For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
6 New Rules to Fight the Left: Maher’s Attacks on O’Donnell Bring Out the Mama Grizzly
Written By : Susannah Fleetwood

Most people who don’t live in a cave are probably somewhat familiar with the left’s recent attacks on Christine O’Donnell. First, it was that she was against masturbation in 1995, now it’s that she dabbled in witchcraft when she was in high school. (No, seriously, I’m not making this stuff up–these people are just that pathetic.)

Now, granted, Bill Maher (the man who first engaged in this attack on O’Donnell) is obviously trying to paint Christine O’Donnell as crazy or out of the mainstream, by implying that she’s some sort of a secret witch. (Wait–I’m confused. First she was a radical Christian who was against masturbation, and now, she’s a witch? Which one is it?) However, Bill Maher is one to talk about others being out of the mainstream. First of all, this guy is perpetually surrounded by a coterie of skanks, and his look is free-clinic chic, to say the least. Second of all, Maher dressed up as the Crocodile Hunter for Halloween, after the guy had tragically died from a stingray piercing his heart. To say that was “in bad taste” is the understatement of the millennium. And finally, Maher referred to Bristol Palin as a “Hillbilly Heroine” on his TV show (see embed below).

So, my response to people who say that we should take Bill Maher’s accusations of witchcraft seriously: really? We should listen to this degenerate with regard to which candidates we support?! (No I’m not shouting–I’m growling.)

However, this story has now gotten a lot bigger than Bill Maher or Christine O’Donnell–and if you will all bear with me, I will explain exactly what I’m talking about.

Robert Stacy McCain recently wrote a hilarious blog post where he quipped–

“We knew they were desperate, but no one suspected the Left would turn this into a literal witch-hunt.”

However, The Hillbuzz later explained that the Left has a history of painting women who run against Obama as witches (and, they have the pictures of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin depicted as witches to prove it). Could this possibly be true, you ask? Well, this column prompted me to do some digging of my own to see if those images in the Hillbuzz link were the only images out there on Leftist blogs. They’re not.

Above is an image of Hillary Clinton that was very popular on all of the so-called liberal blogs during the 2008 Democratic primary.

Above is a picture of Sarah Palin that was very popular on all of the Leftist blogs during the 2008 general election.

Above is a picture of Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, that is still very popular on all of the so-called liberal blogs.

And finally, of course, you could all guess that the Left would make Minnesota congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann, into a witch–and this picture is still very popular on many of the Leftist blogs.

Whoa! That’s some pretty damning evidence against the Left…but, I’m not finished.

What’s more, the progressive blog Jezebel wrote about Chris Matthew’s obsession with painting Hillary Clinton as a witch. To be specific, they wrote the following–

“Some of the names Matthews has called Ms. Clinton? “She Devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” “Madame Defarge.” (You know, the haggy, knitting, plotting character in A Tale Of Two Cities noted for being a ruthless villain?) It doesn’t end there, though.

Matthews has also spouted that Clinton is “witchy,” “anti-male” and “uppity.” And he was one of the first to mock Ms. Clinton’s laugh, saying “what do you make of the cackle?In his eyes, she’s Maleficent, a full-on Disney witch.”

OK–I think that I’ve demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that, according to the Left, if you are a woman who is challenging The One in any way, then their response is, “Burn the witch!” Therefore, Bill Maher’s pathetic attempt to paint Christine O’Donnell as a witch is really straight out of the progressive playbook. (In fact, Richard Cohen just wrote a column yesterday playing the witch/masturbation card on Christine O’Donnell).

Now, on to my second point about the Left vs. women who challenge Obama.

It is a stone-cold fact that the Left attempts to sexualize women–in very perverted and misogynistic ways–that get in Barack Obama’s way. This is so easy to prove that it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. First you had the Hillary Clinton nutcrackers, Representative Steve Cohen comparing Clinton to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, and Chris Matthews calling her “Nurse Ratched” (which most definitely implies that she’s some sort of a “ball-buster.”) (You even had Keith Olbermann imply that someone should beat up Hillary. But remember, the Left is all about women’s rights and feminism. Rolls eyes.)

However, the Left was just getting warmed up with Hillary Clinton. She was their appetizer–Sarah Palin was their main course. Remember how on the the day after John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, CNN started repeating sick Daily Kos rumors about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. (To this day, Andrew Sullivan is still playing the roll of amateur gynecologist and demanding see Sarah Palin’s medical records.) Furthermore, interns and volunteers for Obama PROUDLY photographed themselves wearing disgusting, vulgar T-shirts about Sarah Palin, and then put the pictures on the internet. (Hey now, remember, the libs are all about women’s advancement. Rolls eyes.) Next, came Rick Sanchez asking on live TV if Sarah Palin was stepping down as AK governor, because “she was pregnant again”. Oh, and who could forget David Letterman making disgusting jokes about Sarah Palin’s fourteen year old daughter “getting knocked up by Alex Rodriguez” (Caleb Howe asks if Letterman has ever had a visit from Chris Hansen). And finally, there has been the recent Vanity Fair by Michael Gross where he grossly asks strangers about the Palin’s sex life, and then delves into the details of Sarah Palin’s undergarments.

And now, we are up to Christine O’Donnell and masturbation. So, as to the charge that the Left loves to sexualize and demonize women who get in Obama’s way–I confidently rest my case. Bill Maher isn’t an anomaly–he is quite mainstream in his misogyny, as far as progressives go.

[By the way, if any of you still aren't convinced that so-called liberals love to sexualize women who get in Obama's way--I present to you the "Hate-f**k" column from Playboy where the author fantasizes about which conservative woman he'd most like to violate. Game, set, match.]

Now, after all of the evidence that I have presented, I think that one thing is painfully obvious (besides the fact that the Left is composed of a lot of pervs who would rather talk about witchcraft and masturbation than the economy and jobs)–we are playing the game by their rules, not our own. And guess what? This game is rigged against us. Simply put, the rules of this game are to call any woman who challenges Obama and his agenda a “witch”, or say perverted things about her and her family. And, if we complain about these Chicago tactics and don’t take ‘the high road”, then we are “Raaaaacists!!” (that’s five A’s). Well, in the spirit of Bill Maher, I’ve decided that it’s time for us conservatives to make some “New Rules”.

New Rule: It is time for us to start engaging in Chicago politics as well.

I think that it is time for us to start taking our inspiration–figuratively speaking, of course–from Sean Connery’s character (Sargent Malone) in The Untouchables.

“They bring a knife, you bring a gun. That’s the Chicago way!”

For too long, we’ve been showing up to knife fights with Wiffle ball bats. That’s got to change.

For example, when Sarah Palin was running for President, so-called liberals had no problem bringing up her daughter’s youthful indiscretion. Not to mention, as The Hillbuzz points out, the Left had no problem pointing out Scott Brown’s youthful indiscretion of posing in Cosmopolitan as a centerfold, and they tried to paint him as “a former nude model”. (By the way, The Hillbuzz must be commended for coming up with the term “Hottie McAwesome” for Scott Brown, because that totally took the wind out of the left’s sails with regard to attacking him.) And now, the Left is bringing up Christine O’Donnell’s youthful indiscretions of dabbling in witchcraft–in high school–and of promoting an anti-wanking policy, back in 1995, when she was a conservative activist.

Now, I ask you, why aren’t we allowed to bring up Barack Obama’s youthful indiscretions–like for instance, “dabbling in cocaine”, and then writing about it–in a book? I mean, we all remember Bill Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale” moment, and reporters spreading rumors about George W. Bush doing cocaine. No one at the time thought it was “distasteful” to bring up their youthful indiscretions/drug dabbling–and neither one of them wrote about their drug use in a book! However, then someone changed the rules and said that it was “beyond the pale” to bring up Obama’s past drug use. Who made that rule anyway? Oh yeah–it was the Obama campaign (and the MSM–same thing).

