Let's get the crazy train rolling at high speed right off the bat with this first quote…
“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize.” – Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse (link).
Let me get this straight. After years and years of Democrats attempting to undermine President Bush at every turn in the War On Terror, er, I mean the Overseas Contingency Operation, including attempts to lose the Iraq war, a DNC spokesman now has the nerve to say Republicans have thrown in with the terrorists because some Republicans opined that Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize (which he most assuredly didn't, as Obama himself even said). Wow-freakedy-wow-wow. Words fail me. I literally can't think of a negative adjective strong enough to convey how wrong this remark is. I can't even think of a way to equate an opinion on the Nobel Prize with throwing in with terrorists, but evidently Brad Woodhouse can.
And Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) seems to agree. I expect this stuff from dolts like Keith Olbermann or the other lib-nuts on MSNBC, who routinely compare Republicans to jihadis, but not from Democratic Senators or the DNC.
Also, somebody better hip Woodhouse to the fact that the Obama administration has decided the Taliban isn't our enemy any longer. Or Hamas either, for that matter. I bet that'll do wonders for the morale of our troops who've been fighting against the Taliban and dying in Afghanistan for the last seven years. Acceptance of the Taliban is also a major step backwards for human rights, especially from a President who just won the Nobel Peace Prize here on Planet Orwell. Sigh. Is the world turning on it's ear, or is it just me ?
===
Next up is this very conscientous Democratic Senator, who is fully committed to doing his job:
"I don't expect to actually read the legislative language [of the health care bill] because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life." –Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Yes, being a Congressman is soooo hard, and now they expect Sen. Carper to read AND understand the legislation he's voting upon ? What's a poor Senator to do ? Study or something ? I presume Carper's state of confusion over the legislation won't prevent him from voting "Yea" on the health care bill. You just don't see integrity like Carper's anymore. On second thought, yes you do, all the time on Capitol Hill, and that's the problem.
===
Now we move on to another patriotic Senator, John Kerry (D-NVA). Here's what Kerry said about cap-and-trade legislation:
"Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6 percent reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14 percent."
Yeah, baby ! We're fundamentally transforming America !!! If we can only make this recession a lot worse, and make it last forever, we can help the environment ! And golly gee, if we go into a full-fledged permanent Great Depression II, maybe we can even reach the Kyoto emission standards ! Victory is at hand ! Yes We Can ! Yes We Can ! Yes We Can, Destroy The Economy !!!! C'mon, everybody sing !
"Obama ! mmmm mmmm mmmm."
I can't stand it. Where did I put that hammer ?
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
Rush Limbaugh, the de facto leader of the GOP, said he was on the same side as the Taliban on the "Obama shouldn't have got the Nobel" discussion.
So, when a DNC representative says the same thing as the GOP leader, why is there a problem again?
Oh, King, there you go again talking about that pesky Taliban again.
here's a good one from Thinkprogress……..
"WH communications director: Fox News operates as ‘a wing of the Republican Party.’"
cheese and rice Ms. Dunn….tell us something we DON'T know
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/11/dunn-fox-news-2/
from the comments at Thinkprogress…….
Wiz says:
——————————————————————————–
Actually it is just the reverse, the Republican party acts as the political wing of Fox News.
As usual, the DNC leaves out the fact that there whas been widespread displeasure with Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, not just from the right, but also from the left. Limbaugh saying he was on the "same side as the Taliban" would also hold true for anyone who questioned the awarding of this so-called "peace prize". Being on the same side for a particular argument doesn't mean you agree on everything if anything else at all. So yes, if anyone here felt that Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, you too are also on the "same side as the Taliban" for this argument. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33240807/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
And I love how liberals keep labeling Rush Limbaugh as the "de facto leader of the GOP" and haven't realized that there is a difference between conservatives and the GOP; not all conservatives are Republicans, and not all Republicans are conservative. Way to overgeneralize!
So, conservatives vote for Democrats? Is that the difference?
Think Rush votes for Democrats? How about Republicans….do they vote for Democrats too?
And if Rush, conservatives and Republicans all vote for, you know, Republicans…then…
what's the difference again? Cause I certainly wouldn't want to overgeneralize.
Rush is just pushing some leftwing nuts' buttons and like the Obamatons they are, they respond.
King,
I see that you have learned from Obama how to apologize to the world for everything the US has done that doesn't agree with those clowns from Norway. You did a great job of writing your speech and then you will go out and blow your shot at the 2010 award talking about conservative things. I don't think you can talk like that long, but ovbiously the lefties here really believed you since they failed to disagree with anything you said.
I thought that Obama bragging about doing away with nuclear weapons may have been one of the stupidest things he has said up to now. Somehow, he must not understand that when some head of state promised to destroy all his nukes you need to watch him do it instead of destroying yours so you can win that Peace prize. I suppose that there is a good chance that all the lefties like Chavez can make promises to people like Oba mao and he will believe them until they blow his butt off with the weapons they didn't destroy. How does he shoot back?
Rev says, "Rush Limbaugh, the de facto leader of the GOP, said he was on the same side as the Taliban on the "Obama shouldn't have got the Nobel" discussion."
I thought Glenn Beck was the de facto leader of the GOP now. I wish y'all would make up your minds.
walter says, ""WH communications director: Fox News operates as ‘a wing of the Republican Party.’"
Yes, and MSNBC operates as a wing of the Democratic party, along with 80% of the rest of the media.
Rev says, "So, conservatives vote for Democrats? Is that the difference? "
You never heard of the Blue Dogs ? Sometimes, conservatives are Democrats, and yes, sometimes conservatives DO vote for Democrats.
roy,
I think you meant to post this comment on the Nobel speech thread.
I was also wondering why nobody responded to all the nifty liberal dream ideas I posted about in my Nobel speech. Perhaps it is because if all those liberal wet dreams were implemented, it would destroy this country quicker than you could say "social justice."
larry,
One of these days I'm gonna have to tune in to Rush Limbaugh to see what I'm supposed to think, lol. I've heard maybe 30 minutes total of Rush in the last six months. I don't particularly care for the "de facto leader of the Republican party," even though he isn't the de facto leader of anything, except for his own radio show.
Rev.,
". . . conservatives vote for Democrats? "
I take it you would never under any circumstances vote for a Republican.
Personally I would never wear any badge that required me to vote for the candidate dictated by that affiliation. I have cast more votes against Democrats and Republicans than I've ever cast for either party, and I suspect a huge portion of the electorate is like me. Just think: If ol' Bill had been able to keep his pants zipped up or if Al Gore had been more cognizant of public opinion in Tennessee, we wouldn't have had Bush. On the other hand, if we hadn't had Bush, OB would still be a junior senator, and if OB doesn't quit apologizing for his country and kissing up to our enemies, a lot of the anti Bush vote will become anti Obama vote. It's that middle third of the public who actually listens to both sides and thinks a bit before voting who actually make the difference.
Well…I disagree N.E.
The Democratic Party….even when their candidates are less than stellar…has, in my lifetime, been the party of inclusion, the party of the people. The Republican Party, OTOH, has always been the party for corporate interests and domestic exclusion.
Those who say they are above the political fray as Independents…usually know little about politics or policy, and simply don't want to be identified with either one of the "crooked" parties.
For example: You, yourself, say you play both sides of the aisle on election day…yet you say this….
"..and if OB doesn't quit apologizing for his country and kissing up to our enemies."
Nothing Independent about that sentence. And no truth to it either.
Frye says, "I have cast more votes against Democrats and Republicans than I've ever cast for either party, and I suspect a huge portion of the electorate is like me."
I'm the same way, and when I do vote for a Democrat or a Republican, it's usually because I'm voting AGAINST that candidate's opponent (the lesser of two evils choice). That's what I did in the last presidential election. I didn't like the Libertarian candidate, the johnny-come-lately Bob Barr, so I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary (against Obama), and I voted for John McCain in the general election (against Obama again). If Hillary had won the Democratic primary, I may have voted for her in the general election (against McCain), though I didn't have to make that decision. And I was never a strong supporter of either Hillary or McCain. That was my version of the lesser of two evils.
And the upshot of it all is, I'm now registered as a Democrat, which I'm obviously not.
Whatever.
You voted for Hillary, as Rush instructed conservatives to do. Purely coincidental, I'm sure.
And I'm not buying your, "I may have voted for Hillary" laugher. You have pilloried the Clintons for years….so your claim here is not credible, not even close. Additionally, you defended Johnny-Mac and his Puffball VP, right up til the election. But like I said, whatever.
Like it or not…there will never be a viable third party candidate. Not ideal, I'll grant you….but reality, nevertheless.
Those who say they are libertarian, or independent, I've found, are mostly those who are embarassed or humiliated by Republican office holders they voted for and no longer want to be identified with those losers.
I see it as a tad cowardly….but like I said, whatever.
Well, you know I don't make a move without Rush telling me what to do. That's what you think anyway, I'm sure. All us conservatives are such stupid redneck sheeple. I may have voted for Hillary over McCain too, in case you didn't notice. Was Rush telling people to do that ?
"there will never be a viable third party candidate."
Really ? Hmmm. Ross Perot might disagree.
And I could care less what fantasies you have about Libertarians. I was a Libertarian before Bush II showed up. How do you explain that away ?
I think it was Nader several elections ago, who said something to the effect that if we continue to vote for the less objectionable of two sleazy hacks, neither party will ever feel compelled to offer us anything more than a sleazy hack, which seems to me to be pretty much what we usually get any more. And I get tired of hearing the winner talk about his mandate so at least I can say don't blame me; I votes for Nader/Anderson/ Paulson, etc. I guess if I thought the Libertarians had a real chance of winning I'd vote for someone else. There seems to me to be something about the character of people who want to be president that majes them unfit for the job.
Herodotus said that the Ethiopians chose a king by lining up the candidates and picking the tallest one. I believe Shaq would probably do at least as well as any of the hat tossers I've seen lately.
appearently Rush's operation Choas worked here in Ohio
Chomnsky is a libertarian socialist. On the other hand, King is a libertarian capitalist (tearing down barriers for the wealthy)…..or a republican. Take your pick.
Seems he spends most of his time defending republicans
I would mention that Perot barely made a dent….and never really had a chance to be anything other than a spoiler. The same is true of Nader, who singlehandedly made it possible for Bush 2 to become president.
Ideally, Americans would have many significant candidates to choose from….but until/unless public financing of campaigns becomes reality….it's never, ever going to happen.
Actually libertarians are a lot like anarchists, spiritually descended from one or another of the anarchist parties of the 18th Century. The only thing anarchism would help is the growth of a system of warlords that would basically reinstitute feudalism.
Kind of like what we saw during the period 2001-2009?
walter says, "Seems [King] spends most of his time defending republicans".
Actually, I spend most of my time attacking liberals, and the rest trying to promote fiscal sanity (two sides of the same coin).
Rev says, " I would mention that Perot barely made a dent"
Completely wrong. Perot was leading the race in june 1992, but lost his credibility after he dropped out in july for several weeks before re-entering the race. He made more than a dent. He could have been President.
Frye,
Your description of Libertarians as anarchists is pretty fringe. I've never heard a Libertarian advocate for the feudal system, unless by feudal you really mean having local governments carry more weight than an overarching federal government making all the decisions. Most Libertarians believe local governments are more responsive to their constituencies.
Rev says, "Kind of like what we saw during the period 2001-2009?"
No, you witnessed the opposite from 2001-2009. You witnessed the huge growth of government, which has only continued at an even faster pace since the last election.
They don't advocate feudalism. They want no or hardly any government interference in anything, which means the Mafia etc can create their own government. The amount of government considered acceptable by libertarians is probably a hair more than that advocated by anarchists. But a powerless government leads to anarchy which leads to warlords picking up the power and using it.
Rev, no not so much like 2001-2009; more like England after the Roman Legions left.