In2 Right Wing Inanity…

wasteright Picking your fights is important in war,life and politics. Fighting for the sake of fighting is stupid no matter the setting. If you’re going to fight-fight right. Don’t waste anything;time, effort, and credibility being the three that comes to my mind regards politics.

Over the past few days we saw how so many of the ultra Right rabble rants came to be shown as utter bullshit. Don’t kid yourself Obama and his supporters love this. The folks on the right have so much egg on their face with the added beauty of having been the ones to smash them there. meanwhile those struggling to make legitimate points are overshadowed by the inanity and if given the chance to be heard are instantly degraded and denounced as being aligned with the eggy nutters. What happens then? Well the O and his allies just keep stepping.

Let’s look at a few:

Obama accepts gift from Saudi King.

Yes yes that was some serious bling but he didn’t get it because he bowed. Much like Bush got a sword gift giving seems to be a thing with the Riyadh crowd. If you really wanted to say something on this perhaps you could’ve looked at the OPEC price increases or Saudi Arabia’s pro Western actions in the Lebanese elections.

Dresden Apology.

I didn’t hear or see an apology. I saw a little humanism fluff. Dresdeners reportedly feel slighted by the actual O visit. You see he apparently stopped by,said “Hi” to Merkel without giving her a back rub and went to Buchenwald. In fact it looks like Dresden was really only chosen not due to it’s place in history of US/German relations but it’s proximity to the former concentration camp.

Keeping vets from Normandy

This was BS from the word “go”. No crow for me on this one. 

GPA at Harvard

Although I get the idea that the “most transparent” is actually pretty opaque on a number of things I don’t get this one. What is the point of knowing any POTUS’s GPA,IQ, or other scholastic stat ? The energy expended on this one seemed misplaced and surely devolved into juvenile not far out of the gate. There are certain facts on the subject that nobody can credibly refute. He went,got “honors”,wrote “the least cited HLR entry”. Those are three things a vast majority of the Right and Left have failed to do.

about the image. it is from WWII which I hope is obvious. it holds true to today and the subject of this post though. waste does indeed help the enemy.

Advertisements

70 Comments

  1. wickle says:

    Well, you’re right of course.

    I’ve been saying for some time that if anyone wants to prevent Obama from winning a second term, the fights are going to have to be smarter, not just more numerous.

    Actually, I like that wording. I think I’ve been talking more about crying “Wolf!”

    Anyway … great points, all.

    Looking petty doesn’t help.

  2. Elric66 says:

    Attacking the only outlet thats actually taking on Obama doesnt help. But thats what you want, isnt it?

  3. Elric66 says:

    So how does it feel Fray, carrying water for Obama? Seems you spend more time defending him than attacking his insane policies.

  4. The Red Pill says:

    “He went,got “honors”,wrote “the least cited HLR entry”. Those are three things a vast majority of the Right and Left have failed to do.”

    He just got a free honorary degree a couple weeks back that he didn’t even earn. How do we know that was his only freebie? Since we have absolutely nothing that shows his academic abilities, his supposed academic accomplishments mean little.

    I agree, this is a fight not worth launching. But that doesn’t mean it is without substance.

  5. Elric66 says:

    I like fighting it because the Obamobots insist Obama is the smartest man in the world. Guy cant even string out sentences without TOTUS.

  6. wickle says:

    The problem is that they’re not “taking on Obama” in any kind of intelligent way.

    If Rush Limbaugh started an in-depth analysis of the shortcomings of the concept of a stimulus plan, it would accomplish nothing … Limbaugh has squandered his credibility on trivia.

    Sean Hannity thinks he’s an in-depth analyst, but what he does is recite talking points. He spends hours obsessing over the President’s middle name, and then expects someone to take him seriously when he tries to talk about something serious. The problem is, he’s still the goober who spent all that time obsessing over Obama’s middle name. No one cares what he has to say except those who already agree with him.

