In a Desperate Move, John Kerry Chooses a Puppy
by Ann Coulter
I guess with John Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his running mate, he really does want to stand up for all Americans, from those worth only $60 million to those worth in excess of $800 million.
In one of the many stratagems Democrats have developed to avoid telling people what they believe, all Edwards wants to talk about is his cracker-barrel humble origins story. We're supposed to swoon over his "life story," as the flacks say, which apparently consists of the amazing fact that ... his father was a millworker!
That's right up there with "Clinton's stepdad was a drunk" and "Ted Kennedy's dad was a womanizing bootlegger" on my inspirational life-stories meter. In fact, I'm immediately renouncing my university degrees and going to work for the post office just to give my future children a shot at having a "life story," should they decide to run for president someday.
What is so amazing about Edwards' father being a millworker? That's at least an honorable occupation -- as opposed to being a trial lawyer. True, Edwards made more money than his father did. I assume strippers make more money than their alcoholic fathers who abandoned them did, too. This isn't a story of progress; it's a story of devolution.
Despite the overwrought claims of Edwards' dazzling legal skills, winning jury verdicts in personal injury cases has nothing to do with legal talent and everything to do with getting the right cases -- unless "talent" is taken to mean "having absolutely no shame." Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.
As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As The New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome.
In addition, the "little guys" Edwards claims to represent are having a lot more trouble finding doctors to deliver their babies these days as obstetricians leave the practice rather than pay malpractice insurance in excess of $100,000 a year.
In one of Edwards' silver-tongued arguments to the jury on behalf of a girl born with cerebral palsy, he claimed he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him:
"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'"
She's saying, "My lawyer needs a new Jaguar..."
"She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."
Well, tell her to pipe down, would you? I'm trying to hear the evidence in a malpractice lawsuit.
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde on the death of Little Nell, one must have a heart of stone to read this without laughing. What is this guy, a tent-show preacher? An off-the-strip Las Vegas lounge psychic couldn't get away with this routine.
Is Edwards able to channel any children right before an abortionist's fork is plunged into their tiny skulls? Why can't he hear those babies saying, "Let me live! Stop spraying this saline solution all over me!" Edwards must experience interference in channeling the voices of babies about to be aborted. Their liberal mothers' hands seem to muffle those voices.
And may we ask what the pre-born Jennifer Campbell thinks about war with Iraq? North Korea? Marginal tax rates? If Miss Cleo here is going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, I think the voters are entitled to know that.
While making himself fabulously rich by taking a one-third cut of his multimillion-dollar verdicts coaxed out of juries with junk science and maudlin performances, Edwards has the audacity to claim, "I was more than just their lawyer; I cared about them. Their cause was my cause."
If he cared so deeply, how about keeping just 10 percent of the multimillion-dollar jury awards, rather than a third? In fact, as long as these Democrats are so eager to raise the taxes of "the rich," how about a 90 percent tax on contingency fees?
For someone who didn't care about the money, it's interesting that Edwards avoided cases in which the baby died during delivery. Evidently, jury awards average only about $500,000 when the babies die, and there is no disabled child to parade before the jury.
Edwards was one of the leading opponents of a bill in the North Carolina Legislature that would have established a fund for all babies born with cerebral palsy. So instead of all disabled babies in North Carolina being compensated equitably, only a few will win the jury lottery -- one-third of which will go to trial lawyers like Edwards, who insists he doesn't care about the money.
Despite the now-disproved junk science theory about C-sections preventing cerebral palsy that Edwards peddled in the channeling case, the jury awarded Edwards' client a record-breaking $6.5 million. This is the essence of the modern Democratic Party, polished to perfection by Bill Clinton: They are willing to insult the intelligence of 49 percent of the people if they think they can fool 51 percent of the people.
So while Michael Moore, Al Franken, George Soros, Crazy Al Gore and the rest of the characters from the climactic devil-worshipping scene in "Rosemary's Baby" provide the muscle for the Kerry campaign, Kerry picks a pretty-boy milquetoast as his running mate, narrowly edging out a puppy for the spot. Just don't ask the Democrats what they believe. Edwards' father was a millworker, and that's all you need to know.
******************************************
Whether you agree or disagree with her politics, you have to admit that is a fine bit of flaming.
Totem
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A funny political commentary by AC
A funny political commentary by ACFollow
Lol, sorry, but she has a whole bunch of terrific one-liners in her articles. This one is called...
Moby's D1ck
According to the front page of The New York Times -- so it must be true! -- the release of Bill Clinton's latest round of lies, "My Life," has "many of his old antagonists ... gearing up again." Among many others, MSNBC's Bill Press said the book was "bringing all the Clinton haters out from under their rocks. I mean, they're salivating because they get another chance to get into all of these issues."
We're not salivating with anticipation -- that's drool as we fall into a coma.
Since Clinton was impeached, liberals have been trapped in a time warp. They just can't seem to "move on." Books retelling Clinton's side of impeachment -- only since the decadent buffoon left office -- include: Joe Conason's and Gene Lyons' "The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton" (endorsed by America's most famous liar!), David Brock's "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative," Sidney Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars," Joe Eszterhas' "American Rhapsody," Joe Klein's "The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton," Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Living History," and now, the master himself weighs in with "My Life."
As far as I know, conservatives have produced one book touching on Bill Clinton's impeachment in this time: In 2003, National Review's Rich Lowry decided it was finally safe to attack Clinton and thereupon produced the only Regnery book with Bill Clinton's mug on the cover that did not make The New York Times' best-sellers list. That's how obsessed the Clinton-haters are.
Now there's even a documentary version of liberals' Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy fantasy, "The Hunting of the President." If we're so obsessed with it, why do they keep bringing it up? O.J. had more dignity.
OK, uncle. You win, Mr. President. If I buy a copy of your book, will you just shut up once and for all, go away, and never come back? It will cost me $35, but, judging strictly by weight, that isn't a bad price for so much cow manure. At 957 pages, this is the first book ever published that contains a 20-minute intermission. Readers are advised to put it down and read a passage from Clinton's 1988 D.N.C. speech nominating Dukakis just to stay awake. This thing is so long, he almost called it "War and Peace." Or, I suppose, more properly, "War and a Piece."
Considering how obsessed liberals are with turning their version of Clinton's impeachment into the historical record, it's interesting how these books spend very little time talking about Clinton's impeachment. In lieu of discussing the facts of his impeachment, Clinton simply makes analogies to grand historical events -- events notable for bearing not the remotest relationship to his own sordid story.
Clinton claims, for example, that conservatives decided to target him in lieu of the Soviet Union after the Cold War ended and conservatives needed a new villain. In other words, Clinton is equating himself, in scale and importance, to the Soviet Union, the global communist conspiracy and the Marxist-Leninist Revolution. Nope, no ego problem there. ("My Life" was Clinton's second choice title, after the publisher balked at naming the book "I Am God, and You Are All My Subjects.")
Alternatively, Clinton claims conservatives hated him because he represented "the '60s." As is now well-known, four lawyers, toiling away after hours and on weekends, worked quietly behind the scenes to propel the Paula Jones case to the Supreme Court and bring Monica Lewinsky to the attention of the independent counsel. All four of us were 5 to 8 years old when Bill Clinton graduated from Georgetown in 1968. (Actually, it was the '70s that I really hated, but that's another column for another day.)
So I'm pretty sure it wasn't our anger about "the '60s" that inspired feelings of contempt for Bill Clinton. It must have been something else - some ineffable quality. Let's see, what was it again? Ah yes! I remember now! It was that Clinton is a pathological liar and sociopath.
If Clinton wasn't the Soviet Empire or "the '60s," then he was Rosa Parks! Clinton actually compares his battle against impeachment to civil rights struggles in the South. Haven't blacks been insulted enough by the constant comparison between gay marriage and black civil rights without this horny hick comparing his impeachment to Selma?
And that's when Clinton is even talking about his presidency. From what I've heard, roughly half of Clinton's memoir -- hundreds and hundreds of pages -- is about every picayune detail of his life before becoming president. Through sheer force of will I shall resist the urge to refer to this book as a "blow by blow" account of Clinton's entire miserable existence.
