Politics

Carville, Begala and Zimmerman

Jack — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:12:00 GMT

The link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/24/carville-begala-temporar_n_83174.html

So, from the Huffington Post, quoted in its entirity for hilariousness:

Okay, this is interesting. I've just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman -- who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters -- that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion.

I'm also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network.

Incredible. One little event that gives countless insights into the utter corruption of the MSM.

Obviously, when it's the Democrat's primary, CNN is concerned about unduly influencing the results with partisan commentators. The rest of the time, no problem.

The first question I have to ask: If Hillary happens to win the Democratic nomination, will Carville, Begala and Zimmerman be banned form commenting through the end of the Presidential election? I think we all know that's not going to be the case.

So that gives a little insight into CNN's outlook, and the outlook of the MSM in general. It's proof that they're aware that their commentators have a bias, that this bias can influence the outcomes of elections, and that they think it's acceptable to silence voices in order to remove bias.

So what does this mean?

They know their commentators have a bias: The MSM loves to keep up a facade of impartiality and objectivity, but everyone outside the far left fringe knows they're just the propaganda wing of the Democratic party. The only question is whether you find this bias disgusting (as I do) or you just think they're telling the truth (as my parents do). Regardless, this move by CNN is a tacit admission that they know they're not impartial or objective. Instead, they employ partisan hacks to do their commentary. And these aren't just left leaning people. They aren't just former Democrat staffers. These guys (Carville and Begala) were primary figures in Bill Clinton's run for President. That's how far from impartiality and objectivism CNN is. They employ people who are probably the two biggest Clinton cheerleaders in the entire world. It's literally as close as they could get to letting the Clintons themselves comment on the Clintons.

They think it's acceptable to silence voices in order to remove bias: The left's double standard on free speech is incomprehensibly stupid. When an arm of their own party is silencing a viewpoint that's “interesting.” When anybody else fails to trumpet their views from the rooftops, that's “Orwellian censorship and shredding the Bill of Rights.” Or whatever hyperbolic stupidity they come up with at the time. Imagine the outrage if this move was made during a national Presidential election. In the end, just one more example of the utopia the left has planned for us. One where your freedom of speech will be protected by silencing anybody who doesn't promote free speech. The left doesn't value free speech, it's just a rhetorical tool to them. Your rights exist so long as they can use them they're useful to lib speechwriters.

In any case, the precedent has been set at CNN. Let's all chuckle as they discard it in time for the Presidential election.

James McHaney...

Jack — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:22:00 GMT

The link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1203072senate1.html

So, just to be sure it's clear, anybody associated with a Republican who gets caught for soliciting gay sex, big news. Lots of stories about Bob Allen, a McCain supporter, who solicited gay sex from an adult. Not nearly so much coverage of a staffer for Democrat Senator Maria Cantwell. Not even when he describes having anal sex with a 13 year old boy as “hot.”

Now, granted, this is merely a staff member, while Bob Allen is/was a state rep, but he wasn't trying to have anal sex with a 13 year old boy.

Republican gay sex scandals: huge news.

Democrat gay sex scandals: not news.

In fact, how dare you pry into their private lives?

A new direction...

Jack — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:51:00 GMT

The link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/

The Democrats love to talk about how they're going to take things in a new direction. What they're less likely to mention, is that their awesome new direction involves more government and more bureaucracy. What they're yet more and yet still more unlikely to mention is that they've had control of the House and Senate since the last election, and they're doing almost nothing at all.

Now look at how these fuckwits are handling their own primary. “Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.”

That's right. These idiots, who think that government is the answer to all ills, can't even run their own primary process withing infighting, confusion, and disenfranchisement of their constituents.

I can't say it enough: The only people I hate more than Republicans are Democrats.

Look at these miserable douchebags. They can't even run a primary correctly. They're literally looking for ways to lose elections that only they participate in.

The Black KKK...

Jack — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:39:00 GMT

The link: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7499442

I really admire Jason Whitlock. In this day and age, for a black man to even begin to ask the questions he asks, it takes real courage. In the old days, speaking out against racism could get you blacklisted and ruined. These days, failing to worship at the alter of political correctness, failing to blame white racism for all problems confronting American blacks, that is what can get you blacklisted and ruined.

Whitlock came out before any arrests were made, and said with confidence that Sean Taylor's killers would be black. We see now that 3 of the 4 accused are indeed black (one appears to be Latino).