It’s time to change the rules back in our favor. The next time that I hear anyone bring up Christine O’Donnell’s youthful indiscretions (that the last time I checked, she wasn’t running on–Obama was, in part, running on his book), I am going to say the following–

“OK–so Christine O’Donnell may have dabbled in witchcraft in high school. Barack Obama dabbled in booger sugar as an adult (in college). Oh, and the last time that I checked, being “master of your domain”, or being a Wiccan, is not against the law–cocaine is. So tell me, why are Obama’s youthful indiscretions off limits, but Christine O’Donnell’s aren’t?”

[Hey Lefties, I hope that you like this song (see below), because every time that one of you trolls here and mentions Christine O'Donnell's youthful indiscretions, I'm going to mention Obama's--and then I'm going to play this song--]

Oh, and just for the record–I’m not a big fan of bringing up youthful indiscretions, because I, you know, think that it’s possible for people to grow up in twenty or so years. However, I refuse to be lambs to the slaughter anymore. So, if the Left is going to hit us, then we have to be prepared to hit back–hard.

New Rule: Reverend Wright is, now, back in vogue.

This is really common sense. If the Left is going to attempt to “otherize” Christine O’Donnell as some sort of crazy Wiccan–because of something she dabbled in when she was in high school–well, you know where this is heading. It is, then, only fair to bring up the fact that Obama sat in the “God Damn America/I hate the Jews/Italians have garlic noses” church for twenty years. Oh, and he wrote about it–in a book! (See, the Left has never grasped the whole “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” bit.) I think that Mark Steyn put it best when he wrote the following

“The Reverend Jeremiah Wright thinks that, given their treatment by white America, black Americans have no reason to sing “God Bless America.” “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America,” he told his congregation. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.”

I’m not a believer in guilt by association, or the campaign vaudeville of rival politicians insisting this or that candidate disassociate himself from remarks by some fellow he had a 30-second grip’n’greet with a decade ago. But Jeremiah Wright is not exactly peripheral to Barack Obama’s life. He married the Obamas and baptized their children. Those of us who made the mistake of buying the senator’s last book, The Audacity of Hope, and assumed the title was an ingeniously parodic distillation of the great sonorous banality of an entire genre of blandly uplifting political writing discovered circa page 127 that in fact the phrase comes from one of the Reverend Wright’s sermons. Jeremiah Wright has been Barack Obama’s pastor for 20 years — in other words, pretty much the senator’s entire adult life. Did Obama consider God Damn America as a title for his book but it didn’t focus-group so well?”

I freely admit to being a tad bit bored with the whole Reverend Wright brouhaha. However, if the Left wants to play “the wacky religion game”, then I say–let’s tussle.

New Rule: The race card is maxed out.

Because of the previous New Rule that it’s now in vogue to bring up Reverend Wright whenever the Left brings up witchcraft, with regard to Christine O’Donnell (they really brought this on themselves), the Left will now cry, pout, stomp their feet, accuse you of “spreading the poison”, and finally, call you a “racist”. Let them. Then, play this video–and explain to them real slowly that even Jon Stewart, now, understands that the race card is maxed out.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Race Card Is Maxed Out
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Oh, and judging from this woman’s question below, it’s not just the race card that’s maxed out, but everybody’s credit cards–and patience–as well.

New Rule: Don’t be afraid to call the Left “sexist” or “misogynist”.

For starters, they sure as heck aren’t afraid to call us “racist!!”–based on absolutely no evidence at all.

Look–I realize that it goes against the natural grain of conservatism to call someone a sexist or a racist–we don’t like the whole victim thingy. However, I didn’t think that being a conservative was about taking crap from Kos kiddies either. The Left knows that we are loathe to play the victim card, so they keep right on calling conservative women (and even Hillary Clinton) “witches” thinking that we will just shut up and take it. Well, we’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore. And besides, what do you have to do to actually be called a sexist or a misogynist in Leftist circles–condone female genital mutilation?! Oh, wait, they’ve already done that. Anywho, if calling a woman a “witch”, writing about her underwear and her sex life, joking about her daughter “getting knocked up”, discussing her take on masturbation fifteen years ago, or fantasizing about how you would like to violate conservative women isn’t sexist or misogynist, then nothing is.

Oh, and if any of you wonder how to go about doing this, then look no further than the video below. Pat Buchanan–of all people–calls Chris Matthews to the carpet brilliantly on his piggish behavior. (I realize that some here have their differences with Buchanan–but on this issue, he hit it out of the park. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.) For the first fifty seconds of the video Chris Matthews thinks that he’s winning the debate, well, because he’s shouting the loudest and talking over Buchanan. Then, at around 50 seconds in, Buchanan finally gets fed up with Matthews’ foolishness and says the following to him–

“What’s your problem with strong women, buddy?! The M in MSNBC shouldn’t stand for misogyny!”

Matthews’ face then turned beet red and he started stammering something about Buchanan being “Alan Alda” (he sounded like an eight year old caught in a 1970′s time warp). It was obvious that Matthews was humiliated on national television, and that he had just had his *ss handed to him.

[Oh, and just ignore Michelle Bernard. She's a shameless Obama shill and I already smacked her down and exposed her as an Obama apologist on RedState.]

New Rule: Don’t be afraid to “get in their faces”–to quote Barack Obama.

Again, when you stand your ground against progressives, they will shamelessly play the race card–or try to shame you for taking the fight to them, and not letting them shout you down. They will be INDIGNANT!!…because their chickens are coming home…to roost. For the love of God and your own body, don’t back down! The best example of ground standing that I’ve seen recently is Megyn Kelly’s on air spat with Kirsten Powers over The New Black Panther Party not being prosecuted by Obama’s DOJ for obvious voter intimidation. When Kelly pressed the issue of why Obama’s DOJ dropped a case of such clear-cut voter intimidation–that they had already won–Powers accused her of being a racist by saying “Oooh, scary black man!”. Kelly’s eye’s then narrowed and she bellowed, “Excuse me?!”…and then proceeded to rain hellfire down on poor Kirsten Powers (who I don’t think is a bad person–she just obviously didn’t get the memo that the race card is maxed out). Powers never saw it coming, and she was reduced to whining, “But, George Bush!!”. (Someone also must have forgot to inform her that the Bush card is maxed out as well, but I digress.)

New Rule: Don’t worry if the Leftist MSM, or David Brooks, likes you.

If they dislike you, or find you to be “spreading the poison”, that means you are winning. See Sarah Palin and the Tea Party as exhibit A of this phenomenon.

Let’s look at the Republicans that the so-called liberal MSM does like, shall we? OK–there’s Dede Scozzafova, Mike Castle, Arlen Specter and Lisa Murkowski. Whatever do they all have in common? Oh yeah–they lost!! Oh, and if Mike Castle had won in DE and Christine O’Donnell had lost, then the MSM would be trying to destroy him right now and would be crying crocodile tears for Christine O’Donnell.

And by the way, if David Brooks is a conservative, then I’m a ham sandwich. Brooks has called Sarah Palin a “joke” and has referred to her as “a fatal cancer on the GOP”–and, he perpetually talks about Barack Obama as though he’s the Messiah. The only reason why Brooks even pretends to be a conservative, is so that people will think that he’s interesting at cocktail parties–otherwise, he’d just be another boring, elitist liberal. Now granted, this doesn’t make Brooks a bad person per se–it just means that he’s really a closeted Leftist. Oh, and he wants you to LOSE!!

So, in conclusion, it should be apparently obvious to anyone reading this column that the whole “Burn the witch!!” brouhaha that Bill Maher started is really about a whole lot more than just Christine O’Donnell–and it’s about more than just Bill Maher as well. It is about how we conservatives have been playing by the rules that the MSM and the Obama Administration have set for us–rules that are stacked against us. I mean, could any of you imagine the MSM outcry if conservative pundits were using the same line of attacks against a liberal woman that progressives are now employing against Christine O’Donnell?! The Left would be screaming at the top of their lungs that those attacks were beyond the pale–and they would be right.

However, the whole ugly Christine O’Donnell cloud does have a silver lining. Whether he realizes it or not (and I doubt that he does), Bill Maher has managed to expose how actually weak the Left really is right now. Think about it. If Barack Obama had been a successful president thus far, do you really think that the Left would be reduced to discussing witchcraft and masturbation?! Heck no! They would be talking about job numbers and the economy. Barack Obama’s message has gone from “Yes we can!” to “Yes we can–you won’t go blind or grow hair on your palms!” and, “Yes we can dunk her in water and see if she floats!”.

And finally, with his disgusting attacks egged on by the so-called liberal MSM, Maher has probably woken up a slew of Mama Grizzlies from their slumber. He definitely woke me up. I say that it’s time to emerge from our hibernation. It’s time to let them hear us roar. Looky–I can see November from my house!

PS–I agree with the boys over at The Hillbuzz that Defying Gravity, from the Broadway musical Wicked, should be Christine O’Donnell’s theme song. Oh heck–any excuse to hear Idina Menzel sing.

Cross-posted from NewsReal and The Minority Report.

0
  • Hillary_2016

    That was a lot of words to say nothing.

  • Susannah

    So then why did you read it all? Not much to do in Mommy's basement?

    • Hotspur1

      Because he secretly loves conservative women, but is afraid he'll get rejected. So he's going with reverse psychology in the hopes you'll reciprocate.

      Either that or he's a 5 year-old.

    • Kingfisher

      Give the troll some credit. He wants to move past Dr. Seuss and start learning what adults talk about.

  • Martha

    What a dog's dinner of tripe. It's like a combination of 'connect the dots' and 'pin the tail on the donkey'. But the Bill Maher bit is pricelees. Those ignorant Americans he's talking about- they are you, oh, Susannah.

  • http://blog.stixblog.com stix1972

    Do you get out of the basement that often.

    Or have you ever read the English language, because it seems that you do not know how to read

  • http://blog.stixblog.com stix1972

    Wow what eloquence from your comment. B

    • Guest

      What comment? I don't see any comments from Martha. All I see is a child with his hands on his ears, chanting “lah, lah, lah, I can't hear you!”

      • StanW

        Then you are an idiot. stix1972 was replying to Martha.

        If you are too ignorant to follow a simple comment thread, then perhap you need a new hobby!

  • fail-baby-fail

    Funny….. the funny witch pics that where very popular on all the liberal blogs. I'm sure they where posted on some blogs but all?

    Hey new chick a little proof can go a long way. I mean hell you spent 10 hours playing on YouTube. How about a link or two.

    Now some truth for ya. O'donnell is down 15 points in the last poll. This nose dive, could cost you the house. LOL, way to pick a winner.

    You see new chick…O'donnell got a lot of the fringe all hyped about voting, and thats not a bad thing. But the problem many many republicans will not touch her with a 10 foot pole. This is why castle could win he was a moderate.

    Thank you tea party you will give the democrats at least one seat. Most likely two thanks to angle.

  • Pork_Soda

    Jeez… I think I busted the scroll button on my cordless mouse gettin' to the bottom of this post. Please darlin', I have the attention span of a spider monkey on crack donchyaknow!

  • http://blog.stixblog.com stix1972

    Nice of you to actually proved her point with you idiotic comment.

  • Susannah

    First of all, if you go on Google Images, you can see for yourself what blogs they came off of. Every one of them came off of liberal blogs. In fact, here is a link just to humor you (the blog that the Bachmann photo came off of was called “Left Eye on the Media”).

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lefteyeonthemedia.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/bachmann_witch.jpg%3Fw%3D300%26h%3D204&imgrefurl=http://lefteyeonthemedia.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/athens-or-sparta/&usg=__-AbyRxYfCc-DJrNkF7aBZbjj9cc=&h=204&w=300&sz=11&hl=en&start=50&sig2=DqtD1os9fcyKSn6d59C-_w&zoom=0&tbnid=03gTc5H5_RWt5M:&tbnh=79&tbnw=116&ei=HrCaTKjCDIO78gaokblR&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMichelle%2BBachman%2Bwitch%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D552%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C798&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=410&vpy=242&dur=2991&hovh=79&hovw=116&tx=118&ty=53&oei=E7CaTLvMFcL_lgeP57zGCQ&esq=3&page=3&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:50&biw=1366&bih=552

    Second of all, do you really think that conservative blogs would have pictures of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Jan Brewer as witches? Are you really that stupid? Where else do you think that they came from?

    Oh, and by the way, you just proved my point about Obama supporters being sexist by calling me “chick”. It's a good idea not to prove your adversary's point for them.

    And finally, speaking of “fail-baby-fail”–O'Donnell is running for the Senate, not the House. You might want to do some more research down there in Mommy's basement before you try to blog with the grown-ups again.

    Love, Susannah

  • Susannah

    “Ignorant Americans”–you're really going with that line? And the left wonders why they lose so many elections. Sigh.

  • Martha

    No, the left wonders why there are so many ignorant Americans on the Right. You but prove our concerns.

  • Susannah

    “You but prove our concerns”…

    Let me get this straight. You are ignorant of even basic grammar, and yet, you are calling me “ignorant”? That's hysterical. Thanks for laugh.

    • gfchicago

      Martha is usually good for at least one laugh a day. After that it gets really boring and tedious.

  • Proud Infidel

    “Politics is said to be the second oldest profession. I have come to believe ti bears a close resemblance to the first.” – Ronald Reagan
    Those words ring SO true today, especially with what Ms. Fleetwood has highlighted here. It's tough to find people as two-faced as today's liberals in DC. I distinctly Remember [wannabe] Emperor Obama's speeches about our war efforts overseas while he was a Senator, he was always voting against funding or supporting our military overseas, declaring the war lost alongside Reid and Pelosi. Now, he conveniently flipflops like a freshly caught fish on a dock or boat! On spending, the dems in DC are throwing our tax dollars around like drunken sailors in a strip club, just look at their 5-star junkets, the Obamas taking TWO jets to Oslo, a separate plane to Maine just for the dog, etc.,…..
    Another positive that I see is the left constantly parading their true colors just before this midterm election, the voters have awakened and HAD ENOUGH, just look at the MSM-slandered Tea Party rallies! And if we Tea Partiers are such a nasty crowd, how come you never see any of the sacking, vandalism, bonfires, molotov cocktails, riot police and tear gas at any of their rallies that you do at a liberal rant-fest? How many people get arrested at a right-wing rally?
    “Liberalism is a mental disorder.” Dr. Savage
    The moonbats' dirty diaper rants and hissyfits we see here prove that beyond a doubt!
    WE are the RIGHT, WE SHALL OVERCOME!! :D
    Hey, REAL change for the better starts in less than 6 weeks!

  • Lee

    Good points, but one concern. When you sink to their level, there is a real danger of becoming just like them. Jumping into the muck-pit is easy; getting out is a lot harder. Also, there's the real risk that when conservatives start using liberal tactics, liberals change their approach to give the illusion that they are “better” and get the cover of the media.

    My advice is not to go down that road at all. Stick to the high ground. Call out the lies when they appear, but no more. Apply guilt by showing the double-standard of liberals accusing conservatives of doing the same things liberals do, but don't agitate. You're never going to change the minds of the hard-core left, but moderates and independents will see who is acting like an adult and who is acting like a child.

  • Guest

    I will make sure I pass on the message to the Left that if they don't stop showing the clip where Odonnell proclaims she “dabbled in witch craft” that you will START talking about Rev. Wright. Next you will be threatening to talk about Bill Ayers. I guess the biggest difference is the left is talking about the candidate with her own words, and the right is talking about someone the candidate associated with in the political and religious spectrum. Did any of you actually listen to Wright's G.D. America speech or read a transcript? It is available, and you would do society justice to read it and learn from it. He spoke of imprisoning the Japanese American Citizens to include children because they were of Japanese ancestry, he spoke of the U.S. gov. experimenting on its citizens with fatal diseases. I would assume that you don't think God would bless America for these actions. Obviously I was wrong, this group supports that type of action from our gov., and you wonder why people call you racist.

  • Trench_Raider

    Unfounded accusations of “racism” is a form of libel. Libel is specificly prohibited on this site:

    http://rightwingnews.com/faq.php

    Flagged for libel.

    TR

    • Guest

      Trench, You will notice that I didn't call you or your ilk racist, I simply pointed out how others may have drawn their conclusion. Because I believe that public education, police, fire fighters, armed forces, EPA, and the transportation department are necessary concepts in a strong national foundation; some would call me a Socialist. I don't necessarily agree with the terminology but it is far from libel. As I pointed out, when you rail against someone who is speaking out against racism, and you use the platform by which they are speaking out against it to portray them as anti American; then you lend yourself to be called racist by others.

      • Trench_Raider

        First off, what previous name did you post to this site under, troll?

        Second, by lending any credibility to Wright et al, you indirectly support their bogus claims and and give them far more than they deserve.

        Third, “Racism” is a meaningless word. It's a construct of a Marxist (none other than Leon Trotsky) and was originally used in exaclty the way the leftist scum use it today: to shame and silence opposing views. It should have no place in political discussions.

        Ironicly, “racist” is today's version of the word “nigger”. It's a nasty little term used to demean, de-humanize, and marginalize a group of people. In the vast majority of cases it holds no real meaning beyond being a swear word designed to silence opposition. It's libel/slander in it's purest form.

        So any time some leftist clown comes in and uses such a term toward conservatives (and similar meaningless name calling foolishness designed to shut down discussion such as “homophobe” and “bigot”) I'm going to flag them for libel.

        Finally, you dance around it and play word games about what you said all day long. We got your meaning, son.

        TR

        • Guest

          “by lending any credibility to Wright et al, you indirectly support their bogus claims.” So you are joining the ranks of Ahmadinejad. You deny that Japanes Internment Camps existed? Tuskegee syphilis experiment? I guess you deny that the holocaust happened as well. You must have a lot of credibility in your circles.

          • Kingfisher

            Interesting how you avoid discussing the issue about Wright directly and try to deflect the issue.

            Wright is a racist but you want to avoid that topic.

            So you claim that we're denying the past existence of Japanese internment camps but you're denying the statements uttered by Wright. You're guilty of the same crime that you accuse us of committing.

            I don't mind, you're a coward so you want to create a straw man. This is what cowards do which is why you constantly change your pseudonym.

          • Guest

            I don't try to avoid anything as should be apparent by my posting on this cite. I have been addressing a speech given by Wright, as eluded to by the preceding article.

            And to this pseudonym question, let me answer. I posted as guest, before that I posted as guest, before that I posted as guest, etc….

            Do you get the point? And now I am going to reply to your post as guess who? That is right….guest.

          • Kingfisher

            I have been addressing a speech given by Wright, as eluded to by the preceding article.

            Really? Where? It's not here so you lied again.

            Or did you think you “addressed” Wright's speeches here:

            So you are joining the ranks of Ahmadinejad. You deny that Japanes Internment Camps existed? Tuskegee syphilis experiment? I guess you deny that the holocaust happened as well. You must have a lot of credibility in your circles.

            More projection by a loser who cannot provide facts.

        • Good Ol Boy

          “First off, what previous name did you post to this site under, troll?”

          His writing style reminds me of several trolls from days gone by:

          -Freder Fredersen

          -metranon (or something like that)

          -Hogg

          -Fatty Mcgee

      • Kingfisher

        Because I believe that public education, police, fire fighters, armed forces, EPA, and the transportation department are necessary concepts in a strong national foundation; some would call me a Socialist.

        Again, based upon your statement, that would mean that anything the government does is right. In other words, the government is infallible, in your opinion.

        • Guest

          Out of curiosity, which area of the government that I cited do you feel is unnecessary. I stand behind my statement, not yours. For example the Red Cross is not infallible, but under the right leadership they provide a necessary service.

          • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

            Dept of Ed and the EPA definitely need to go.

          • Guest

            No Department of education? Are you familiar with the U.S. literacy rates?

            http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

            “For the later part of this century the illiteracy rates have been relatively low, registering only about 4 percent as early as 1930. However, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, illiteracy was very common. In 1870, 20 percent of the entire adult population was illiterate, and 80 percent of the black population was illiterate. By 1900 the situation had improved somewhat, but still 44 percent of blacks remained illiterate. The statistical data show significant improvements for black and other races in the early portion of the 20th century as the former slaves who had no educational opportunities in their youth were replaced by younger individuals who grew up in the post Civil War period and often had some chance to obtain a basic education. The gap in illiteracy between white and black adults continued to narrow through the 20th century, and in 1979 the rates were about the same.”

            No EPA? So you are good with burning rivers?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River

          • Kingfisher

            No EPA? So you are good with burning rivers?
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River

            Thank you for proving me right yet again.

            The article you linked to states that the river caught fire as late as 1969. Because of an event that occurred 40 years ago, you think the EPA is still necessary.

            Also, you projected by claiming that we're “good with burning rivers.” Instead of learning WHY the EPA should be gutted, you projected by claiming that we want burning rivers.

            If you cannot argue like an adult, go back to elementary school.

            Your immaturity is noted.

            Also, I noticed that the link you provided on literacy rates only goes to 1979 (31 years ago). Why didn't you bother to look at the literacy rates through 2009?

          • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

            When was the Dept of Ed brought into existence? Oh yeah right about the time literacy rates were reaching parity!!!!

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

            And King already shot down your burning river meme?

            NEXT?

          • Kingfisher

            which area of the government that I cited do you feel is unnecessary.

            I didn't say that they were “unnecessary.” Show me the post where I stated this. I stated that you're claiming that all government agencies are infallible. There is a major difference.

            You're a socialist because you believe that anything the government does is right. You're only critical of the government when your political party isn't in power. And before you start the typical leftist lie about Bush, I challenge you to go to the RWN archives. You'll find LOTS and LOTS and LOTS (and lots and lots…) of criticism about Bush's policies. That is because you're extremely stupid, your hatred of anybody who doesn't agree with your political philosophy prohibits you from engaging in rational conversation.

            Obviously, reading comprehension is not one of your skills. Pull your head out of your ass and read a post before commenting.

            Take the Dept. of Education, for instance. That government branch is failing all across this country yet the left never believes that it should be overhauled. The poor should have the right to an excellent education yet the DoE fails this task. Rather than focusing on success the left wants to throw more money into a failed program.

            I stand behind my statement, not yours.

            Of course you do which proves MY statement right.

            For example the Red Cross is not infallible, but under the right leadership they provide a necessary service.