Most presidential memoirs get right to the president part, on the assumption that people would not be interested in, for example, Harry Truman's deal-making as Jackson County executive or Jimmy Carter's initiatives as a state senator in Georgia -- let alone who they took to their junior high school proms. When Ulysses S. Grant wrote his memoirs, he skipped his presidency altogether and just wrote about what would be most interesting to people -- his service as a Civil War commander.
But Clinton thinks people are dying to read 900 pages about his very ordinary life. He views being president as just one more episode in a life that is fascinating in all its stages because he is just so fascinating as a person -- at least to himself. In a perverse way, it's utterly appropriate. What actually happened during the Clinton presidency? No one can remember anything about it except the bimbos, the lies and the felonies. Fittingly, in the final analysis, Clinton will not be remembered for what he did as president, but for who he did.
Totem
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:06:21 2004 by Totem
Moby's D1ck
According to the front page of The New York Times -- so it must be true! -- the release of Bill Clinton's latest round of lies, "My Life," has "many of his old antagonists ... gearing up again." Among many others, MSNBC's Bill Press said the book was "bringing all the Clinton haters out from under their rocks. I mean, they're salivating because they get another chance to get into all of these issues."
We're not salivating with anticipation -- that's drool as we fall into a coma.
Since Clinton was impeached, liberals have been trapped in a time warp. They just can't seem to "move on." Books retelling Clinton's side of impeachment -- only since the decadent buffoon left office -- include: Joe Conason's and Gene Lyons' "The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton" (endorsed by America's most famous liar!), David Brock's "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative," Sidney Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars," Joe Eszterhas' "American Rhapsody," Joe Klein's "The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton," Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Living History," and now, the master himself weighs in with "My Life."
As far as I know, conservatives have produced one book touching on Bill Clinton's impeachment in this time: In 2003, National Review's Rich Lowry decided it was finally safe to attack Clinton and thereupon produced the only Regnery book with Bill Clinton's mug on the cover that did not make The New York Times' best-sellers list. That's how obsessed the Clinton-haters are.
Now there's even a documentary version of liberals' Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy fantasy, "The Hunting of the President." If we're so obsessed with it, why do they keep bringing it up? O.J. had more dignity.
OK, uncle. You win, Mr. President. If I buy a copy of your book, will you just shut up once and for all, go away, and never come back? It will cost me $35, but, judging strictly by weight, that isn't a bad price for so much cow manure. At 957 pages, this is the first book ever published that contains a 20-minute intermission. Readers are advised to put it down and read a passage from Clinton's 1988 D.N.C. speech nominating Dukakis just to stay awake. This thing is so long, he almost called it "War and Peace." Or, I suppose, more properly, "War and a Piece."
Considering how obsessed liberals are with turning their version of Clinton's impeachment into the historical record, it's interesting how these books spend very little time talking about Clinton's impeachment. In lieu of discussing the facts of his impeachment, Clinton simply makes analogies to grand historical events -- events notable for bearing not the remotest relationship to his own sordid story.
Clinton claims, for example, that conservatives decided to target him in lieu of the Soviet Union after the Cold War ended and conservatives needed a new villain. In other words, Clinton is equating himself, in scale and importance, to the Soviet Union, the global communist conspiracy and the Marxist-Leninist Revolution. Nope, no ego problem there. ("My Life" was Clinton's second choice title, after the publisher balked at naming the book "I Am God, and You Are All My Subjects.")
Alternatively, Clinton claims conservatives hated him because he represented "the '60s." As is now well-known, four lawyers, toiling away after hours and on weekends, worked quietly behind the scenes to propel the Paula Jones case to the Supreme Court and bring Monica Lewinsky to the attention of the independent counsel. All four of us were 5 to 8 years old when Bill Clinton graduated from Georgetown in 1968. (Actually, it was the '70s that I really hated, but that's another column for another day.)
So I'm pretty sure it wasn't our anger about "the '60s" that inspired feelings of contempt for Bill Clinton. It must have been something else - some ineffable quality. Let's see, what was it again? Ah yes! I remember now! It was that Clinton is a pathological liar and sociopath.
If Clinton wasn't the Soviet Empire or "the '60s," then he was Rosa Parks! Clinton actually compares his battle against impeachment to civil rights struggles in the South. Haven't blacks been insulted enough by the constant comparison between gay marriage and black civil rights without this horny hick comparing his impeachment to Selma?
And that's when Clinton is even talking about his presidency. From what I've heard, roughly half of Clinton's memoir -- hundreds and hundreds of pages -- is about every picayune detail of his life before becoming president. Through sheer force of will I shall resist the urge to refer to this book as a "blow by blow" account of Clinton's entire miserable existence.
Most presidential memoirs get right to the president part, on the assumption that people would not be interested in, for example, Harry Truman's deal-making as Jackson County executive or Jimmy Carter's initiatives as a state senator in Georgia -- let alone who they took to their junior high school proms. When Ulysses S. Grant wrote his memoirs, he skipped his presidency altogether and just wrote about what would be most interesting to people -- his service as a Civil War commander.
But Clinton thinks people are dying to read 900 pages about his very ordinary life. He views being president as just one more episode in a life that is fascinating in all its stages because he is just so fascinating as a person -- at least to himself. In a perverse way, it's utterly appropriate. What actually happened during the Clinton presidency? No one can remember anything about it except the bimbos, the lies and the felonies. Fittingly, in the final analysis, Clinton will not be remembered for what he did as president, but for who he did.
Totem
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:06:21 2004 by Totem
And again...
Saddam In Custody -- Moore, Soros, Dean Still At Large
The Americanization of Iraq proceeds at an astonishing pace, the Iraqis are taking to freedom like fish to water, and the possibilities for this nation are endless. It's hard to say who's more upset about these developments: the last vestiges of pro-Hussein Baathist resistance in Iraq or John Kerry's campaign manager.
The New York Times ran a front-page news story on Sunday about how life was better for Iraqi girls under Saddam Hussein -- living under Saddam, that is, not the girls who were literally under Saddam, Odai and Qusai while they were being raped. The article was titled "For Iraqi Girls, Changing Land Narrows Lives." True, they don't have to run from Odai's rape rooms anymore. But apparently not a single Iraqi female has been admitted to Augusta National Golf Club since the liberation!
The Democrats want Saddam back.
Of course we can't be sure if their presidential candidate wants Saddam back, inasmuch as John Kerry will be in an undisclosed location until Election Day. As Mickey Kaus has pointed out, every time Kerry starts campaigning, his poll numbers plummet. According to a recent New York Times poll, after $60 million in warm and fuzzy TV ads about Kerry, 40 percent of Americans have no opinion of him. In other words, the ads are working! So Kerry will be sitting out the actual campaign this year.
But he's got a lot of surrogates campaigning for him. There's Michael Moore, who has said he hopes more Americans will die in Iraq. His movie, "Fahrenheit 7/11" as we call it, apparently supports the Times' view that life in Iraq was better, sunnier, happier under Saddam Hussein. Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!
Moore keeps whining about all the right-wing hit groups out to get him. Granted he's a large target (or what's known in baseball as a "fat pitch"). But conservatives are frankly relieved we finally have a liberal who tells the truth about what he thinks of America.
Then there's George Soros, who compared Israel to **** Germany and President George Bush to the *****. Soros later denied comparing Bush to the *****, saying he had merely said Bush reminded him of "the Germans." Hmmm, which Germans was Soros referring to -- the Von Trapp Family? Katarina Witt and Steffi Graf? Eric Braeden from "The Young and the Restless"? Wouldn't Soros like Bush if he were similar to the new pacifist, America-hating Germans? If not, why did liberals keep pestering us to get Germany's approval before we invaded Iraq?
Soros blames President Bush for anti-Semitism, and then proceeds directly to the usual liberal talking points attacking Israel. He says Israeli policies are to blame for anti-Semitism -- coming in a close second after the Von Trapp-like Bush -- and Israel was a large part of the reason the United States went to war with Iraq. Also oil, which would certainly explain why gas is so cheap now.
Apparently, given a choice between: (a) lifting the sanctions against Iraq so oil sales could resume, for the cost of a single phone call, and (b) a war costing $120 billion and nearly 900 U.S. lives so far, Bush chose (b). Seriously, there are still adults in the English-speaking world with opposable thumbs who believe this theory?
And then there's Howard Dean, who thinks Bush was in cahoots with the Saudis -- and he's the centrist of the bunch. I'm looking forward to Dean's address at the Democratic Convention this summer. Rumor has it he'll end with a squeal so high-pitched only dogs will be able to hear it.
I admire their savage energy, but these people want to run the country. Even with all their money and power, I don't think they could get the Haitians to let them govern. But Soros and company think they should be running the United States of America.
Apart from the fact that Kerry won't come out of hiding while allowing the nuts to attack Bush for him, these aren't random nobodies popping up to endorse Kerry. Howard Dean was considerably more likely to be the Democratic nominee for president than Joe Lieberman ever was.
Soros has vowed to spend $15 million to defeat George Bush this year -- buying himself more influence than the entire populations of several states.
Michael Moore's endorsement was proudly accepted by erstwhile Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark, who -- just to counterbalance his own remarks defending infanticide as "a private matter between a woman and her doctor" -- explicitly defended some of Moore's loopier remarks, which is saying something.
Come to think of it, it's no surprise they want Saddam Hussein back. He made the Democrats seem moderate by comparison.
Totem
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:06:46 2004 by Totem
Saddam In Custody -- Moore, Soros, Dean Still At Large
The Americanization of Iraq proceeds at an astonishing pace, the Iraqis are taking to freedom like fish to water, and the possibilities for this nation are endless. It's hard to say who's more upset about these developments: the last vestiges of pro-Hussein Baathist resistance in Iraq or John Kerry's campaign manager.
The New York Times ran a front-page news story on Sunday about how life was better for Iraqi girls under Saddam Hussein -- living under Saddam, that is, not the girls who were literally under Saddam, Odai and Qusai while they were being raped. The article was titled "For Iraqi Girls, Changing Land Narrows Lives." True, they don't have to run from Odai's rape rooms anymore. But apparently not a single Iraqi female has been admitted to Augusta National Golf Club since the liberation!
The Democrats want Saddam back.
Of course we can't be sure if their presidential candidate wants Saddam back, inasmuch as John Kerry will be in an undisclosed location until Election Day. As Mickey Kaus has pointed out, every time Kerry starts campaigning, his poll numbers plummet. According to a recent New York Times poll, after $60 million in warm and fuzzy TV ads about Kerry, 40 percent of Americans have no opinion of him. In other words, the ads are working! So Kerry will be sitting out the actual campaign this year.
But he's got a lot of surrogates campaigning for him. There's Michael Moore, who has said he hopes more Americans will die in Iraq. His movie, "Fahrenheit 7/11" as we call it, apparently supports the Times' view that life in Iraq was better, sunnier, happier under Saddam Hussein. Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!
Moore keeps whining about all the right-wing hit groups out to get him. Granted he's a large target (or what's known in baseball as a "fat pitch"). But conservatives are frankly relieved we finally have a liberal who tells the truth about what he thinks of America.
Then there's George Soros, who compared Israel to **** Germany and President George Bush to the *****. Soros later denied comparing Bush to the *****, saying he had merely said Bush reminded him of "the Germans." Hmmm, which Germans was Soros referring to -- the Von Trapp Family? Katarina Witt and Steffi Graf? Eric Braeden from "The Young and the Restless"? Wouldn't Soros like Bush if he were similar to the new pacifist, America-hating Germans? If not, why did liberals keep pestering us to get Germany's approval before we invaded Iraq?
Soros blames President Bush for anti-Semitism, and then proceeds directly to the usual liberal talking points attacking Israel. He says Israeli policies are to blame for anti-Semitism -- coming in a close second after the Von Trapp-like Bush -- and Israel was a large part of the reason the United States went to war with Iraq. Also oil, which would certainly explain why gas is so cheap now.
Apparently, given a choice between: (a) lifting the sanctions against Iraq so oil sales could resume, for the cost of a single phone call, and (b) a war costing $120 billion and nearly 900 U.S. lives so far, Bush chose (b). Seriously, there are still adults in the English-speaking world with opposable thumbs who believe this theory?
And then there's Howard Dean, who thinks Bush was in cahoots with the Saudis -- and he's the centrist of the bunch. I'm looking forward to Dean's address at the Democratic Convention this summer. Rumor has it he'll end with a squeal so high-pitched only dogs will be able to hear it.
I admire their savage energy, but these people want to run the country. Even with all their money and power, I don't think they could get the Haitians to let them govern. But Soros and company think they should be running the United States of America.
Apart from the fact that Kerry won't come out of hiding while allowing the nuts to attack Bush for him, these aren't random nobodies popping up to endorse Kerry. Howard Dean was considerably more likely to be the Democratic nominee for president than Joe Lieberman ever was.
Soros has vowed to spend $15 million to defeat George Bush this year -- buying himself more influence than the entire populations of several states.
Michael Moore's endorsement was proudly accepted by erstwhile Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark, who -- just to counterbalance his own remarks defending infanticide as "a private matter between a woman and her doctor" -- explicitly defended some of Moore's loopier remarks, which is saying something.
Come to think of it, it's no surprise they want Saddam Hussein back. He made the Democrats seem moderate by comparison.
Totem
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:06:46 2004 by Totem
Quote:
Whether you agree or disagree with her politics, you have to admit that is a fine bit of flaming.
Aye, that it was, albeit, with a conserative rod up her ***.I wasn't too keen on the first few paragraphs...I happen to think a trial lawyer IS an honorable occupation.
But yeah, the rest of it rips him a new one.
Let's Rewrite One for the Gipper
I read The New York Times last week and apparently a fellow named "Iran-Contra" died recently. But that's all I'll say about the people who have consistently been on the wrong side of history and whose publisher is a little weenie who can't read because he has "dyslexia." The three key ingredients to Ronald Reagan's sunny personality were: (1) his unalterable faith in God; (2) for nearly 30 years, he didn't fly; and (3) he read Human Events religiously but never read The New York Times.
Even in his death liberals are still trying to turn our champion into a moderate Republican -- unlike the religious-right nut currently occupying the White House! The world's living testament to the limits of genetics, Ron Jr., put it this way at Reagan's funeral: "Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians of wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage."
Wow. He's probably up in heaven -- something Ron Jr. doesn't believe in -- having a chuckle about that right now. To hear liberals tell it, you'd think Reagan talked about God the way Democrats do, in the stilted, uncomfortable manner of people pretending to believe something they manifestly do not. (In a recent Time magazine poll, only 7 percent of respondents say they believe Kerry is a man of "strong" religious faith, compared to 46 percent who believe Bush is.) Or, for that matter, the way Democrats talk about free-market capitalism.
The chattering classes weren't so copacetic about Reagan's religious beliefs when he was in office. In 1984, Newsweek breathlessly reported that "Reagan is known to have read and discussed with fundamentalist friends like (Jerry) Falwell and singer Pat Boone such pulp versions of biblical prophecies as Hal Lindsey's best-selling 'The Late Great Planet Earth,' which strongly hints of a nuclear Armageddon." One hundred Christian and Jewish "leaders" signed a letter warning that Reagan's nuclear policy had been unduly influenced by a "theology of nuclear Armageddon." In the second presidential debate that year, President Reagan was actually asked to clarify his position on "nuclear Armageddon."
Most confusing to Democrats, at the time Reagan was doing all of this Bible-reading and consorting with preachers, he hadn't even been accused of cheating on his wife. What kind of angle was he playing? liberals asked themselves.
Meanwhile, President Bush says he appeals to "a higher father" and liberals act like they've never heard such crazy talk from a president.
Newsweek's Eleanor Clift says Bush is unlike Reagan because Reagan "reached out, and he was always seeking converts." That's true, actually. I think Reagan would have favored converting Third World people to Christianity. (Now why does that idea ring a bell?) Clift continued: "That is the big difference between Ronald Reagan and the president we have today. The president today would like to consign his political opponents to oblivion."
Here is how Reagan "reached out" to Democrats:
Reagan on abortion: "We cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide."
Reagan on gay rights: "Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality."
Reagan on government programs to feed the "hungry": "We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet."
Would that more Republicans would "reach out" to Democrats the way Reagan did!
