No one says it better, so here are some quotes from this weeks column:
Democrats have the breathtaking audacity to claim that Bush's replacing his own political appointees is "politicizing prosecutions."
They say this as Sandy Berger walks free after stealing and destroying top-secret national security documents — but Lewis "Scooter" Libby faces decades in prison for )not outing a covert agent. (Let's hope he's learned his lesson!)
They say this as Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson sits on the Homeland Security Committee while waiting for the $100,000 found in his freezer to thaw — but Tom DeLay remains under an indictment by some hick prosecutor in Texas for an alleged accounting violation.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Let the master speak
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
Good one! But, hey look at our options - openly corrupt democrats and fake conservatives who won't openly admit their corruption!!
Country definitely has a bright future!
There are more RINO's nowadays, but liberals NEVER admit who they are and are okay with their own kind doing wrong...
Hear about Dianne Feinstein resigning from a Senate Subcommitee tha oversaw contracts her husband's companies got? DiFi isn't interested since hubby sold those defense contractors.
Both sides stink big time!!
vital
claiming that "both sides just suck" is the easy (party popular) way out.
It all comes down to this: You've got one side that wants all to suceeed with the knowledge that they live in the greatest country in the world, with more opportunities than almost any peoples in the history of mankind. Versus those that claim we're the cause of all the world's ills.
Simple 'nuff, what say you?
Rampant delusion. Most of what you have quoted from "that woman" is outright lies, and all informed people know it.
jim
You're wrong, most of what she says is the absolute truth. She just says it with a stinging bite, that your delicate disposition can't handle.
Damn right. At least as regards the quotes Game posted.
100% correct...Jim's comments don't show me otherwise...
Blamin,
Simple‘nuff, Uh?
By the way, it’s not that black and white. There are good and bad things from both sides. It’s not about choosing the simple way out...It’s all about being realistic and honest.
“Greatest country in the world with more opportunities than almost any people in the history of mankind” – remember, there was a huge contribution from liberals in providing ‘opportunities’ to all!!
Claiming that ‘we’ are always right and ‘other’ side is always wrong is WRONG!
Simple’nuff, what say you?
Coulter: Why wasn't a fuss made when Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld? He is every bit as much a political appointee as the U.S. attorneys are.
Duh!!?
1) Donald Rumsfeld's replacement had to be confirmed by the Senate. US Attorney's USED to have to be confirmed by the Senate until the Bush administration slipped a provision into the Patriot Act that ended Senate confirmation.
Why did they do that?
2) Donald Rumsfeld's poor performance was measurable and documented. It will be the stuff of history books. There is no such documentation of poor performance on the part of the fired US Attorneys.
You folks just don't get it. There is not a Democrat who doesn't understand that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. He can remove them anytime he wants. There is no dispute about this. But he can't just replace them with anybody unless he no longer has to get Senate confirmation. Why did they do that?
When you fire US Attorneys for poor performance which is undocumented, and it just so happens that you recently and very quietly stripped Senate confirmation from the books, that raises suspicions, no?
When the DOJ claims that they were fired for poor performance which is undocumented, it sullies the reputation of outstanding public servants, and it pretty much makes the DOJ liars.
When you fire a US Attorney for poor performance when none is documented and it just so happens that the US Attorney has just broken a case against officials of your own party, it looks very suspicious, no?
When the AG says that he had nothing to do with and no knowledge of the plan to fire US Attorneys and yet his chief of staff Brownie (oops, I mean Mr. Fallguy Sampson) swears that the AG was in several meetings where the plan was discussed, it sort of makes the top law enforcement official of the land look like a liar or an incompetent fool. Take your pick.
Vital
Of course it's not black and white, yes there's good and bad on both sides, and no , one side is not always right while the other is wrong. I'm not sure what those obviousisms have to do with my statment, but here's some more if it makes you happy. It's not cut and dried, it's not carved in stone, a bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush.
As far as liberals huge contribution to society, I'd say for the most part it's been to the arts. The libs can paint a killer painting, write a jamming song or book, act a great part (they're best at acting), and create an awesome movie. Most of their "other" contributions have been in the form of restricting and holding down that which has made this country so great. Because at their core Libs believe they know what is best, and should be in charge to implement that vision.
The bottom line (another catchy phrase) is you have a choice between two basic philosophies and if you boil out all the crap, at their core, they are as I stated in the above comment. Except I should have added for the lefties - and gub'ment needs to fix it for you (with all the right people in charge, of course).
Why hasn't Alberto Gonzales indicted Jefferson? Is he incompetent?
Or is Jefferson unindicted so that he can continue to be Coulter fodder?
Why?
