Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Thursday, September 30, 2010


Lindaman writes:

Yesterday, President Obama talked about his faith in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After months of speculation, Obama said he is a "Christian by choice" and expounded on how Jesus' teachings impacted his life. So, that puts this whole controversy to bed, right?

Not so much.

The concept of choosing Christianity flies in the face of Christian theology because it makes you the ultimate authority over whether you believe. Put another way, thinking you choose to be Christian puts you above God.

That's right, Christians! According to Lindaman's cult... there's NO FREE WILL!

In my particular brand of Christian belief,

What? You're not going to say what it is? What's the matter, are you ashamed of it?

we don't choose whether to believe; it's the work of the Holy Spirit that opens our hearts to God's word.

What kind of fucked up cult are you in, where a person has no choice as to whether they are a Christian or not? ALL Christians are Christian by choice. That's why it's called Free Will, remember?

This is what Obama said:

“I’m a Christian by choice,” the president said. “My family, frankly, they
weren’t folks who went to church every week. My mother was one of the most
spiritual people I knew but she didn’t raise me in the church, so I came to my
Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ
spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead. Being my
brothers and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me, and I
think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the
humility we all have to have as human beings, that we’re sinful and we’re flawed
and we make mistakes and we achieve salvation through the grace of God.”

When Obama says he's a Christian "by choice", he's saying that he wasn't brainwashed by his upbringing. His parents weren't regular church-goers that drilled a particular religion into his brain since he was a baby (like most Christians are). He became a Christian because he CHOSE that path. Not because he was PROGRAMMED from infancy that way.

That makes him a better advocate for Christianity than someone like you.

Combine the "Christian by choice" comment with another concept Obama has brought into the public eye: collective salvation. Obama has said, "...my individual salvation is not going to come without a collective salvation for the country." He has reiterated the idea of collective salvation in speeches to graduates.

The problem? Under Christian faith, Christ died for our sins, giving us salvation. Once we open our hearts to the implications of His sacrifice, we're saved. We don't have to save everyone to earn our salvation because it's already been earned. If we don't save everybody, we're not doomed to Hell.

Except, Lindaman, in the very link you're using, Obama said this:

EOB: All of that, thirty years after Dr. King and the civil rights movement. This seems almost incredible to me, at times, to think that in thirty years, this is all the progress we’ve been able to make?
Obama: Well, you know, it is frustrating, I think. I talk a lot in the book about my attempts to renew the dream that both of my parents had. I worked as a community organizer in Chicago, [and] was very active in low-income neighborhoods working on issues of crime and education and employment, and seeing that in some ways certain portions of the African-American community are doing as bad, if not worse, and recognizing that my fate remained tied up with their fates. That my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.

Do you even understand the fact that "salvation" doesn't always mean eternal salvation? He's talking about here on earth, not the goddamn AFTERLIFE. Sheesh!

You know why Lindaman had to use a PDF link? So he wouldn't have to link to his actual source: Glenn Beck (again). And also, because he doesn't want to show that his actual source (Beck) is one of those goofball Mormons.

As much as Obama wants to put this controversy to rest, when we look at the totality of what Obama has done as President and what he's said about his faith, the questions remain. It takes more than saying "I'm a Christian" to be a Christian. As someone who has fallen out of the Christian faith and returned, my life has been fundamentally transformed by my faith, but I don't see that in Obama. What I see is someone who is trying to portray himself as a Christian as a means to hide his true faith,

And you don't even have the courage to follow through and say what his "true faith" is.

while at the same time elevating himself to a position above the God he professes to believe.

Hypocrite. You're the one telling people what it means to be a Christian, like you speak for Christ. Even though your own Bible goes against what you're saying. Add that to committing the sin of Bearing False Witness, and you're really pushing things.

But I'll pray for him all the same. That's what Christians do.

How would you know?

One Nation, Under Tard

Lindaman writes:

Democrats and their allies are trying to prepare for losses in November's midterm elections, and when I say "losses" I mean soul-crushing butt-kickings from every corner of this country. So, what do they do? Try to appeal to voters' good graces by asking for another chance to prove themselves? Admit they've made mistakes and beg for the mercy of the electorate?

Nope. They're being dumbasses.

Whether it's the Leftist "news" shows obsessing about Christine O'Donnell's dabbling in witchcraft as a teenager,

Yep, hilarious stuff!

comedian Stephen Colbert being invited to testify about immigration,

Awww... did it sting seeing what you people are? The only problem with Colbert was that he wasn't acting batshit crazy enough to truly portray Conservatives as they really are.

or John Kerry saying that the reason people are so upset with government right now is because they're uninformed,

Kerry's problem was that he didn't say it more accurately: That tons of Americans are fucking ignorant.

Democrats seem to either have it in their heads that either the impending losses won't be that bad or that they'll be able to attract voters by insulting their intelligence. Or perhaps it's a bit of both.

There has to actually be some intelligence there in order to insult it.

