I know how mad liberals get when they are presented intelligent thoughts and facts, so you are really going to get mad at these comments:
Found on RDW
... No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.
But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager — oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy — and a credit check, too!
When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.
But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaida — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.
Man, these are good. The better they are, the more emotion and swearing that is soon to follow...
Sunday, October 08, 2006
When your right, your right
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
tou really dont get it do you?
you must not have children?
it is not ok for either.but there is new laws that foley helped write that makes it very different.
"rule of law" seems to be words that are no longer in republicans dictionary.
i have been republican all my life until the schiavo fiasco,then my scales fell off my eyes and now i will never vote for another republican as long as i live.
they have total power and have corrupted our country and it is past time for them to go.
br3n
Again, game, you are selective in what you remember. Nobody here ever said there shouldnt be wiretapping, etc. We said we are against Queen Bush doing it illegally, and showing how much he hates the Constitution.
where does it say that foley is being defended?
your not very smart, are you?
To point to their hypocrisy is to somehow defend. I have been dealing with this all week Marcus.
My stance has been.
1. Foley is a slime who deserves to be diped in acid.
2. investigate who knew what when.
3. Beware a news media that is trying to out scoop each other. not everything you hear will be accurate.
4. Beware dems who are tyring to take undue political gain on people who had nothing to do with this.
I've been proven right on every step of the way.
Somehow the left has forgotten that whole innocent until proven thing.
They also don;t want you to know that no sex every occured or that the page in question was an 18 yr old legal adult.
Those are not making excuses, those are pointing to FACTS that the left does now really want you to know.
If you could be so kind as to direct me to the Democrat who asked for Foley's phone to be tapped, I'd appreciate it. I've been following the story, but must have missed that.
Oh, and also, if you could direct me to the Democrat who said that al Qaeda's phones should not be tapped, I'd like to see that, too.
Just, you know, when you get around to it.
Game, you throw out false strawmen like beads at carnivale. Nobody has claimed Foley is being defended by Republics.
Again, Foley is not the main issue. Foley resigned as soon as he knew that ABC had the information.
It is the Republic leadership that is under criticism.
And yet the Republic bullshit spin is that either the Dems are gay bashing or the Dems would have accused the Republics of gay bashing if they had done anything about Foley when they new about him several years ago.
Then of course there is the continued bullshit spin that the Dems have orchestrated this entire thing.
Keep spinning. You got nothing.
"Keep spinning. You got nothing."
Look in the mirror my friend. Democratics (Whoa, I've like, taken to your retarded parlance, man!) don't want to talk about global terrorist networks and the great economy. So now soft, gentle, tolerant Democratics who want all lifestyle choices to be respected have resorted to gay bashing, equating homosexuality to a creepy perversion in an effort to suppress the turnout of Republics.
"i have been republican all my life until the schiavo fiasco,then my scales fell off my eyes and now i will never vote for another republican as long as i live."
Look. I've been a Democrat for most of my life, and I agree with you 100% that the Schiavo stuff was fundie nonsense.
However, economic growth is better than a socialist command economy, and we need to remain on offense against the Islamofascists if we don't want to get p'nwed in a serious way in the future, especially with a WMD. The stakes are simply too high to get pissed off about wedge issues.
Are you serious? The Republics are NOTHING BUT wedge issues.
And I guess there was no economic growth between 1993 and 2001?
And Jason, you are trying to come off as some economics expert tossing off the term socialist command economy.
So I did what I usually do and did a little research.
From Wikipedia I learned that "command economies" are planned economies, "a system in which the state controls the factors of production and makes all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income." Most economies today are market economies although command economies exist in Cuba and North Korea. These economies MAY make some sense where no institutions of free markets have existed and were resources and production capabilities are scarce.
No such conditions exist in the US that I am aware of. I know of nobody in this country who is advocating a command economy for the US.
Do you? Can you provide a link to some source that shows that anybody of name or influence in the Democratic party is advocating a command economy?
Or is this simply another false strawman?
I never mentioned foley, game, or are you referring to cap'n dumbshit who cant write, above my first post?
Oh, and jason...point me to where any Dem or Liberal said its ok to be a pedophile, and I will take your side. Its not a gay issue.
rhyno--
The Democrats stand by their sex offenders and usually reelect them. Enough said.
Jim--
The Marxist philosophy of democratic socialists like Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Kucinich maintains that corporations oppress people, creating conditions where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Socialists have been repeating this baloney since the 1840s.
Their solution to everything? Tax the crap out of eveyrbody, especially the rich, and have government play a strong role in our lives, planning our retirement, our healthcare, our education, our media, our transportation, and so forth. Democrats state clearly that they want to do this. People shouldn't drive the cars they want. The airwaves should belong to the public. These comments are nothing new.
Read the Communist Manifesto. Marx talks about the need for a progressive income tax, the abolition of all rights of inheritance, free love and the destruction of the traditional family, the need for a living wage and so forth.
None of this makes sense from an economic viewpoint, and nor does it make sense from a pragmatic viewpoint. The Democratic rank and file runs on emotion and doesn't think to hard about these things, but the leadership certainly does, and I do take their ideas and revolutionary social plans seriously.
Jason, thanks for your lessons on Marxist philosophy.
Now please provide links to where Pelosi has espoused a Marxist philosophy or had advocated anything you are claiming.
Please cite or provide links that will back up your assertion that any Democrat of major influence states "clearly that they want to do this". Any of it.
I know what the Communist Manifesto says. It has nothing to do with the Democratic party.
Nice points, Jason. Well done.
But I think the point of the thread is the disparity in the Democratic response to these events dependent upon who's perpetrated the "crime" and who's in charge. As the post stated, under O'Neill, Studds operated for ten years. When it came to light that he was not just contacting a page, but engaged in a homosexual affair, he claimed it was consensual, got standing ovations, and was re-elected. Hmmm. Standing ovations and re-election. Now, Foley resigns over emails and IMs and the Dems want Hasterts head on a pike. What's different now? It isn't gay bashing, I don't think. I think it's bashing a gay Republican. Also, I find it less than sincere for anyone to cry for the "children", when the youngest possible page is 16yrs old. It's not like Foley was after some 8 yr old. (No. It doesn't matter as to the innappropriateness, only the attempt to conjure images of toddlers by using the term "children".)
Regarding the Shiavo case----I just want to say that the debate centered around the fact that the parents didn't believe that their daughter wanted to be taken off of life support (which she really wasn't on--feeding tubes are not technically life support) and they disagreed with the adulterer husband who "claimed" she made some remark to that effect a couple of decades earlier. The government stepping in was an attempt to err on the side of life and to support the parents who were willing to unburden the husband by caring for his wife when he no longer wanted to. OK? I hope that clears up that little misunderstanding.
Nobody, NOBODY on the Democratic side is bashing any gays, Republic or otherwise. None, nada, zip!
Regarding Schiavo, the guardian ad litem appointed by Jeb Bush FOR Terry Schiavo reviewed the entire case from before her collapse, through therapy and countless medical exams and supported Michael's case. The case was reviewed by so many judges so many times and they all found in favor of Michael Schiavo.
There was no side to err on.
Jim--
I provided a link about the Democratic Socialists of America, now known as the progressive caucus. And it is common knowledge Democratics want to do things like socialize health care, which is 14% of the American economy, and attack the traditional family by promoting nonsense like homosexual marriage. This all has a socialist basis and isn't liberal in the classic sense.
Again, read the manifesto and draw your own conclusions. Democrats didn't begin praising the noble worker and hating the greedy rich in a vacuum.
Yep, jason, and there was nothing concrete about Pelosi in that link, and nothing that could be verified elsewhere. It's just another propagandist site. If you could provide another one that says so concretely, then I might take a second look. Until then, blow.
Jason, Americans and American companies are going broke because of the geometric rise of health care costs. And something like 40 million Americans don't have health insurance.
According to the preamble to the Constitution, the government was formed to, among other things, promote the general welfare.
What is your solution to the health care crisis?
Liberals believe in the Bill of Rights and with them civil rights. Liberals do not "promote" homosexual marriage. They believe gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
I don't have to read the Communist Manifesto. There is not one Democrat of note or influence who "hates the greedy rich." That's a false strawman. I know where Democrats got the idea of "praising the noble worker" and those less fortunate.--from the Bible.
Slow down Jim. You're off base.
The left IS supporting gay marriage because at this point in time, there is no such thing outside of Massachusetts. They DON'T want what the rest have because the rest don't have gay marriage either. They want what they want, which is gay marriage. (I'm not looking to start up another gay debate, I just love throwing that shit around!)
How does the government promote the general welfare by generally stealing money from some to pay for others? My solution to the health care crisis: get healthy, no crisis. Being healthy is a duty of every American. It's one way that each can help build a stronger country by not leaving to others the responsibility of financing an immature lifestyle and the recovery costs for engaging in such. There's a ton of free books to borrow at these places called "libraries" and anyone can learn just how to stay healthy and reduce health care tremendously.
There are plenty of Dems of note who "hate the rich" and prove it every time they insist on raises the taxes of the rich, who, by virtue of their success, already contribute mightily to society. The Dems may have gotten the notion of caring for the poor from the Bible, but they didn't get the idea of making other people pay for them from the Bible. The Bible tells each of us to do our part in caring for the poor and unfortunate. It doesn't tell us to force someone else to do it under fear of prosecution.
One more health care tip: Spend less on beer, and more on health insurance. Don't do stupid shit like playing on the highway. Don't bunji jump with shoddy equipment. Don't try to pet the zoo animals. Don't do acid near weapons. Stand clear of airplane propellers. Ok, that's more than one tip.
So we probably don't need the CDC either, do we?
Or Planned Parenthood, or any of the rest, I guess.
Should be simple [NOT].
Dedanna--
I did supply propaganda above. The word 'propaganda' is much maligned -- if propaganda is true, one can't negate it by calling it propaganda. Democratic Socialists of America was a real organization, and now it is called the progressive caucus.
Interesting Planned Parenthood was brought up, given it was part of the eugenics movement of the early 1900s. They wanted to stop inferior races from breeding, and even today I hear liberals make racist comments like "people who need to have abortions the most aren't having them." People meaning blacks, of course.
Jim--
Socialism is a direct spawn of Christendom-- a higher form of Christianity that demands complete self-sacrifice and self-abnegation for the common good. Many early socialists, including the writer of the Pledge of Allegiance, were Christian socialists, and socialist writers like Saint-Simon wrote books titled The Last Christianity. Even today I see books titled "Jesus Rode a Donkey" and I wouldn't contest your implication that Democrats are more Christian than Republicans in many ways.
The big difference between traditional Christianity and socialism comes from coveting your neighbors wealth. Socialists turn this into a virtue, while for Christians it is a sin by the Ten Commandments. Religious and secular socialists alike want to create heaven on earth and see liquidating the rich as the means to do so. More traditionally minded secular and religious people see this as the arrogance of man and back up their claims with the entire history of the 1900s.
Lastly, the Constitution does not specify a right to socialist entitlement programs. I find it hilarious people who blast Bush for interpreting the Constitution too loosely to thwart terrorist activities go way beyond what Bush is doing to defend government largesse and judicial activism.
Propaganda for the most part is not accurate, because it way over-sensationalizes something, and blows it out of proportion. The truth of it is maybe somewhere between 1/10 & 1/100.
And the problem is, it's used mostly to brainwash people into doing something or thinking something that the elite, GOP, whomever would have them do.
Not a good thing, if you ask me. It usually ends up teaching the public a whole lot of overblown nonsense, and doesn't give them a whole lot of actual facts.
I still have yet to find Pelosi as a member of Democratic Socialists of America anywhere other than your link, which doesn't say categorically that she is one. I still have yet also, to see that the "Democratic Socialists of America" actually exist outside of that link. Again, please supply a more rational link.
Post a Comment