    They might be “taking on Obama,” but they’re doing it so stupidly, loudly, and inanely that anyone else who might try is drowned out and dismissed.

    Are you familiar with the fable about the boy who cried “Wolf!”?

    My ongoing point, and that which I believe Alfie is trying to make, is the same as the fable — people stop listening if you spend too much time talking about nothing.

    In order to beat him in an election, or a PR battle, the public is going to have to care what you say.

    Your mistake, Elric, is that you take talk radio at its word. The job of a radio host is to build an audience, improve advertising revenue, and make money. It has nothing to do with advancing a cause. If they can convince you that “the conservative underground” meeting is worth your time and dollars, then they’ve done their work.

    That other people want to win actual elections and effect actual changes in policy? Not their problem.

  7. Elric66 says:

    You keep vilifying talk radio as the Demomarxists burn this country to the ground Wickle. You make a very good pet RINO for the Demomarxists. I swear you guys are like 5th collumnists in the Republican party. Rather attack the conservative base than the enemy. I actually have more respect for the Dems. They dont stab their own in the back like the RINO’s do.

    And just for Fray. Levin slams the clown Newt. June 8th opening monologue. 🙂

    http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930

  8. Alfie says:

    I’d put it to you Elric that the true 5th Columnists are those that drag the GOP down into the muck and discounts it to the value of a crack whore.
    Harping over and over again on ridiculous meaningless drivel like his middle name instead of pointing out how the 600k not new jobs are a crock.
    Instead of using Hugo freaking Chavez’s retarded chuckles perhaps an intelligent meaningful analysis of how the GM/Chrysler cookie crumbled…You see what I’m saying ?
    Of the four points in the post above I could give the GOP better than they’ve had on the topics in 5 minutes. That’s sad when you think 5 months into the administration they’ve not come up with them.

  9. Elric66 says:

    Really? Obama seems to love his middle name and embracing his muslim roots now that he is elected and pandering to the muslim world.

    You like Levin’s slam on that clown Newt? You know, the Newt who is proud to have Colin Powell as a Republican. I knew Newt was going off the deep end when he did that video with Pelosi. But to be proud of Powell who voted for and endorsed Obama is beyond the pale. And that clown wanted to head the RNC? Disgusting

    “Harping over and over again on ridiculous meaningless drivel like his middle name instead of pointing out how the 600k not new jobs are a crock.”

    Believe or not, talk radio does cover things like. Try actually listening to it instead of taking talking points from clownish RINO’s.

  10. wickle says:

    Congratulations.

    As usual, you failed UTTERLY to engage with my point.

    Yes, I criticize talk radio. I just explained why. Again. You answered by reciting the same little buzzwords.

  11. wickle says:

    For the record, Elric, I’m not a RINO.

    More like a NEARIN … Not Even A Republican In Name. The GOP ran its 1994 campaign on the slogan “Character Counts,” then made Gingrich Speaker, put Helms in the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committtee, and put Bob Packwood as chair of the Senate Banking Committee. It was abundantly clear to me that character didn’t matter.

    I’m an independent. So, if you want to call me names, you’ll have to do better than that.

  12. Elric66 says:

    Ahhhh an independent. Someone who doesnt stand for anything. Figures

  13. wickle says:

    You can’t engage with the point — in what way does juvenile sniping in the name of “taking on Obama” help defeat Obama in any way? You have nothing in your arsenal but a couple talking points, and then name-calling when you get stuck. This is what has happened BECAUSE of talk radio.

    “Someone who doesnt stand for anything.”

    No, an independent is someone whose principles are more important than a party. In my case, my pro-life convictions have made me completely incompatible with either of the major parties, and no “third party” is both acceptable and relevant enough for me to join up.

    Once again, you have made a statement so foolish as to be self-evidently false.

    Given that I have taken positions here, on my blog, and all over the place, you know that I am not someone who “doesn’t stand for anything.” Your need to resort to the radio talking point demonstrates the depth of your thinking — not that we didn’t have that adequately covered.

    Limbaugh, for example, lumps moderates, independents, and the undecided all together as one category, which is a large part of why he is absolutely ineffective at winning them/us over. First of all, there is very little about which I’m undecided. His mis-definition of the term “moderate” is offensive to every moderate that I know, and his absolute ignorance about why people reject the two major parties is staggering.

    Either answer the point, Elric, or be done.

  14. Elric66 says:

    “Either answer the point, Elric, or be done.”

    This isnt your blog Chuckles, bully on your own blog.

  15. Elric66 says:

    “This is what has happened BECAUSE of talk radio.”

    Right, blame talk radio. Talk radio was onto Obama’s racist church a year before the MSM even acknowledged it. Seems you and your “independent” buddies hate talk radio more than the MSM. The MSM that propped up Obama, covered for him, buried stories and even refused to release a tape with Obama chumming it up with a terrorist supporter.

    But go ahead and vilify talk radio as the MSM continues to be the propaganda outlet for the thug in chief Barak HUSSEIN Obama as he literally destroys the nation.

  16. Elric66 says:

    Wickle whines about talk radio while vile jerks like Letterman get a free pass from him. I would have posted the link to the video but the moderation cop is on patrol. 🙂

    Rush using the thug in chiefs real middle name. Oh no, what a thoughtless jerk. He’ll never attract us “moderates”

    Letterman calling Palin’s daughter a prostitute………crickets

  17. Elric66 says:

    Ohhh and one more thing Whickle. No matter how many times the MSM tells you talk radio is the Republican party, its not. Its just citizens with a microphone. The Republican party will accept anyone into it, even scumbags like Powell who voted for and endorsed the thug in chief. So basically, the Republicans will accept anyone. So whatever your beliefs are, the Republicans will accept you. So quit whining about talk radio. Talk radio isnt a political party.

  18. wickle says:

    For the record … that “scumbag” is a retired 4-star general, former National Security Adviser, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and combat veteran. Until a couple years ago, your icons were saying that he should run for President.

    Don’t try the MSM line … my knowledge of talk radio comes from actually listening to it. I realize that you’ve been told that no one both listens to and criticizes talk radio. That’s simply incorrect.

    Nice try, though.

  19. Elric66 says:

    I knew you would stick up for the scumbag like a good “independent”.

    Interesting, you said nothing about the MSM or the vicious attacks on Palin and her daughter. You make a good lapdog for the demomarxists. Good boy

  20. wickle says:

    Since I don’t listen to Letterman, and don’t consider to be news information about what late night talk idiots say … I hadn’t heard of this.

    Assuming the facts are as you say — that is utterly disgusting. As bad as when Kos put out the allegation that her brother was in fact her son and that Gov. Palin had faked her pregnancy. He really ought to be above that … I would have expected something like that from Howard Stern. I assumed that Letterman had more class than that, but it’s been more than a decade since I’ve watched his show.

    The difference, though, is that no one follows Letterman politically.

  21. wickle says:

    How’d that deal with the church work out for you, anyway?

    Manage to derail his candidacy with that? No? Maybe that’s my point.

  22. Elric66 says:

    “Since I don’t listen to Letterman, and don’t consider to be news information about what late night talk idiots say … I hadn’t heard of this.”

    Hmmmm but you are obsessed with day time talk radio hosts….gothcha hypocrite

    “The difference, though, is that no one follows Letterman politically.”

    So?

  23. Elric66 says:

    “How’d that deal with the church work out for you, anyway?”

    Well if you dont consider that he sat in a racist, anti Jew, anti American church as a real issue then there really isnt any hope for you

  24. Chris says:

    After reading this post I couldn’t help but think of Charles Krauthammer and his acceptance speech for receiving the Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism. In his speech he said the following about FoxNews:

    “What Fox did is not just create a venue for alternative opinion. It created an alternate reality.

    A few years ago, I was on a radio show with a well-known political reporter who lamented the loss of a pristine past in which the whole country could agree on what the facts were, even if they disagreed on how to interpret and act upon them. All that was gone now. The country had become so fractured we couldn’t even agree on what reality was. What she meant was that the day in which the front page of The New York Times was given scriptural authority everywhere was gone, shattered by the rise of Fox News.”

    Fox News has indeed created an “alternate reality”, one that is rarely and quite loosely based upon fact. Such a reality is created by the spinning of truth and misrepresentation of facts as you have shown in your initial post. This is the pattern that we have seen so boldly over the last eight years and continue to see in much of the political discourse today. Obama is a Muslim, Obama is apologizing to our enemies, Sonia Sotomayor is not that smart and a racist…you can see it all over the place and it makes it that much of a struggle to move forward with any kind of progress when you first have to argue with people about basic facts and deal with revisionist history.

  25. wickle says:

    Ummm … yes, I did. The term “utterly disgusting” was used to describe Letterman’s remark. You lose, yet again.

    Sticking up for Gen. Powell? I don’t hate him, if that’s what you mean. I don’t hate anyone … I agree or disagree with them based on what they’re saying and/or doing at the time.

    That “scumbag” has served his country with honor for decades. You decide to throw all of that away and hate him because he disagreed with you on an endorsement. Call me what you will. I don’t think that any reasonable person could fail to notice the irrationality of your behavior.

  26. wickle says:

    You certainly didn’t get me, nor am I a hypocrite.

    Comedians on late night TV don’t influence any policy or policy-related discussion, with the possible exception of Jon Stewart (not sure what time he’s on … that may or may not be late night). Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck speak at such events at party conventions, AFA rallies, and the like. That puts them into entirely different categories.

  27. wickle says:

    My question was … Did you manage to derail Obama with that obsession?

    Hannity played that clip endlessly for the better part of a year, and … lost.

    Soundly.

    The reason is that Hannity lacks credibility. Everyone knows that he’s going to be an attack dog, and so he’s easy to ignore. Kind of like the dog in your neighborhood that barks all the time, but everyone knows to ignore it because it’s harmless.

    This brings me back to my point, the one Alfie made in his post, and the one that you can’t answer … If you cry wolf all the time, people will stop listening to you.

    You can object to the fact that I criticize the tactics of talk radio all you want … but you seem oblivious to the fact that what I’m saying is that if you want to prevent a second Obama term, you’re going to have to change tactics.

    That, of course, is because you’ve bought into the false dichotomy sold by people who want to shore up their market share.

  28. The Red Pill says:

    Please…..

    Was Dan Rather reporting for Fox News when he put up fabricated documents about George Bush?

    The media has been creating its own realities for decades. Surely you’ve heard of “yellow journalism”? I’m pretty sure the concept is older than Fox News.

  29. wickle says:

    Fox is hardly unique in that.

    That they spin Right rather than Left is out of the ordinary, but the infusion of spin into news reporting isn’t a new creation of Fox.

  30. Chris says:

    No where did I claim that this is somehow a new phenomenon over the course of history. The original post dicusses some right-wing talking points and attacking points that have relevance to the reply I posted.

  31. Elric66 says:

    I could care less about his military service. That doesnt shield him from political criticism. He calls himself a Republican, not only didnt he endorse a fellow Republican who also had a honorable career and a moderate but back a radical left wing thug. SO did he back him because Obama is “black” or a radical left winger? Either way the guy is a dirtbag. So you lose Chuckles

    “Ummm … yes, I did. The term “utterly disgusting” was used to describe Letterman’s remark. You lose, yet again.”