            Is the Red Cross a part of the government? If so, provide evidence.

            Once again, you're moving the goalposts.

      • Kingfisher

        EPA

        The EPA is a department that claims that man-made global warming is a fact. If so, provide evidence that supports this claim.

        MMGW is a lie, it is invented by the political elite to curtail institutions that are not currently under its control. MMGW is not accepted by the majority of experts, despite the fact that the left claims this.

  • StanW

    Those deplorable actions were done by DEMOCRATS, Guest.

    You are on a re-write-history roll!

    • Guest

      They were done by Americans in America. If they happened under the leadership of a particular political party, then it is irrelevant if that political party no longer follows or stands for those principles. Is your argument that now the Republicans should adopt the platform that has been abandoned by the Democrats? If so, then it goes to my point.

      • StanW

        Funny you you and your ilk slam Republicans for this and Republicans for that. Yet when it is pointed out that you LIED in your attacks and it was actually done by YOUR OWN PARTY, you slither and slims and backtrack with some quissling and cowardly equivocation.

        “Oh, it was AMERICANS, I don't care which party”. Much like the cries during Hurricane Katrina.
        Liberals – “Republicans are killing black people in New Orleans.”
        Conservatives – “But what about all the Democrats that are in charge down there? Aren't they responsible for anything?”
        Liberals – “Well, aaaaaaaa, there is plenty of blame to go around, but GEORGE BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE!!!!!”

      • Kingfisher

        Based upon your comments, that would mean:

        1) You must support racism since comments by individuals or policies supported by a specific political party are are, as you call “done by Americans in America.”

        2) You support the Tea Party and believe in its policies since the Tea Party is “done by Americans in America.”

        3) You oppose gay marriage since the vast majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.

        That would mean that you're contradicting yourself which makes you a liar.

        • Guest

          Based on my comments you can infer I have a perspective that, irreguardless of political affiliation, is based on reason and sanity. You are another one that missed the forest for the trees. As far as the Tea Party goes, I have no problem with peaceful protest. It is America and we have the right to protest. And in response to 3) I don't care if you get married or not. I think that should be up to you.

          • Kingfisher

            Based on my comments you can infer I have a perspective that, irreguardless of political affiliation, is based on reason and sanity.

            Too bad because that is not what I stated.

            You are another one that missed the forest for the trees.

            You are another liberal that is moving the goalposts.

            As far as the Tea Party goes, I have no problem with peaceful protest. It is America and we have the right to protest.

            In America, owners of private property have the right to do what they choose. RightWingNews is the private property of John Hawkins and yet, you bitch and complain that your posts are being removed.

            Other posters have the right to do that here. Once again, thank you for proving that you're a liar.

            And in response to 3) I don't care if you get married or not. I think that should be up to you.

            It is up to the American people who overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. So you proved issue number 3 correct AGAIN!

          • Guest

            I am not responsible for you not liking the answers I gave you in reply to your statements. I am not moving the goal post, just trying to answer you in a manner that will show clarity to my perspective. As to your private property argument, I am not attempting to infringe on anyones private property. There is a comment section, inviting comments to articles posted. But once posted they are picked selectively on apparently a subjective standard eliminating contrary opinion simply because it doesn't meet the propoganda perspective required by so many on this site. Let me give you an analogy: you are invited to dinner by an individual, you change your plans, show up well dressed, you sit down at the table and they don't feed you dinner. No you don't have the right to take food from that individual, but you do have a right to tell others about what they did. Comprende?

            As to the gay marriage: I don't have a dog in this fight, it will not undermine my marriage, and not sure why you feel it will undermine marriage in general. I am not that insecure, can you explain why you are?

          • Trench_Raider

            There is a comment section, inviting comments to articles posted. But once posted they are picked selectively on apparently a subjective standard eliminating contrary opinion simply because it doesn't meet the propoganda perspective required by so many on this site

            Flagged for lying.

            Not the tired old “this site censors opposing views!” lie again. All trolls get around to making that easily debunked claim eventually.

            Posts here get deleted for being off topic, nasty and hateful screeds, being obvious attempts to disrupt the dsicussion on the site (ie trolls), contain libel, or otherwise break the rules for posting as outlined in the FAQ. Sorry son, but you implicitly agreed to abide by those rules when you hit that “post” button and thus have no reason to whine when a staffer deletes yor posts for breaking the posting rules. If you don't like how things work here, then perhaps you would be happier and a better “fit” on another site. I could even recomend a couple for you if you'd like.

            (on a related note, the staff here have been doing alot better about deleting trolls the last week or so and I commend them for it. They still have a long way to go of course, but that's another topic)

            I've had only one post deleted from RWN, and that happened about three years ago, so I really can't relate to someone like you. if my posts were being deleted on a regular basis as your have been I would reevaluate my actions in the assumption that I was doing something wrong. I might even come to the conclusion that I was not welcome on the site and take the hint. That you have not, and instead attempt to paint the staffers deleting your posts as the bad guys, tells me that you are here not to civilly discuss but to cause trouble.

            Finally, you still have not told us what other user names you previously posted under. You have admitted doing so in previous posts. Come on, boy. Don't be a coward. What are you afraid of?

            TR

          • Kingfisher

            I am not moving the goal post, just trying to answer you in a manner that will show clarity to my perspective.

            Avoiding answers is not showing clarity. You're a coward, admit it.

            Let me give you an analogy: you are invited to dinner by an individual, you change your plans, show up well dressed, you sit down at the table and they don't feed you dinner. No you don't have the right to take food from that individual, but you do have a right to tell others about what they did. Comprende?

            Your analogies are piss-poor. Where did you learn your debating skills, D-Kos?

            If you change your plans and arrive anyway, it is you who is showing disrespect to the host. You can tell others about what they did but ignoring the fact that it is you who changed your plans (your words), you are intentionally lying about the host.

            In short, you do whatever you want and DEMAND that others change their plans to satisfy your whims. Then, when they don't do what you want them to do, you lie about them.

            Your analogy proved my point. Thank you.

            If the host has a dog and you don't like dogs you are free to say, “No thank you” to the host and leave the house. John is your host. Rather than bitching like a two-year-old, feel free to leave if you don't agree with the policies at RWN. In other words, grow a pair!

            I don't have a dog in this fight, it will not undermine my marriage, and not sure why you feel it will undermine marriage in general. I am not that insecure, can you explain why you are?

            Yes you do because gays overwhelmingly support Democrats so you're only repaying the favor.

          • Kingfisher

            Let me give you an analogy: you are invited to dinner by an individual,

            There is another reason why your “dinner” analogy falls flat…just like every other post.

            RWN has an open invitation to ANYBODY but you must sign up and obey the rules. You obviously sign up (every time you post as “Guest” which is the default) but fail to obey the rules such as lying.

            That's a lot of work to do simply to bitch.

            Your comments will continue to be flagged because you're a liar. You can deny it but that's still the case. Facts are facts.

  • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

    Thank you for trying to read our minds, and failing again. It was FDR and the Dems that interred the Japanese, not Republicans. And the children were interred, would you rather they split up the families, moron? And the rest Wright's diatribe and your support of it omits, everything he lied about, seriously exsagerrated(sp) or has long since made amends for. We've all sinned as individuals and nations, but that's nature of man. And Christians ask for God's blessings on all people even their enemies, in the hope they someday repent and accept Christ.

    By Wright even uttering the words 'God Damn…' anything he proves him self a very poor student of Christ, history, and humanity in general. You follow in his footsteps, willingly.

    • Guest

      BTW, read the transcript. You try to comment on a sermon based on a biased perspective your peers have given you. This is a prime example of how you miss the forest for the trees,”And the children were interred, would you rather they split up the families, moron?” Wow, it amazes me that you feel justified in calling someone a moron. What kind of question is that? To be blunt, they should have left the families alone to begin with, just in case you still can't understand the point I was making.

      • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

        I read the transcript of his speech, G. And it was full of lies, exaggerations, and about all the things we've done AND atoned for. So don't tell me I'm missing the forest, you're not understanding that he did not accurately portray all the evils of America, he never mentioned anything good about America, and his entire speech was as far from Christian as one can get without being a Satanist.

        Yes I called you moron, FDR chose to inter those folks, as a security measure, it was found out that some of those people were acting as spies. Was his approach the right one? I don't know, but I can understand why.

        You didn't make it clear that why you brought the kids up, but I get it now. And I do understand why it wasn't right, but I also understand why it was necessary. Sometimes in war what's right has to be sacrificed for what's necessary. Lincoln did it, FDR did it, so did Washington.

  • Kingfisher

    I'm getting fed up with the nitpicking of every candidate. O'Donnell tried witchcraft, Obama snorted cocaine, etc. etc. etc.

    I'll give you one word why the right isn't worried about O'Donnell's past activities: Forgiveness

    There has never been a human being alive that is free from sin. No human being has ever been free of indiscretions. The reason the left refuses to let the witchcraft issue go is because the left will use any tools at its disposal to destroy anybody who doesn't accept its beliefs. When Hillary ran for president, the left was all for women candidates and that was the case until Palin stepped in. Now we hear the typical excuse of, “Palin's a quitter!” Oh wow, she resigned, whoop-dee-frickin-doo! People resign all the time from all types of positions. But, because Palin doesn't accept the left's anti-American stance, they have to go after her and her family.

    The reason why I don't consider O'Donnell's witchcraft as an issue is because, unless I see evidence otherwise, I believe that O'Donnell no longer practices witchcraft so I forgave her for this issue.

    It's interesting how the left insists that we should let people do what they want then bitches about O'Donnell's past. Just like Palin, O'Donnell isn't a hardcore, anti-American, pro-terrorist leftist so they must go after her any way they can. The vast majority of Americans see O'Donnell the same way. The more the left bitches about the witchcraft issue, the more Americans will look at O'Donnell with sympathy because, like myself, they have forgiven her.

    I'm surprised I'm still alive, considering some of the stupid things I did when I was in high school. Go ahead leftists, bring the witchcraft issue up. Shout it out as loud as you can! Meanwhile, Americans will ask themselves why you'll accept current indiscretions while focusing on past indiscretions.

    The reason why I'm harder on Wright is because Wright continues to act as a racist today. If he realized the error of his ways and changed, things would be different but they aren't. Wright is the same today as he was years ago.

    That is the simple reason why you leftists will never understand the American people. That is the reason why you're losing.

    Then Jesus told them this parable: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.'

    Luke 15:1-6

    Those who accept liberalism over God prefer to be lost.

  • Guest

    What did Martha say Stanley? My screen doesn't show a comment, just a place where a comment once existed. ECHOOOOOOO Chamber!

  • StanW

    Again with the echo chamber lie? If it is so bad here, GUEST, why don't you leave.

    Yeah, that'll show us!

    • Guest

      I did, for a relatively long time. I was hoping that with the different posting format things would be different Stanley. Posting is a little better, but not much. Like putting carpet down in an echo chamber, it muffles it some, but still doesn't change the fact that it is an echo chamber.

      • StanW

        And yet you are still allowed to post freely? Isn't it amazing that your infantile rants about this board being an echo chamber actual DISPROVES your accusation.

        In the South, we call that IRONY!

        • Guest

          Am I? By my posting you feel that encompasses freedom? When the post are flagged and removed? I don't use profanity, and I try to show those of you an alternative perspective so that you can understand that everyone doesn't necessarily share your viewpoints and why they draw a different conclusion from the same events. Infantile would be how I would describe those that flag comments that differ from what they want to hear.

          • StanW

            So what you really have is a problem with people that use THEIR right to Free Speech to let you know what a moron you are. Also, it takes MANY people to get a post flagged for review, not just one or two.

            Perhaps if you would stop lying and being a jerk and whining about it, your posts would stop getting flagged.

            And you said you have been posting on this board before. What other user name did you post under?

          • Kingfisher

            When the post are flagged and removed?

            On behalf of RWN, I would like to apologize for the man holding the gun to your head, forcing you to provide comments.

            I was under the impression that you were doing this freely but I now realize that you're being forced to post here only to have those posts deleted.

            It is too bad that you're a gutless metrosexual who gets his panties in a wad. Most real men would have realized that they were wasting their time and left by now. Obviously, you're incapable of free will.

          • Kingfisher

            I try to show those of you an alternative perspective so that you can understand that everyone doesn't necessarily share your viewpoints and why they draw a different conclusion from the same events.

            You may have forgotten but other trolls under different pseudonyms stated the very same thing. That would mean either you posted here under different ID's (the likely case) or liberals are incapable of independent thought.

            You certainly have provided an “alternative prospective.” You have proven that you cannot argue with facts which is the problem for the left.

  • whats_up

    Dont worry, Stan is just a dick and thinks he is tough.

  • StanW

    And you are still wondering why your posts get flagged, aren't you crthns?

    BTW, which user name are you on now? Is it your fifth or sixth?

  • D-Vega

    It was a week and a half ago when this site was bemoaning the nomination of O'Donnell because she was sure to lose.

    Now you guys are defending something that isn't simply a rumor, but something that she herself said on live television. Karl Rove even attacked her for it and said she needed to explain herself.

    It's also a joke when conservatives complain about how nice they are, that they need to get tougher in the arugments, when they have reached new levels of nastiness directed at our current Presidents. In the neighborhood, we call that “playing yourself”.

    All your rules are things that are already in effect.

    This is just playing victim. Once again. The Sarah Palin model.

    • mightysamurai

      It was a week and a half ago when this site was bemoaning the nomination of O'Donnell because she was sure to lose.

      Well you must have been living in another dimension a week and a half ago because that's simply nonsense.

      Now you guys are defending something that isn't simply a rumor, but something that she herself said on live television.

      Are you just not paying attention or something? When has anyone on the right denied that?

      Explain to me why liberals have decided that O'Donnell's brief dabbling in alternative religions during her teen years is a horrifying revelation that proves her unfit to hold political office.

      It's also a joke when conservatives complain about how nice they are, that they need to get tougher in the arugments, when they have reached new levels of nastiness directed at our current Presidents.

      Uh-huh. Get back to me when we start printing t-shirts with Michelle Obama's face and the message “Moms I'd Like To Punch” printed on it. Or when we make a list of left-wing women we'd like to “hate-fuck”. Or when we photoshop female politicians we disagree with to look like the Wicked Witch of the West.

      “New levels of nastiness”. That cracks me up.

      • D-Vega

        Well you must have been living in another dimension a week and a half ago because that's simply nonsense.

        ““The simple reality is that a Republican squish like Castle, who would have won easily and been comparable to Collins and Snowe, would do far more to help move the ball forward for conservatives than Chris Coons, who has actually referred to himself as a Marxist before. So, whether this race was a “victory for conservatism” has yet to be determined. If Chris Coons predictably ends up in the Senate because O'Donnell supporters turned what looked like a “gimmie” seat for Republicans into a “gimmie” seat for Democrats, O'Donnell's win last night was a huge victory for liberalism, not conservatism.””

        http://rightwingnews.com/2010/09/the-all-around-festival-of-jackassery-that-was-the-odonnell-vs-castle-race/

        Are you just not paying attention or something? When has anyone on the right denied that?

        I didn’t say anyone did. I said you were defending it when she did in fact admit to it.

        Explain to me why liberals have decided that O'Donnell's brief dabbling in alternative religions during her teen years is a horrifying revelation that proves her unfit to hold political office.

        Maybe it reveals that, along with her other comments, she could be a wack-a-doo. And unfit to be Senator.

        Maybe it doesn't, but there's no reason not to include them so the voters can make-up their mind. Witchcraft is also weird, and drives a wedge between and potential conservative voters.

        Uh-huh. Get back to me when we start printing t-shirts with Michelle Obama's face and the message “Moms I'd Like To Punch” printed on it. Or when we make a list of left-wing women we'd like to “hate-fuck”. Or when we photoshop female politicians we disagree with to look like the Wicked Witch of the West.

        Oh please. I have seen on this site, both Obama as Hitler (several times), nudes pictures of someone who was supposed to be Obama’s mother, accusations that Obama’s grandfather was a communist, and Obama in in types of photoshopped images.

        The one of Obama's “mother” was particularly disgusting.

        “New levels of nastiness”. That cracks me up.

        Yup. NEW levels of nastiness. And I didn’t even mention the amount of hatred expressed at the Tea Parties.

        • Kingfisher

          ““The simple reality is that a Republican squish like Castle, who would have won easily and been comparable to Collins and Snowe, would do far more to help move the ball forward for conservatives than Chris Coons,….

          Nice link, Vega. However, as usual, you failed to read the ENTIRE post:

          Now, all that being said, the winner of the primary is Christine O'Donnell — and, yes, it would be nice to have her in the Senate. So, whether people supported Castle or O'Donnell, it's time to rally around O'Donnell now. Although I preferred Castle and thought O'Donnell probably can't win the general, I very much hope I'm wrong about that and I'd love nothing better than to eat crow on election day, because if I do, that means we added another real conservative in the Senate.

          Notice the word “probably” in the quote. You do know what “probably” means, don't you? And yes, I read the two updates as well.

          I recommend that John change the title of that thread to, “The All Around Festival Of Jackassery That Encompasses D-Vega's Thought Process.” I will now sit back and watch you go bonkers with 60-70 more posts, trying desperately to prove yourself correct.

          Your hubris is at stake.

          • D-Vega

            I did read the entire post, I didn't think anyone would needed to play quote-war.

            Here's one from the post:

            “”On the other hand, Christine O'Donnell is a conservative, but she's not a blue chip candidate, Delaware is not even a purple state and she has about a 98% chance of losing.”"

            Notice the words “98% chance of losing”.

            You do know what it means when someone says “98% chance of losing” right?

            I certainly hope so. Then again, who knows.

          • Kingfisher

            I did read the entire post,

            I'm surprised you can read any words that have more than one syllable.

            Notice the words “98% chance of losing”.

            Yeah, so? Kerry was the favorite in 2004 and Hillary was the favorite in 2008.

            I would prefer O'Donnell than Castle any time. If we're going to have an anti-American senator (the ones you support), it might as well be a Democrat. There is no difference between a Democrat and a RINO.

            Nice try. NEXT!

          • D-Vega

            So?

            SO, like I said originally “It was a week and a half ago when this site was bemoaning the nomination of O'Donnell because she was sure to lose. ”

            You thought you actually had a point, but then like always I destroyed it. Now you are trying to deflect and move the goalposts.

            You have been defeated and humiliated once again.

          • Kingfisher

            You have been defeated and humiliated once again.

            If that's the case (which it isn't) then why do you feel obligated to respond to every post?

            Your defeat is acknowledged. Now run away, coward.

          • D-Vega

            So you admit you didn't have a point when you thought you did?

            That's what I thought.

    • Kingfisher

      Now you guys are defending something that isn't simply a rumor, but something that she herself said on live television. Karl Rove even attacked her for it and said she needed to explain herself.

      Obviously, you ignored my post approximately five hours prior to this post. Not surprised considering that you were probably very anxious to post your bullshit after picking up your check from the local unemployment office.

      It's also a joke when conservatives complain about how nice they are, that they need to get tougher in the arugments, when they have reached new levels of nastiness directed at our current Presidents.

      Yeah, the nerve of us conservatives to speak the truth! We should act like you libs, treating every leader from the Democratic party as infallible.

      • D-Vega

        We don't treat anyone as infallible. You are accusing us of being Palin supporters, who has never been subjected to any crticism from the rightwing base.

        If anything, Obama and other Dems in office receive just as much criticism from the left as the right.

        And I didn't ignore your post, I just didn't care about it. Because it's horseshit. Considering the things you have said and defended, you are in no position to question someone's nitpicking.

        • Kingfisher

          We don't treat anyone as infallible.

          And yet, you replied:

          It's also a joke when conservatives complain about how nice they are, that they need to get tougher in the arugments, when they have reached new levels of nastiness directed at our current Presidents.

          So if Obama is fallible, he can be criticized but you claim any criticism as “nastiness.”

          Because it's horseshit.

          Considering you're anti-Christian, I'm not surprised you don't know the truth.

          Considering the things you have said and defended, you are in no position to question someone's nitpicking.

          One response:

          F*ck Palin and her kids

          – D-Vega

          • D-Vega

            So if Obama is fallible, he can be criticized but you claim any criticism as “nastiness.”

            I didn't say any criticism is nastiness. That's your lie.

            Considering you're anti-Christian, I'm not surprised you don't know the truth.

            Thanks for proving the point. You can't make a coherent rebute so you say I am anti-Christian. But defending the smearing of the President's dead mother? Wholly appropriate. My, how Christian of you.

            That's why your statement is horseshit. Because you hide behind the goodness of Christianity in order to make yourself feel better over the bitterness and hatred you express nearly daily.

            Too many asshole statements? Why, just quote the Bible and everything is okay.

            One response: F*ck Palin and her kids

            Yes, and that was on the same thread where you repeatedly, for hours, defending Van Douchebag's smearing of Obama's dead mother. So I said that.

            And then I was man enough, even Christian enough, to apologize for it and say it wouldn't happen again.

            You can't do that because it would collaspe your already fragile ego.

            Where is your forgiveness now for me? Oh, that's right. Nowhere.

            Because it was bullshit from the get-go.

          • Kingfisher

            Yes, and that was on the same thread where you repeatedly, for hours, defending Van Douchebag's smearing of Obama's dead mother. So I said that.

            Actually, that is a lie. But that's standard coming from scum-suckers like you.

            You can't do that because it would collaspe your already fragile ego.

            Couldn't come up with a comeback by yourself so you copied my responses? Maybe because you hate Palin's children so much, your mind isn't in the clear. Pedophiles like you are all the same.

          • D-Vega

            Actually, that is a lie. But that's standard coming from scum-suckers like you.

            No, it's not. It's truth. You are okay with the smearing of the President's dead mother, but then you quote the Bible when you want to act high and mighty about the public questioning O'Donnell dabbling in witchcraft.

            Couldn't come up with a comeback by yourself so you copied my responses? Maybe because you hate Palin's children so much, your mind isn't in the clear. Pedophiles like you are all the same.

            Don't project your tendencies onto me. Everyone knows on any thread when you are confronted by your own bullshit and are cowering in the corner you immediately jump to pedophillic and homosexual accusations.

            I will refrain from any Catholic church comments, though I am tempted.

          • Kingfisher

            You are okay with the smearing of the President's dead mother, but then you quote the Bible when you want to act high and mighty about the public questioning O'Donnell dabbling in witchcraft.

            Since I never smeared Obama's dead mother, I am dismissing your comment as a lame attempt from a person suffering from a serious inferiority complex.

            If you were correct you would have provided the link by now.

            Don't project your tendencies onto me.

            Then why are you the one considered the pedophile on this site?

            I will refrain from any Catholic church comments, though I am tempted.

            Knock yourself out. Unlike you, I am comfortable with my beliefs. God is perfect and you're an idiot so I am more concerned about what God thinks of me. Why would I want to consider your advise? You're a babbling fool. I am living rent free in your head and I am enjoying every minute of it.

            Now run off to your NAMBLA meeting.

          • gfchicago

            I will refrain from any Catholic church comments, though I am tempted.

            Auhhh Jeeeze Vega, why don't you let us all know what you think? We are just dying to know. /sarc off

          • D-Vega

            You a mean a guy who defends the Catholic Church, but has an obsession with calling other people pedophiles?

            I'll let you figure it out.

          • freeman

            You a mean a guy who defends the Catholic Church,

            What ever happened to not judging an entire religion on the sins of the few? Or does that only apply to Muslims?

          • Kingfisher

            And then I was man enough, even Christian enough, to apologize for it and say it wouldn't happen again.

            The simple fact that you stated it shows your hatred. You have no right to complain to me then discount my statement for forgiving O'Donnell.

            Stop judging so that you will not be judged. Otherwise, you will be judged by the same standard you use to judge others. The standards you use for others will be applied to you. So why do you see the piece of sawdust in another believer's eye and not notice the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to another believer, 'Let me take the piece of sawdust out of your eye,' when you have a beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye. Then you will see clearly to remove the piece of sawdust from another believer's eye.

            Matthew 7:1-5

            Sorry but I can't find a quote similar to this from the Koran. Apparently, that is the only religious book you accept as the truth.

            Since you insist on remembering O'Donnell's sins from 20 years ago, I'll remember your sin from a few months back. In other words, I judging you the very same way you're judging O'Donnell. Therefore, your “apology” of wanting to hurt Palin's kids is a lie.

            If O'Donnell was practicing witchcraft today, I would agree with you. However, you demand we forgive you but you refuse to forgive others. The simple reason for that is because you believe that is ammunition against the right.

            Since I never smeared Obama's mother, you have nothing in this department. Your lie is dismissed.

          • D-Vega

            That's a bunch of nonsense.

            You argued for hours that it was perfectly acceptable to smear Obama's mom, you are perfectly happy screeching “pedophile” as if that is an actual valid point, then you spout nonsense about your double-standards when it comes to Van Douchebag and O'Donnell are fine.

            Here's a clue – No one gives a damn. That's why I didn't respond to your first horseshit post.

            Citing something O'Donnell said is legitimate politically. Smearing a man's dead mother who has nothing to do with the political discussion is douchebaggery.

            You're a phony Christian with obvious pedophillic and homosexual tendencies. That's clear.

          • freeman

            Citing something O'Donnell said is legitimate politically.

            So someone's religious choices are legitimate political targets to you. Again, bigot.

          • D-Vega

            I am sure the rightwing would have the same issues with a muslim candidate for Senate.

          • freeman

            A bigot with an excuse is still a bigot.

          • freeman

            I am sure the rightwing would have the same issues with a muslim candidate for Senate.

            While there hasn't been a Muslim elected to the Senate, there have been two Muslims elected to the House of Representatives, Andre Carson and Keith Ellison. Both were elected after 9/11. Do you have any evidence that anyone used their religion against them?

            No? Then congratulations, you've just set another of those new lows you were whimpering about.

          • Kingfisher

            You argued for hours that it was perfectly acceptable to smear Obama's mom,

            Uh-huh, sure I did. I know you've been desperately searching for any evidence but found none. I'm glad you wasted your time.

            you are perfectly happy screeching “pedophile” as if that is an actual valid point, then you spout nonsense about your double-standards when it comes to Van Douchebag and O'Donnell are fine.

            So O'Donnell's private life is now fair game, huh? Hypocrite.

            By the way, I won't stop “screeching” that you're a pedophile. We have evidence that you wished harm against Palin's children. You have no evidence regarding smearing Obama's mom.

            Here's a clue – No one gives a damn. That's why I didn't respond to your first horseshit post.

            And yet, you're responding now, over and over and over and….

            Citing something O'Donnell said is legitimate politically. Smearing a man's dead mother who has nothing to do with the political discussion is douchebaggery.

            Well, you certainly are an expert in being a douchebag, Vega.

            You're a phony Christian with obvious pedophillic and homosexual tendencies. That's clear.

            *YAWN!* Nice attempt to throw my arguments back at me. Unlike you, I'm not a NAMBLA supporter.

            LOL!

          • Kingfisher

            That's why your statement is horseshit. Because you hide behind the goodness of Christianity in order to make yourself feel better over the bitterness and hatred you express nearly daily.

            Wow, I obviously am irritating you today, Duh-Vega.

            Good.

          • D-Vega

            No, I enjoy watching you crack up.

    • freeman

      Now you guys are defending something that isn't simply a rumor, but something that she herself said on live television.

      Yes, how dare we defend someone's religious choice. Heck, a month ago you were going on and on about how Freedom of Religion outweighed everything else, including Free Speech, Free Assembly and Free Press, but now that a Republican is involved her religious choice is something that the Public Must Be Warned About. I had no idea that Witches were excluded from the First Amendment.

      Bigot.

      Karl Rove even attacked her for it and said she needed to explain herself.

      Just because you go in lock step with Karl Rove doesn't mean we do.

      when they have reached new levels of nastiness directed at our current Presidents. In the neighborhood, we call that “playing yourself”.

      What is this new level? I want to know. It isn't photoshopping, attacking family members – living or dead, or calling Obama Hitler, that was all done to Bush. So what is this new low you speak of?

      And considering no conservative has made a movie about killing a president, we haven't even touched all the lows your side has set.

  • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

    Flagged for trolling

    • Guest

      Define trolling. I see it referenced a lot in the post, but what is it and why is this “trolling” a bad thing? I am trying to imagine the analogy of offshore fishing to posting, but not really sure if that is the reference you are trying to make.

  • Martha

    As basic grammer was used correctly your ignorance about conjunctions is but noted. It does indeed give me a laugh.

  • Martha

    How is the little yappy dog? Woof!

  • Martha

    LOL

    The Right never go looking for the lost sheep. They fight over his possessions.

  • gfchicago

    Just fine, thank you. So nice to see you would care about a helpless creature. /sarc off

    Quite frankly he makes a hell of a lot more sense than you do… ***Awk, Awk ***Moonbat*** Awk, Awk***

  • Kingfisher

    Considering that you've been castrated, you would never know.

  • percivalcreek

    It's spelled 'grammar'. And you're missing a comma, Ms. Funny Bone.

  • ObamaBuster

    Barack HUSSEIN Obama. The truth is coming out. He's a Muslim illegal alien who's mission is to destroy the United States of America. The documentary The Obama Deception is correct. What do you think the carbon tax is all about? It's a set up. There is no science proving global warming. None. But once the global carbon tax is implemented it will usher in a world economic system and we will be dependent on other countries.

  • ObamaBuster

    Although there may be a silver lining if we go Nazi cuz we on the right will gladly send you lefties to the showers.

  • Trench_Raider

    Flagged for highly offensive trolling (probably parody trolling in this case). I despise the left and think they are bad for the country. But that does not justify murder.

    TR

  • StanW

    Don't try to pretend you are on the Right, you Liberal moron.

    Flagged!

Advertisement
Featured Video

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time
50 Things Every 18-Year-Old Should Know
Politically Correct Fairy Tales
Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married
Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies
The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web
Advertisement
User Info