Most peculiar, the passing of America's most pro-life president is supposed to be a clarion call for conservatives to support the disemboweling of human embryos -- in contrast to that heartless brute President Bush always prattling on about the value of human life. Someone persuaded poor, dear Nancy Reagan that research on human embryos might have saved her Ronnie from Alzheimer's. Now the rest of us are supposed to shut up because the wife of America's greatest president (oh, save your breath, girls!) supports stem-cell research.
Ironically, the always market-oriented Ronald Reagan would probably have asked his wife, "Honey, if embryonic stem cell therapy is such a treasure trove of medical advances, why isn't private research and development funding flocking to it?"
President Bush has never said that fetal stem cells cannot be used for research. He said "federal money" cannot be used to fund such research. If leading scientists believed fetal stem-cell research would prove to be so fruitful in curing Alzheimer's, why is the private money not pouring in hand over fist? Do you realize how many billions a cure for Alzheimer's would be worth, let alone all the other cures some are claiming fetal stem-cell research would lead to? Forget Alzheimer's -- do you know how much middle-aged men would pay for a GENUINE baldness cure? Then again, Porsche sales would probably fall off quite a bit if we ever cured baldness.
But you can't blame Nancy. As everyone saw once again last week, she's still madly in love with the guy. She'd probably support harvesting full-grown, living humans if it would bring back Ronnie. Of course, I thought it was cute and not creepy that she consulted an astrologer about Reagan's schedule after he was shot. That didn't make astrology a hard science. But liberals who once lambasted Nancy for having too much influence on Reagan's schedule now want to anoint her Seer of Technology.
The lesson to draw from what liberals said about Reagan then and what they are forced to say about him now is that the electable Republican is always the one liberals are calling an extremist, Armageddon-believing religious zealot. That certainly bodes well for President George W. Bush this November, thank -- you should pardon the expression -- God
Totem
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:07:41 2004 by Totem
I read The New York Times last week and apparently a fellow named "Iran-Contra" died recently. But that's all I'll say about the people who have consistently been on the wrong side of history and whose publisher is a little weenie who can't read because he has "dyslexia." The three key ingredients to Ronald Reagan's sunny personality were: (1) his unalterable faith in God; (2) for nearly 30 years, he didn't fly; and (3) he read Human Events religiously but never read The New York Times.
Even in his death liberals are still trying to turn our champion into a moderate Republican -- unlike the religious-right nut currently occupying the White House! The world's living testament to the limits of genetics, Ron Jr., put it this way at Reagan's funeral: "Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians of wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage."
Wow. He's probably up in heaven -- something Ron Jr. doesn't believe in -- having a chuckle about that right now. To hear liberals tell it, you'd think Reagan talked about God the way Democrats do, in the stilted, uncomfortable manner of people pretending to believe something they manifestly do not. (In a recent Time magazine poll, only 7 percent of respondents say they believe Kerry is a man of "strong" religious faith, compared to 46 percent who believe Bush is.) Or, for that matter, the way Democrats talk about free-market capitalism.
The chattering classes weren't so copacetic about Reagan's religious beliefs when he was in office. In 1984, Newsweek breathlessly reported that "Reagan is known to have read and discussed with fundamentalist friends like (Jerry) Falwell and singer Pat Boone such pulp versions of biblical prophecies as Hal Lindsey's best-selling 'The Late Great Planet Earth,' which strongly hints of a nuclear Armageddon." One hundred Christian and Jewish "leaders" signed a letter warning that Reagan's nuclear policy had been unduly influenced by a "theology of nuclear Armageddon." In the second presidential debate that year, President Reagan was actually asked to clarify his position on "nuclear Armageddon."
Most confusing to Democrats, at the time Reagan was doing all of this Bible-reading and consorting with preachers, he hadn't even been accused of cheating on his wife. What kind of angle was he playing? liberals asked themselves.
Meanwhile, President Bush says he appeals to "a higher father" and liberals act like they've never heard such crazy talk from a president.
Newsweek's Eleanor Clift says Bush is unlike Reagan because Reagan "reached out, and he was always seeking converts." That's true, actually. I think Reagan would have favored converting Third World people to Christianity. (Now why does that idea ring a bell?) Clift continued: "That is the big difference between Ronald Reagan and the president we have today. The president today would like to consign his political opponents to oblivion."
Here is how Reagan "reached out" to Democrats:
Reagan on abortion: "We cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide."
Reagan on gay rights: "Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality."
Reagan on government programs to feed the "hungry": "We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet."
Would that more Republicans would "reach out" to Democrats the way Reagan did!
Most peculiar, the passing of America's most pro-life president is supposed to be a clarion call for conservatives to support the disemboweling of human embryos -- in contrast to that heartless brute President Bush always prattling on about the value of human life. Someone persuaded poor, dear Nancy Reagan that research on human embryos might have saved her Ronnie from Alzheimer's. Now the rest of us are supposed to shut up because the wife of America's greatest president (oh, save your breath, girls!) supports stem-cell research.
Ironically, the always market-oriented Ronald Reagan would probably have asked his wife, "Honey, if embryonic stem cell therapy is such a treasure trove of medical advances, why isn't private research and development funding flocking to it?"
President Bush has never said that fetal stem cells cannot be used for research. He said "federal money" cannot be used to fund such research. If leading scientists believed fetal stem-cell research would prove to be so fruitful in curing Alzheimer's, why is the private money not pouring in hand over fist? Do you realize how many billions a cure for Alzheimer's would be worth, let alone all the other cures some are claiming fetal stem-cell research would lead to? Forget Alzheimer's -- do you know how much middle-aged men would pay for a GENUINE baldness cure? Then again, Porsche sales would probably fall off quite a bit if we ever cured baldness.
But you can't blame Nancy. As everyone saw once again last week, she's still madly in love with the guy. She'd probably support harvesting full-grown, living humans if it would bring back Ronnie. Of course, I thought it was cute and not creepy that she consulted an astrologer about Reagan's schedule after he was shot. That didn't make astrology a hard science. But liberals who once lambasted Nancy for having too much influence on Reagan's schedule now want to anoint her Seer of Technology.
The lesson to draw from what liberals said about Reagan then and what they are forced to say about him now is that the electable Republican is always the one liberals are calling an extremist, Armageddon-believing religious zealot. That certainly bodes well for President George W. Bush this November, thank -- you should pardon the expression -- God
Totem
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:07:41 2004 by Totem
This Is History Calling - Quick, Get Me a Rewrite!
The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations – certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals. The Bush-haters' pre-war predictions – hundreds of thousands dead, chemical attacks on our troops, retaliatory terrorist attacks in the United States, an invasion by Turkey, oil facilities in flames and apocalyptic environmental consequences – have proven to be about as accurate as Bill Clinton's "legally accurate" statements about Monica Lewinsky.
Inasmuch as they can't cite any actual failures in Iraq, liberals busy themselves by claiming the administration somehow "misled" them about the war.
As I understand it, there would be no lunatics shouting "Bush lied, kids died!" if Paul Wolfowitz had admitted before the war that Saddam "probably hadn't rebuilt his nuclear program" – the one that was unilaterally blown up by the Israelis in 1981, thank God. What Wolfowitz should have said is that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the way you think about law enforcement, and I think we're much closer to being in a state of war than being in a judicial proceeding."
Liberals would be all sugar and sweetness if only – instead of blathering about nukes, nukes, nukes – Wolfowitz had forthrightly conceded back in 2002 that "there's an awful lot we don't know, an awful lot that we may never know, and we've got to think differently about standards of proof here."
Also, I assume we wouldn't be hearing that the administration is frustrated by its failure to instantly create a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq if Wolfowitz had said something like, "[W]ell, Japan isn't Jeffersonian democracy, either." If only Wolfowitz had lowered expectations by saying that "even if [Iraq] makes it only Romanian style, that's still such an advance over anywhere else in the Arab world."
Also, the media would have no grounds for complaint if Wolfowitz had said Iraqi democracy "is not the president's declared purpose of 'regime change' in Iraq, which is to get rid of a very bad man." If only he had mentioned that Saddam Hussein "has been known to have children tortured in front of their parents."