And the Berger lie? Berger committed a crime. Fortunately, he DID NOT commit the crime that Coulter lies about.
According to that liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal:
"Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out... We called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. 'There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals,' said Mr. Hillman. 'There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."
The Berger charges are DOCUMENTED overblown distortions of the truth.
Blamin,
Not carved in stone, uh? WOW – I didn’t know it!
Your last para makes my point! And, that’s exactly what I referred to as ‘black and white’ mindset. So you believe that there are only ‘two’ basic philosophies (and one is good and the other one is bad, uh?).
“…at their core Libs believe they know what is best, and should be in charge to implement that vision.” – How is it different from a conservative who thinks on the same lines?
“Hanoi Jane” Fonda and “Macaca” George Allen – both reflect a few realities of both sides. I am aware of it. I would rather look at each issue and take the side of better solution than blindly following lib vs cons !
I have nothing much to say about your comments on libs and their contributions to the society. I hope you look beyond Sean Penn and Hollywood crowd to understand liberalism and how it played a critical role in creating an open, democratic society with equal rights to all!
Vital
My point is - when you vote on the national or even state level you're voting for a basic philosophy. Sure there's nuances within nuances, sure your choice my not be the best representation of said philosophy; but when you make the ultimate choice you're inpowering one of two basic thoughts.
It's great to rail against any politician for not representing said belief to the best of his/her ability, but to vote for the other side is folly!
When you look at extremes from both sides of the isle, you'll find that the lefty extreme is more prevelant in their (the dems) basic party platform. On the other hand what is considered the norm for conservative thought is not as highly influenced by what the people consider as the extreme. I'll remind you that most people align themselves with conservative values, and have for a long time.
Blamin' said, "I'll remind you that most people align themselves with conservative values, and have for a long time."
Um, I don't thinks so.
I took a quick scan of your link, Jim, as well as links from link for more detail. It's getting harder and harder to read your links only to find that they don't support your position or are just plain crap. This link does not refute Blamin's statement about how most people align themselves with conservative values. Take one issue: are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?
The percentages who agree with this statement does not mean they are less conservative or agreeing with liberal thought. The question is meaningless all by itself. A good followup question might be: Is this a good thing or bad? What might be reasons or causes of this disaparity? Answering these types of questions would be better illustrations of respondents' leanings.
Even the three main questions of the link don't point to the leanings of the respondents without more probing followup questions.
Another question had to do with safety nets for the needy. I saw no question that would illustrate a respondent's idea of what constitutes "needy". I don't know of anyone of either political persuasion that would do away with all programs for those who are truly deserving of support. The question is always whether or not an applicant is truly deserving. In such a question, the left tends to include more people that the right knows is not truly needy.
So once again, if you're going to take the time to post a link in support of your argument, you'd do better for yourself if it actually supported your argument. Just a tip.
Marshall,,
Jim is reduced to trying to baffle us with "Barbars Streisand".
Marshall said, "are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?...A good followup question might be: Is this a good thing or bad? "
You're kidding, of course.
No, Jim, only Socialists like yourself who covet all the perks and riches you can't earn think that this is bad.
Jim doesn't seem to understand the benefits of wealth. If the rich are getting richer, who's getting their dough? Other rich dudes? Doesn't make sense. Not unless the rich are now doing their own repairs, cleaning their own homes, assembling, packing and shipping their own products...
And when the rich get richer, others become rich as well. So the rich getting richer is a good thing.
The poor getting poorer is actually a separate issue. The follow up question there is, why are they getting poorer? What are they doing or not doing that makes them even poorer than they already were? Of those getting poorer, how many are getting that way due to stupid decisions, and how many due to their own incapability to understand basic life lessons? Of the poor, which are deserving of assistance, and which are just slackers, drunks and drug addicts?
What leftists like Jim fail to understand is that even purely socialist systems will have inequality. If a new product is developed, for example, not everyone can have it at once, which usually means government hacks will get the goodies.
Inequality in capitalism is much more benign. One, the rich provide a strong incentive for people to experiment and rapidly develop new products-- the rich are willing to pay for them, after all. But then more and more people enter the field, each trying to grab market share by finding ways to make the product better qualitatively and quantitatively. Eventually luxuries under capitalism become property of the common man -- DVD players, digital cameras, air conditioning, color television, personal computers, refrigerators -- the process is quite amazing, when you step back and look at it.
Marshall is completely right on this, and Jim couldn't be more wrong. Go look at Cuba or North Korea or Zimbabwe, and we can see directly how Robin Hood policies look in practice.
Jim, your 4/02/07 comment proves you've never really applied deep thought to conservative ideas and principals. Thus proving you're merely a parrot, a very emotional parrot.
Ridiculously typical!
Post a Comment