In any case, Democrats aren't helping their case for reelection in the midterm elections. Although I haven't counted out arrogance as a cause, even ego has limits. I'm beginning to wonder if the Democrats aren't trying to throw the midterm elections so they have an automatic scapegoat come January 2011. After all, they continue to blame George W. Bush for their blunders well after he was no longer President,

No, BUSH'S blunders. This is the usual bullshit. Republicans fuck things up royally, Democrats clean up the mess, tons of Americans are window-licking retards that want the cleanup done faster than it's possible, so they vote back in the Republicans. Repeat.

so what's to stop them from blaming the potentially incoming Republican majority before it takes control? Also, this would give President Obama a built-in excuse for whenever something doesn't get passed in Congress.

Having said that, though, it would be a stupid move for the Left to blame the GOP for the failures of the Administration and the Congress under Democrat leadership. Right now, people aren't looking for who to blame; they want solutions. Voters went for Obama under the auspices of him being different than George W. Bush and having the answers to problems. As it turns out, his answers were to do what Bush did for the most part, only more of it. Now, that's coming back to haunt the Democrats in a way they hadn't expected. Once they gained control of Congress in 2007, they believed that they would be in power for a long time.

Now, on the verge of the midterm elections, we see how stupid is as stupid does.

Speaking of stupid: How about posting that scientific proof of yours that evolution is false?

Witchy Woman

Lindaman writes:

On a 1999 episode of "Politically Incorrect" Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell said that she dabbled in witchcraft as a teenager. And now in 2010, the Left has made that an issue as a means to paint O'Donnell as crazy and unsuitable for public office. Granted, the Left has no problem delving into an opponent's past for dirt,

Unlike you with your William Ayers bullshit?

but this situation seems a bit odd.

The reason the situation is odd is because of the Left's prior positions on religious matters. When it comes to the Catholic Church, the Left takes them to task for their opposition to birth control, their position on gays, and the molesting priest controversies. Their methods may not always be the most articulate (like throwing condoms at Catholic priests during a gay rights parade),


but there is a kernel of legitimacy in their criticism of the Catholic Church. Having said that, the Left has extrapolated the actions of a few to malign the entire Catholic Church.

Compare that to the Left's defense of the Islamic "community center" within blocks of Ground Zero. In that case, they take exactly the opposite position that they do with the Catholic Church. They say that the actions of a few do not damn an entire religion, even though the actions of those few are clearly violent, anti-woman, and anti-child (the very things they criticize the Catholic Church for being, I might add). When it comes to Muslims practicing their faith, the Left is right on the front lines defending their freedom of religion.

Are liberals trying to shut down a Catholic Church at Ground Zero? Until they do, STFU.

ALL religions are retarded. But you won't see any inconsistency with how they are treated.

Then, there's the Left's position on atheism. When it comes to Leftists like Michael Newdow, the Left supports a freedom from religion, oddly enough using the same First Amendment that they use to defend the Islamic "community center." Their position is that the separation of church and state (a phrase that does not appear in the First Amendment, by the way) means that any entity with ties to government cannot promote a single religion because it "establishes" a religion. (Logically, it doesn't, of course...)

The government can't endorse one religion over another. Sorry that you hate that so much.

Atheists may benefit from that, but atheism isn't even a religion, so that's irrelevant.

Now, we have the Left's mocking of witchcraft as "crazy" by proxy through O'Donnell. I've known Wiccans in my life, and they are far from crazy. They are, however, among the nicest, most intelligent, most articulate people I've ever had the pleasure of knowing.

Too bad most Wiccans are granola-eating leftists, which according to Lindaman means they have a deep-seated hatred of America.

You may disagree with their religion, but that doesn't give anyone sanction to mock their faith. The Left using O'Donnell's dabbling in Wicca as a political football to kick around is hypocritical and disgusting.

Hypocritical? Disgusting? It's knee-slapping hilarious!

Is there any doubt that if a Leftist dabbled in Wicca and a conservative called him or her crazy, the Left would lash out at the conservative? But when it's a Republican, the Left leads the mob seeking to "burn the witch" politically.

Well, she said WITCHCRAFT and SATANISM as if they were synonymous. That's hilarious stuff. Drop-dead funny!

The Left practices situational ethics on a daily basis, but now they're practicing situational freedom of religion. With Islam, the Left screams about the freedom of religion, with Wicca and the Catholic Church, the Left screams about the freedom to mock religion, and with atheism, the Left screams about the freedom from religion.

And in each case, the Left's screaming is intellectually inconsistent.

Not inconsistent at all, Liar. O'Donnell didn't say "I was a Wiccan for a little while." She said she "dabbled in WITCHCRAFT". Do you know any real life Wiccans that would say that? I know real-life Wiccans, and they are rolling their eyes at her nonsensical comments.

Yes, Wiccans are usually smart and Wicca is a very peaceful religion that has a "do no harm" attitude. I'd rather have a Wiccan president than a Christian president, even.

But O'Donnell is NOT a Wiccan. She's just a fucking idiot. She doesn't know the difference between Satanism and Wicca! She can't tell the difference between a pentagram and a pentacle! It's not that O'Donnell is a Wiccan, or was a Wiccan. It's because she called it "dabbling in witchcraft."

Do you ever notice that, yet again, right-wingers never ask the source for this? When it comes to black people, right-wingers never ask black people, etc. In this case, they never ask real Wiccans.

Well, real Wiccans think O'Donnell is an empty-headed twat. You see, that's why right-wingers didn't ask.

Basically, O'Donnell is a loopy, flakey, batshit airhead. In other words, a typical ignorant extreme right-winger. And of course, the extreme right-wingers will always support the craziest airheads. Because you HAVE to be just a little bit crazy to believe in the ridiculous things the extreme Conservative Christians believe in.

But is this any shock? Christians are, overall, the least-informed about religion. The most informed are... well... atheists and agnostics. You can talk about "situational ethics" all you like. Nothing is inconsistent here.

So yeah, people are going to point and laugh at this ditzy cunt. Not because she's a Wiccan, but because she actually thinks she was.

Deconstructing Demotivation

Lindman posted this picture.

Wow, that was pretty strained. "It's funny cause there's two of them in the picture!"

That's so funny that it would fit right in with the right-wing Half Hour Comedy Hour!

At least Lindaman figured out how to center the text this time. He still hasn't figured out how to make it look like a Demotivational Poster, though. Maybe Lindaman doesn't understand that these posters are supposed to be parodies of Motivational Posters? Could that be why they never look right when he makes them? Hey, Lindy: They're not just pictures with captions. It's supposed to be a spoof!

To his credit, at least he didn't blatantly steal his joke from Jon Stewart like he did with this one.

But hey, it was always easy to find goofy pictures of Bush. Lindaman can't really do that with Obama, and one time Lindaman actually had to find one of Obama smiling on a bumper car with his kid. That was the closest he could get to a "goofy" picture.

At least this time, the picture and the caption are somewhat related, unlike most of the demotivational posters he creates. Usually his demotivational posters have text that runs too long and have nothing to do with the picture itself.

So, even though this poster is just a flat trite pun, it's still his best one to date. Even if it does just reaffirm that right-wingers get off on the economic misery of the American working class.

His demotivational poster would make more sense if he put quote marks around "double dip". I'll explain:

You see, if this demotivational poster wasn't on his blog, a person would probably think Obama and Biden are SAYING the caption. Because demotivational posters aren't supposed to be using personal pronouns like "I". And since unemployment has finally leveled off, and stocks have hit a four-month high, and most economists are saying there isn't going to be a double dip recession... it would make sense that Obama and Biden would be thumbing their noses at people lying about a double dip recession.

So basically my point is this: Lindaman accidentally made a demotivational poster that makes Obama and Biden look good rather than bad. Hehe

Bend Over, Corpses!

Lindaman writes:

Today is the ninth anniversary of one of the darkest days in our history. In that nine years, we've seen incredible acts of courage and shows of unity, as well as despicable acts of cowardice and abject stupidity. I've expressed this fear before, but it bears repeating, especially today.

We've rolled over and gone back to sleep when it comes to the threat of Muslim extremism.

As much as I'd like to think we're still vigilant against those who would do us great harm, the general prevailing attitude seems to be one of utter ignorance of the threat or of general disdain for those who continue to see the threat. When the Leftist media spends more time bashing a Florida preacher for wanting to burn the Koran than they do looking into the funding of the so-called Ground Zero mosque and the man spearheading the effort, we have a problem.

The problem is bigoted right-wingers that think book burning is a-okay and the government having preferential treatment of a religion is just fine and dandy.

CNN is far and away the worst at pushing the geopolitical snooze button on Muslim extremism. They have labeled any and all opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque" as Islamophobia, suggesting that it's driven more by racism than reason. Yet, they take the Imam at the center of that controversy at face value while raking the Florida preacher who may or may not burn the Koran today over the proverbial coals? As potentially offensive as the Koran burning would be, the establishment of a mosque within blocks of Ground Zero doesn't even raise an eyebrow at CNN, save when people stand in opposition to it.

What's worse? People actually believe opposition to the Ground Zero mosque is driven by racism.

No, bigotry. There's a difference, Mr. Journalism Major.

Some of it may be, but you'll get that with most movements like that. Most, however, is driven by...oh I don't know...the fact that a few blocks away there are two missing buildings from when Muslim terrorists flew planes into them, and now someone with ties to Muslim terrorists wants to build a "community center" near that site. Is that "Islamophobia" rearing its ugly head? No, it's common sense.

So, tell me, Lindaman: Are you going to stop watching Glenn Beck? After all, Fox News is tied to Al Qaeda:


It's just "common sense" not to watch their channel anymore, right?

