Posts Tagged ‘Democrats’
First, all of us at The Rabid Conservative, writers and readers alike would like to express our deepest prayers and expressions of concern to the folks in Oklahoma City that have been affected by the tornadoes this week. May God bless and comfort you during this time as our country stands up to help wherever it can.
That being said, I would like to take this time to deal out some castigation for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse D-RI, who decided to use this tragedy as a platform to rail against the GOP regarding so-called global warming. Instead of just simply offering his sympathy and support, this Democrat decided to rant:
“You drag America with you to your fate. So, I want this future: I want a Republican Party that has returned to its senses and is strong and a worthy adversary in a strong America that has done right by its people and the world. That’s what I want. I don’t want this future. I don’t want a Republican Party disgraced, that let its extremists run off the cliff, and an America suffering from grave economic and environmental and diplomatic damage because we failed, because we didn’t wake up and do our duty to our people, and because we didn’t lead the world. I do not want that future. But that’s where we’re headed. So I will keep reaching out and calling out, ever hopeful that you will wake up before it is too late.”
You unbelievable scumbag. While we all have our differences regarding things like the economy. diplomacy abroad as well as domestic matters, talking about the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’, and the like, this is not the time to attack the GOP. Seriously? How dare you dishonor those who died with your political diatribe?
And this thing may not yet be over. This area may still have more of these to deal with, and rather than sounding calls to help those people, you sit in your nice Washington office and gripe at your political opponents while people are asking for aid – saying we’re ‘in this together’:
“So, you may have a question for me. Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”
You offend me, sir. These folks don’t need your rants – they need prayers and support. If we are so much “in it together”, then when can we expect that you will arrive in Oklahoma to help the people there?
Yeah, we didn’t think so either.
With That One being elected for a second term and now basically running rampant with his own agenda, blowhard hot-air bags like Debbie Wasserman Schultz are griping (as if this moonbat ever stops) at Obama and his decision to launch his own PAC, given that he has enough cult following, government-siphoning ObamacCrats to do so.
It’s funny though that DWS couldn’t see this coming – that as soon as Obama was settled into his second term, he would basically do his own thing. The GOP was very much indicating this all through the 2012 elections. The GOP has been indicating a lot of things, but it’s not much of a wonder that the Democrats weren’t listening.
Perhaps they should have been paying better attention to this one. With Obama’s new “Organizing for Action”, Obama’s objective has been, as it always has, about “fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. Democrats aren’t really about that – but rather, are about keeping and maintaining political power. The motivations seem to be diverging now and with Obama not needing the DNC, he’s free to do whatever he likes.
I wonder if this was one of these “going my way” situations that have now diverged. The Dems made Obama and now…well….he doesn’t need them anymore.
So, if Obama loses, there are going to be riots. Sorry, I’m not impressed. Sounds to me like a bunch of whiny brats who didn’t get their way, so they are going to cause a tantrum and go into civil unrest.
These people don’t believe in American ideals. That’s right, I said it.
We all sat back and watched in 2006 and 2008 when the Democrats had some pretty sweeping victories. And when that happened, while conservatives and Republicans that were clearly disappointed with these outcomes, there weren’t riots. Those on the right were civil and have mobilized over the last four years to get Obama out of of office. That’s the idea behind political mobilization.
However, these idiots don’t believe that way. Instead, they threaten to riot and cause civil unrest if they don’t get their way within the system. However, in 2006 and 2008, they were talking about the “will of the people” and how “the people have spoken.
Well, the people are speaking again and many of them are saying something different. What does this say about the left?
Yeah, I thought so.
Well, I’m glad to see that the Veep debate wasn’t as much of a waste as I had previously thought. The polls and pundits are calling for a narrow Biden win over Ryan or a draw. If by win, we mean how many times we saw grumpy, old Uncle Joe interrupt the moderator and his opponent, then yeah, Biden won. But Biden basically used his constant interrupting and snarky-snark to win, in the absence of real facts. Once again, he kept trumping up the “five trillion” number and pontificating that people should “use some common sense”.
Still though, I do have to say that Biden did do one thing positive – he was able to at least not further the damage to Obama through horrible debate skill, not to say that Biden was saying anything really of note. Anyway, here are a couple of my observations:
1) Biden kept playing the “use some common sense” card, particularly during the Medicare debate. To me, this is more of an Appeal to Common Belief fallacy. The issue is that the bandwagon beliefs of Medicare are what got us here in the first place. Medicare needs to be overhauled, not maintained. Biden goes out there and tries to frighten people into thinking that seniors will lose their coverage under the Romney/Ryan plan, completely disregarding the 55-and-over pledge.
I think Ryan’s scare retort was pretty lame because it showed that Ryan didn’t have a complete answer to rebut what Biden was saying. The mark of skilled debate comes from actually rebutting points that the opposition makes. Biden and Ryan both were throwing out talking points rather than debating things. That’s what made me pass out on the couch from boredom.