I really admire Whitlock for putting his neck out there like that, and for being right when he did. I admire a guy who can remind his own race of their hatred for the KKK, even as they now terrorize and murder themselves worse than the KKK ever did.

“But we don't want to deal with ourselves. We take great joy in prescribing medicine to cure the hate in other people's hearts. Meanwhile, our self-hatred, on full display for the world to see, remains untreated, undiagnosed and unrepentant.”

Whitlock is 100% correct here. But I wish he would go further. I wish he'd see the big picture with more clarity. He blames rap music for the problems black people face. I think this is merely a symptom. I believe the real problem facing black Americans is that they're the ultimate realization of the poisonous effects of American socialism. Until black people fully realize the horrible damage that has been inflicted upon them by the Democrats, they will never be able to improve their lives.

No other block of people votes more consistently Democrat than black people. And no other block of people votes more consistently Republican than Mormons. Which group of people is happier, more successful, has stronger family structure? It's not like Mormons are well liked or treated in this country. People feel very free to mock their beliefs and call them crazy at every opportunity. But in the end, they're the ultimate realization of Republican ideals. They value faith, family, hard work and self-reliance. Mormons may seem a little goofy or gullible, but they're happy, they're stable and they're successful.

Socialism is poison. At the core of Democrat ideology is the idea that everyone is a victim, nobody can care for themself, and everyone needs the government to intervene on their behalf. Black people are told, endlessly, by the Democrats that they are hated, that they have no opportunity to succeed, that they need government programs to get by. They are the perfect realization of the Democrat ideology. Create helpless, self-loathing dependants, and convince them that they need you to survive. You're guaranteed votes forever.

Or, at least until people like Jason Whitlock start to realize what you're doing to his people. You're getting there, Jason. You're starting to see the big picture. You're clearly a smart guy to see through the bullshit that's been forced on you since birth. You're clearly a brave guy to go against the Uncle Tom Machine that demonizes and destroys anybody who doesn't toe the liberal line on race in America.

But rap isn't the problem. Rap is just a symptom.

Socialism is the problem. A self-perpetuating nanny-state is the problem. The Democrats are the problem. Democrat pawns like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the problem.

How close I came...

Jack — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:39:00 GMT

The link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/?iref=hpmostpop

In an exclusive on-camera interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said giving anyone specific questions to ask is "dishonest," and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.

Holy crap, if I could have only been at Grinnell when this happened, I would probably know this chick, and could totally be part of an awesome and important national scandal in some tangential sort of way. It's a small school, so I definitely would have known her, if only by name.

I've always thought of Grinnell as an institution primarily concerned with liberal brainwashing, but it would appear that this girl's experience matches my own: it's a place when liberal brainwashing is attempted, but ends up being douchebaggery is so on display, causing you form a permanent aversion and distrust for it.

Whatever, though, she's got a hyphenated last name, she's probably just so far left that even Hillary is too conservative for her.

Kinsley strikes again...

Jack — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:29:00 GMT

The link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673265,00.html

Michael Kinsley is one of my new favorite figures in “journalism.” As his wikipedia entry informs us, he hosted Crossfire opposite Path Buchanan. This is already pretty hilarious, because many people on the left consider Pat Buchanan to be slightly more conservative and authoritarian than Hitler, so casting somebody as a balance to him would suggest that person is about as liberal as you can possibly be. And that's Michael Kinsley. But what makes it particularly hilarious is that he's given editorials in Time magazine, given Slate to direct, etc. etc. etc.

Can you imagine a major publication giving Pat Buchanan that sort of power?

No, his stuff gets printed in The American Conservative. I AM an American conservative and I've never heard of it. Oh, and Yahoo! news. So that gives you an idea of how shit works. If you're a liberal, expect to get an editorial page in Time magazine, which we're all told is a wonderful, important publication. If you're a conservative, well, go get a blog.

But enough backstory on Kinsley. Today what he's doing is working as a Democrat operative in the media. He's forming public opinion in a way he thinks is most favorable to the Democrats. Now, as Hussain points out, he's not a knee-jerk apologist, but as I point out to Hussain, that doesn't matter. He's still a Democrat. He still writes everything from the perspective of “here's one thing we're doing wrong, fellow Democrats, let's fix that and we'll take over!”