(Prediction: Dead Silence)

And that's what may be one of the greatest casualties from 9/11. We have been made afraid to listen to our guts when it comes to Muslim extremism. The more the CNN drones of the world tell us it's hateful to be suspicious of the "Ground Zero Mosque" and the more we believe it, the less we're willing to trust our instincts, no matter how right we may be. Since 9/11, we've seen people who were absolutely correct in their suspicions of Muslim airline travelers get smeared by the media, while little to no criticism is heaped on those who perpetrate the acts that raised suspicion in the first place. If that isn't proof that we're living in some incredibly mixed-up times when it come to Islamic terror, I don't know what is.

George W. Bush was right when he compared the war on terrorism to fighting a hydra because Muslim terrorism isn't just one or two groups. The entire Middle East is one big network of terrorist organizations that fund and support one another. Getting rid of the top guys in al Qaeda is nice, but al Qaeda isn't the totality of the terrorist groups out there. There are others that will fill the void even after al Qaeda is destroyed or disbanded. America's approach to fighting Muslim terrorism has forgotten that part of the equation, and I place the blame for that on "both" major parties. George W. Bush had the right approach, but then softened it, and now President Obama is continuing to soften the approach to the point that we've actually talked about sitting down with some of the people who support the people who want us killed. Talking with Muslim extremists will only do one thing: it allows them time to reload.

There wasn't even a real Al Qaeda "organization" before the United States decided to create it as a soundbite. Now there IS a real Al Qaeda organization, because they know the name scares people like you. And recruitment was through the roof thanks to incitement of hate. You know who is to thank for that? You guys.

George Santayana once wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." With the threat of Muslim terrorism and our reaction to it today, Santayana was exactly right. We're back to a 9/10 mentality, where our minds are filled with pop culture fluff and an overwhelming desire to feed our egos. That's exactly what Muslim terrorists predicted would happen because they counted on us losing interest in what they were doing. And, sure enough, we have.

Yep, history repeats itself all right.

On this ninth anniversary of 9/11, shouldn't we show at least some courage and vigilance and stand up to the Muslim extremists and their allies on our shores? If only to curtail the chances of another major terrorist attack here, we need to be fearless in the face of mindless criticism from the Left and threats of violence from the "religion of peace."

LOL That's pretty funny, considering it was a certain Republican Senate Majority leader that wanted the fucking Taliban in Afghanistan's government.

Meanwhile, this administration is actually getting things done.

It's the least the living can do to honor the memories of the dead.

You guys happily rape their corpses every day, exploiting their deaths in this way.

Terrorists that were Muslims attacked us. Not "Islam". That's what you idiots don't understand. We go after the terrorists, not the "Islamists." By showing nothing but hate toward Islam, you guys are begging moderate Muslims to join up with the extremists.

Ah, what's the use? You guys will never get it. To you guys, all Muslims are extremists.

Your constant hand-wringing and pants-pissing fear enables the terrorists every single day. When they read posts like yours, they think they're winning.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Republicans... Looking Out For The Little Guy!

Lindaman writes:

As we enjoy another Labor Day celebrating the American worker, the state of the economy is weighing on the minds of many. Whether it's high unemployment or companies who make employees work extra hours so the companies don't have to hire additional staff, the employment situation is looking grim. Combine with that the fact that the first stimulus package has done more to grow jobs in the public sector than the private sector

Actually, the August jobs report showed the economy gaining 67,000 jobs in the private sector, but public sector cutbacks, primarily the loss of temporary Census jobs, brought the overall payroll picture to a net loss of 54,000. Economists had expected the loss of about 120,000 jobs. Like Obama said, it's getting better but it needs to be even MORE better.

and Congress is intent on adding more debt to our backs, and things don't look any better.

So cut taxes! That'll eliminate debt, right?

Put simply, the economy is in dire need of fixing. What the Washington politicians on both sides don't realize is that the way to fix the economy resides in the working class.

Republicans... champions of the working class!

Here are some suggestions to help get the economy back on the right track.

This should be a hoot. Right up there with your "Crush unions to fix healthcare" idea.

1) Cut taxes for the working and upper classes. I know, the Left will say "That's your solution for everything,"

No, the right-wing solution for everything is tax cuts for the wealthy only. And deregulation. The only reason any right-wing politicians say anything about tax cuts for the working class, is to keep the workers from eating them.

but it actually works. When you cut taxes, it allows people to keep their money, which they can save, spend, or invest. In each case, the economy is stimulated in some fashion at different speeds. Given the nature of America today, our tendency would be to spend that extra money, which would...stimulate the economy. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Then why is the GOP fighting Obama on tax cuts for small businesses?

Are voters even watching what these moron Republicans are doing? It doesn't matter if it's good, bad or indifferent policy, they might as well just all stand up and drop their pants and moon the Speaker whenever any Democratic proposal comes up, it'd save time!

How the hell can anyone support the Republicans, when they look at a very beneficial package of tax cuts for small businesses - which make up the largest portion of businesses in the country and employ millions, with the potential to employ even more - and despite it being supported by Republican-friendly business interests and others that normally drive the Republican say "Well that's nice, but we think Bush tax cuts and less spending."