And after I woke up, I caught the rest on YouTube…
2) Biden made the point regarding how he was this devout Roman Catholic and “accepted the position of the Church” with respect to abortion, but “wouldn’t impose his beliefs on others”. To me, this is two big bunches of malarkey, as he would put it.
- There is no way a politician can serve without imposing some standard of morality on others. His sense of morality drives him to class warfare – that it is somehow immoral for rich people to make too much money, seeking instead to take that money and give it to the poor. This is kinda ironic, given his paltry charitable donations as compared to his income.
- Biden says he “accepts the Church’s position but that is a far cry from personally believing in the position that life begins at conception. If he did, then he would also agree with the Church’s position on abortion itself, that all human life must be “protected absolutely”. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, part 3, section 2, chapter 2, article 5, 2272 says “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.”
Since Mr. Biden refuses to stand against abortion in his position as vice-president, it’s my belief that he is in discord with this position. Not very good as a “practicing Catholic”, since the Church considers it gravely contrary to moral law. In other words, I wouldn’t exactly think of him to be Opus Dei material.
Other than that, I wasn’t overly impressed with this debate. I thought it was going to be more of a fireworks show, but it was more like a fizzle.
Well, Romney and Obama are back at it this Tuesday. ObamaAd, Inc promises that Barack will be in better form. I hope so, that way, Romney has someone to actually talk to, rather than sleepy Obama or boring Jim Lehrer.
Kinda makes you wonder who’s really pulling the strings…
Today, the DNC made a change to their party platform that, rather forcefully, returned to the platform, language that supported God and recognized that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel.
But I really have a tough time believing that the Governor Ted Strickland, who was the chair of the committee that wrote the national platform, didn’t see this one until late last night when they drafted the amendment.
Now listen to the video and see if you think 2/3′s majority of the party voted to put “God” and “Jerusalem” back into the platform. Now I know the audio on this is extremely subjective, but it would seem that this one was ramrodded. I did read that one of the commenters of this clip ran the audio through Audacity and measured that the waveform of the “no” votes was clearly louder. Anyway, what’s your opinion?
Vote One: It was pretty clear to me that it was “No”.
Vote Two: It wasn’t clear, but it sounded like the “no’s” still had it.
Did you hear what the woman behind Mr. Villaraigosa said. She said, “You gotta rule, and then let them do what they’re gonna do”. She urged him to basically make a decision and then move forward.
Vote Three: It was dead even. So even if the “aye’s” had it, it wasn’t a 2/3′s majority.
So much for majority rule. I guess the DNC is ruled by the same forces that drive the “Great Taste, Less Filling” crowd cheer, now.
It’s interesting how the DNC calls itself the party that has led the civil rights fight for 200 years, but did we forget that, for nearly a century, the DNC has been very much pro-slavery and against
- Supported slavery in 6 platforms from 1840-1860.
- Opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution that successively wiped out slavery and gave both legal rights and voting rights to black Americans.
- Supported segregation actively or by silence in 20 platforms from 1868-1948.
- Opposed anti-lynching laws, specifically supported by the GOP in four platforms between 1912 and 1928.
- Opposed the GOP-sponsored Civil Rights Acts of 1866, which focused on legal equality for blacks.
- Opposed the GOP on giving voting rights to blacks in the District of Columbia in 1867. The legislation was passed over the Democrats’ objection..
- Nominated an 1868 presidential ticket of New York Governor Horatio Seymour and ex-Missouri Congressman Francis Blair. The Democrats pledged they would declare the Civil Rights laws passed by the GOP “null and void” and would refuse to enforce them. They lost to Ulysses Grant.
- Opposed the Enforcement Acts, three laws passed by the GOP between 1870 and 1871 targeting the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and making it a federal crime to block the right of blacks to vote, hold office, serve on juries and have equal protection of the laws with whites.
- Opposed the GOP Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited discrimination of blacks in public accommodations.
- Used the Ku Klux Klan as what Columbia University historian Eric Foner calls “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease’s description of the Klan as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.” Nor is there mention of the infamous 1924 Democratic Convention — the “Klanbake” as it is known to history because hundreds of the delegates were Klan members. The Klan-written platform mixed the traditional Democratic message of progressivism and racism in the Klan-written platform.
- Repealed the Civil Rights laws enacted by GOP Congresses and presidents, already damaged by the Supreme Court. When Democrats gained control of both Congress and the White House in 1892, the Democrats’ President Grover Cleveland signed the repeal on February 8, 1894.
Does this not shock/surprise anyone?
*hat tip: American Spectator
It’s not like we need yet another example of how two-faced that the Democrats have become lately. We’ve had to listen to the uproar when Todd Akin made his “legitimate rape” comment last month and all the insane “war-on-women” nonsense. We had to listen to a Yahoo news chief say that the “GOP was having a party while black people drown” (although he rightly got his butt canned for it). And we sat back and heard Chris Matthews imply that all people on welfare and food stamps are black, (for which Newt Gingrich slapped him back) and say that the very use of the word “Chicago” was racist.
Now we have James Burton, the chair-slime from the California Democrat party, and and make Paul Ryan out as a Nazi propagandist, like Joseph Goebbles. Will there be any accountability on behalf of Burton or from any other lib-crat? Not a snowball’s chance in Hades, because Democrats can pretty much get away with racist comments with impunity.
In other words, business as usual. I guess it’s a fitting way to start the DNC progressive gushing, free-love, baby-killing, government-control party.
Have fun in Charlotte, you toads, with all of your chair-kicking labor bosses, college-students wanting government furnished prophylactics, cars, and education, anti-God race baiting, Native American-wannabes whose ancestors rounded up Cherokees for the Trail of Tears, anti-Life morons screaming about rights to kill babies, and whatever chain-carrying lib-tards you invite to the party.
A party that will be marked when the national debt rolls over $16 trillion – a debt that Obama said he would get serious about and cut the deficit in half. But of course, we won’t be saying that during the convention, will we?
Oh, and this just in…y’all need an ID just to get into the convention, how racist is that?
I keep reading the news today and I just don’t see how the Democrats are going to win this, given what they are doing. They seem like they are playing some serious defense at this point and I wonder if they really have anything they can sell the voters in November. Sounds to me like they’re getting desperate.
1) The Democrats have been calling Romney a “one-trick pony” because he has been specifically talking about the economy. In other words, ObamAd, Inc. can’t compete on the economy, so instead, they are expressing their displeasure over the fact that Romney won’t spread himself out into other areas where they can reduce the economy rhetoric.
2) The Democrats are talking about canceling their kick-off festivities at the Charlotte Speedway, since they are only 30% of their goal. You would think that Obama and his campaign would learn that you can’t spend without money to back it up.
The government would just decide to raise the debt-ceiling and put the costs of whatever they wanted to spend on the ever-burgeoning credit card. But it doesn’t work that way in the real world. Real people, like the folks that run the Speedway, aren’t going to take a government IOU.
In case we need further explaination…
I guess the wedding/birthday/anniversary donations aren’t coming in droves are they? How about that “Dinner with Barack” nonsense, since Obama still won’t have that beer with Sean Hannity.
3) The Campaign, realizing that the faerie dust of 2008 is long since snorted in the proverbial nose of the liberal sheep, is now getting all lawyered-up to fight the ballot counts everywhere they can. In other words, “we didn’t lose, they cheated” will be the Obama campaign’s battlecry. They can’t “blame it on Bush” like what propelled them in 2008 and they have nothing to run on now, so rather than at the ballot box, Obama’s minions are looking to bring the challenges in the court.
I bet, though, they won’t investigate any inproprieties from left-wing sources, such as the unions. And if the Black Panthers show up to do more voter intimidation, ObamAd, Inc won’t seek anything done about that (kind of like their stance on the enforcement of the AZ immigration law).
Anyone remember 2000 Bush vs. Gore and Gore demanding recount after court-ordered recount until the results were more in his favor?
Folks, all we see from the Democrats is a lot of smoke and mirrors. They don’t have anything.
Now, I heard something on the radio this morning, a nifty idea for an unofficial campaign slogan/motto, whatever you call it – and I kind of like it: Yes We Do!
Here, you can try it for yourself:
- Do you believe in America and the power of Americans to overcome any adversity?
- Do you believe that our country is still the greatest country on earth and the envy of the entire world?
- Do you believe that people, rather than their government, is better equipped to grow and strengthen the economy?
- Do you think a strong national defense is a better way to secure our liberty?
- Do you believe we should have a secured border, where people come to this country through legal means?
Did it work for you?
Stay rabid, my friends.
From the Washington Times:
In the past month, Mitt Romney has delivered a widely panned defense of the health care legislation he signed as governor of Massachusetts and been the constant target of national Democratic attacks – and also has seen his poll numbers rise and his status solidified as the best-positioned candidate to win the GOP nomination and take on President Obama.
Makes sense. They got to start attacking the GOP front-runner because their front-runner is about to have his butt handed to him in the 2012 election. It’s always been conventional wisdom that if your candidate sucks and you know he/she sucks, rather than keeping him from sucking less, you make sure his/her opposition sucks more.
Sorry Lib-Crats, but nothing is going to cover up the broken promises, the lack of hope and change bill-of-goods that was sold to us during the 2008 race. No amount of blaming-it-all-on-Bush will convince the American public that Barack is any different than any other stupid liberal politician with his Keynesian economics, socialism lets-all-work-together-ideals, and failure to deliver on all the promises given.
Can anyone defend Obama and the Democrat record on anything?