Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

a study in contrast


I don't think much comment from me is necessary. Just consider the difference between the twisted inaccuracies, vitriol, and venom of the former and the unassuming All-American character of the latter, the type of person people like Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo were talking about.

Garafalo's spillage begins about 3 minutes into the video. Can you say clueless?

I heard some audio of an interview with Captain Phillips and his wife. Guess who he thanked and who he didn't? I wonder if he'll be joining the rest of us on "the list"?


By the way ... I shook the hand of a WW II vet the other day, a man who stormed Omaha Beach ... all of 19 or so I think he was then. What an honor! God bless our vets. What they must think about what they see happening today!

Like the President mugging, grinning like an idiot, and shaking hands with thuggish dictator Hugo Chavez.

I'm sure all those people in Venezuela who want their country back, and the people of Columbia, whose democracy Chavez seeks to have overthrown, are feeling very reassured.


( 35 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 18th, 2009 03:28 am (UTC)
Aside from her ranting about racism - I do believe there is some element of racism in some significant areas - but pull her over the top racism comments out of that and a fair amount of her other comments have their own merit - whether or not one agrees with them. Her characterizations of Fox is accurate as to the opinion of much of the CNN / NPR crowd towards Fox - sure it is a little excessive and a touch of her trying to inject some of her comedy act - but it is her opinion and she should ride it as far as it takes her. A sizable number of people agree with her, and the comments on the limited size of all this has been confirmed on story after story after story. Even the over stated Fox reports made for a lackluster showing. I think many of the non-race related comments have some validity.

I heard credit to the SEALs - who deserved it... Phillips also deserves some significant credit - what he did took some nerve. I am not sure why you would think anyone would expect him to thank anyone other than the SEALs and the crew of the Bainbridge. So he didn't thank BHO - I know I wouldn't have thanked a person who in essence had next to nothing to do with the process. Signing the Deadly Force Auth. was a formality and was somewhat unnecessary. The SEALs and the USN did what they were there to do and the Skipper is home safe. He is understated in his own role in all this and kudos to him and all involved. I think we need to start sinking some Pirate ships and boats.
Apr. 18th, 2009 03:41 am (UTC)
The left is petrified and it shows. All they have to offer is garbage and sick humor. They are intellectually bankrupt and their opinions have no basis in reality ... although I suspect many of them are less concerned with truth than they are defeating their opponents by whatever means necessary. That there are people who "agree" with her is no surprise to me.

I'm sure they agree with the President's mugging and shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, and supporting terrorism in democratic Columbia as well.

This constant practice of the President's telling lie after lie is disturbing, but apparently his followers have gotten the signal that there's no need to even pretend to be fair and accurate.

The Saul Alinsky method, you know? I kicked that dog from the beginning.
Apr. 18th, 2009 03:53 am (UTC)
I still don't understand why you keep throwing that Alinsky bit around as if it were sage wisdom or some secret agenda. The Right FEARS it outright and the Left is energized by it - people like me - eh - we see dirty tactics on all sides and Alinsky is just another tool in the shed.

Explain to me how the left is petrified. I have actually gone LOOKING for signs of this petrification - I just do not see it. I see a lot of mindless and angry people on Fox - seriously Ed; to say they are not hinging on hysteria is to be absolutely BLIND! - but nope - I see no fear. Maybe we see fear differently. Maybe you are confusing something else for fear. Maybe what you are seeing is really that they are so drunk from the victory they are maybe a little unstable and need to sober up a bit. It would help them to sober up a bit. Repeating this claim over and over again with no real support for it only lends more to the claims that it is actually the conservatives that are afraid - and I believe they really are.

I read, for instance, your take on the so called apology to the EU - watch it again - the WHOLE speech. I do not see how anyone could have watched it and called that a plea of forgiveness to the EU with a straight face and even TRY to say it was an un-spun comment.

Don't worry - there will be more elections.
Apr. 18th, 2009 04:10 am (UTC)
Of course you don't see it.

Cognitive dissonance.

The entire media attacks the right ... anyone who dares oppose The One.

The Department of Homeland Security is targeting people who are anti-abortion, who believe in the Bill of Rights, who oppose government intrusion into their lives as potential TERRORISTS ... and they don't want to call real terrorists "terrorists".

A CNN "reporter" interrupts a man with his two-year old child from speaking and peppers him with Obama talking-points.

People who protest out-of-control spending, doubling of debt, stealing from our kids and grandkids to pay off Democrat supporters are called UN-AMERICAN.

People watch appointment after appointment with tax problems and worse and are told to shut up. These people are needed. The latest is Obama's guy to oversee GM, Steven Ratner, who is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission about a kickback scheme.

And Obama KNEW about it months ago. *LOL*

The media hide all this and we expose it and that PETRIFIES them -and the rest of the left.

It's so clear you see right through it. I would expect no less. ;-)

And Saul Alinsky? One day someone will write a book about his influence on Obama and you will say, "Oh, I've been knowing about that for years!" *lol*

Good night. Don't lose any sleep over it.
Apr. 18th, 2009 04:16 pm (UTC)
What is a terrorist
So, let's see . . . a doctor spends years studying and finds a successful niche and opens a clinic that performs a service that is legal. This service isn't appealing to many in his community for religious or moral reasons and he is shot down by a person from one of these groups who feels that the politically he has been ignored - and that is not, somehow, a terrorist. Am I talking about abortion here? No. I am talking about doctors that have at various times been attacked in various countries in Africa as the local religion considers the inoculations and needles to be dangerous; but it could just as well have been abortion clinicians in the US now, couldn't it?

So if some folk believe we should target Seks because they look something like Persians or Arabs who have a small percentage of their population that have expressed evil intentions - It stands to reason that we should also consider that when various groups and individuals in the anti-choice crowd have publicly called for violence against people working in these professions, how is this any different than a religious zealot saying they want to attack civilian political targets for the purpose of advancing their political goals. By definition it is a terror threat.

I heard someone say recently that it was absurd to make all the people at the airport suffer through security hell when it was only one small social group that needed to be looked at. Sounds like he agrees that this sort of profiling is the way to go. I have heard this repeated over and over again, and often in conversations that are also heavily laced with far right rhetoric about taxes, religion and the destruction of some idea of a cultural identity that is distinct to small subsections of the American whole – because really, the US is like concrete - sure it is a single mass, but that mass is an aggregate of smaller masses that help hold the rest together. They are all needed.

Any group that suggests that violence against legal private individuals or enterprises for advancement of their political, social or religious views constitutes a terrorist threat. I do not support "profiling" per say; but you need to substantiate your claims - so far it sounds to me like you have been listening to Coulter and Limbaugh again.

Perspective can really be a pain sometimes.
Apr. 18th, 2009 04:30 pm (UTC)
Re: What is a terrorist
A person who murders another person is a murderer. You have said so yourself.

Because of a few violent people, the DHS is now PROFILING anyone with any an opinion on similar issues.

Maybe all leftists should be monitered and spied on because Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon and Police stations.

Read the nine-page report, Mike.

It's the beginnings of the "Big Sister" mentality I warned you about.

There you go with yout "Some people believe" Obama mantra. :-D

I believe in the Constitution, Mike. In extraordinary times, like after 9-11, there have to be thoughtful and legal tools utilized to protect the American people.

"Some people believe" that, should their entire family have their heads chopped off by terrorists, the CIA should not be allowwed to put a wet towel over the face of a savage miscreant to prevent it from happening again.

And that's a fact!

Please refrain from changing the subject and pretending this is about monitoring extremist groups ... like those headed by the Jeremiah Wrights, Michael Pfleger, Bill Ayers, and Louis Farrakhans of the world (who are given a pass). It is about intimidating people who believe the radicals are wrong and want to prevent them from destroying our Constitution and changing this country forever.

Got to head to the hospital. ttyl!

Re: What is a terrorist - tniassaint - Apr. 18th, 2009 04:36 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: What is a terrorist - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 19th, 2009 03:10 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: What is a terrorist - tniassaint - Apr. 19th, 2009 08:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: What is a terrorist - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 19th, 2009 09:18 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: What is a terrorist - tniassaint - Apr. 20th, 2009 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: What is a terrorist - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 20th, 2009 02:44 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: What is a terrorist - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 20th, 2009 03:27 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: What is a terrorist - tniassaint - Apr. 18th, 2009 04:38 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: What is a terrorist - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 18th, 2009 11:14 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: What is a terrorist - tniassaint - Apr. 18th, 2009 04:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: What is a terrorist - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 19th, 2009 03:14 am (UTC) - Expand
Apr. 18th, 2009 04:18 pm (UTC)
Bill of Rights, eh? No. That's spin. If they are going to go after BoR supporters they will have to open investigations on pretty much the entire population. That is one of those sound bite phrases that is used to frighten the uneducated and make them start looking over their shoulder. It doesn't work on me.

I will point out that the CNN reporter, while rude and typical of most obnoxious reporters, is not a government agent. I am not sure the clip you were talking about, but I think I might have seen it. And if it is that one, yes the reporter was pretty rude, and the man with the kid, well . . . they were both out there. Then again they both have the right to spout off as they see fit.
Re: BoR - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 18th, 2009 04:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: BoR - tniassaint - Apr. 18th, 2009 05:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: BoR - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 19th, 2009 03:23 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: BoR - tniassaint - Apr. 19th, 2009 08:13 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: BoR - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 19th, 2009 09:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: BoR - tniassaint - Apr. 18th, 2009 05:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: BoR - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 18th, 2009 11:23 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: BoR - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 19th, 2009 03:32 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: BoR - tniassaint - Apr. 19th, 2009 08:11 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: BoR - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 19th, 2009 09:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
Apr. 18th, 2009 04:34 pm (UTC)
“People who protest out-of-control spending, doubling of debt, stealing from our kids and grandkids to pay off Democrat supporters are called UN-AMERICAN. “

OK This is NUTS. When I was complaining about Junior's spending and how it was absurd to say taxes were being cut when spending was going into orbit as this just presents future tax obligations - I was called ever name in the book as well as “Un-American” and “traitor” and “Commie”. Now that there is a Democrat in the WH and both houses are Democratic, the other side is says they are being picked on. If I was fair on one foot it is fair on the other IMHO. In both cases I think that it is perfectly proper to protest and it is fully American to raise their complaints. To suggest that it might be less than that is a red herring now, just as it was then. Do not suggest that I have EVER said otherwise, as I have ALWAYS said the same thing.

For there to be cognitive dissonance there has to be this feeling of discomfort. I have none, and I do not see this great stress you talk about. I think it is invented as a defense mechanism to help relieve the stress that the “right” has that they can no longer claim to be the general voice of the masses, and the other side got their man in. Me, I had not expectations for either side actually helping anything - so I am at ease with it all. All I see is the loons on Fox spewing the SAME accusations the called unfair and Un-American when the opposition was shouting them before. Same crap from the other side of the fence. The big difference? I never saw the folk at CNN, BBC or Public TV getting so unprofessionally emotional or panicky like I have seen of the dopes on Fox in the last three months. How the heck did these people get hired? It is mind numbing - but that is the idea isn't it? The only ones displaying dissonance in the national media that I have seen are these Talk radio and Fox folk who provide me hours of comedic entertainment.

Well, let's see . . . I read several things BY Alinsky in college, I have been around a good number of what you would call hot headed liberal activists for most of my adult life, the man is almost a GOD to them, the tactics are pretty much text book for political action and is referenced and utilised by all players in the political spectrum . . . such a book would be pointless and I would be one of many that would say OF COURSE he did . . . and here's a few thousand others that did as well. That whole speel is just a bunch of fear ongering noise IMHO. It frightens the undecided and the uneducated . . . and attempts to make people uneasy - kinda like a boogeyman.

Lose sleep? No - on the contrary I am so tired I needed three cups o' joe to get awake.
(Deleted comment)
Apr. 18th, 2009 03:45 pm (UTC)
Thanks! That's a great memory, I'm sure.

I grew up with almost every adult male in my family or circle of friends having served in the military and quite a few women, most in WWII.

As a child I thought it a little funny seeing old men in their garish (to me) uniforms at parades and celebrations ... until I learned history and realized what they'd done when they were fuzzy-cheeked young men out of high school. My mom's cousin served in the military and lost a brother in the Pacific.

I used to see his picture of her brother in his uniform (they all served but he was the only one killed) on her wall as a child, and wonder why someone would still have a picture of someone who had died barely out of his teens so long ago.

In my child's mind I didn't understand that you could love and miss and honor someone the same today as when you lost them years and even decades before. Oh how I've learned!

I could recount all kinds of memories and feelings but I think you understand where I'm coming from. And it's not about me, or you, as I'm sure you are so well aware.
Apr. 19th, 2009 01:52 am (UTC)
It doesn't matter if I share his opinion or not - I do not approve of the methods. Just because Kurt Cobain was a heroin addicted suicide waiting to happen doesn't mean I have no appreciation for the music.

There are also matters of degrees on these things. Just because I might lean left it doesn't mean I accept all leftist ideology or like all the players. Some of them are clearly over the top. In the case of BHO - hardly. I can name MUCH more liberal than he.
Apr. 19th, 2009 01:58 am (UTC)

You can't get much further to the left than voting to kill babies "born alive" from botched abortions, can you?

Even Barabra Boxer voted against that.
Apr. 19th, 2009 02:16 am (UTC)
I have read the positions as well (as BHO positions on the procedure). The situation is not as straight forward or as clear cut as you pretend. Reading the position BHO took on the debate he cited medical necessity and that STATES should regulate it - and pretty much ALL those that voted against the ban cited the same. No one in their right mind, with a healthy mother or fetus would consider such a procedure - there are those that would and they are simply making the wrong choice. The opposition position is that a federal ban is not needed as the states should regulate it and that in the case of medical necessity it needs to be an option. In most states it remains a medical option under terms of necessity. So to simply ban it out right is to doom medically troubled women. It is a tough decision in the case where it is likely that one or both will die no matter the decision made. I think that given the discussion that the federal government has no express right to interfere in this issue under the constitutional guidelines that the STATES SHOULD be the ones making the bans here. The terms of medical necessity need to be define in a VERY restrictive manner - and the hope that it is never a necessary option should be kept in mind.
Apr. 19th, 2009 02:26 am (UTC)
Go back and read my posts on the subject. Obama blocked the Illinois bill when he was an Illinois Senator. He's given about 10-12 excuses for opposing it - and has out and out LIED that he did oppose it until confronted with evidence. I included the copies of the Illinois bill with the EXACT same wording as the federal bill which was passed 98-0 in the Senate.

The year after Obama left his Illinois seat, the Illinois Legislature passed the exact same bill.

Facts are very inconvenient when you try to rationalize irrational behavior.

I know EXACTLY what he argued, and part of it was that if a woman chose to abort, and her baby was born alive, the "child" must die because that's what the mother wanted.

The media can ignore it, Obama can charm his way out of it, and supporters can "explain" it away with pretty words, but the facts and his original statements stand on their own merit.

No wonder the liberal-controlled presidential debates avoided the subject.
Apr. 19th, 2009 04:39 am (UTC)
I don't listen or give merit to anyone in Hollywood. They think because they make a movie or a television show that everyone should listen and follow their views. These people are missing some brain cells. Have you ever watched the Surreal Life?
( 35 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2014


Powered by LiveJournal.com