When you reply to a positive offer from the opposite side of the house and just thumb your nose at it, then you are doing nothing but being an assclown.

Reagan did fine with no tax increases. Well, maybe he did enact the biggest tax increase ever made during peacetime, but I'm sure that doesn't count.

2) Cut government spending for real. One of the biggest government scams out there is when politicians and their pals in the media claim that government spending has been cut. What's actually been "cut" is the amount of a proposed increase. The way it works is Party A suggests that the Department of Redundancy Department gets a $2 million increase in spending over the previous year. Party B suggests that the Department of Redundancy Department should only get a $1 million increase in spending over the previous year. Both parties (and their friends in the media) say that the Department of Redundancy Department's budget was cut by $1 million when, in fact, it was actually increased by $1 million.

Sometimes this is true, yes.

One way to help the economy is to do some actual spending cuts where departments do have to make due with less. Defense spending,

Cut Defense spending? Wow! Now you're finally talking sense.

the Department of Education, the Department of Interior, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,

Then he goes full derp.

Why do right-wingers that harp about "cutting spending," bring up the goddamn Department of Education and its whopping 1.3% of the discretionary budget? Because that's the goddamn thing causing our money problems. Right.

and many other areas could be cut without disrupting services (such as they are) to the American people, which would reduce the amount of tax dollars necessary to keep the country running, which in turn means more money gets kept by the working class.

3) Don't micromanage our lives. At every turn, government is trying to get us to act accordingly (or as accordingly as they say we should). Whenever government does that, a bureaucracy is created to ensure compliance, and with bureaucracy comes cost that the people ultimately have to pay for in the form of taxes. If you question this, check out the environmental laws in this country that any small business has to follow. That particular set of laws is so vast and complex, it's impossible for any small business to keep track, let alone follow them. Why not cut the bureaucracy and allow people (including small business owners) make those kinds of common sense decisions on their own?

Because the goal of a free market business is to make money. If they regulate themselves, we'll wind up with... well, our healthcare system.

We may not always make the best choices,


but government bureaucracy hasn't exactly had the best track record in making good decisions (see the EPA's efforts with the oil spill clean up in the Gulf).

Before you said the EPA made no effort. Now you're saying they're interfering? Because they urged BP to use a safer dispersant to avoid even more environmental damage? The EPA even allowed BP to use landfills for the waste, and you're still bitching? Honestly, you guys...

Besides, the money we save could be better spent on getting the economy going.

But, for the Leftists these ideas may be too complex.

That's funny coming from a group of people who say "goddidit" is the answer to scientific questions.

In the interest of bipartisanship, let me break it down for them.

1) Let us keep our money.
2) Cut spending.
3) Get out of the way.

Hell, let's cut every single cent of optional spending. That includes almost all the military spending. Cool? And we're still in the negative by what, $600B? What great idea do you have next?

Right-wingers are still bitching about the second lowest tax rate in the 1st World and the one of the lowest marginal tax rates in the U.S. in 80+ years? Deluded misanthropes. To live in a civilization that provides you with enough comfort to sit around on your ass bitching about tax rates means someone has to actually pay taxes.

What is paid in terms of taxes is nothing compared what we get back for it:

1. Decent transportation network
2. Drinkable water from the tap
3. Trash removal, etc.
4. Social Security is essentially a pension
5. Police/fire emergency services
6. Fairly reliable food sources that aren't going to kill people outright
7. Education

All of that costs money and it's not cheap.

Yes, some of it is crap. Absolutely. Sin taxes are the worst thought out tax there is, but it's a "feel good" tax for those putting it forward.

I really wish more Americans would live abroad for a while, travel even, and see how much people pay in other countries. Better yet, they can see what nice things higher tax rates can get you. This is why we can't have nice things.

Fine, if you want these things to happen, then stop voting Republican, Mr. Independent (tm). Wasteful spending is something they do in spades.

Never Had ONE Lesson!

Lindaman writes:

I Don't Mean To Toot My Own Horn...
...but Toot Toot.

Something I said back in 2006 has come to fruition, and it's all thanks to President Obama and his fellow Leftists.

Back in 2006 and again in 2008, I noticed that Democrats ran on a platform of change. They didn't specify why change was necessary, just that we needed it.

You're lying. They did state why. Now, you can argue whether it actually happened, but don't lie and say they didn't go into specifics. They did. Liar.

And the American people believed it without question. During this time of change from the Left, I pointed out how change isn't always a positive thing and that as much as the Left wanted to change things, eventually change would come back to haunt them.

Welcome to 2010, when the Democrats' slogan has gone from "We need change!" to "We don't need change that badly!" The fatal mistake the Left made is in assuming that the people were behind them completely once they took back control of Congress and the White House. We weren't. Many Americans wanted to give the Democrats a try, and they did. Now, much to their chagrin, they're seeing how their desire for change made them puppets for the Left.

And come November 2010, the Left will have a lot of former supporters to answer to at the polls.

As long as it isn't a poll like the ones that make it clear that the majority of Americans still hate Republicans more than Democrats.

I see you're wording things more carefully after your comment of "Obama will lose the election in November [2008]" blew up in your face.

Remember, Teabaggers: If you want to make sure Black HUSSEIN Osama doesn't win the November 2010 presidential election, be sure to vote Republican on November 3rd!

This is beyond boring. A couple of seats here or there isn't going to change anything in either house of Congress. The Democrats are very likely to retain the Senate. It's considered normal that the sitting President's party lose seats in the mid-term elections.

The Dems won a dozen seats in areas that were so Conservative that it was beyond stupid to expect them to have Democrats in the first place. Naturally some are going to be lost now. Of course, rational thinking like that doesn't fit with the bloodbath political and media narrative where the Democrats will be crushed and destroyed in electoral defeats not yet seen in American history.

The Democrats are only losing a couple of Blue Dogs who they are better off without anyway, and of course they will still control the White House. The Republicans are going to make up some ground, but there's a few sitting Republicans that are expected to be ousted by Democrats. The Republicans are going to get more seats, but probably not enough to get a majority. If you right-wingers think that November is going to be a walk in the park for the Republicans, you're deluding yourselves.

I'd put the Republicans' chances of taking the Senate at 50/50. The Republicans could gain 7 or 8 seats. The Teabaggers are going to go apeshit when that happens. I can't wait to see what the right-wing conspiracy theories will be to explain the results. Of course, at the same time... when Republicans even win one seat, they flip out and claim an unprecedented victory and a sea of change. Just look at the reaction to the Scott Brown election. Basically, the right-wingers will declare victory due to a few seat gains, while simultaneously creating conspiracies as to why it wasn't more.

I don't know what you right-wingers are bitching about anyway. The Dems roll over to the GOP easily. George Bush had no majority nearly as large as the Dems have now, and that dumb bastard got everything he wanted out of the Congress.

The only way the Republicans could even possibly win back both the House and the Senate is if there's a major crash in the economy (worse than the one 2 years ago) between now and November 1. And of course, right-wingers are ROOTING for that. It's always Party Before Country for them. The well-being of America isn't even something that enters into their mind. If they did get a sweeping majority, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to begin impeachment procedures (they'll think of something).

Republican approval is still lower than Democrats. This should tell everybody even a clean GOP sweep isn't going to mean shit to anyone but the horse race junkies.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

It Never Happened

Lindaman writes:

Paul Krugman in the August 29th New York Times wrote an op-ed piece lamenting the return of "Witch-Hunt Season" because...get this...Republicans and conservatives oppose President Obama. Krugman compares Obama's Administration to the Clinton Administration in terms of "political opponents" trying to dig up anything they could on the President, regardless of how far-fetched it might be.

I'll be the first to admit Republicans and conservative bought into a lot of anti-Clinton conspiracy theories and that they're buying into a lot of anti-Obama conspiracy theories. Some are far-fetched, and some have at least some basis in fact.

Let's hear the latter.

Kind of like Krugman's column, if you think about it.

Krugman's defense of Obama against "Witch-Hunt Season" relies on a carefully-crafted distortion: that Republicans have no reason to investigate the President. With some of the questionably-legal actions the Administration has taken, I believe there are grounds to investigate if for no other reason than to put the questions to rest once and for all.

Let's hear it!

That's pretty much the same way some Republicans went after Clinton, and as we saw then, there were some highly questionable actions the Clinton Administration and the Clintons specifically did. That's not to say all of the suggested investigations were valid, but suggesting that all of the investigations into Clinton and Obama amount to a witch-hunt is laughable.

He's getting concerned again!

Krugman's assessment of the situation seems to miss the 8 years between Clinton and Obama where George W. Bush was assaulted on almost a daily basis with accusations, not unlike what Krugman says happened to Clinton and is happening to Obama. Here's a brief list of the accusations against Bush:

- He didn't really win the Florida recount.

This was questioned because the Supreme Court vote was 5-4, and those judges were Conservative. So, where was the official investigation of illegal activity?

- His brother Jeb and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris conspired to cheat Al Gore.

So, where was the official investigation of illegal activity?

- He knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen.

Truthers are idiots. Pretty funny lumping Truthers and "Leftists" together. If you think for one moment that there wouldn't be just as many Truthers if Gore was president, you're sorely deluded. Conspiracy nuts against the government abound on both sides. Bush was just unfortunate enough to be President during 9/11.

Now, the case can be made that Bush was asleep at the switch and didn't take the warnings of 9/11 seriously enough, but that's hardly the same as being a Truther.

As Bill Maher said: Bush didn't mastermind 9/11. Do you know how I know? Because it WORKED!

- He arranged for relatives of Osama Bin Laden to be flown out of the US days after 9/11.

I don't think Bush personally is to blame for that. But yes, Bin Laden's family should have been held longer.

- Bush went into Iraq for oil.

Nah. The administration wanted a more military presence in that region. Bush also had personal feelings against Saddam because of the plan to assassinate his father. He also felt he needed to finish what his father begun. I don't feel it was for oil. Bush probably felt Saddam was a bad man (which he was) and that he was doing the right thing, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing.

- Bush made up the story about Iraq having WMDs.

It was bullshit, yes. There wasn't enough evidence to support it.

- Bush made up the story about Iraq trying to acquire yellowcake uranium.

The CIA warned the administration that the yellowcake claims were nonsense. So yes, he made it up.

- Bush was ordered to attack Iraq by Big Oil


So, where was the official investigation of this?

- Bush was ordered to attack Iraq by Israel.

Nonsense (though I'm sure Israel wasn't mad about the attack).

So, where was the official investigation of this?

- He stole the 2004 election in Ohio.

There was a lot of questionable activity there. But the GOP was claiming things there, too.

- He allowed Halliburton to get no-bid contracts because of Dick Cheney.

That's at least half-right.

- Bush was responsible for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame because her husband was critical of the Administration.

I like how when you set up strawmen like these, you specifically say "Bush" in order to duck the administration itself.

But when Sherrod was asked to resign by Vilsack, you happily say "Obama's White House."


- He controlled gas prices to make money for his Big Oil buddies.

Nonsense. Gas prices are partly why he lost Republican control of Congress.

- Bush ignored the victims of Hurricane Katrina because they were primarily black.

Again, you're only half-right.

I never got a racist vibe off Bush. He was an incompetent man-child, but not a racist.

- He allowed banks to run roughshod and worked against regulating them, thus causing the subprime mortgage crisis.


Most, if not all, of these statements have been made by Leftists who have demanded (and in some cases gotten) investigations into these subjects, regardless of how far from the truth they are.

But you don't say which are right or wrong, or which had official investigations. Awfully convenient for Conservatives, isn't it?

But I'm guessing that Krugman didn't have a problem with these investigations because of a) who was the President being investigated, and b) who was pushing for the investigations. That undermines his credibility, what little he has, on this subject.

And let's not forget that it was Democrat strategist James Carville who talked about going to "war" against the Republicans in the latter part of the Clinton years, suggesting that Democrats would investigate any Republican President as vigorously as the Republicans investigated Clinton. Surprise surprise, that happened. Yet, no admonition from Krugman. Funny, huh?

Seems as though the "Witch-Hunt Season" isn't back...because it never stopped.

Oh, please. Never stopped? Democrats aren't like Republicans. You guys would happily tear the country apart over lying about a blowjob. There was far more appropriate cases against Bush lying that should have put him in shackles, but it didn't happen. And it sure wasn't because of lack of evidence.

Why Restore It NOW? Hmmm?

Lindaman writes:

Today is the day of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, an event that could be a historic event in modern times.

And it sure was! ZZzzzzzzzz...

So, naturally since Glenn Beck is involved, the Left has been trying to tear it down. Here's a sampling of what Leftists have been saying about the event:

- At Beck's "Divine Destiny" event at the Kennedy Center the night before, Media Matters (the Soros funded Leftist lying media organization

Sorosssssss! Booga booga!

I'm glad you mentioned him again. Because this is still one of the funniest screenshots I've ever seen:

headed up by proven and admitted liar David Brock)

Yep, he admitted that when he was a Conservative, he was a liar.

When you lie, you never admit it.

Oh, and for those of you just tuning in: One of Lindaman's proofs that Media Matters lies, is because a proven Anti-Semite (Andy Martin) sued Media Matters for... truthfully stating that he was an Anti-Semite. Yep, right-wingers have to side with Anti-Semites.

said that the event was "steeped in politics" in spite of Beck's claims to contrary because...some of the speakers spoke out against abortion and political correctness! Oh, horrors! We can't have people exercising their free speech and making points that have religious undertones, can we?

Did they try to stop them from speaking? You know, like how you guys are trying to stop a Muslim community center?

Abortion and political correctness are political issues. They can speak about it all they like, but they can't turn around and say it's not a political gathering.

By the way, kids, there are people who skew to the left politically who agree with the speakers who came out against abortion and political correctness. Nat Hentoff comes to mind.

But they are on the left, and thus "hate America", remember? So who cares what they think?

- Media Matters also rattled off a list of conservative groups and people with connections (no matter how weak the connection - seriously, they bashed a conservative group for putting ads in one of their publications promoting the 8/28 events) to "prove" the 8/28 event was political. Wow. No wonder Media Matters is so revered by the Left. They dig to find completely irrelevant points to "expose" the Right's "real agenda." Bravo, you magnificent bastards!

Dude, Beck is a Conservative. Palin is a Conservative. They asked Teabaggers to come. It's a Conservative rally.

- Media Leftists have gone out of their way to portray Beck as a "conservative"

Are you saying Glenn Beck is not a Conservative?

and a "controversial talk show host," but have called blacks who oppose the 8/28 rally (like the Rev. Al Sharpton) as "civil rights leaders." Yeah, like Sharpton's new to the controversy scene. Beck's controversial because he said the President has a problem with white people,

No, Beck wondered if Obama hates white people.

but Sharpton isn't controversial because he actually does have a problem with white people?

Do you think Beck or Sharpton would take the word "controversial" as an insult? Controversy is good for them. Controversy gets them attention. Do you actually believe Beck would take insult to the word "controversial"? Hell, I would think he would be hurt not to be called "controversial." When he stops being controversial, he stops being known.

- ABC's Claire Shipman did a report about the 8/28 rally where she took one of Beck's statements out of context and used it to bash him. The statement used in the ABC report shows Beck saying, "Blacks don't own Martin Luther King." However, there was more to the statement. Here is Beck's full statement to put the segment ABC used in context: "Whites don't own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don't own Martin Luther King." By leaving off the first half of Beck's statement, it changes the context of it all. But I'm sure it wasn't part of an orchestrated effort on the part of the Leftist media to malign Beck and those who are attending the rally today, right?

Shipman should have stated the full quote, absolutely. Big blunder on her part. She should've known that would be brought up.

It doesn't remove the context, though. Because Lincoln didn't champion the cause of whites the way MLK championed the cause of blacks. Beck's full quote does soften his statement, but his piece is still not out of context.

The end of the piece also shows a lengthy clip of Beck stating he couldn't replace MLK. So I don't see what the big deal is. But yes, Shipman should've known better.

- NBC's "Today" show featured a report about the rally, Tom Costello suggested that it might be difficult to stop people from having signs "with racial overtones" given how there were similar signs at a rally in DC last year. Of course, when Beck says no signs will be allowed and has done so repeatedly and clearly.

Uh... signs cannot be banned there. Beck recommended no signs, but he couldn't ban them. Costello was concerned about them bringing signs anyway.

You do know why Beck didn't want signs, right? Beck didn't want even more pictures of Teabaggers waving signs of Obama with a bone through his nose. Not that he cares about such signs, he just didn't want them associated with him. He got enough embarrassment from favoriting that white supremacist group on his Twitter... for several days.

I'm sure Costello was going to mention that but just ran out of time, what with trying to drag in Dr. Laura's allegedly racist rant

"Allegedly"? Ah, Conservatives. Sticking up for racists again (yawn).

into a completely unrelated matter because Sarah Palin defended Dr. Laura and will be a speaker today.

That's pretty damn related. Palin was a speaker at an event that was supposed to support MLK, and she had just made news by defending a racist. That's very relevant. You just didn't want people to know about it.

- MSNBC's Ed Schultz compared the TEA Party movement to the Nazis to try to malign the 8/28 rally

Well, they were trying to post politicians' home addresses...

But since when do Teabaggers act like Nazis, right? Just look at the logical points these Teabaggers make to this man:

and suggested Beck was trying to incite race riots.

Ed did not suggest that. He was interviewing trial-lawyer guest Mike Papantonio, and he said that "they want the same divisiveness, they the same ugliness that we saw in the Watts riots to emerge, so the next conservative movement can come into power."

If you disagree with what Mike said, fine. But don't lie and claim Ed suggested it.

Of course, the TEA Party folks have clearly said the 8/28 rally isn't anything they are putting on, but why let that fact get in the way of attacking Beck by proxy?

Except that Beck told them to come.

Wow. It's almost as if the Left is scared that conservatives are exercising their First Amendment rights today to express a different opinion than the Left espouses. How radical! How "dangerous."

Careful, you almost admitted it was a conservative event.

They can speak all they like, but don't pretend it was something other than a Conservative event.

How utterly predictable. Leftists attack anything they don't understand (which is quite a bit, it turns out) and call anything that deviates from their norm as not just wrong, but morally corrupt and intellectually devoid of anything worthwhile. That gives them the self-imposed righteousness to justify any means necessary to slander the Right. After all, they're fighting evil, so they have to fight fire with fire, right?

Yeah, not so much. See, when you resort to blatant and subtle dishonesty to make a point, your point isn't that strong to begin with. All the Left is doing with Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally is showing how dishonorable they can be.

Yeah, let's be honorable like this Teabagger at the event:

One last question: If it's not a Conservative event... what honor needs to be "restored"?

Glenn Beck, speaking on Friday at the Kennedy Center: "We are 12 hours away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Sarah Palin, speaking at the Beckture: "We must not fundamentally transform America, as some would want." Which is it?

Beckapalooza didn't get the numbers Beck was claiming. Add that to the fact that the Teabaggers were bored to tears because he didn't fire them up. And nobody got hurt. So, in a way I'm glad it happened.

But yet again, I think it's very funny when white guys speak for MLK. Especially right-wingers.