So I enjoy reading his articles, because they fit nicely into the new genre of editorials I'm following lately, which is sorta the “DNC Combat Engineering Corps” of the MSM. They head in before the battle to prepare the field for their comrades, making things as favorable and defensible as possible. They drive their bulldozers back and forth over the minds of Americans, and put some nice gun positions, tank berms, etc. etc.

They camoflauge their earth movers by pretending they're just informing and commenting on a recent trend, but what they're really doing is making sure that before anybody gets too far ahead and starts understanding new concepts on their own terms, they're instead given the correct, left leaning view of the phenomenon.

It's not suprising, in these days of bipartisan government incomepetence and contemptibility, that focus groups and polling agencies are noting a rise in the significance of libertarianism. See, libertarianism is the value system that most Americans (I've heard 60%) actually subscribe to, but they rarely get to vote for, since Republicans will mostly only pay lip service to it, and Democrats are the polar opposite of it.

But it's a popular idea with Americans, so Mr. Kinsley needs to get out there and go to work on it. As he does in all his articles, he intersperses some nicely slanted commentary to remind the readers who is really likeable, and who isn't.

“Democrats treasure civil liberties, whereas Republicans are more tolerant of government censorship to protect children from pornography, or of wiretapping to catch a criminal, or of torture in the war against terrorism.”

Democrats are unflinchingly committed to your personal freedoms, whereas Republicans aren't so much. Maybe for good reason, but probably not, right? Right.

Wrong. Democrats love to control what people say and do when it comes to their sacred cows. They work to ban “hatespeech,” and their agents and operatives ceaselessly attack those who aren't sensitive enough to gays, minorities, etc. etc. They long for the return of the “fairness doctrine,” a far more transparent and deliberate attack on free speech than anything contemplated by modern Republicans. They're happy to impose laws that control our right to keep and bear arms, they've steadily whittled it away over time. And that's the 2nd Amendment. Not the 29th. Not some diddly state law. It's the Bill of Rights.

These guys treasure my civil liberties Mike? Fuck you they do.

Why is Mike saying this? He's trying to lay the groundwork for the idea that libertarians will find a nicer home in the Democrat party than the Republican party. Libertarians typically associate with Republicans, thanks to the Republican fancy for smaller government. Mike knows this. It's the open exposed flank of the Democrats. He's building berms for his party to hide behind, when their contempt for personal freedom is exposed.

The simple answer is that “Democrats are for Big Government; Republicans are against it.” But the more “nuanced” answer is that you should vote Democrat.

“Republicans also consider themselves more concerned about the moral tone of the country, and they are more disposed toward using the government in trying to improve it.”

Hey, even Republicans admit they're more of the moral police, right? Right? Again, you're full of shit Mike. Some people think homosexuality is immoral. Some people think hating homsexuality is immoral. Then they argue. Both sides are trying to impose their own morality. It's just that Republicans tend to refer to it as “morality” and the left uses its own version of the same, something like “compassion” or “conscience” or just “the truth.”

See, I actually AM a libertarian. I lean more “Republican conservative” than some libertarians, but that's where I'm at fundamentally. And when you're a libertarian, you're not about gay people. You're about leaving people alone. So if two people want to be gay with each other, who gives a shit? And if some guy wants to yell about how awful fags are, again, who gives a shit? Libertarianism isn't about supporting freedoms that liberals like. It's about leaving people the fuck alone.

But Mike is a liberal, and the only freedoms he's even aware of are the ones he cares about.

Liberals can't see any viewpoint by their own. They think Republicans are attacking their freedoms. Last time I checked, you could still get a legal abortion in this country. Last time I checked, there's been no federal ban on gay marriage, and instead a slow march towards it. It's typical liberal perspective at work here. Liberals are never forced to hear conservative views. They're never forced to live in a conservative media bubble. They're never forced to take stock of all the issues they got their way, or imagine living for decades under policy that is not as they desire. To them, nothing short of total compliance with their desires is “fair.” The very idea that gay marriage might be banned is an assault on them, as far as they're concerned.

The Christian right has watched abortion go on legally since 1973. That's 34 years. And, in their eyes, it's millions of innocent lives lost.

The American left has watched the war in Iraq go on for four years, and they're out of their fucking minds with it.

“Many people feel that neither party offers a coherent set of principles that they can agree with. For them, the choice is whether you believe in Big Government or you don't. And if you don't, you call yourself a libertarian.”

Mike says: Hey, libertarian, I'm talking to you. I know you're frustrated with your government. I feel you. Now, read on, and see my objective examination of your options.

“And what is the opposite of libertarianism? Libertarians would say fascism. But in the American political context, it is something infinitely milder that calls itself communitarianism.”

Mike is a true battlefield engineer. He sees how the fight will evolve, he knows the weaknesses of his allies, and he's building defenses. See, the word that Mike is looking for, and pretending not to see, is “socialism.” The opposite of libertarianism in American politics is socialism. It's not “communitariansm.” It doesn't call itself that. It calls itself “progressive” or “open-minded” or some other positive term that doesn't admit that it's actually socialism, which, even with a head full of bulldozers, Americans know is a bad thing.

The word “socialism“ doesn't appear ONCE in the entire article. You'd think the political system espoused by half of our political leaders would at least get a mention, wouldn't you? Of course not. Mike knows that word is poison for his Democrats.

It's a two pronged assault. He's coming in from one side, and if the target evades that attack, he'll pin them in with the the other. "If you consider yourself a libertarian, you're a Democrat! And also, if you don't buy that, and see that Democrats are the exact opposite of you, well, that's a harmless thing called socialism! No! I mean socialtasticness! Yeah! Vote Hillary!"

“And yet Republicans have a clearer vision of what constitutes a good society and a well-run planet and are quicker to try to impose this vision on the rest of us.”

First prong. A lie, but still an effective attack, since the DNC/MSM knows nobody will ever be given a voice to challenge it.

“Very few Democrats self-identify as libertarians, but they are in fact much more likely to have a live-and-let-live attitude toward the lesbian couple next door or the Islamofascist dictator halfway around the world.”

Yeah? And how live-and-let-live do they feel about the Christian fundamentalist next door? How live-and-let-live do they feel about the guy driving the gas guzzling Hummer? How live-and-let-live do they feel about people who talk bad about gays, minorities or socialist dictators in South America? Oh, wait, I mean socialistastic...

He's hammering the point. Democrats don't want to control you, libertarian! Never mind that they want to shut down the radio stations you listen to. Never mind that they want to take your guns away. Never mind that they want near total control over every aspect of your life. They're ok with the big important freedoms like guys fucking in the ass, and the Taliban. That's right up your alley, right? Right?

No, Mike. Not at all. Good luck with those berms, buddy. You may know how to plan a battle, but with the people you've got behind you, I don't think there's anything you can do.

Shooter (6/10)

Jack — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:05:00 GMT

This is a mediocre movie with an unrealistic perception of how sharpshooting works, some good action scenes, and a very generous helping of Hollywood partisanship. The theme of a lot of my recent posts has been the total impregnation of American media with liberal messages. I literally can't watch a movie anymore without obvious, heavy handed attacks on the Bush administration. So, this is a decent action movie with strangely mumbled and inaudible diologue. I enjoyed watching it, but not a ton.

On to the ridiculous partisanship.

First off, there's this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-de-zengotita/must-see-movie-shoot_b_45406.html

“Ok, I saw this movie yesterday, on impulse, just plugging into my retrograde and boyish American male love of bang-bang action movies--and lo and behold what did I find? A really smart bit of left wing (I'm for it!) propaganda aimed at the Bush administration, the Iraq War and, especially, Dick Cheney.“

Smart? Dude? It was hamhanded and obvious, and not at all insightful. It had all the usual “they fight wars for oil, but nobody will challenge them on it“ crap that makes my skin crawl. Nobody challenges them on it? Please go kill yourself.

But anyway, the arch badguy is a Senator named Charles Meachum, and he's meant to be Dick Cheney, only much more obese, poncey and ridiculous. He's a Senator from Montana... Which borders Wyoming... And we cut to a scene of him shooting clay pigeons, and making gay eyes at a waiter tending to his opulent outdoor spread. And later we cut to a scene of Danny Glover's character joking with him, saying “So I said, nice shot Senator! In the face!'' AHAHAH! Cause Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face, remember that?

It's just laden with anti-Bush messages, to the point it starts to get a bit sad and embarassing. And I have to sit through this.

How many movies have you seen where there's a Hillary Clinton character, who is comically evil, pandering and power hungry? How many movies have you seen where there's a John Kerry character who fakes his military service and is really a coward and an idiot? None.

So, sure, you're probably saying “Hollywood is liberal, duh, tell us something we don't know.” To that I would respond that it certainly is obvious, and given how obvious it is, it's a mystery to me why we can't be equally objective about the fact that the left has near total control over all other media (not just movies) consumed by our populace, and that they use it constantly to push their message?

Ultimately this movie's argument is a paradox. It proffers up the argument that greedy men like Dick Cheney go to war for oil, and we, as a nation, are too scared to face that fact. But this is a major motion picture, a popcorn flick, and it's making the very argument it claims is off limits. If we're not allowed to to talk about how evil Republicans fight wars for oil, then how come we do it so much that it's become a mandatory inclusion in every political thriller in the past three years?

We're not allowed to talk about it? You sure? I think we're more than allowed to talk about it. I think we're required to talk about it, to the point it's become a meme in our society.

But, whatever, you fuckwits over at Huffington Post can keep telling yourself it's “subtle.” Then it'll be ok for me to shoot you in the face, because that'd just be “argumentative.”

P.S: The character played by Elias Koteas is ridiculous, and I forbid Hollywood to include this forumla in any more films. He's that bizzare, gropey, sexual badguy who always seems to get his hands on the female love interest, and start slurping words into her ear, and acting all manic and deranged when the hero is in peril. It speaks to the “subtlety” of this film that they felt the badguys weren't suitably evil when they murdered a bunch of Etheopian villagers, murdered an Etheopian Cardinal, framed an American hero, and generally acted like jerks. The need to be rapist perverts, too.

Another difference...

Jack — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 01:17:00 GMT

The link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21386016/

A few posts ago, I said this: “The only differences between Rush Limbaugh and the mainstream media, is that Rush admits he's partisan, and Rush actually has talent.”

I guess I should add another difference: Rush Limbaugh raised $2.1 million, and gave $2.1 million of his own money to a foundation that helps the families of fallen soldiers and police officers.

It's just unreal.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not some huge Limbaugh supporter, thinking he's the savior of America. All I'm saying, is that whatever he is, wherever he stands, he's giving millions of dollars of his own money to help American families.

You can accuse him of whatever you want, but at the end of the day, he gave $2.1 million dollars to deserving American families, and I'm pretty goddamn certain you didn't.

I was listening to his show today, and the father of a soldier killed in Iraq called in, near tears, and thanked Rush Limbaugh for comforting him and his family, and helping them remember the ideals their son believed in and died for.

I have a hard time being impressed with the “journalists” who pat themselves on the back for “telling the truth” about Iraq, and think themselves insightful and valuable because they figured out that war is hell, and spreading democracy is hard.

It's doubly hard when the guy I'm supposed to think is part of the problem, who I'm supposed to think is a greedy oppressor, who I'm supposed to distrust and dislike, is giving millions of his money away to support American soldiers and policemen.

A major breakthrough...

Jack — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:30:00 GMT

The link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=21062

When Al Gore had to cancel an appearance at a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer, she sent this out to her flock: “I just got a call from Vice President Al Gore. He told me that he needs to travel abroad tomorrow for an exciting and urgent mission that could result in a major breakthrough in the fight against global warming.”

As we all now know, that “major breakthrough” was winning the Nobel Peace Prize. And notice that I've chosen an article that discusses how Hollywood is also masturbating itself over this award, which is, in and of itself worth a blog post, but gets lost in the wash of sheer fucking STUPIDITY that is the American left.

But, hey, we've got a “major breakthrough” here. Al Gore won a Nobel Prize. I guess that means global warming is over! Right? I mean, Al won, he beat global warming! Right?

The fantasy world that these people inhabit is hard to fathom. Barbara Boxer honestly thinks that this award somehow matters. It's just an award, lady. It didn't save a single polar bear. Do you not understand that it's basically just you giving yourself an award? The Nobel committee are a pack of international socialists, they're exactly the same person as you, or Al. You're all just patting yourself on the back, and pretending that something is coming from it.

Let me tell you what's actually happening Barabara. You're an incompetent and a moron, and you and your colleagues in Washington are driving this country into the ground.

The other day, I watched, in total awe, as they Daily Show played clips of the Petraus Senate hearings. I watched as Joe Biden, the longest talking motherfucker in the face of this planet, told Petraus to keep his answers short, so the Senators could get their questions in. I then watched as you, Barbara, spent your entire nine minute question period jabbering, without asking a fucking question. This is the general in charge of combat operations in Iraq. Your constituents want you to hold his feet to the fire. You can't even get ONE fucking question off. Then, Chuck Hagel, a Republican, proceeds to lay into Petraus on the war.

Lady, when you're a Democrat, and you fuck up so bad the Daily Show has to call you out on it, then you're a serious fuckup.

But none of this is even the best part. See, the recent trend in Congress is to draft nonbinding resolutions. They even drafted one condemning MoveOn.org's attack ad against Petraus. And in the process of doing so, they actually argued and debating which other political attacks they should condemn at the same time. These people actually fucking debate the content of a NONBINDING RESOLUTION.

And that's still not the best part.

See, when I saw all these nonbinding resolutions, I was amazed by Congress' ability to do absolutely nothing of value. What I didn't realize was that they were getting ready to up the ante. They had a plan in the works to draft a nonbinding resolution that would not only fail to accomplish anything useful, but would in fact damage the security of the United States.

This is fucking unreal.

“Turkey, which is a key supply route to U.S. troops in Iraq, recalled its ambassador to Washington on Thursday and warned of serious repercussions if Congress labels the killing of Armenians by Turks a century ago as genocide.”

Nancy Pelosi explained the timing: “Why do it now? Because there’s never a good time and all of us in the Democratic leadership have supported” it, she said.

So, let me get this straight. There was never a good time, but the time that you eventually chose, out of the century since the event, was one of about 5 years in which we've been flying supplies through Turkey, to a warzone. A war you don't support? Is that a fucking coincidence? You're going to slap Turkey in the face, for absolutely no benefit to the United States, despite the fact that they're a major supply hub for our soldiers? Despite the fact that they're a neighbor to Iraq, and their cooperation and goodwill is critical to our success there?

And people get upset when Democrats are labelled traitors. Deliberately attacking our ability to supply our troops in the field constitutes treason, in my opinion.

And they did it with a nonbinding resolution. Amazing.

Aren't the Democrats the ones who love to lecture the Bush administration on alienating allies? Is this their model for diplomacy? Could they be any more thoroughly incompetent?

This type of shit just blows my mind. I feel like I'm living a practical joke. These people CAN'T be this stupid. They CAN'T be this incompetent.

People love to scream about what a failure Iraq is. I've got to admit, it's gone very poorly, cost us American lives, a lot of money, and a lot of national peace of mind. It's not over yet, but it certainly looks like it's going to be a failure. So, sure, Bush tried to do something big and he failed.

But what people are too stupid and brainwashed to notice, is that while Bush has shown he will try big things and fail, the Democrats have shown that they're capable of doing nothing at all and STILL FAILING.

I've never said Bush is a great President. But he's still a better leader than any one else in Washington, and I mean that entirely as an insult to every worthless one of them.

You people in Congress are all incompetents, every last one of you, and if you had an ounce of patriotism in your body, you'd shoot yourself in the fucking face, and spare us all having to tolerate you.

Tolerance...

Jack — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:52:00 GMT

The link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=20391

My last post was about what it's like to be a conservative in America today. To summarize: It's barely tolerable.

What's it like to be a wealthy liberal in America today? Look no further than Barry Manilow for an example of what that experience is like.

Barry felt that the cast of The View is a bit too right leaning for his taste, to the point he cancelled his appearance. That's right, The View. Too far right.

To be specific, Barry does't like Elisabeth Hasselbeck. “I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive.” Really, Barry? Dangerous? Is that off-the-chart-leftist speak for “very cute?” Or do you just think it's dangerous behavior to get repeatedly brownbeaten by an obsese lesbian?

No, wait, I think I can guess... “I will not be on the same stage as her. ... I cannot compromise my beliefs." She's dangerous, because she might force Barry to forget one of the pillars of American liberalism: intolerance. You might think, for all the time the left spends praising themselves for their communication skills, for their open mindedness, for their love of diversity, that they would value an opportunity to interact with people of differing views. Not Barry. Not the American left. Their political opposition exists only to be demonized and shunned.

That's tolerance on the American left today. Feign tolerance when courting the votes of your favorite protected classes, but when somebody dares lean right, they're the scum of the earth.

And that's also why American conservatives are far more tolerant people. Now, don't get me wrong, there are plenty of Republicans/conservatives who are totally ignorant and intolerant. But in general, conservatives live their lives listening to liberals prattle on about how wonderful their liberalism is, and learned to deal with it. Conservatives have to learn to bite their tongue in public, when some douchebag Kerry booster thinks their regurgitation of today's talking points are a gift to all who behold. The simple fact is that tolerance of differing viewpoints, for an American conservative, is a necessity for the preservation of sanity.