Archaeological Find
An archaeological team, digging in Washington DC , has uncovered 6,000 year old bones and fossil remains of what is believed to be the first Liberal Democrat.
Showing posts with label Liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberals. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Debunking Liberal Intelligence
Is It ANY Wonder?
The Leftinistra, the armies of the socialist liberals, make the LAME claim that they received a mandate of some sort back in 11/06 as well as making some bizarre claim to a landslide victory in the same elections.
First of all, what was the mandate and how do the Leftinistra calculate a landslide victory? One MUST wonder where their feelers are…yes?
With all that being said and their insistence that they have the pulse of America, how, then, do they explain this?
Approval of Congress lowest in a decade
Only about a quarter of Americans approve of how it’s doing its job, a poll shows; most see ‘business as usual.’
Something is amiss…yes? The vaunted majority in the CONgress has failed the American people. And which political party is in “control”? The Democrats? Mon dieu! Whom shall they blame for their failures? Will there be calls for impeachment? Censure? Special Prosecutors? Where is the outrage? Who’s to blame?Just 27% of Americans now approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the poll found, down from 36% in January, when Democrats assumed control of the House and the Senate.
And 63% of Americans say that the new Democratic Congress is governing in a “business as usual” manner, rather than working to bring the fundamental change that party leaders promised after November’s midterm election.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the first woman to hold that position, has also failed to impress many Americans. Only 36% approve of the way she is handling the job, the poll found.
And what is GWB’s rating right now? Isn’t it the SAME as Madame Stretch?
In contrast, 46% of Americans in the current poll said they approved of the way Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia handled the job after he led the GOP into the majority in 1994.
And the Leftinistra decry Newt as a what? His ratings are BETTER than the elite of the left!
The poll also found continued public unhappiness with President Bush, whose approval ratings have been stuck below 40% since last year.
Yet they are HIGHER than the Leftinistra. Imagine that.
Public disappointment with Congress swelled before Republicans lost power in November. Democrats swept in on promises to end the war and tackle a host of popular domestic issues, including raising the minimum wage, reducing prices on prescription drugs, promoting stem cell research and ending corruption.
Swept into power? And why was that? It was the dirty politics and the lies of the Leftinistra and the flip-flopping on issues that confused most and sickened others. And the Lame Stream Media fell lock-step in tune with the Leftinistra and enabled the lies and deceit. The Leftinistra lied and America has suffered because of it. All the Leftinistra wanted was power and control. What have they done with it? Not a damn thing.
Although some Democratic initiatives have passed the House, few have won passage in the Senate, where the party has held the majority by one vote.
So much for the vaunted majority. This is the LAMEST CONgress this veteran can remember and I voted for the very first time in 1973 and haven’t missed one since.
Bush and his Capitol Hill allies have thus far managed to block every Democratic attempt to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, much to the chagrin of Democrats around the country.
Not Democrats; bonehead…Leftinistra. Their IS a difference. The kook fringe freaks. The communist group A.N.S.W.E.R. and their moron counter-part Yellow Streak (formerly code pinko).
“They just haven’t seemed to have gathered things together the way they should,” said Martha Wilde, 81, a Democrat from Remer, Minn., who said she had been particularly disappointed in congressional Democrats’ lack of progress confronting the Bush administration over the war.
“I think they should force them more,” Wilde said.
They are unable to, Old One. They ran on lies and deceit.
A third of liberal Democrats, who constitute the party’s base, approve of the job Congress is doing; 58% disapprove, the poll found.
That’s a dramatic change from January, when a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that 43% of liberal Democrats approved of the job Congress was doing and 36% disapproved.
Imagine that.
Representatives of Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Democrats were undeterred by the public’s anger.
That is because THEY don’t listen to We The People, either. They listen to We The Freaks and Socialists.
“The American people are rightly frustrated with the ongoing war in Iraq, and Democrats will continue to work with Republicans to force the president to change direction in Iraq so our troops can come home and we can refocus our efforts on fighting terrorism,” said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.
And this guy is a classic MORON. Talk about the WRONG reception to the “pulse” of America. The public angst, fool, is the lack of a VICTORY, moron. Cut and run is for cowards and fools and Leftinistra. Ask the troops. Check the chart at the end of this post as to how the MAJORITY of Americans feel about the Global War On Terror and the war in Iraq. Idiots.
The poll was conducted Thursday through Sunday; 1,183 adults were surveyed by telephone. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Yadayadayadayada….
Here are the figures that the Leftinistra ignore and lie about. It proves that they lied to get into power.
Dems Suck
The TRUTH Hurts!
Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:34 PM
A wise “Man” once said, “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”
Why Liberals Spread Poverty
By Kevin McCullough
Liberals would prefer more people to experience poverty. Their actions demonstrate their massive desire to see more people unemployed, and under paid. One of their chief political goals is to cripple the chance for the impoverished from improving their lot in life and thus become even more dependent upon entitlements that only they (liberals) will dole out. Thus the greatest con in elective politics begins again.
It’s called a “surcharge.”
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Liberals and Corruption
Unbelievable!! I ran across this tid-bit gem whilst surfing the Townhall Blogosphere. It just goes to show ya…we can never have enough data!
Found it all here : kudos; Anti-Liberal Zone
Be prepaired to spend hours and hours hunting down your favorite corrupt government officials, past and present.
Happy Hunting!!
A taste:
Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman’s Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.
DNC - The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct.John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
The Problems With Liberals
The top 9 reasons why a Democratic president can’t handle the war on terrorismBy John HawkinsFriday, February 23, 2007
from right here I was going to ellaborate further but, I cannot add anything to it at this moment!!Many people assume that the Democrats’ opposition to the war on terrorism and their unwavering determination to undercut the war in Iraq are solely an outgrowth of their dislike of George Bush. While Bush Derangement Syndrome and raw political considerations certainly are part of the problem, you’ve got to understand that the modern Democratic Party is simply no longer capable of dealing with a conflict like the war on terrorism because of the weird ideological tics of liberalism.Look at how weak and helpless Jimmy Carter was when he was confronted by the Iranians. And Bill Clinton? Despite being prodded to take action time and time again by world events like the bombing of the World Trade Center, Saddam Hussein’s attempted assassination of George Bush, Sr., the Khobar Towers bombing, the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole, along with India, Pakistan, and North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons under his watch, Clinton seemed incapable of dealing effectively with any serious foreign policy challenges.That being said, if this nation were unfortunate enough to be burdened for four years with Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or one of the other liberals contending for the Democratic nomination, things would be even worse this time around. Why would that be the case? There are a variety of reasons for it.
1) The Democratic insistence on treating the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue will make it extremely difficult to deal with terrorist groups. When you have heavily armed terrorists ensconced in foreign nations, sometimes with the approval of their government, it’s simply not practical to capture them, read them their rights, and take them back to America for trial. That is something that should be obvious after that approach was tried by Bill Clinton in the nineties and it failed to produce results. Going back to it in the post 9/11 world, which is what the Democrats want to do, is nothing but an invitation to catastrophe.
2) Ronald Reagan once said that, “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.” Conversely, a super power that seems weak invites attack. After spending the last six years railing against the Bush Administration and fighting tooth and nail against almost every measure that makes it tougher on the terrorists, a Democratic victory in 2008 would be viewed by the world as nothing less than an American capitulation in the war on terror. This would encourage the terrorists to launch more attacks and cause our allies in the fight to lose heart.
3) When the only credible Democratic voice on national security in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, was defeated in the Democratic primary last year, the message sent to Democrats was, “Being serious about defending America may cost you your job.” After that, elected Democrats became even more reluctant to stand up against terrorism, which is really saying something, since the Democratic Party has been nothing but a hindrance in the war on terrorism since they voted en masse for the war in Afghanistan.
4) The Democratic base doesn’t take terrorism seriously and considers it to be nothing more than a distraction from socializing the economy, raising taxes, promoting gay marriage, and the other domestic issues that are near and dear to the heart of liberals. It’s old hat to hear Democrats say that they think global warming is more dangerous than terrorism, but at one point in 2006, 94% of the readers at the most popular liberal blog on earth, the Daily Kos, were actually saying that they thought that corporate media consolidation was a greater threat than terrorism. If you have a Democratic base that isn’t serious about fighting terrorism — and it isn’t — you will have a Democratic President that isn’t serious about fighting terrorism.
5) Using the American military to further the interests of our country makes liberals uncomfortable, even though they’re usually happy to send the troops gallivanting off to the latest godforsaken hotspot that has caught the eye of liberal activists. That’s why many Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, who oppose winning the war in Iraq, are all for using our military in Sudan. However, it is also why those same liberals will oppose using our military to tackle terrorists abroad except in Afghanistan, where it would be politically damaging for them to call for a pull-out.
6) When the U.N. Security Council has members like China, France, and Russia that seem to be financially in bed with every country we end up at loggerheads with, the UN is going to be even more hapless and ineffective than normal. Since the Democrats are so hung up on getting UN approval for everything we do, it will be practically impossible for them to move forward on any serious, large scale foreign policy enterprise.
7) The Democrats are overly concerned with “international opinion,” AKA “European opinion.” The Europeans have mediocre militaries, pacifistic populations, fetishize international law, and have extremely inflated views of their own importance. Other than Britain, they don’t have much to offer in a military conflict, yet even getting token forces from them that are minimally useful is like pulling teeth. Getting large numbers of European nations to cooperate with us on military ventures that are important to American security will be nearly impossible at this point — yet since Democrats place a higher priority on European approval than our national security, they will insist on it. This, combined with the logjam at the UN, would hamstring any Democratic President.
8) The Democrats want to close Guantanamo Bay and put the terrorists held there into the American court system. The justice system in the United States is simply not designed to deal with and interrogate terrorists or enemy fighters captured overseas by our troops. Putting the terrorists held at Gitmo into our court system would only mean that hundreds of terrorists would be freed on technicalities because it’s not advisable to reveal intelligence methods — or because our soldiers aren’t trained in the legal niceties that are necessary for policemen, but should be irrelevant in a war zone. How absurd would it be to catch a Taliban fighter entering Afghanistan, take him back to the United States, have him released by a liberal judge, and then dropped back off on the Afghan border where he’d be back shooting at our troops the next day? If a Democrat wins in 2008, we will get to find out all about it first hand.
9) The intelligence programs that have helped prevent another 9/11 would be curtailed under a Democratic President. As a general rule, Democrats favor weakening our military and intelligence agencies. Add to that the complete hysteria we’ve seen from liberals over programs like the Patriot Act and the NSA tapping calls from terrorists overseas to people in the U.S. Under a Democratic President, we would be sure to see our intelligence agencies systematically stripped of the powers they need to detect and foil terrorist plots.
If a Democrat were to win in 2008, it would give terrorists worldwide a four year respite to rebuild, reload, and run wild without serious opposition from the United States. The price our nation and our allies would pay in blood and treasure for that mistake would be incalculable.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