But guess what? That is exactly what Wolfowitz did say! All these quotes are from a Sept. 22, 2002, article in the New York Times magazine written by Bill Keller, now editor-in-chief at the seditious rag. The last paragraph about Saddam's torture of children are Keller's paraphrases of Wolfowitz; the rest are direct quotes from the wily neoconservative himself.
But you'd have to put liberals in Abu Ghraib to get them to tell the truth about what people were saying before the war – and then the problem would be that most liberals would enjoy those activities. (No torture has yet been devised that could get a liberal to mention the poor, beleaguered Kurds dancing in the streets because Saddam is gone.)
To refresh everyone's recollection, before the war began, the Democrats' argument was that Iraq was not an "imminent" threat to the United States. The Republicans' argument was: By the time the threat is imminent, Chicago will be gone. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address specifically responded to the Democrats' demand that we wait for nuclear and biological threats to be "imminent" before we act. But now, liberals want to have their Nigerian yellow cake and eat it, too.
In January 2003 – or three months after Sen. Tom Daschle voted for the Iraq war resolution hoping to fool the voters of South Dakota this November – he was horrified that Bush seemed to be actually contemplating war with Iraq! According to Daschle, Bush should have waited for Iraq to grow into a problem of crisis proportions before deciding to do anything – citing the Cuban missile crisis as a model to be emulated. "If we have proof of nuclear and biological weapons," Daschle asked, "why doesn't [Bush] show that proof to the world as President Kennedy did 40 years ago when he sent Adlai Stevenson to show the world U.S. photographs of offensive missiles in Cuba?"
The answer is and was: Because by the time Saddam had nuclear weapons, we wouldn't be able to do anything. That's why it's known as the "Cuban missile crisis," not the "Cuban missile triumph."
Before the war, Democrats were carping about the Bush administration's inability to predict the future and tell us everything that would happen in Iraq after the war. On MSNBC in September 2002, for example, Robert Menendez, D-N.J., was complaining that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "didn't have an answer for what happens in a post-Saddam Iraq." But now liberals are acting as if the Bush administration said they knew exactly what would happen after liberating a country from a 30-year barbaric dictatorship – and got it wrong.
The good news is: Liberals' anti-war hysteria seems to have run its course. I base this conclusion on Al Gore's lunatic anti-war speech last week. Gore always comes out swinging just as an issue is about to go south. He's the stereotypical white guy always clapping on the wrong beat. Gore switched from being a pro-defense Democrat to a lefty peacenik – just before the 9-11 attack. He grew a beard – just in time for an attack on the nation by fundamentalist Muslims. He endorsed Howard Dean – just as the orange-capped Deaniacs were punching themselves out. Gore even went out and got really fat – just before America officially gave up carbs. This guy is always leaping into the mosh pit at the precise moment the crowd parts. Mark my words: Now that good old Al has come lunging in, the anti-war movement is dead.
Totem
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:08:31 2004 by Totem
The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations – certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals. The Bush-haters' pre-war predictions – hundreds of thousands dead, chemical attacks on our troops, retaliatory terrorist attacks in the United States, an invasion by Turkey, oil facilities in flames and apocalyptic environmental consequences – have proven to be about as accurate as Bill Clinton's "legally accurate" statements about Monica Lewinsky.
Inasmuch as they can't cite any actual failures in Iraq, liberals busy themselves by claiming the administration somehow "misled" them about the war.
As I understand it, there would be no lunatics shouting "Bush lied, kids died!" if Paul Wolfowitz had admitted before the war that Saddam "probably hadn't rebuilt his nuclear program" – the one that was unilaterally blown up by the Israelis in 1981, thank God. What Wolfowitz should have said is that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the way you think about law enforcement, and I think we're much closer to being in a state of war than being in a judicial proceeding."
Liberals would be all sugar and sweetness if only – instead of blathering about nukes, nukes, nukes – Wolfowitz had forthrightly conceded back in 2002 that "there's an awful lot we don't know, an awful lot that we may never know, and we've got to think differently about standards of proof here."
Also, I assume we wouldn't be hearing that the administration is frustrated by its failure to instantly create a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq if Wolfowitz had said something like, "[W]ell, Japan isn't Jeffersonian democracy, either." If only Wolfowitz had lowered expectations by saying that "even if [Iraq] makes it only Romanian style, that's still such an advance over anywhere else in the Arab world."
Also, the media would have no grounds for complaint if Wolfowitz had said Iraqi democracy "is not the president's declared purpose of 'regime change' in Iraq, which is to get rid of a very bad man." If only he had mentioned that Saddam Hussein "has been known to have children tortured in front of their parents."
But guess what? That is exactly what Wolfowitz did say! All these quotes are from a Sept. 22, 2002, article in the New York Times magazine written by Bill Keller, now editor-in-chief at the seditious rag. The last paragraph about Saddam's torture of children are Keller's paraphrases of Wolfowitz; the rest are direct quotes from the wily neoconservative himself.
But you'd have to put liberals in Abu Ghraib to get them to tell the truth about what people were saying before the war – and then the problem would be that most liberals would enjoy those activities. (No torture has yet been devised that could get a liberal to mention the poor, beleaguered Kurds dancing in the streets because Saddam is gone.)
To refresh everyone's recollection, before the war began, the Democrats' argument was that Iraq was not an "imminent" threat to the United States. The Republicans' argument was: By the time the threat is imminent, Chicago will be gone. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address specifically responded to the Democrats' demand that we wait for nuclear and biological threats to be "imminent" before we act. But now, liberals want to have their Nigerian yellow cake and eat it, too.
In January 2003 – or three months after Sen. Tom Daschle voted for the Iraq war resolution hoping to fool the voters of South Dakota this November – he was horrified that Bush seemed to be actually contemplating war with Iraq! According to Daschle, Bush should have waited for Iraq to grow into a problem of crisis proportions before deciding to do anything – citing the Cuban missile crisis as a model to be emulated. "If we have proof of nuclear and biological weapons," Daschle asked, "why doesn't [Bush] show that proof to the world as President Kennedy did 40 years ago when he sent Adlai Stevenson to show the world U.S. photographs of offensive missiles in Cuba?"
The answer is and was: Because by the time Saddam had nuclear weapons, we wouldn't be able to do anything. That's why it's known as the "Cuban missile crisis," not the "Cuban missile triumph."
Before the war, Democrats were carping about the Bush administration's inability to predict the future and tell us everything that would happen in Iraq after the war. On MSNBC in September 2002, for example, Robert Menendez, D-N.J., was complaining that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "didn't have an answer for what happens in a post-Saddam Iraq." But now liberals are acting as if the Bush administration said they knew exactly what would happen after liberating a country from a 30-year barbaric dictatorship – and got it wrong.
The good news is: Liberals' anti-war hysteria seems to have run its course. I base this conclusion on Al Gore's lunatic anti-war speech last week. Gore always comes out swinging just as an issue is about to go south. He's the stereotypical white guy always clapping on the wrong beat. Gore switched from being a pro-defense Democrat to a lefty peacenik – just before the 9-11 attack. He grew a beard – just in time for an attack on the nation by fundamentalist Muslims. He endorsed Howard Dean – just as the orange-capped Deaniacs were punching themselves out. Gore even went out and got really fat – just before America officially gave up carbs. This guy is always leaping into the mosh pit at the precise moment the crowd parts. Mark my words: Now that good old Al has come lunging in, the anti-war movement is dead.
Totem
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:08:31 2004 by Totem
Where did you grab these from Totem?
Holy spam, Batman!
You could have just posted one article, then linked to her homepage, or wherever these are coming from.
Quote:
then linked to her homepage, or wherever these are coming from.
Exactly why I asked where he got them. ^^
All of her stuff has some good material in it. If she were to make an appearance on this board --and if ol' liberal lefty Alla didn't outright ban her-- I dare say she'd hand anyone of us our a$$.
Like I say, agree or disagree, she'd make a mean opponent in a flame war.
Totem
Like I say, agree or disagree, she'd make a mean opponent in a flame war.
Totem
Bah, if I just told you guys where I find all this stuff I wouldn't get to up my post count, now, would I?
Totem
Totem
Tit For Tet
Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.
The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12 years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.
Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq. Communist dictators may have been ruthless murderers bent on world domination, but they displayed a certain degree of rationality. America may not be able to wait out 12 years of Democrat pusillanimity now that we're dealing with Islamic lunatics who slaughter civilians in suicide missions while chanting "Allah Akbar!"
And yet the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war in Iraq is going well provokes laughter. The distortions have become so pervasive that Michael Moore teeters on the brink of being considered a reliable source.
If President Bush mentions our many successes in Iraq, it is evidence that he is being "unrealistically sunny and optimistic," as Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution put it.
O'Hanlon's searing indictment of the operation in Iraq is that we need to "make sure they have some budget resources that they themselves decide how to spend that are not already pre-allocated." So that's the crux of our challenge in Iraq: Make sure their "accounts receivable" columns all add up. Whenever great matters are at stake, you can always count on liberals to have some pointless, womanly complaint.
We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out to Osama bin Laden. Liberals may see Saddam's mass graves in Iraq as half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty.
So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons – brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin – and long-range missiles in Iraq.
The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when it became clear that no one supported them. Iraqis living in Karbala had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, further underscoring one of the principal remaining problems in Iraq – the desperate need for more Kinko's outlets. Last weekend, our troops patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.
The entire Kurdish region – one-third of the country – is patrolled by about 300 American troops, which is fewer than it takes to patrol the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach on Easter weekends.
But the media tell us this means we're losing. The goalpost of success keeps shifting as we stack up a string of victories. Before the war, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned that war with Iraq would be a nightmare: "[W]e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces." (Unless, he weaseled his way out, "we're incredibly lucky.")
We've done all that! How incredibly lucky.
Kristof continued: "We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground – which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier."
We've captured Saddam! And it wasn't bloody! Indeed, the most harrowing aspect of Saddam's capture was that he hadn't bathed or been de-liced for two months.
Kristof also said: "Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly 7 million more in Al Quds militia."
And yet, somehow, our boys defeated them in just six weeks! Incredibly lucky again! And just think: all of this accomplished without even having a "Plan."
Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region – which liberals also said wouldn't happen. Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam Hussein – hated him! – because he was a "secularist"? As geopolitical strategist Paul Begala put it, Saddam would never share his weapons with terrorists because "those Islamic terrorists would use them against Saddam Hussein because he's secular."
Well, apparently, the crazies have put aside their scruples about Saddam's secularism to come out in the open where they can be shot by American troops rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan (where the natives would immediately surrender).
The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning. Every day liberals can create a new narrative that destroys the past as it occurred. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
To be sure, Iraq is not a bed of roses. As the Brookings Institution scholar* said, we have yet to give the Iraqis "budget resources" that "are not already pre-allocated." I take it back: It is a quagmire.
Totem
Your wife, perchance, Smash?
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:09:34 2004 by Totem
Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.
The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12 years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.
Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq. Communist dictators may have been ruthless murderers bent on world domination, but they displayed a certain degree of rationality. America may not be able to wait out 12 years of Democrat pusillanimity now that we're dealing with Islamic lunatics who slaughter civilians in suicide missions while chanting "Allah Akbar!"
And yet the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war in Iraq is going well provokes laughter. The distortions have become so pervasive that Michael Moore teeters on the brink of being considered a reliable source.
If President Bush mentions our many successes in Iraq, it is evidence that he is being "unrealistically sunny and optimistic," as Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution put it.
O'Hanlon's searing indictment of the operation in Iraq is that we need to "make sure they have some budget resources that they themselves decide how to spend that are not already pre-allocated." So that's the crux of our challenge in Iraq: Make sure their "accounts receivable" columns all add up. Whenever great matters are at stake, you can always count on liberals to have some pointless, womanly complaint.
We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out to Osama bin Laden. Liberals may see Saddam's mass graves in Iraq as half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty.
So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons – brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin – and long-range missiles in Iraq.
The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when it became clear that no one supported them. Iraqis living in Karbala had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, further underscoring one of the principal remaining problems in Iraq – the desperate need for more Kinko's outlets. Last weekend, our troops patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.
The entire Kurdish region – one-third of the country – is patrolled by about 300 American troops, which is fewer than it takes to patrol the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach on Easter weekends.
But the media tell us this means we're losing. The goalpost of success keeps shifting as we stack up a string of victories. Before the war, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned that war with Iraq would be a nightmare: "[W]e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces." (Unless, he weaseled his way out, "we're incredibly lucky.")
We've done all that! How incredibly lucky.
Kristof continued: "We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground – which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier."
We've captured Saddam! And it wasn't bloody! Indeed, the most harrowing aspect of Saddam's capture was that he hadn't bathed or been de-liced for two months.
Kristof also said: "Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly 7 million more in Al Quds militia."
And yet, somehow, our boys defeated them in just six weeks! Incredibly lucky again! And just think: all of this accomplished without even having a "Plan."
Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region – which liberals also said wouldn't happen. Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam Hussein – hated him! – because he was a "secularist"? As geopolitical strategist Paul Begala put it, Saddam would never share his weapons with terrorists because "those Islamic terrorists would use them against Saddam Hussein because he's secular."
Well, apparently, the crazies have put aside their scruples about Saddam's secularism to come out in the open where they can be shot by American troops rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan (where the natives would immediately surrender).
The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning. Every day liberals can create a new narrative that destroys the past as it occurred. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
To be sure, Iraq is not a bed of roses. As the Brookings Institution scholar* said, we have yet to give the Iraqis "budget resources" that "are not already pre-allocated." I take it back: It is a quagmire.
Totem
Your wife, perchance, Smash?
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:09:34 2004 by Totem
Quote:
Bah, if I just told you guys where I find all this stuff I wouldn't get to up my post count, now, would I?
*******.
Bill Maher Spends All Night Arguing With Republican Hooker
LOS ANGELES—Sources close to Bill Maher report that the comedian and host of HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher spent Friday evening arguing with Carolyn Dobson, a prostitute from the London Escorts Agency and a supporter of the Republican Party.
Dobson and Maher, who occupied an executive suite at the W Hotel, reportedly argued on subjects ranging from the Bush Administration's financial accounting for the Iraq war to its refusal to release records to the public in accordance with the Freedom Of Information Act. The two also engaged in three consensual sex acts, for which the comedian paid $750.
Maher, who was nominated for an Emmy Award in 2001 for his work on ABC's Politically Incorrect, made his first political observation early in the evening. Shortly after entering the hotel room, he turned his attention from Dobson, who was unpacking her bag, to the television screen, where CNN commentator Eleanor Clift appeared on The McLaughlin Group.
Sitting on the edge of the bed and watching the television as he removed his shoes, Maher asked about Dobson's political affiliation. Dobson responded that she did not vote in the last election, but if she had, she would have supported Bush.
"Let me tell you something about Bush's domestic agenda, Carolyn," Maher said. "He doesn't have one. I mean, take a look at his State Of The Union address. Sports coaches need to crack down on athletes' use of steroids? I'm sorry, that's not a vision for America's future. That's a Sports Illustrated op-ed topic."
Dobson said she didn't initially attempt to argue with the winner of four Cable Ace Awards.
"I was getting all my condoms and lubricants and stuff out," Dobson said. "I told him straight sex was $250 and asked him to pick what I should wear. He chose the pink negligee."
While the prostitute phoned Maher's credit-card number into her agency, the quick-witted pundit returned his attention to the television screen, where a news segment showed Bush addressing military personnel at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, FL.
"Bush was thanking the soldiers for protecting America, and [Maher] was like, 'They'd better soak up his thanks now, Carolyn, because—' something about how Bush is gonna cut their healthcare," Dobson said. "I was like, 'I'm surprised you don't like Bush, because most successful guys do.' He was like, 'Okay, new rule: No more choosing political parties the way we choose the homecoming court.'"
Added Dobson: "Then he asked me to put my face up next to his **** while he jerked off."
According to Dobson, during the approximately 40 minutes of copulation, the comedian restricted his comments to requests for changes of position or velocity. After ejaculation, however, he introduced the topic of John Kerry's election platform.
"Two weeks ago, Kerry said that preventing nuclear terrorism would be his highest priority as president," Maher said, a rivulet of ***** trickling down his right leg. "Given that statement, you'd expect Kerry to have a broad, ambitious agenda on nuclear non-proliferation, wouldn't you? Well, I'm sorry, Carolyn, but you'd be 100 percent wrong."
Added Maher: "Interesting, isn't it, that not one American president has made the halt of our nuclear-weapons program a priority?"
When Dobson informed Maher that it would be $500 more if she stayed the evening, Maher agreed to the fee, and reportedly continued to introduce various topical discussions, at one point lifting Dobson's head from between his legs to ask a pointed question.
"He was like, 'How can a ***** support an administration that legislates against her own livelihood?" Dobson said. "And I was like, 'Don't call me a *****.'"
Maher did not limit the debate to politics, introducing hot-button issues ranging from space tourism to dead otters to the Supreme Court ruling on HMOs, and even riffing for several minutes on "so-called independently funded drug studies."
Dobson admitted that the author of Does Anybody Have A Problem With That? Politically Incorrect's Greatest Hits did ultimately goad her into a debate.
"I said I heard that Bush created a lot of jobs lately," Dobson said. "He rolled off of me and got up on his knees and was like, 'Created jobs? Honey, tell me, if you don't mind, what exactly Bush has done to create jobs. Do you mean jobs in Mexico and India?' I was like, 'I just know there are more jobs.' He was like, 'Yeah, I know a lot of Halliburton execs who agree with you.'"
"His stomach has this weird scar on it," Dobson added.
LOS ANGELES—Sources close to Bill Maher report that the comedian and host of HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher spent Friday evening arguing with Carolyn Dobson, a prostitute from the London Escorts Agency and a supporter of the Republican Party.
Dobson and Maher, who occupied an executive suite at the W Hotel, reportedly argued on subjects ranging from the Bush Administration's financial accounting for the Iraq war to its refusal to release records to the public in accordance with the Freedom Of Information Act. The two also engaged in three consensual sex acts, for which the comedian paid $750.
Maher, who was nominated for an Emmy Award in 2001 for his work on ABC's Politically Incorrect, made his first political observation early in the evening. Shortly after entering the hotel room, he turned his attention from Dobson, who was unpacking her bag, to the television screen, where CNN commentator Eleanor Clift appeared on The McLaughlin Group.
Sitting on the edge of the bed and watching the television as he removed his shoes, Maher asked about Dobson's political affiliation. Dobson responded that she did not vote in the last election, but if she had, she would have supported Bush.
"Let me tell you something about Bush's domestic agenda, Carolyn," Maher said. "He doesn't have one. I mean, take a look at his State Of The Union address. Sports coaches need to crack down on athletes' use of steroids? I'm sorry, that's not a vision for America's future. That's a Sports Illustrated op-ed topic."
Dobson said she didn't initially attempt to argue with the winner of four Cable Ace Awards.
"I was getting all my condoms and lubricants and stuff out," Dobson said. "I told him straight sex was $250 and asked him to pick what I should wear. He chose the pink negligee."
While the prostitute phoned Maher's credit-card number into her agency, the quick-witted pundit returned his attention to the television screen, where a news segment showed Bush addressing military personnel at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, FL.
"Bush was thanking the soldiers for protecting America, and [Maher] was like, 'They'd better soak up his thanks now, Carolyn, because—' something about how Bush is gonna cut their healthcare," Dobson said. "I was like, 'I'm surprised you don't like Bush, because most successful guys do.' He was like, 'Okay, new rule: No more choosing political parties the way we choose the homecoming court.'"
Added Dobson: "Then he asked me to put my face up next to his **** while he jerked off."
According to Dobson, during the approximately 40 minutes of copulation, the comedian restricted his comments to requests for changes of position or velocity. After ejaculation, however, he introduced the topic of John Kerry's election platform.
"Two weeks ago, Kerry said that preventing nuclear terrorism would be his highest priority as president," Maher said, a rivulet of ***** trickling down his right leg. "Given that statement, you'd expect Kerry to have a broad, ambitious agenda on nuclear non-proliferation, wouldn't you? Well, I'm sorry, Carolyn, but you'd be 100 percent wrong."
Added Maher: "Interesting, isn't it, that not one American president has made the halt of our nuclear-weapons program a priority?"
When Dobson informed Maher that it would be $500 more if she stayed the evening, Maher agreed to the fee, and reportedly continued to introduce various topical discussions, at one point lifting Dobson's head from between his legs to ask a pointed question.
"He was like, 'How can a ***** support an administration that legislates against her own livelihood?" Dobson said. "And I was like, 'Don't call me a *****.'"
Maher did not limit the debate to politics, introducing hot-button issues ranging from space tourism to dead otters to the Supreme Court ruling on HMOs, and even riffing for several minutes on "so-called independently funded drug studies."
Dobson admitted that the author of Does Anybody Have A Problem With That? Politically Incorrect's Greatest Hits did ultimately goad her into a debate.
"I said I heard that Bush created a lot of jobs lately," Dobson said. "He rolled off of me and got up on his knees and was like, 'Created jobs? Honey, tell me, if you don't mind, what exactly Bush has done to create jobs. Do you mean jobs in Mexico and India?' I was like, 'I just know there are more jobs.' He was like, 'Yeah, I know a lot of Halliburton execs who agree with you.'"
"His stomach has this weird scar on it," Dobson added.
Did you get that from the Onion?
If you did, then you must have seen the other headline:
"Alpha-bits, now in Serif font"
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:04:41 2004 by CrimsonMagician
If you did, then you must have seen the other headline:
"Alpha-bits, now in Serif font"
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:04:41 2004 by CrimsonMagician
Lol, The Onion?
Totem
Totem
http://www.theonion.com/
Their current top story is pretty funny.
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:05:14 2004 by CrimsonMagician
Their current top story is pretty funny.
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:05:14 2004 by CrimsonMagician
The Other Lame "Times"
If liberals won't move on from the prison abuse photos calculated to incite hatred toward the very troops liberals loudly claim to "support," I'm not moving on from the fact that the editor of the Los Angeles Times, John Carroll, is instructing journalists on ethics. The editor of the Los Angeles Times telling reporters how to behave ethically is a complete contradiction, like ... oh, I don't know ... giving Yasser Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize or something. You know, just patently silly.
This is the same L.A. Times that engaged in desperate, 11th-hour attempts to sabotage Arnold Schwarzenegger during the California recall election with lurid sex stories from anonymous assistant crudite girls who worked the craft services tables on Arnold's movies from the 1980s and were still trying to break into show biz 20 years later.
This is the same L.A. Times where reporters had to be told in an internal memo (from Carroll himself) to stop injecting opinion in news stories, specifically the practice of prefacing the term "pro-life" with the term "so-called."
This is the same L.A. Times that in recent years instituted racial and gender quotas for sources on "so-called" news – oops, I mean, news stories – which puts reporters in the position of having to round up a black expert on nuclear fusion, a Native American expert on cubism, and a female expert on great moments in football.
This is the same L.A. Times that responded to the largest number of canceled subscriptions in the paper's history from readers enraged by the paper's liberal bias by putting Michael Kinsley, one of America's leading leftists, in charge of the editorial page.
And this is the same L.A. Times that pays unrepentant Castro fan and former North Korea defender Robert Scheer for his hysterical anti-American rants every Tuesday, after hiring him mostly because his wife was on the editorial board.
The title of Carroll's speech was "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America." One has to admit: If you wanted an expert on the practice of partisan pseudo-journalism, you could do a lot worse than the editor of the Los Angeles Times.
Alas, Carroll's speech wasn't the "how-to" lecture dozens of would-be yellow journalists were expecting when they showed up for his presentation. Like the "ombudsman" at the New York Times, Carroll chastised his own newspaper for some small, irrelevant infraction no one would ever complain about while ignoring the paper's consistent Soviet-style reporting that has led thousands of readers to cancel their subscriptions.
Instead, Carroll's speech was an attack on Fox News Channel. If conservatives complained about CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Reader's Digest, NPR, etc. etc. half as much as liberals scream about Fox News, even I would say conservatives were getting to be a bore on the subject.