    But yet you never condemn the MSM or left wing clowns unless someone brings it up. But you will bash ppl like Rush who say a lot less stuff on the air. You lose

  32. Elric66 says:

    Reporting on his racist church wasnt crying wolf. He sat there for 20 years. Now if it was Juan McVain that did that, he wouldnt even got the nomination. You may want to sit back and roll over on for these marxist thugs but I wont.

    “you’re going to have to change tactics.”

    And whats that? Get along with ppl that want to bring down this nation?

    Ohhh and guess what? I do want Barak HUSSEIN Obama to fail. If he fails, the nation succeeds.

  33. Alfie says:

    Thanks for the comments. I’m having a problem deciding how to chime in but definitely wanted to thank people for sharing. Just in general though :
    1. Do we agree there is media spin and such on both sides ?
    2. RINO woefully misused since it seems from those that toss it about they mean something else ?
    3. Journalistic nature of early reports on Wrights church good -mind numbing beating of the drum 24/7 not ?
    4. Psuedo-journalist/enter-formation sources becoming too strong. Coulter,Colbert,Hannity,Olbermann,Stewart etc. ?

  34. Elric66 says:

    Obama is having our troops read captured jihadists their Miranda Rights. Gee is this off the table too? Can we attack Obama on this or is it too harsh? Dont want to be accused of “crying wolf”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/miranda_rights_for_terrorists.asp

  35. Elric66 says:

    1. Do we agree there is media spin and such on both sides ?

    No. Evn Hillary said the fairest treatment she got was from Fox News.
    2. RINO woefully misused since it seems from those that toss it about they mean something else ?

    Democrat Lite fits better.
    3. Journalistic nature of early reports on Wrights church good -mind numbing beating of the drum 24/7 not ?

    Well it took a drum beat for a year to even get the MSM to acknowledge it
    4. Psuedo-journalist/enter-formation sources becoming too strong. Coulter,Colbert,Hannity,Olbermann,Stewart etc. ?

    Talk show hosts arent journalists, they never claimed to be.

  36. Alfie says:

    You can and hopefully people stay on top of it.I have to say the Standards scenario of KSM lawyering up is a bit too whimsical for me. I think though what you’ll see if anyone bothers to revisit this down the road is something like this.
    CIA & FBI, let alone other intelligence entities will continue their eternal infighting. Select targets will be sorted and passed onto the agency that seems to have the most reason to question them. What the styles will mean then is that no real change has happened.

  37. Chris says:

    Is your comment implying that the media has an overwhelming liberal slant? Certainly one need only look at the coverage leading up to the Iraq War to see that the media are largely stenographers to power.

  38. The Red Pill says:

    You may not have claimed it outright, but you certainly suggested it.

    To summarize your comment…

    “More than a few years ago, we had a ‘pristine past,’ where everyone could agree on the facts. But now that is all gone because the cover of the NY Times is no longer taken as gospel, and has been replaced by the ‘alternate reality’ of Fox News.”

    Furthermore, you allude to this only taking place “over the last eight years,” while ignoring the fact that it has taken place over the last eight decades…or more.

    If your comment was simply addressing the points made in the original post, then why bother with your entire supporting anecdotal evidence of what happened “a few years ago” and the “over the last eight years”?

  39. Alfie says:

    Elric for your answers:
    #1 she also a thing about the right wing noise machine or something to that effect right ?
    #2 Make it so then because on the other end of the spectrum Republicans are not the socio econ conservatives either. Republican is actually an umbrella.
    #3 _____
    #4 You see the report that the younger demos rely on the likes of Stewart for their world news/views ? The hosts on either side are this generations rabble rousers, FACT

  40. Chris says:

    Perhaps there is a slight misunderstanding here. The part of my reply that you quoted in your last entry was actually part of Charles Krauthammer’s speech. I quoted him from when he said “What Fox did….” until “…the rise of Fox News”. Those words are not mine, they are Krauthammer’s.

    I alluded to the last eight years in which this “alternate reality”, that which Krauthammer describes, has really taken off. You know, the type of reality in which “torture” becomes “enhanced interrogation techniques”…where occupation becomes liberation…and where everyone eats freedom fries.

  41. The Red Pill says:

    “Is your comment implying that the media has an overwhelming liberal slant? Certainly one need only look at the coverage leading up to the Iraq War to see that the media are largely stenographers to power.”

    So who is in power now, Chris? Is the press simply their stenographers?

    And the coverage of the Veitnam War? Was the media towing the “power” line then?

    How about the coverage of the Iraq War after the run-up? Like in 2005 and 2006? Was the media playing stenographer to power then?

    The media are not out to push a political agenda for the sake of pushing a political agenda. They are out to make money. Period. If they think they can make money by towing someone’s party line, then they will do that. If they think they can make money by spreading outright lies, they will do that.

  42. Chris says:

    That is precisely my point. The media are large money-making corporations that make business decisions. Their business decisions are probably not going to upset the power structure that has put them in their position of power. This is why you got a very narrow viewpoint of opinion in the run-up to the Iraq War, this is why you get the majority of coverage that invites the same failed opinion makers on air to scream at each other for a three minute segment, and this is why you get sensational stories and infotainment that do little to stimulate healthy debate.

  43. The Red Pill says:

    We did have a misunderstanding about your quote. And I’d have to say that I disagree with Krauthammer’s assessment.

    But I maintain my disagreement with your claim. The news media in general creates its own reality, and always has. The best we can hope for is that we have enough of a variety of those “alternative realities” to be able to piece together what the facts really are.

  44. Elric66 says:

    #1 she also a thing about the right wing noise machine or something to that effect right ?

    And yet she got a fairer shake than from the left leaning outfits.

    #2 Make it so then because on the other end of the spectrum Republicans are not the socio econ conservatives either. Republican is actually an umbrella.

    To an extent. But when jerks like Powell, Snowe, Collins etc go along with radical leftists, they deserve to be vilified.

    #3 _____

    Glad you agree 🙂

    #4 You see the report that the younger demos rely on the likes of Stewart for their world news/views ? The hosts on either side are this generations rabble rousers, FACT

    You compare Hanity to the likes of Olberman and Mathews……??? Please

  45. The Red Pill says:

    So why single out Fox News as this evil news entity that creates its own reality?

    Don’t get me wrong. I am not defending Fox News here. I am just trying to get you to apply the standards you are placing on them to the rest of the news media you seem wont to ignore. Other than that 1 point, I think we are both largely in agreement.

    And the powers that dictate the news are not governmental, in my opinion, but corporate. Government doesn’t finance the news media, corporate advertising does.

  46. Elric66 says:

    “The media are not out to push a political agenda for the sake of pushing a political agenda.”

    Where have you been for the past year?

  47. The Red Pill says:

    “Talk show hosts arent journalists”

    Possibly the most intelligent comment I have ever seen come from Elric. 😉

    Concernig Alfie’s response to that answer, I’d have to say that reflects more on those going to them for news, than it does on their weight as journalists.

  48. The Red Pill says:

    Elric, I think if you look at the rest of the comment, you might actually agree.

    The public is crazy over Barack Obama. So doesn’t it make sense that the media would sell the public what it wants?

    The public was eager to go to war against Iraq. The media gave it what it wanted. When the public grew tired of the war, the media gave it what it wanted.

  49. Alfie says:

    The best we can hope for is that we have enough of a variety of those “alternative realities” to be able to piece together what the facts really are.

    There lies the defense citizens have against any form of tyranny.

  50. Chris says:

    Why single out Fox News? Because the initial post is about right wing inanity and this is what Fox News specializes in. It is my point that the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc. have specialized as a giant echo chamber for some of the attacks listed in the original post. Krauthammer’s comments happened within the last couple of days and that relates to this inital post.

    Because I point this out does not mean that I think the other corporate media outlets do their job, to the contrary and again using the example of the run-up to the Iraq War, none of them did their job. This includes the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, and on down the line.

  51. The Red Pill says:

    Not that I don’t trust you, but do you have a link to that quote by Krauthammer? It is applicable to an old post/paper I have written at my own blog, and would make a nice comment addition to prove the point (as well as revisit the discussion).

    Thanks.

  52. Elric66 says:

    and once the demomarxists destroy talk radio, then what?

  53. Alfie says:

    I don’t support the Fairness Doctrine any more than I support the mega merging power grubbing of media. Both situations are equally evil.

  54. Elric66 says:

    They wont go through the Fairness Doctrine, it will be through the backdoor. But once talk radio is destroyed and the internet is regulated, we are so screwed.

  55. wickle says:

    Elric, to my suggestion of changing tactics, you answered:

    “And whats that? Get along with ppl that want to bring down this nation? ”

    Actually, I’d suggest relying on facts and trying to convey them intelligently and dispassionately.

    You see, when you refer to Pres. Obama as a “demomarxist,” you turn off everyone who doesn’t already agree with you. If you think that the government takeover of major industries, for example, is a bad idea because it subverts the future of investment and entrepreneurism, devalues contracts by demonstrating that the government will simply replace them at a whim, and places new levels of bureaucracy in place of capitalist structures, then that would be an intelligent argument.

    If you’ve got nothing better than calling him a fascist and demomarxist, then no one’s listening.

    You see, one can make that argument if s/he has preserved his/her credibility by not running after every little idiotic thing. If, however, you spent your time ranting over what kind of mustard the President likes on his burgers, his GPA, and the like … then no one cares what you think anymore.

    If you were one of those people who got roped into the inanity of complaining that Pres. Obama didn’t go to Normandy on his previous trip to Europe, then you have more or less discredited yourself, since he wound up going for the actual anniversary of the battle. Do you get the point?

    No, you don’t. I get that. You’re blind to criticism.

    “But yet you never condemn the MSM or left wing clowns unless someone brings it up.”

    Yes, you’re right … I didn’t rebuke Letterman until I heard that it happened. In the future, I will try to condemn that which is offensive but of which I’ve never heard.

    What you still haven’t answered, Elric, and which you will have to answer before I waste any more time on you, is how you think that this kind of thing is going to influence elections. Do you think that the next time you refer to Jeremiah Wright that, suddenly, it’s all going to click with the whole country?

    You see, in 1996 we basically ran a campaign against Bill Clinton that was based on the idea that people really didn’t mean to elect him in 1992. Clinton won.

    In 2004, the Democrats’ main strategy against Bush was to say that he didn’t really win in 2000 and he’s stupid. Bush won.

    In 2012, are you really going to repeat the same talking points that lost in 2008? I suggest a different plan, since history indicates that the best way to unseat an incumbent is to go after what he’s done in those four years.

    In 1992, for example, the Democrats hit Bush hard over what he’d done in four years, especially breaking his “No new taxes” pledge. The Dems in ’92 ran a smart campaign. Despite sky-high popularity after Desert Storm, Bush lost pretty soundly.

    If you’d rather hand Obama a second term by continuing your random rants and name-calling, then I guess that’s your business. I’m not sure why that makes you any better than an honest Democrat, though.

  56. Elric66 says:

    “You see, when you refer to Pres. Obama as a “demomarxist,” you turn off everyone who doesn’t already agree with you.”

    So?

    “Do you think that the next time you refer to Jeremiah Wright that, suddenly, it’s all going to click with the whole country?”

    Speaking of which, the thug in chief mentor was ranting about the Jooos again today.

    “You see, in 1996 we basically ran a campaign against Bill Clinton that was based on the idea that people really didn’t mean to elect him in 1992. Clinton won.”

    He won because we ran a loser RINO like we did this year.

    “In 2012, are you really going to repeat the same talking points that lost in 2008?”

    This country is going to be so destroyed it might not even matter. Im more worried in 2010 if we can get enough conservatives that can hold back the thug in chiefs demomarxist agenda. If we dont, 2012 wont really matter.

    “If you’d rather hand Obama a second term by continuing your random rants and name-calling, then I guess that’s your business.”

    And agenda, you dont think the thug in chief sitting in the pew for 20 years listening to Wright’s antijewish antiamerican rants is important than there is no hope for you. It really explains who obama is and his contempt for this nation.

  57. Elric66 says:

    Is this just ranting too wickle?

    Miranda Rights for Terrorists

    When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.

    Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs.

    If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

    Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”

    How much more damage does the thug in chief need to do before you wake up to what he is? And the scumbag Powell endorsed this POS. Ohh Im sorry 4 star scumbag.

  58. wickle says:

    ““You see, when you refer to Pres. Obama as a “demomarxist,” you turn off everyone who doesn’t already agree with you.”

    So? ”

    So … If you want to win any future elections, you’ll have to grow up.

    “He won because we ran a loser RINO like we did this year.”

    That’s a nice fantasy people like to believe. Enjoy.

    Your issue is actually relevant … but you’re changing the subject. You see, if you would focus on that kind of thing and lose the juvenile name-calling, you’d be one of the more-respected comment-posters around.

    As to your rants regarding Gen. Powell — a vast majority of American citizens don’t consider turning on the Republican Party to be a terrible sin. If you want to be able to persuade people, then you should try speaking respectfully even about those with whom you disagree.

    “And agenda, you dont think the thug in chief sitting in the pew for 20 years listening to Wright’s antijewish antiamerican rants is important than there is no hope for you. It really explains who obama is and his contempt for this nation.”

    And, as I said, if you think that having your little tantrum and stomping your feet is an effective political strategy, then you and yours will hand Pres. Obama a second term.

    My suggestion is to look at the fact that everything you’re doing is FAILING. When you’re losing a battle, you look for a new tactic. Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, is a popular definition of insanity.

    It’s also what you’re doing.

  59. wickle says:

    Don’t read what I didn’t say.

    I didn’t say overwhelming, nor did I imply it. What I said is that bias has long existed, but it tended to be Leftward rather than Right, and that’s really the only thing different between Fox and other outlets.

    Journalism quality on TV, when I used to watch any TV news, is really quite terrible.

  60. Chris says:

    I didn’t state that you had said “overwhelming”, I asked if that is what you were implying. You say that it isn’t and I thank you for the clarification and we agree that the journalism quality on TV is pretty bad.

  61. Elric66 says:

    My suggestion is grow up and debate me on your blog. 🙂

  62. Alfie says:

    Lost in moderation was Elric 66 comment highlighting a story about how Obama got swords banned from the USNA graduation. There were a number of folks on the Right that picked up this piece of red meat and ran with it. Unfortunately if they checked their hands they’d have noted they had brown shit in their hand not red meat.
    The USNA has a standing policy regards swords at graduation. A review of the USNA website for graduations back to 2003 shows a distinct lack of swords amongst the middies. This is in direct comparison to the USMA West Point which do have swords all the time.
    So here is a great example of a lie that snowballed and melted when the light of truth struck it.

  63. Elric66 says:

    Make sure you dont bring up the Miranda rights as well

  64. Elric66 says:

    Actually real change has happened. We were actually safer pre 9-11.

  65. Elric66 says:

    We know what you meant Rev Wright

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/rev-wright-i-meant-to-say-zionists-are-keeping-me-from-talking-to-president-obama-not-jews.html

    But for some, pointing out the thug in chief’s 20 year mentor’s antisemitism is baaaaddd…

  66. Elric66 says:

    More “Right wing inanity”

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/06/obama-hey-you-know-what-we-should-tax-cow-farts.html#comments

    Thats why I call him a thug and ppl like Powell scumbags for supporting him.

Comments are closed.