maybe it's because of it), I don't see Obama casting that wide a berth on the world stage. As I've stated in a previous blog, the world seems to regard Obama as a little boy playing dress-up in his daddy's clothes.
Yeah, and you based it on absolutely nothing.
At a time when our allies need to know that we have their backs, having a President that seems to be fresh out of new employee orientation isn't all that reassuring.
For all the knocks against "cowboy diplomacy," you have to admit it worked. Our allies and our enemies knew where we stood.
They sure did:
It really pisses you right-wingers off that America doesn't look as retarded now to other countries, doesn't it? Well, maybe you should stop supporting people like this as the saving grace of the GOP.
With Obama, I get the impression that he's trying to placate our enemies and inconvenience our allies as a means to level the playing field for everyone. That's the kind of diplomacy that kept the Cold War escalating for decades until another "cowboy," Ronald Reagan, decided to treat the Soviet Union like enemies, not as an entity that deserved to be on equal footing with us. That shift in approach, which the Left incorrectly said would usher in World War III, ultimately worked. The Soviet Union fell, the threat of global nuclear war diminished greatly, and the Left still didn't learn the lesson of diplomacy without consideration to our interests.
Um... I think you have Reagan mixed up with somebody else. But that's okay, since Reagan was pretty mixed up, too.
And now, we're going back to making the same mistakes we made prior to Reagan. The world doesn't respect us; it either mocks us or turns us into the source of all evil. Obama isn't changing the hearts and minds of anyone except our allies, and it's not going to end well.
Ah, yes. Gotta pull out the talking point: "This is bad news... for Obama!"
With a more forceful tone towards North Korea, could Obama have made Kim Jong Il think twice? Absolutely. It's only when America shows weakness that people like Kim Jong Il push the envelope as they do, and as long as we have leaders who are willing to put up with it, they'll continue to push. But when we show we're willing to push back hard, they get quiet fast.
So, tell me again why cowboy diplomacy is bad and the Obama style of diplomacy is good.
We don't have to respond to the incident, that's why. We weren't attacked. We'll back up South Korea, but we aren't going to start a war with North Korea because South Korea was attacked.
It's the same game the idiot right-wingers played with Iraq: "Oh, look! The UN (which Conservatives usually don't give a shit about) has sanctioned Iraq! Time and again Iraq has ignored the warnings of the UN (tee-hee), so we must now act to back up the action of that (*cough*) noble international body." Just because Bush and Reagan sometimes wore hats, it doesn't make them cowboys.
The reason that South Korea doesn't want a way with the North is that they would end up having to slaughter a large number of Koreans (mainly on the Communist side) to win. It would happen quickly but the North Korean army literally has nothing to live for and nothing to lose. It's a modern version of the Children's Crusade waiting to happen.
North Korea has been screwing with South Korea on a regular basis since the cease-fire started more than 50 years ago. There are all kinds of incidents that never get reported. Most of the time, these things occur for local PR value or for intelligence gathering. For example, North Korea will overfly ROK air space to test the radars and response of UN and ROK forces.
Every now and then, one of these big newspaper-worthy incidents like the torpedo will occur because North Korea feels the world isn't paying enough attention to it. It's saber rattling. North Korea doesn't have the resources necessary to sustain an all-out war, but its egotistical leaders don't want to acknowledge that fact. They pull stunts like this to get attention and to bolster their propaganda at home. Behind the scenes, of course, they negotiate for whatever assistance they can get. The country is desperately poor and starving and will eventually collapse on its own. South Korea will be there to welcome it back when it happens. Until then, these stupid "incidents" will continue to occur just as they have for decades.
Funny how the GOP ducked the Korean nuclear program when they were readying a war in Iraq. But now that we have a Democrat in the White House, now they're like "US involvement in a military action against North Korea is essential to gaining a tactical foot hold in the area. We need to set ourselves up for the inevitable invasion of China. Going toe to toe in a ground war against China definitely seems like the way to go. 1.3 billion Chinese against the 17,000 troops we have in South Korea!"
But seriously, we shouldn't go after North Korea for this. It's better to wait out Dear Leader, and see what happens when he dies.
The Conservatives just want Obama to make a costly blunder, since he hasn't made any yet. It's not like the right-wingers would pick up a rifle. It'd be Operation Yellow Elephant II: GOP Boogaloo.
However, they aren't the only ones responsible. The subprime mortgage crisis, which we are still feeling today, has Democrat fingerprints all over it. Two of the biggest players in the mortgage crisis, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, are still operating under the old rules because Congress refuses to take action against them and against their former leadership (who, by the way, comprised some of Obama's economic team while he was campaigning for President).
And they're reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What's your point?
The oil spill in the Gulf has Democrat fingerprints all over it, too. It was Democrats who insisted that oil rigs be placed as far out into the Gulf as possible to protect the environment. (Gee, how's that workin' out for ya?)
Quite well, actually. Roger Helm, chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's contaminants division, said the biggest reason for the relatively low death toll from the Gulf spill is that until recently, most of the oil remained far out to sea.
You see, most ocean life is concentrated along the continental shelves, close to the shoreline. That's where the coral predominately is, and the thousands of other species of ocean life that interact with the coral.
If you go farther out to drill however, the ocean is largely an empty environment, like a desert.
Besides, Obama wanted to halve the buffer zone, remember?
The reason Republicans want to drill closer to the shore is not for safety reasons, but because it's so much more expensive to set up drilling rigs in deep water. In other words, it's the usual reason: because Conservatives are assholes.
Who continues to block development of nuclear power in this country? Democrats.
Well, they have their reasons for that. Of course, I'm sure you'll just blame those incidents on Obama just like you did for the BP spill.
Who advocated for alternative energy sources like wind power, but refused to allow a wind farm because it would block his view? That would be the late Ted Kennedy, Democrat.
WindFarmGate! Actually, Kennedy stated it probably wouldn't be visible from his compound.
Oh, the Democrats talk a great game when it comes to energy independence, but when it comes to delivering, they've fallen short. One could make the argument that through the delaying of technological advances in the arena of energy generation Democrats bear responsibility for the Gulf Coast oil spill by keeping us dependent on oil.
Right, Dems are the anti-tech people. We're so anti-science. Uh-huh.
Republicans have had (and probably still have) ties to corruption in the political, personal, and business arenas. Democrats, who have railed against corruption (real or imagined) in these same arenas, are surprisingly just as dirty, but no less hypocritical. Christopher Dodd got a really good deal on a mortgage through Countrywide while at the same time being on a Senate committee that oversaw the mortgage industry.
Charlie Rangel and Tim Geithner both have trouble paying their taxes. (Now, what would Vice President Joe Biden say about that, given that Biden said paying taxes was patriotic?) William Jefferson and the late John Murtha were implicated in serious crimes. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are both trying to hide their shady dealings and the shady dealings of their own party members.
Yes, Republicans are far from perfect, but to heap the totality of blame for the current state of affairs is intellectually dishonest. Democrats have dirty hands, too, and it's past time that they take responsibility for their actions or lack thereof.
That's hilarious. The Democrats by and large kick out the proven corrupt or crazy of their party. The Republicans fight tooth and nail to keep them.
And that starts at the top, Mr. President. You can change the tone of this political season by accepting responsibility on behalf of your party for its role in the events I have chronicled here, and for others that I haven't mentioned. You ran on a platform of change and wanting to work with Republicans, but what you've shown is an unwillingness to do either.
Um... you're the guys that are stonewalling. Not Obama.
But you sure do like to point fingers when it suits your needs.
He points fingers at the people that are responsible for the problems, including the government. THAT is what pisses Conservatives off. lol
That's not what a leader does, Mr. President. A real leader accepts responsibility for his failings and the failings of those under him. Until you do that, all the finger-pointing in the world won't make people forget that your party played a role in the way things are today.
Like you would know what a real leader is. You want to talk about Big Boy pants, you obese liar? You make Luthor hoarse every week. And not a shred of accountability for those.
The GOP has repeatedly made it clear, time and again, that accountability is not the Conservatives' strong suit.
In post after post after post, you keep saying the same thing: You want the President to say he's bad. And it's obvious why: because when you right-wingers say it, people know you're full of it.
I've been a pretty vocal critic of how inept the Obama Administration has been since January 2009, and it's gotten me in a bit of hot water with some people on the Left.
All those readers of yours, you mean? lol
But contrary to their claims, it's not because of racism.
Racism is the least of your problems. It is funny when you try to speak for Martin Luther King, though.
It truly is a question of competence.
The latest question arose after the Obama Administration lifted sanctions on three Russian groups previously accused of helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. It may be done in an attempt to curry Russia's favor in supporting a UN resolution criticizing Iran's nuclear program.
And yet again, you reword things to deceive your fictional readers.
It's not a UN resolution "criticizing Iran's nuclear program." It's a resolution to put more sanctions on Iran. Yet again you have to lie. You say the Obama administration "does nothing", then when they do something, you just reword it to make it sound like they're doing nothing. Then you say they're the incompetent ones.
Of course, it's making a huge assumption that Russia will sign off on the resolution if we just show good faith.
And in the real world, this doesn't work because the Russians are not operating from a position of good faith. Negotiations work when both sides operate from the same set of rules and are looking for a mutually beneficial outcome. When one side doesn't play by those rules and seeks a singularly beneficial outcome, no amount of giving from the other side will make a difference.
Unless the Obama Administration has a rock-solid guarantee that Russia will sign off on the UN resolution against Iran, this move is sheer folly and exposes how naive the Administration is. Furthermore, it exposes a weakness in our foreign policy, one that Russia will be more than willing to exploit. Supporters of the President like to talk about how Obama has restored worldwide respect to America, but I'm just not seeing it.
You're not seeing it! What a shocker!
No matter how many times he bows before foreign leaders
Yeah, you're supposed to fart as a greeting. This is America, after all.
or tries to play nice with those countries who do not like us or sells out our allies,
"He forgot Poland!"
the world does not see Obama as credible. I get the impression that world leaders see Obama like a little boy playing dress-up in Daddy's clothes. It's cute when you're a kid, but when you're the leader of the free world, it loses a lot of its appeal.
Yeah, and you're basing that on... absolutely nothing. But what else is new? You just hate the fact that the United States is now less embarrassing than it was under Bush.
Oh, and to add to the fun, the Obama Administration also lifted sanctions against a company that provided anti-tank guided missiles to Syria.
Brilliant, indeed. Since Russia had already agreed to the UN resolution to sanctions on Iran three days before. They had already agreed to several treaties and resolutions without anything in return. Now some trade is being opened.
But hey, you can keep your Cold War if it makes you feel better.
It hasn't been that long ago that Elena Kagan was tapped to be President Obama's latest pick to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. And it hasn't been that long ago that Kagan's past and experience have been scrutinized by people all over the political spectrum. So, it shouldn't be any surprise that the Left is trying to accelerate Kagan's appointment to the High Court.
Why is the Left so hell-bent on getting Kagan appointed? Easy. It's a way for the Left to promote their interpretation (or misinterpretation as the case may be) of the Constitution for decades.
Great, let's see these misinterpretations!
But I think it goes deeper than that. I think the Left is hoping that one of the more conservative Justices retires for one reason or another while Obama is President. Even the middle of the road Justice Anthony Kennedy may buck the Leftist trend under certain circumstances. With the current make-up of the USSC, Kennedy becomes an important swing vote.
At least, until he retires. Then the President at that time has the chance to flex political muscle to guarantee a majority that will stand for decades. The only way this happens, though, is if a conservative or moderate voice gets replaced by a Leftist voice, or vice versa. If Kagan gets appointed, it replaces a Leftist for a Leftist, but it sets Obama up nicely for a chance to replace Kennedy with a Justice more in tune with his and his supporters' ideology.
I'm positive the President knows all of this, which is why he's pushing Kagan's appointment so much. But given the implications, shouldn't we take the time to make sure Kagan's up to the task of being a Supreme Court Justice?
It's not like she's going anywhere, after all.
Yay! Another simple conspiracy!
Again, Kagan's hardly a radical "Leftist."
You right-wingers can fight things tooth-and-nail all you want. Sometimes you make short-term gains and make America take a step backwards, but sooner or later, you'll always lose.
You'll never be able to make abortions illegal again. Never.
You won't be able to destroy social programs.
You won't have little children working in mines ever again.
No matter how much you try to get textbooks full of lies crammed into schools, you'll never be able to stop the separation of church and state ever again.
You'll never be able to keep the Wrong People from drinking from the same fountain ever again.
In the end, the progressive mindset wins, because it's inevitable in a civilized country. And even when there are steps backward thanks to you right-wingers, sooner or later we step forward and never go back.
We may be far behind Europe on many issues, but eventually we'll get there, too. We're going to eventually get universal health care. We're going to eventually get rid of capital punishment. And gun control will be very strict, as it should be. It may not happen in our lifetime, but it's going to happen just as it did with those other issues. You can count on it.
Keep fighting the inevitable, because it makes it all the more satisfying when you eventually lose. Just like you always have.
Since Arizona passed a law designed to combat illegal immigration, the Left has howled about how "racist" it is.
"If I put the word 'racist' in quote marks and use the word 'howl', that will make the law not racist!"
(Never mind the fact that it mirrors federal immigration law, which the Left has yet to publicly call racist, and that the language of the bill itself prohibits racial profiling.)
LOL This is the common right-wing talking point: That the laws are "nearly identical" and they "mirror" each other. Just like apples and oranges. Nearly identical fruits so why even discuss the differences?
It's that "nearly" part conservatives keep throwing in, as the idea that giving police the ability to say "papers, please" at any "lawful stop" is practically the same as checking immigration status after an arrest.
"Look, don't you get it? The Arizona law is similar to a law in many other places, except for that one minor variation or two that make it unconstitutional. Don't you commies understand that? What would we do without intrepid wingers like Glenn Beck to keep pointing that out and letting us know just how close to being hypocrites some people are but really aren't because they're not the same thing. Everyone on the same page now?"
And when the Left mobilizes, they boycott. Los Angeles and Columbus, OH, have taken steps to try to hurt Arizona for their alleged racism. And DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder have spoken out about the racism of the Arizona Law.
Of course, there's a commonality with all of the Leftist critics of the Arizona law. They haven't read it.
To help matters, Glenn Beck read all 17 pages of the Arizona law yesterday on his radio program, making special note of verbiage that refuted the notion that it was racist because it conformed to federal law regarding racial profiling.
So, according to the Left, a law that prohibits racial profiling and conforms to federal law is racist because they say so without having read the bill about which they're objecting.
They apparently were advised on the law properly, because they are right. I've read the bill and the amendments. If you right-wingers had read the bill instead of drooling over Glenn Beck's gold-hawking rhetoric, then you would know that it does allow racial profiling. The AZ law allows for officers to use race in determining who to check. It is discriminatory.
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.
After any lawful stop, police can "determine the immigration status" of those they suspect of being in the country illegally.
Folks, it's the "papers, please" part that has everyone up in arms. A "lawful stop" can be manufactured at any time, by pretty much any reasonably intelligent cop who chooses to do so. We know this. The cops know this. The idea that this is, somehow, the trivial part of the law, is the canard, the reason we're laughing at and boycotting Arizona. It's the crux of the whole issue.
Yep, it's motivated by racism. But it's not about racism - it's about taking that first step towards depriving everyone, citizen, legal immigrant, and illegal immigrant alike, of the simple right to move about without interference or harassment by authorities. If you can put this into place and run with it for a while, extending it to other areas - possible drug offenders, for example - makes it practical. Soon, there will be a whole raft of potential offenses for which a cop can engineer a "lawful stop" and then perform a full background check on you.
After that, what's the point of the "lawful stop", right? I mean, the cops have had the right to do a full background check on you any time you've talked with a cop - so why have that whole "talked with a cop" limitation?
The difference being that while the other laws apply to arrests, Arizona's law also applies to stops and detentions, and a cop can fabricate a reason to stop or detain someone easily.
On top of that, it applies not just to immigrants, but to citizens as well - which means that it's possible for a citizen to be arrested for walking without a driver's license or for driving without a passport (if it's an out-of-state DL from a state which does not require proof of legal status upon issuance, like New Mexico).
It's doubtful that hardly anyone has a problem of checking the immigration status of people under arrest. People simply don't like the idea of police being able to simply ask for the papers of anyone they want after they take half a second to think of a bullshit reason.
Why right-wingers can't get this is something I just don't understand. It's not that people think the cops are going to "break the law." Because usually, cops don't. It's the fact that this gives them a whole new way to harass people without having to worry about breaking any laws.
Any stop is a lawful stop. But what does "determining the immigration status" of a person entail? People are saying, well, we'll work on that after the law goes into effect. But it IS in effect. What does it mean? Is a valid driver's license enough? Social Security card? Birth certificate? Trip to the station to check fingerprints? Employer affidavit? The law is stubbornly mute.
Is it up to the individual cop's discretion? That opens up a whole new can of worms. Or does he have to get a supervisor to sign off on it? Now it's going to take longer, increasing the inconvenience to legal citizens, and the time the cops are off the streets processing illegal immigrants. Do we want our police off the streets messing with immigration problems and ignoring street crime? There are only so many cops out there.
It goes on and on. It is a bad law. And it will stay that way no matter how many times you guys keep repeating "You haven't read it! Read it! Read it again! Keep reading it until it's not racist!"
But no, Conservatives have no problem with US citizens being arrested on American soil for the "crime" of not having their proof of citizenship upon their person. If you don't defend a person's right, you'll lose it. And Arizona citizens just lost a right. Gotta love Conservatives and their so-called hatred of government intervention.
And the Left is supposed to be smart?
Actually, yes. It keeps being proven over and over again.
But considering we don't hail people like Palin and Bush as heroes, and don't tend to believe in ghosts as much as right-wingers, nor are we anti-science, nor does ignorant rubes like the KKK tend to align with progressives... this isn't really a shocker.
Offshore drilling agency refuses to send witness to Senate oil spill hearing
Yeah. That's showing all hands on deck...
Several MMS Officials were there. By the way, only three senators showed up.
Lieberman was mad because the MMS Officials that showed up was not the one THEY wanted, because he's resigning.
Now, what do we know about this particular official?
He was appointed in 2007... which administration was that, again?
He's resigning amid scrutiny of safety inspections and mounting criticism of what Obama described as the agency's 'cozy relationship' with the energy industry.
You see, that's what's so insidious about Obama, he was hiring federal employees before he was ever sworn in! Hell, before there was even an election!
And if he'd been fired right off the bat in January of 2009, the right-wingers would have screamed "political motivated firing" and "Chicago Style Politics" to the high heavens. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
People know who to blame for this and it's not the guy pulling the car out of the ditch.
And Obama was on the record early on criticizing the agency for its "cozy relationship" with the industry. Contrast that with Bush's personal philosophy of letting various industries self-regulate.
These aren't political appointees who shift in and out with administrations. These are career bureaucrats who floated to the top of the septic tank gradually over a long time. It not like being the head of FEMA.
This would be solved by a simple new rule for Democratic presidents following a Republican president: fire everyone who works for the government, top to bottom. You just have to assume that the Republican president during his administration allowed the government to be infested by incompetent, crony-capitalists, hell-bent on lining the pockets of big business at the expense of the health, wealth and safety of the American public. Don't let there be any hold-outs because their incompetence will be held against you when they screw up. It's the political equivalent of nuking the site from orbit.
And for you right-wingers that fellate BP merely because it's a corporation... there was an excellent 60 Minutes piece on this from Sunday.
Basically, the first well failed because they were rushed. BP pushed them on the second well, which they completed. BP then wanted to rush the capping of the well, transition said no. BP said they were in charge, so that's what they did. And that, along with an unreported problem and broken equipment, caused the explosion.
And you can keep repeating the "deck" comment, because it doesn't alter the fact that the administration responded immediately.
The Conservatives, of course, will brazenly shift the entirety of blame off BP/Transocean/Halliburton and onto the US Government.
More Bush malfeasance that will lead to more regulation.
You've made it easy for us, Conservatives. Thanks!
"Nonetheless, the federal government has mobilized scientists and industry experts to collaborate with BP to identify and execute the best strategies for sealing the well, and the President has tasked the Department of Energy to participate in providing any possible expertise on that front."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said BP's "greed" led to the spill and Lieberman asked Napolitano what she thought of the company's response to the disaster. Napolitano submitted that it would be "premature" to say whether their response was adequate.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Leftist Coward Watch - Final Edition
Seventeen Days straight of hinting he needs comments, and he gets:
Now, FOR THE LAST TIME, you whiney pussy: You had your chance, and you blew it. You trolled chatrooms and was a complete and total lying prick. You were challenged to a face-to-face, and you backed down repeatedly because you're a gutless, spineless, lily-livered, scared-to-death craven little coward. Don't like it? Then you should've backed up your empty words.
Since the Leftist leech who relies on me for material for his "blog" hasn't allowed comments yet or posted more than lame responses to the blogs I've written, the point has been made to my satisfaction.
Yes, that I'm your only reader. Not even a nibble from a reader after all these days. The Great Experiment didn't work. But at least you can go back to the chatroom now, since you have a clear conscience that you didn't ask for their help during that time. It's okay, I'm sure the daily blogging was just because you were bored these past couple weeks, since AOL Boards had to shut down due to constant use of the N-word on every single thread.
Leftists talk a great game, but delivering? That's above their pay grade.
If you deliver, then why can't you answer simple questions that have been repeatedly asked? Such as why you said a pinkie is an ear? And don't you even pretend that you didn't back down from repeated calling out to fight face-to-face. After all, it's kind of hard to forget this: "The reason you keep backing down, is because it would be impossible for you to troll chatrooms and lie on blogs if you're crying after a face-to-face."
So that's the end of your rambling on that subject, you proven coward. Get it? Got it? Good.
Just look at President Obama.
Yes, let's look at him. He's delivered on a lot. What's your point?
Elena Kagan's nomination to the USSC has run into another snag. As Solicitor General, Kagan's office (and Kagan herself) took an interesting position against free speech in their arguments in Citizens United v. FEC, which dealt with campaign finance reform. Kagan's office suggested in an opening argument in the case that the government could ban books that endorsed a particular candidate. When questioned on the initial argument before the USSC, Kagan's position changed slightly, but left the door open to ban political pamphlets under certain circumstances.
That is not true at all.
And this is the woman Obama wants to put on the Supreme Court? This gives us a chance to explore a fundamental difference between liberals and Leftists. Liberals would oppose Kagan's nomination because they still have a healthy respect for the Constitution and free speech. Leftists, on the other hand, see the Constitution as an impediment to their desires for control, so they find ways to circumvent it or justify it by claiming a "greater good" overrules the Constitution. This is made easier with the Left's "living document" argument pertaining to the Constitution. That way they can make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say, even if it goes against what the Constitution actually says.
Like a well-regulated militia?
We've already seen Kagan's position on the Second Amendment, which is decidedly anti-gun rights.
With this latest revelation, we can chalk up an active disdain for the First Amendment right to free speech to the list of concerns about Elena Kagan's USSC nomination. And this is the woman Leftists want to put on the Supreme Court?
Actually a lot of "leftists" don't want her on the Supreme Court. But not because of lies like that.
Give it up, Right-Wing Noise Machine. There's not going to be a filibuster.
UPDATE: Thomas Lindaman NEVER acknowledged the fact that he was called out to a face-to-face and he backed down because he's a coward. What else is new from him? Now THAT is the "final edition" on that subject.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
Leftist Coward Watch - Day 13
Comments On Lindaman's Blog Since Day One:
You had your chance, and you blew it. You trolled chatrooms and was a complete and total lying prick. You were challenged to a face-to-face, and you backed down repeatedly because you are a gutless, spineless, lily-livered, scared-to-death craven little coward. Don't like it? Then you should've backed up your empty words.
Let's just say that the Leftist leech
What leech are you talking about? There's no link! Your fictional readers have no idea who you're referring to. If someone stumbled onto your site, they would think you were insane. lol
is still cowering behind a "Don't Post, Don't Respond" order and leave it at that.
Who's not posting? You're posting. I'm posting.
Leftist Coward Watch - Day 12
Comments Since Day 1:
With all apologies to the songwriter, nothing could be finer than to mock a Leftist whiner in the morning.
After the right-winger slept in a bed... alone.
It's amusing considering you've been whining like a little BITCH for what, 12 days now? hehe
You had your chance, and you blew it. You trolled chatrooms and was a complete and total lying prick. You were challenged to a face-to-face, and you backed down repeatedly because you're a gutless, spineless, lily-livered, scared-to-death craven little coward. Don't like it? Then you should've backed up your empty words with face-to-face actions.
Another day goes by, and another day without a "blog" post from the Leftist leech who relies on me for his material. And you can bet that he still won't allow comments when he does.
Comments by who? YOU HAVE NO READERS.
One of the keys to effective leadership is knowing when it would be a good idea to take responsibility for an act that didn't have a positive outcome. Right now, the economy is still on shaky ground. Some elements are improving, while others remain stagnant or declining. With the midterm elections looming in November and Democrats looking more and more vulnerable, President Obama went out...and blamed Republicans for not working with him on his economic plan.
Yeah, things sure are sucking because of Obama, aren't they?
Maybe you missed the Presidential Daily Briefing on this, but your party controls Congress. Blaming Republicans for not working with you ignores the fact that you didn't really need their buy-in to get your economic plan passed. All you're doing is passing the buck to a party whose only "sin" is to oppose you. It's time for you to man up, Mr. President. It was your failure to lead, not the Republicans' failure to follow, that created the economic problems you lament.
Wait a cotton-pickin' minute here. So because Obama can override Republicans, he's not allowed to call out Republicans on their bullshit attempts to block EVERYTHING?
Then, of course, when things actually GET DONE in spite of Republican roadblocking, you guys bitch about how long it took.
Wow. Just... wow.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
Leftist Coward Watch - Day 11
Comments Since Day 1:
It's back and better than ever!
You had your chance, and you blew it. You trolled chatrooms and was a complete and total lying prick. You were repeatedly challenged to a face-to-face, and you backed down repeatedly because you are a gutless, spineless, lily-livered, scared-to-death craven little coward. Don't like it? Then you should've backed up your empty words.
I know it's getting predictable, but it's always fun to point out how the Leftist leech who relies on me for the material for his "blog" still hasn't gotten the courage to allow comments. If his ideas are so superior, shouldn't he welcome the chance to engage people
Again, WHAT "people"? YOU HAVE NO READERS.
of a different ideological bent? Surely he wouldn't cower behind a lame excuse like "I don't want your friends flaming my blog." Oh, wait. He does.
There are no "people of a different ideological bent." There's JUST YOU. If you post in a comment HERE, your fictional readers won't be able to see your mistakes, because YOU WON'T LINK TO HERE. By forcing you to post it on YOUR site, your screw-ups are public. The only way you could even POSSIBLY get someone else to comment, is if you beg your racist chatroom buddies. Not "your friends"; if you had real-life friends they would check out your blog from time-to-time, then help you out and post comments on it, wouldn't they?
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's legal history has been under the microscope this week, and what we've found so far has been, in a word, unimpressive. But to hear the Left talk, she's brilliant and an exceptional choice because of some of the people who have come before her with equivalent experience. Yep! And you're leaving out that many of those people were from CONSERVATIVES. We're supposed to overlook the lack of experience and just focus on the diversity angle, as Kagan would be the third woman on the USSC if confirmed.
What nonsense is this? She'll bring diversity, just not in the way you're thinking.
The problem with this approach is that diversity without consideration of qualifications undercuts the point of having diversity in the first place. Let's not forget, the Left had a chance to nominate a woman to the USSC under George W. Bush, Harriet Miers. Where were they? Making a big issue of Miers' lack of experience. Couldn't have anything to do with who nominated her, could it?
Sorry, Kagan ain't no Miers. But again it's funny to see another Bush failure as a Conservative talking point. "It's Obama's Miers!" Even Jon Stewart is having fun with this.
Leftist Coward Watch - Day 10
Comments Since Day 1:
You had your chances! Funny how you keep avoiding that fact.
Another day, and another day when the Leftist leech "blogging" about me won't allow people to post comments.
Again, WHAT "people"? It's. Just. You. You had your chance, and you blew it. You trolled chatrooms and was a complete and total lying prick. You were challenged to a face-to-face, and you backed down repeatedly because you're a gutless, spineless, lily-livered, scared-to-death craven little coward. Don't like it? Then you should've backed up your empty words.
His big thing, though, is pointing out the lack of comments on my site as "proof" of something.
It's proof that YOU HAVE NO READERS. Thus, your bitching about comments is IRRELEVANT.
Of course, he's not bright enough to consider the important difference between my blog and his pathetic excuse for a blog.
Hey, at least this "pathetic blog" knows the difference between a pinkie being bitten off and an ear being bitten off. And it actually checks its sources, Mr. "Claim Traction."
At least I allow comments. I give you "You"? You're acting like you have readers. the choice of whether you want to comment. He doesn't.
Nope, because the only commenter would be YOU. I link RIGHT back to you. You don't, because you don't want your fictional readers to see where you screw up. The only way you could get someone else to comment would be if you begged your AOL chatroom buddies to help. You see, my goal is different from yours. The purpose of this blog is to show where YOU PERSONALLY are full of it. I don't care how many readers I have. My goal is accomplished with every posting. Your goal, however, is to be a famous political pundit. Think about how far that goal has come, you FAILURE.
Wow. A Leftist who hates choice. How...utterly predictable.
Yeah, right-wingers LOVE choice! Just ask Eric Robert Rudolph!
With the recent British elections, we have a chance to consider the impact of a split government on a population. New Prime Minister David Cameron, a member of the Conservative Party, has been asked to try to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrat Party in spite of the fact they're not that ideologically close. Granted, a Conservative in Britain may be closer to the left side of the spectrum here, but it's still a test of leadership to try to create a workable coalition based on a common goal of running the country. Compare that to the "leadership" being shown by our own government. Democrats treat anyone who doesn't agree with them (including members of their own party, I might add) as intellectually inferior, morally corrupt, and potentially dangerous. Remember Obama's statement after an early meeting with Congressional Republicans? "I won."
This again? SO?
And Obama was heralded as the first "post-partisan" President because of his alleged ability to build coalitions across party lines.
Obama should NOT be post-partisan with complete whackos.
I guess that ability was as truthful as his promise of tax cuts for 95% of Americans.
Are you saying it wasn't truthful?
Whether Cameron is successful in building a coalition government will be interesting to see, provided it's an honest attempt to build and not just lip service designed to get people to vote for him like a certain sitting President. If Cameron is successful, it may be one of those time when I agree with the Left that we need to be more like Europe.
The right-wingers in this country think that "post-partisan" means "Do exactly what the right-wingers want." Never mind the fact that the GOP gets chances for bipartisanship even when they don't deserve it and will just say "no" regardless.
Don't worry, the Conservatives over there aren't retarded, so we'll see some bipartisanship there.