Carroll's case-in-chief of Fox News' "pseudo-journalism" is "The O'Reilly Factor." (Only liberals could force conservatives into defending Bill O'Reilly.) Carroll lyingly says of O'Reilly: "Where, he asked, was the L.A. Times on the so-called Troopergate story?"
In fact, O'Reilly never mentioned "Troopergate." He didn't mention the Arkansas State Troopers. And he certainly didn't mention "so-called Troopergate." He compared the L.A. Times coverage of Schwarzenegger's alleged inappropriate behavior decades earlier with that paper's coverage of the scandals of various Democrats – among them the stunning, contemporaneous sexual assaults by Bill Clinton on identifiable women.
I suppose it's easy to confuse sex scandals involving Bill Clinton – I keep a "Women Bill Clinton Has Raped or Groped at a Glance" file on my Blackberry, just as a time-saver – but O'Reilly was referring not to the 1993 allegations from Arkansas State Troopers, but to the 1998 Clinton sex scandals involving allegations from specific women, such as Kathleen Willey. We know this because while the word "trooper" never passed O'Reilly's lips, he did expressly refer to "Kathleen Willey."
When it came to these Clinton sex assaults, how did the L.A. Times do? Reporter Richard A. Serrano described Willey as "embittered" and said her accusations were "fraught with contradiction" – unlike the truth-tellers who waited 20 years to make anonymous accusations against Schwarzenegger. The Times angrily editorialized that Clinton's impeachment was "grounded not in what is right for the country but what best helps House managers save face." (How anyone can use the expression "save face" in defense of Bill Clinton is beyond my understanding.)
You don't have to enter the "No Spin Zone" to see the "disconnect," as liberals love to say, between the L.A. Times' frantic, wild-eyed search for a woman – any woman, even anonymously – to accuse Schwarzenegger of groping her at some point during the previous quarter century, and the Times' equally determined efforts to discount the many credible accounts of women, all named, who plausibly accused Bill Clinton of raping, groping or otherwise sexually assaulting them.
But Carroll dearly wishes O'Reilly had said "Troopergate" because apparently that's the last time Carroll can remember the L.A. Times going after a Democrat the way the Times goes after Republicans as a matter of policy. The Times' Troopergate story came out in December 1993. But Carroll is still citing that one time over a decade ago when the L.A. Times engaged in nonpartisan reporting, bragging: "At one point, it had nine reporters in Little Rock." OK, but there were 24 reporters on the Schwarzenegger story.
Totem
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:10:08 2004 by Totem
If liberals won't move on from the prison abuse photos calculated to incite hatred toward the very troops liberals loudly claim to "support," I'm not moving on from the fact that the editor of the Los Angeles Times, John Carroll, is instructing journalists on ethics. The editor of the Los Angeles Times telling reporters how to behave ethically is a complete contradiction, like ... oh, I don't know ... giving Yasser Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize or something. You know, just patently silly.
This is the same L.A. Times that engaged in desperate, 11th-hour attempts to sabotage Arnold Schwarzenegger during the California recall election with lurid sex stories from anonymous assistant crudite girls who worked the craft services tables on Arnold's movies from the 1980s and were still trying to break into show biz 20 years later.
This is the same L.A. Times where reporters had to be told in an internal memo (from Carroll himself) to stop injecting opinion in news stories, specifically the practice of prefacing the term "pro-life" with the term "so-called."
This is the same L.A. Times that in recent years instituted racial and gender quotas for sources on "so-called" news – oops, I mean, news stories – which puts reporters in the position of having to round up a black expert on nuclear fusion, a Native American expert on cubism, and a female expert on great moments in football.
This is the same L.A. Times that responded to the largest number of canceled subscriptions in the paper's history from readers enraged by the paper's liberal bias by putting Michael Kinsley, one of America's leading leftists, in charge of the editorial page.
And this is the same L.A. Times that pays unrepentant Castro fan and former North Korea defender Robert Scheer for his hysterical anti-American rants every Tuesday, after hiring him mostly because his wife was on the editorial board.
The title of Carroll's speech was "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America." One has to admit: If you wanted an expert on the practice of partisan pseudo-journalism, you could do a lot worse than the editor of the Los Angeles Times.
Alas, Carroll's speech wasn't the "how-to" lecture dozens of would-be yellow journalists were expecting when they showed up for his presentation. Like the "ombudsman" at the New York Times, Carroll chastised his own newspaper for some small, irrelevant infraction no one would ever complain about while ignoring the paper's consistent Soviet-style reporting that has led thousands of readers to cancel their subscriptions.
Instead, Carroll's speech was an attack on Fox News Channel. If conservatives complained about CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Reader's Digest, NPR, etc. etc. half as much as liberals scream about Fox News, even I would say conservatives were getting to be a bore on the subject.
Carroll's case-in-chief of Fox News' "pseudo-journalism" is "The O'Reilly Factor." (Only liberals could force conservatives into defending Bill O'Reilly.) Carroll lyingly says of O'Reilly: "Where, he asked, was the L.A. Times on the so-called Troopergate story?"
In fact, O'Reilly never mentioned "Troopergate." He didn't mention the Arkansas State Troopers. And he certainly didn't mention "so-called Troopergate." He compared the L.A. Times coverage of Schwarzenegger's alleged inappropriate behavior decades earlier with that paper's coverage of the scandals of various Democrats – among them the stunning, contemporaneous sexual assaults by Bill Clinton on identifiable women.
I suppose it's easy to confuse sex scandals involving Bill Clinton – I keep a "Women Bill Clinton Has Raped or Groped at a Glance" file on my Blackberry, just as a time-saver – but O'Reilly was referring not to the 1993 allegations from Arkansas State Troopers, but to the 1998 Clinton sex scandals involving allegations from specific women, such as Kathleen Willey. We know this because while the word "trooper" never passed O'Reilly's lips, he did expressly refer to "Kathleen Willey."
When it came to these Clinton sex assaults, how did the L.A. Times do? Reporter Richard A. Serrano described Willey as "embittered" and said her accusations were "fraught with contradiction" – unlike the truth-tellers who waited 20 years to make anonymous accusations against Schwarzenegger. The Times angrily editorialized that Clinton's impeachment was "grounded not in what is right for the country but what best helps House managers save face." (How anyone can use the expression "save face" in defense of Bill Clinton is beyond my understanding.)
You don't have to enter the "No Spin Zone" to see the "disconnect," as liberals love to say, between the L.A. Times' frantic, wild-eyed search for a woman – any woman, even anonymously – to accuse Schwarzenegger of groping her at some point during the previous quarter century, and the Times' equally determined efforts to discount the many credible accounts of women, all named, who plausibly accused Bill Clinton of raping, groping or otherwise sexually assaulting them.
But Carroll dearly wishes O'Reilly had said "Troopergate" because apparently that's the last time Carroll can remember the L.A. Times going after a Democrat the way the Times goes after Republicans as a matter of policy. The Times' Troopergate story came out in December 1993. But Carroll is still citing that one time over a decade ago when the L.A. Times engaged in nonpartisan reporting, bragging: "At one point, it had nine reporters in Little Rock." OK, but there were 24 reporters on the Schwarzenegger story.
Totem
Edited, Sat Jul 17 18:10:08 2004 by Totem
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Lol, Smash is jealous because liberals don't have anybody who's smart and funny. They're stuck with the horrible and questionable humor of Al Franken and Whoopie Goldberg.
Note that I wasn't specifically commending anything she said, but just highlighted she would be a very effective flamer. Dare I say it? She'd prolly even shut you up, heheh.
Totem
Note that I wasn't specifically commending anything she said, but just highlighted she would be a very effective flamer. Dare I say it? She'd prolly even shut you up, heheh.
Totem
She'd prolly even shut you up, heheh.
No chance. It takes her and her staff of writers about four days to do each of those. In person she's stunningly slow witted.
The Daily Show is about 50 times funnier than any of her stuff, as is Franken.
There's a reason she doesn't have a raido show.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I'd do her if I was extremely desperate and it was a choice between Anne or Katie and Nicole Kidman was out of town that night.
My favorite Ann Coulter piece is when she said we should bomb the middle east and convert them all to christianity. wooooo. Damn, that ***** is funny.
Recent Visitors: 320
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (320)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A funny political commentary by AC
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC