posted July 14, 2007 01:47 PM            

If so called vegetarians are going to screech, scream and wet themselves over people killing and eating animals....then, the very same label of inhumane is going to be applied to them. They just aren't smart enough to see why this is so.

Those who think or say they think humans can live on air are rationalizing their own eating of animals and plants they know or think they know are being brutalized to keep themselves alive. The only path forward for those people is to say...rationally or irrationally that they are working on not eating anything at all. In practice, that might work out for perhaps 30 days at the end of which they themselves would be dead as their own body eats itself.

Name one right wing dictator or head of a totalitarian government in the last 50 years.

Fortunately, I don't have to formulate a plan to rise to the top in a country with a socialist government. If I were there, I would be working overtime to overthrow the bast@rds.

As I've said, socialism and communism are both organized thuggary. Leaders of those government and those in high plances in those governments DO NOT BELIEVE A SINGLE WORD THEY ABOUT WORKING FOR EQUALITY, JUSTICE AND EQUAL OUTCOMES FOR ALL. In other words, it's a gigantic con game to get into power..by murder, by overthrow of existing governments or by lying through their teeth to get elected. Once in power, the gloves come off with the citizenery and a predictible result follows like night follows day.

Interesting how all those who are attempting to shut others up...or out of debates are leftists. They sure are not liberals.

I love liberals but I simply despise leftists and their hypocrisy...among all the other things leftists hold near and dear to their hearts.

Funny how killing is also near and dear to leftist hearts and sometimes it just pops right out of their mouth(s)...Twinkle Stars.

DL, one of the differences between you and I is that I make no pretenses. I do not claim to be a liberal. I'm a conservative....and one tired of hearing the bullshiiit coming out of leftist mouths and reading the bullshiit coming off leftist keyboards. I make no pretenses in lambasting leftists....which is my way of giving a little back. My good deed(s) for the day.

Now, when I'm talking to an actual liberal, instead of a liberal pretending leftist....then, the conversation is far, far, far different.

posted July 14, 2007 01:51 PM            

At the base is hypocrisy which is broad and deep...deep enough one should first put on their hip boots before venturing there.

July 14, 2007
No party label for Democrat scandals
Thomas Lifson

One the most comic aspects of liberal media bias is the well-established pattern of identifying politicians caught up in scandal by party only when they are Republicans.

Democrats rarely if ever are identified by party. The past week supplies a good example courtesy of the New York Times and AP, arguably the two organizations which do the most to shape national political coverage.

In a Times editorial today on the outrageous abuse of taxpayer funds by Newark's former mayor Democrat Sharpe James, his political affiliation is nowhere mentioned.

Sharpe James, the former mayor of Newark who was indicted this week on corruption charges, has for years exhibited a finger-in-the-eye arrogance. Still, the 33-count indictment against him is stunning, most of all for the list of luxuries he allegedly charged to taxpayers of his impoverished city. Among the standouts: multiple tropical vacations and a trip to Florida to test drive a Rolls-Royce.

The same goes for the AP, as pointed out by the blog Nalert.

A federal grand jury indicted a former Newark Mayor, Sharpe James, on corruption charges Thursday, accusing him of fraud in the sale of city-owned land and using city credit cards to spend extravagantly on himself and several women.

The 33-count indictment charges Mr. James with allegedly facilitating and approving the cut-rate sales of city-owned land to a female companion.

But when Senator David Vitter was reported to have used an escort service, the Times ran an AP story in which "Republican" was the third word of the story. They just couldn't wait to trumpet the GOP affiliation:

Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, apologized Monday for "a very serious sin in my past" after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service that operated here for 13 years.

The fact is that when he was in office, Sharpe James was a power in New Jersey Democratic politics and was supported by every prominent NJ Democrat office-holder in his two election contests against the honest Cory Booker, who won the second contest and now serves as mayor of Newark.

Readers are urged to view the excellent 2005 movie Street Fight, about Booker's first losing contest against James, who comes across as a corrupt thug. But that didn't stop the likes of Jon Corzine and Jesse Jackson from supporting him.

posted July 14, 2007 03:02 PM            

quote:

---

DL, one of the differences between you and I is that I make no pretenses. I do not claim to be a liberal. I'm a conservative....and one tired of hearing the bullshiiit coming out of leftist mouths and reading the bullshiit coming off leftist keyboards. I make no pretenses in lambasting leftists....which is my way of giving a little back. My good deed(s) for the day.

---

You need to learn to stop putting words in people's mouths. I never claimed to be liberal either; you don't even know half of my views. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to label myself concerning political leanings because labels are only for those who aim to promote dis-unity in a nation. . (Dis-unity among a nation is never good) And anyways, my views are not strictly on the left or the right. I agree with conservatives on some issues and I agree with librals on others. So who's making pretenses? Me, or you who claims to be conservative but is blatantly alot more extreme than that?

posted July 14, 2007 05:07 PM              

quote:

---

But when Senator David Vitter was reported to have used an escort service, the Times ran an AP story in which "Republican" was the third word of the story. They just couldn't wait to trumpet the GOP affiliation:

Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, apologized Monday for "a very serious sin in my past" after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service that operated here for 13 years.

---

The Democrats haven't been trumpeting about for the past 13 years saying how "godly" and "pure" they are, and lambasting anyone who doesn't follow their particular value system, and pretending to be the "moral police" for the nation. That might be part of the fascination of the papers in the party affiliation that you are lamenting is so unequal.

posted July 14, 2007 10:51 PM              

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/06/index.html
June 20, 2007
Ron Paul Excluded in Iowa, pt. 2

Jan Mickelson of WHO News Radio 1040 in Des Moines interviewed Ron Paul 2008 chairman Kent Snyder about Ron Paul being excluded from the upcoming candidates forum sponsored by Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance. Ed Failor of Iowans for Tax Relief joined the interview later to explain why his group decided to keep Ron Paul out.

"Congressman Ron Paul isn't welcome at the Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance candidates forum. Oversight? Nope. Kent Snyder from Ron Paul's campaign and Ed Failor from ITR exchange words. Lotsa them." -- Wednesday, June 20, 2007, WHO News Radio 1040

Direct Download of MP3 File (interview starts at 1:01:16) http://media.libsyn.com/media/mickelson/mickelson-2007-06-20.mp3

Technorati: 17 links to this item • Save to del.icio.us (3 saves) • Digg This! (335 Diggs, 95 comments) • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Stumble It! (1 Reviews)

Posted on June 20, 2007 at 07:47 PM | Permalink
June 19, 2007
Ron Paul Excluded in Iowa

Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des Moines. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate.

Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited.

We heard about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who asked why Dr. Paul was not going to participate. Those supporters assumed that Dr. Paul was invited.

The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called this morning; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or simply overlooked it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask about it. To our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be allowed to participate. And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused to explain. The call ended.

Lew then called Mr. Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, to talk with him. Mr. Scheffler did not answer so Lew left a message. He has yet to respond.

Why are the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluding the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of every online poll taken after the MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN debates? Why are they denying Iowans the opportunity to hear from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is growing by the day?

We couldn’t get answers to these questions from Messrs. Failor and Scheffler. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Their contact information is below.

It's ironic that on the same day we learned the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluded Dr. Paul from their candidates forum, we received a call from ABC News confirming Dr. Paul’s participation in its nationally broadcast August 5th debate to be held in Des Moines.

Kent Snyder, Chairman
Ron Paul 2008

Contact Information

Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park Avenue
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: itr@taxrelief.org
Web Site

Steve Scheffler, President
Iowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.com
Web Site

Technorati: 32 links to this item • Save to del.icio.us (5 saves, tagged: ronpaul) • Digg This! (873 Diggs, 318 comments) • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Stumble It! (4 Reviews)

Posted on June 19, 2007 at 03:18 PM | Permalink

posted July 16, 2007 11:46 AM            

I suppose private groups can invite whomever they wish to speak at their events. I'm sorry this group decided to exclude Ron Paul.

On the other hand, the story here is not about other candidates getting together and hatching a plot to exclude Ron Paul from scheduled and moderated debates.

posted July 16, 2007 12:13 PM              

It's quite repulsive to me that candidates would come together to decide "who's serious" and who isn't, and work to exclude other candidates. And somewhat pathetic as well, since Edwards doesn't even rank in the top three last I heard.

His $400 haircut would have kept my family in food for a month or so...

posted July 16, 2007 02:34 PM            

quote:

---

Fortunately DL, I've already had the foresight to label you an anti-American...the range of which is almost exclusively leftist to one degree or another...as opposed to liberal.

---

posted July 17, 2007 01:43 PM            

You seem to prefer socialist government. There are still some from which to choose when you decide to flee this capitalist den in sin.

posted July 17, 2007 01:54 PM            

quote:

---

DL, you are consistenty anti-America in your comments. I wonder why you are here?

You seem to prefer socialist government. There are still some from which to choose when you decide to flee this capitalist den in sin.

---

posted July 19, 2007 01:11 PM            

Healthcare has always been a private sector enterprise and remains so today...in spite of Hillary and other socialists attempting a government takeover. The fact government pays some of the bills does not mean healthcare is not in the private sector....in the US.

The system is screwed up today because of government interference in the healthcare field. Government is directly responsible for the high cost of healthcare in the United States...and the sky rocketing insurance costs. Government screws up just about every private sector function they touch. When government pays...any part of the cost of anything, prices sky rocket because government has the deepest pockets from which to pay.

I'm not telling everyone who does not agree with me to leave the US. Only those who are not citizens and want to change our system of government, our domestic and foreign policy and our economic system itself.

posted July 19, 2007 04:03 PM            

The blame can't go solely on the gov't. There's also the Health insurance companies who are costly to the patients and cheap with the doctors(they almost NEVER pay the doctors what they owe them. Worked in a doctor's office for a while so I should know). Those companies are definitely the work of the devil.

posted July 20, 2007 01:45 PM            

Just for your information, socialized healthcare is a bust...it's busting the systems. Long waits for even basic care, longer waits for any diagnostics care and even longer for actual operations...after running the gauntlet of review, re-review and getting in line to wait. Lots of people just die in the meantime and that suits the socialized healthcare system too.

Now, some nations are using socialized healthcare to bring about individual behavioral/social change. Imagine that, if you smoke, you can't get certain types of operations..heart, lung etc. If you're overweight, you can't get hip or knee replacements. Up theirs!

posted July 20, 2007 02:10 PM            

Now Hillary has been singing their tune too. Some of us wonder if leftist demoscats are totally insane. Perhaps demoscats don't think voters will remember what they have said before pulling that lever in November 2008. Better rethink that.

Leftist demoscats better get it through their thick heads that most Americans understand what redeploy actually means...and that's surrender to terrorists.

PENTAGON: HILL IS HELPING FOE
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent
July 20, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon yesterday launched a blistering attack on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for boosting "enemy propaganda" by demanding the U.S. military whip up plans for withdrawal from Iraq.

The forceful pummeling - in response to Clinton's request that the Defense Department "prepare plans for the phased redeployment" - came in a terse letter to the Democratic presidential front-runner from Defense Undersecretary Eric Edelman.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote in the July 16 letter.

"Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks," he added.

Clinton, who voted in favor of the war in 2002, has been calling for the pullout of combat troops as she ratchets her anti-war rhetoric to woo liberal voters who make up the core of the Democratic Party.

In May, she called on Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace to design plans for an orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and their equipment to avoid "the failure to adequately plan for the conflict."

In addition to the formal request, Clinton urged Pace in a private meeting to make a blueprint for the complex withdrawal - a plan she insisted was necessary, given congressional Democrats' increasing efforts to end the war.

"Any military operation requires contingency planning so that the military and our troops are prepared if the current plan is unsuccessful. It would be irresponsible not to engage in similar planning in Iraq," she said.

Edelman's stinging rebuke is surprising, given that Clinton is a rising member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of the Pentagon.

Clinton's Senate spokesman Philippe Reines said Edelman's letter was "at once outrageous and dangerous," and added that Clinton planned to respond directly to his boss, Secretary of Defense Gates.

posted July 20, 2007 03:12 PM            

quote:

---

Just for your information, socialized healthcare is a bust...it's busting the systems. Long waits for even basic care, longer waits for any diagnostics care and even longer for actual operations...after running the gauntlet of review, re-review and getting in line to wait. Lots of people just die in the meantime and that suits the socialized healthcare system too.

---

Umm yeah because you would know, right? Since you've been through a socialized healthcare care system and everything?

posted July 20, 2007 03:33 PM            

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton hit back Friday at a Pentagon aide who charged that her questions about Iraq withdrawal planning have the effect of helping the enemy — calling the accusation a spurious dodge of a serious issue.

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president, had asked the Pentagon to detail how it is planning for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. She first raised the issue in May, pointing out that whenever troops leave, it will be no simple task to transport the people, equipment and vehicles out of Iraq, possibly through hostile territory.

Eric Edelman, the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy, offered a sharply worded response, saying such discussions boost the enemy.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

His tough language in a letter obtained Thursday by The Associated Press was surprising in part because it came in correspondence with a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of the Pentagon.

Clinton responded Friday in a letter to Edelman's boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, asking if he agreed with Edelman's charge.

The New York senator said Edelman had ducked her questions and "instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning."

"Undersecretary Edelman has his priorities backward," Clinton wrote, calling his claim "outrageous and dangerous."

She repeated her request for a briefing — classified if necessary — on the issue of end-of-war planning.

The senator's spokesman Philippe Reines said: "We sent a serious letter to the Secretary of Defense, and unacceptably got a political response back."

As she runs for president, Clinton has ratcheted up her criticism of the Bush administration's war effort, answering critics of her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq invasion by saying she would end the war if elected president.

Edelman is a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, and a public feud between him and Clinton may win her points among anti-war voters and liberal Democrats, a critical constituency in primary voting.

Among her top Democratic rivals, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has argued that he opposed the war from the start when he was serving in the Illinois legislature. John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, has disavowed his 2002 vote giving President Bush the authority to oust Saddam Hussein's regime.

Her response to Edelman also suggests Democrats are still smarting from what they claim were rough Republican tactics during the 2004 presidential race. Democrats also directed some of their ire at nominee John Kerry, contending that he did not respond quickly or forcefully enough to broadsides such as the unsubstantiated allegations from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Kerry came to Clinton's defense after the Edelman letter, and the two are discussing legislation they will offer that would force the Pentagon to brief Congress and offer a full report on troop withdrawal plans.

If she ultimately wins the White House, Clinton may find herself overseeing a troop withdrawal, but others have also raised the issue, including Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Edelman's letter does indicate the Pentagon might be planning how to withdraw, saying: "We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department."

_________________________________

quote:

---

"We sent a serious letter to the Secretary of Defense, and unacceptably got a political response back."

---

Damn right. These Republicans are tremendously professional and mature, aren't they?

quote:

---

Perhaps demoscats don't think voters will remember what they have said before pulling that lever in November 2008. Better rethink that.

Leftist demoscats better get it through their thick heads that most Americans understand what redeploy actually means...and that's surrender to terrorists.
- Jwhop

---

Read the news much?

posted July 21, 2007 01:24 PM            

So, Hillary is just as much a traitor as her husband Commander Korruption, as Carl Levin, as Dick Dustbin, as Ted Kennedy, as Nancy Pee-losi, as Harry Reid, as John Traitor Kerry and all the rest of the slime who want to surrender to the terrorists.

Hillary is singing the terrorist anthem too and that's music which grates on American ears...though not ears of accidential Americans who just sing along.

The Pentagon official is right and it's long past time demoscats got called on their support for terrorists and terrorism.

I don't know how much lower job approval ratings for the demoscat congress can go but I'm sure we're going to find out in the coming months. Press B for Basement.

posted July 21, 2007 02:13 PM            

quote:

---

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

If the Congressional Election were held today, 46% of American voters say they would currently vote for the Democrat in their district while 37% would pull the voting lever for a Republican. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/congressional_ballot

---

posted July 23, 2007 02:06 PM            

I know you don't really want to talk about that acoustic, so let's talk about what's going to happen to the demoscats...if they get their way and surrender to the terrorists in Iraq...and everywhere else in the world demoscats want to surrender.

There will be a bloodbath in Iraq, a radical Islamic regime will be established there and it won't take very long for Americans to see that and remember what George Bush told them would happen..which is exactly what will happen.

Further, demoscat plans to play Commander in Chief will get a hell of a lot of American service personnel killed...as the US draws down forces there...AND LEAVES THOSE LEFT THERE UNDERSTRENGTH. That's the hallmark of leftists, they are brain dead morons who couldn't find their as$es with both hands let along plan military strategy and/or tactics.

posted July 23, 2007 04:39 PM            

quote:

---

Approval among Democrats fell 21 points, from 48 percent in May to 27 percent.

It remained low among Republicans, at 20 percent, and has not changed significantly in the past two months.

---

posted September 13, 2007 01:15 PM            

FROM THE HALLS OF MALIBU TO THE SHORES OF KENNEDY
September 12, 2007
Ann Coulter

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.

Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.

It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."

On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."

The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."

About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."

Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an article on the election this way:

"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.
"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"

If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.****Note***I vote for both A and B
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi