Cringing at liberal stupidity!!!
Some of those of the liberal persuasion say things that are so-o-o-o-o-o-o stupid I can barely comprehend it. How did they get this way. Wizbang exposes Randi Rhodes of Air America:
"Everything Makes Them Stronger
Thanks to our buddy Sean M. at The Brea Canyon Monument, we learned of a clip from “Larry King Live” featuring the impressive intellect of one Randi Rhodes. Frankly, dear reader, until we took a gander at this TV spot, we hadn’t heard of Randi Rhodes before. Or, perhaps, we thought she was the bass player in erstwhile pseudo-heavy metal sensation Quiet Riot.
But, no, it appears that Ms. Rhodes hosts a program on Air America, the deeply popular radio network with circa three listeners. Accordingly, the ever-tepid Larry King invited Ms. Rhodes to debate the Israel-Hezbollah conflict with right-wing radio host Neil Boortz.
To be sure, we found Ms. Rhodes awfully convincing—if by “awfully convincing” you mean “so stupid that you earnestly wonder about how she manages to tie her shoes in the morning.” Throughout the segment, the dunderheaded Ms. Rhodes offered a few useless platitudes, and blithely ignored all kinds of evidence to come to her inane conclusions.
Yet one of Ms. Rhodes’ “arguments” struck us as particularly intriguing. Toward the end of the segment, she countered Mr. Boortz’s call for Israeli self-defense by suggesting that any military response to terrorism serves only to create more terrorism. As such, she opined that terrorism is merely a law-enforcement issue.
This, we thought, was a rather staggering claim. After all, Bill Clinton largely conceived of terrorism as a “law-enforcement issue,” and this led to the escalation of terrorist acts against America during his presidency—culminating in 9/11. Perhaps Ms. Rhodes wants the US to hire better cops? We didn’t think that was a high priority for the self-proclaimed progressive community.
This, of course, does not exhaust the problems one can detect with Ms. Rhodes’ line of “reasoning.” For how does she propose Israel go about arresting the entire membership of Hezbollah, especially since they reside in other countries? How, for that matter, does she propose Israel go about arresting Sheik Nasrallah? Hezbollah is not only a terrorist outfit, but also part of the Lebanese government: How does law-enforcement deal with that?
Yet perhaps the most appallingly stupid conclusion to be drawn from Ms. Rhodes commentary is the idea that a military response to terrorism necessarily results in an increase of terrorism. To her, this suggests that Israelis should not defend themselves against a systematic campaign of rocket fire into their country, because this would mean more rocket fire down the line. Instead, one should merely call the cops—they’ll easily get to the bottom of the 200 missiles launched at your homeland each day.
This, dear reader, is either madness or the view of a woman who aims for the elimination of Western civilization. Her “killing Nazis only breeds more Nazis” line of argument is so foolish that no forthright person could take it seriously. If this is the kind of rationale bandied about by the Ned Lamont progressives, the Democratic Party has some major problems with its left wing.
(Note: The crack young staff normally “weblog” over at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” where they are currently listening to Randi Rhodes’ cover of “Come On Feel the Noise.”)"
Do you recognize the stupidity? First, that the answer to terrorism is law enforcement?!!! Or how about the idea that fighting back against the terrorists just creates more terrorists? No, it doesn't, it just sends more of them to the fiery hell they richly deserve.
~~
Okay, how about Harry Reid as Hawkeye reveals:
Looney Liberal of the Week: Harry Reid
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This week's award goes to Harry Reid for comments he made on Thursday, shortly following the disclosure that a major terrorist plot to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic ocean had been thwarted. Harry Reid is getting to be a regular in this segment. He appeared here in May and again in June. At this rate, Reid will make 'Looney Liberal of the Year' hands down.
In this current environment of bitter partisan politics, Reid decided to jump out in front of the cameras and make a statement (bashing Bush of course), just to deflect any credit the administration might receive for its role (however limited) in thwarting this terrorist plot. The Democrats are so desperate, that they cannot acknowledge even for 10 minutes that something good happened. They cannot rejoice in the knowledge that hundreds or perhaps thousands of American and British lives were saved. They cannot wait for even one day to try and find a cloudy lining behind the silver the moment.
Instead, Harry Reid immediately rushed out to make the following idiotic statement...
"As a result of mismanagement and the wrong funding priorities, we are not as safe as we should be...The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists. This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."
Huh?? Did I miss something? I thought we DID in fact take "all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world". I mean... the terrorist plot WAS thwarted, wasn't it... or am I wrong? Would the terrorist plot have been thwarted "BETTER" if we were not in Iraq?
And who is Harry Reid kidding? If we never went into Iraq and we had $300 billion hanging around, do you think he would be spending it on counter-terrorism efforts? BWAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, right! And, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Richard Barrett in his article at the link above makes a couple of humorous statements that I just couldn't ignore...
"There are many wrong-headed points Mr. Reid makes in his statement that reeks of partisanship over patriotism. One is that the war in Iraq has created a rallying cry for international terrorists. Hello, McFly! International terrorists have had their sights set on America well before our second incursion into Iraq. From the suicide bombing of our Marines based in Southern Lebanon in 1983 to the 9/11 attacks, Muslim terrorists have targeted Americans for over two decades...
The party that wants to end the Patriot Act, the party that wants to kill the NSA surveillance tactics, and the party that wants to pull our troops out of Iraq, NOW, and who cries, "Uncle!" when the going gets tough, this is the party that will protect Americans here and the world over? Only the French have less fortitude than Democrats..."
Harry Reid and countless other Democrats want you to believe that fighting in Iraq is a "wrong priority" and we are "diverting our focus" from the "war on terror." Who do they think we are fighting over there, anyway, Ahab the Arab? We are fighting Islamofascists in Iraq and many of them are Al-Queda operatives. We need to have a presence in the region because terrorist states like Syria and Iran could dominate the region without our intervention. Trust me on this, the terrorists want us out of Iraq and out of the Middle East. They want us hiding behind our shores, waiting until we are surrounded by them.
It is reminiscent of the 1930's, when Hitler was gaining power rapidly and Mussolini was doing his thing. The League of Nations did nothing, the United States did nothing, and appeasement was the formula the free world followed. Winston Churchill warned us all that disaster was about to strike. What if a John Kerry had been in power in England and there had been no Churchill? What if the Japanese had held off attacking us until they had consolidated their stranglehold on the Pacific Ocean? Would we be speaking German right now, or Japanese? Have the liberal Democrats have no grasp of history whatsover?
~~~
Here is Amy Proctor's exposure of Charles Rangel:
Rangel Says US Human Rights as Bad as Cuba
NY Congressman Charles Rangel was on Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto," August 3, 2006. This intellectual giant touched on a slew of topics to include Israel's war on terror, Fidel Castro and of course, President Bush, against whom Rangel made several undignified and adolescent remarks. You can WATCH the interview here or READ the transcript here. Below is the exchange between Cavuto and Rangel on Cuba's Fidel Castro and Rangel's threat to leave the House if Dems don't win the majority:
CAVUTO: Let's talk about Fidel Castro . There have been people dancing in the streets in Miami thinking he's dead or close to it.
RANGEL: That's obscene.
CAVUTO: Why?
RANGEL: Because, no matter what the forces, here's an old guy. You like him, you don't like him, but to be dancing in the street hoping that he would die, so you can go to Cuba when you and your parents have never even been to Cuba, it's politically ridiculous.
...But I hope you wouldn't expect your president, the leader of the free world, not only to be supporting you, but to be asking for money to overthrow Castro, not knowing who follows Castro. It's ridiculous to have an embargo...
CAVUTO: Well, are you saying you're for Castro?
RANGEL: No. I want a democratic change. But I don't believe dancing in the street and spreading out money in Havana and in Miami is the a way to do it.
CAVUTO: Charlie, this guy killed a lot of people.
RANGEL: Well, I wonder how many people we killed at Guantanamo. I mean, we don't have the human rights record.
CAVUTO: Well, wait — wait a minute. Are you equating Fidel Castro with what's happening at Guantanamo?
RANGEL: You bet your life, if we're — if we are talking about human rights.
CAVUTO: So, President Bush is just like Fidel Castro?
RANGEL: No. But what I'm saying is, if you want to talk about the inhuman human rights that Castro has, in arresting people and not presenting them with why they were arrested, not giving them lawyers, and having a secret trial, hey, we're doing the same thing...
CAVUTO: Now, are — are they (Cubans against Castro) wrong in wanting a guy like that to be dead?
RANGEL: Let me tell you a very, very quick story. A guy stopped me in the Capitol. He says, "You're doing a great job, but, on Cuba, you are 100 percent wrong."
I said, "Why?"
He said, "Because Castro took everything away that my grandparents have, just took the property."
I said, "What did he take?"
He said, "You know, I don't know. I have been telling that story for so long, I don't even know what they had." He says, "But I'm to the talking to you, because you're taking away my inheritance."
This is the Castro that we endorsed when he overthrew Batista, you know. This is the same guy. This is the Castro that we wanted to normalize relationship with and...
CAVUTO: But I seem to remember the Bay of Pigs. I seem to remember nine U.S. presidents trying...
I would like to believe that Americans are not afraid — afraid of Castro and his communism. We should open the doors, have trade. People should be able to visit.
CAVUTO: Real — real quickly, I want to talk — you said you would quit if Democrats don't take control of the House.
RANGEL: ...if the American people believe that the war, the deficit, the corruption, that they want a continuation of this, I will not be able just to sit on the bench and see this harm being done to my country. And I would not be expected to sit there for an additional two years.
CAVUTO: OK. So, you don't think it (Republicans winning House) will happen. But, if it does, you're history?
RANGEL: I'm out of there, yes.
I would — this would be the first time that I would take any election personally. And it would be very personal to me if the American people says: "Rangel, you're dead wrong. We want more of this."
CAVUTO: OK.
RANGEL: You can have more of Bush, but you ain't getting more of me.
Oh, please! If New Yorkers are stupid enough to re-elect Rangel they deserve him. What an ego. What a great incentive for Republicans to get out and vote in November as well.
Notice how Rangel equates dislike for Castro to old irrelevant fables that people have told "for so long" that they cannot remember the details. The connotation is that Castro is getting an undeserved bad rap from people who clearly are spreading old wives' tales.
THIS is what goes on at Gitmo, and the human rights violations are against US soldiers, not terrorist thug detainees, Congressman.
It's hard to imagine this man is actually a representative in the United States Congress. The standard just keeps getting lower and lower."
Do I have to even comment? Rangel hates Bush and defends Castro. Aye-aye-aye!
The liberal Democrats were exulting over beating Joe Liebermann in the primaries. Lieberman is a liberal, has been all his life, but he agrees that the war against terror includes the Iraq campaign and for this transgression the Dems booted him! No room for a man of honor who cannot toe the party line concerning Iraq, not in a Blue State. Now Lieberman is going to run as an Independent. Can he win? I don't know but I admire the guy.
Did you know that Al Gore and Dick Durbin were once fiercely anti-abortion but sniffed the winds of change and changed their positions? Lieberman is pro-abortion, which is one reason I disagree with him and would not vote for him in most scenarios. But he didn't come to that position to get votes, he believes it should be legal. Of the three, which one deserves respect?
Anyway, how did the Democratic Party come to this point? Are we going to get a steady helping of George McGoverns and Gene McCarthys? Is appeasement going to win the day?
"Everything Makes Them Stronger
Thanks to our buddy Sean M. at The Brea Canyon Monument, we learned of a clip from “Larry King Live” featuring the impressive intellect of one Randi Rhodes. Frankly, dear reader, until we took a gander at this TV spot, we hadn’t heard of Randi Rhodes before. Or, perhaps, we thought she was the bass player in erstwhile pseudo-heavy metal sensation Quiet Riot.
But, no, it appears that Ms. Rhodes hosts a program on Air America, the deeply popular radio network with circa three listeners. Accordingly, the ever-tepid Larry King invited Ms. Rhodes to debate the Israel-Hezbollah conflict with right-wing radio host Neil Boortz.
To be sure, we found Ms. Rhodes awfully convincing—if by “awfully convincing” you mean “so stupid that you earnestly wonder about how she manages to tie her shoes in the morning.” Throughout the segment, the dunderheaded Ms. Rhodes offered a few useless platitudes, and blithely ignored all kinds of evidence to come to her inane conclusions.
Yet one of Ms. Rhodes’ “arguments” struck us as particularly intriguing. Toward the end of the segment, she countered Mr. Boortz’s call for Israeli self-defense by suggesting that any military response to terrorism serves only to create more terrorism. As such, she opined that terrorism is merely a law-enforcement issue.
This, we thought, was a rather staggering claim. After all, Bill Clinton largely conceived of terrorism as a “law-enforcement issue,” and this led to the escalation of terrorist acts against America during his presidency—culminating in 9/11. Perhaps Ms. Rhodes wants the US to hire better cops? We didn’t think that was a high priority for the self-proclaimed progressive community.
This, of course, does not exhaust the problems one can detect with Ms. Rhodes’ line of “reasoning.” For how does she propose Israel go about arresting the entire membership of Hezbollah, especially since they reside in other countries? How, for that matter, does she propose Israel go about arresting Sheik Nasrallah? Hezbollah is not only a terrorist outfit, but also part of the Lebanese government: How does law-enforcement deal with that?
Yet perhaps the most appallingly stupid conclusion to be drawn from Ms. Rhodes commentary is the idea that a military response to terrorism necessarily results in an increase of terrorism. To her, this suggests that Israelis should not defend themselves against a systematic campaign of rocket fire into their country, because this would mean more rocket fire down the line. Instead, one should merely call the cops—they’ll easily get to the bottom of the 200 missiles launched at your homeland each day.
This, dear reader, is either madness or the view of a woman who aims for the elimination of Western civilization. Her “killing Nazis only breeds more Nazis” line of argument is so foolish that no forthright person could take it seriously. If this is the kind of rationale bandied about by the Ned Lamont progressives, the Democratic Party has some major problems with its left wing.
(Note: The crack young staff normally “weblog” over at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” where they are currently listening to Randi Rhodes’ cover of “Come On Feel the Noise.”)"
Do you recognize the stupidity? First, that the answer to terrorism is law enforcement?!!! Or how about the idea that fighting back against the terrorists just creates more terrorists? No, it doesn't, it just sends more of them to the fiery hell they richly deserve.
~~
Okay, how about Harry Reid as Hawkeye reveals:
Looney Liberal of the Week: Harry Reid
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This week's award goes to Harry Reid for comments he made on Thursday, shortly following the disclosure that a major terrorist plot to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic ocean had been thwarted. Harry Reid is getting to be a regular in this segment. He appeared here in May and again in June. At this rate, Reid will make 'Looney Liberal of the Year' hands down.
In this current environment of bitter partisan politics, Reid decided to jump out in front of the cameras and make a statement (bashing Bush of course), just to deflect any credit the administration might receive for its role (however limited) in thwarting this terrorist plot. The Democrats are so desperate, that they cannot acknowledge even for 10 minutes that something good happened. They cannot rejoice in the knowledge that hundreds or perhaps thousands of American and British lives were saved. They cannot wait for even one day to try and find a cloudy lining behind the silver the moment.
Instead, Harry Reid immediately rushed out to make the following idiotic statement...
"As a result of mismanagement and the wrong funding priorities, we are not as safe as we should be...The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists. This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."
Huh?? Did I miss something? I thought we DID in fact take "all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world". I mean... the terrorist plot WAS thwarted, wasn't it... or am I wrong? Would the terrorist plot have been thwarted "BETTER" if we were not in Iraq?
And who is Harry Reid kidding? If we never went into Iraq and we had $300 billion hanging around, do you think he would be spending it on counter-terrorism efforts? BWAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, right! And, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Richard Barrett in his article at the link above makes a couple of humorous statements that I just couldn't ignore...
"There are many wrong-headed points Mr. Reid makes in his statement that reeks of partisanship over patriotism. One is that the war in Iraq has created a rallying cry for international terrorists. Hello, McFly! International terrorists have had their sights set on America well before our second incursion into Iraq. From the suicide bombing of our Marines based in Southern Lebanon in 1983 to the 9/11 attacks, Muslim terrorists have targeted Americans for over two decades...
The party that wants to end the Patriot Act, the party that wants to kill the NSA surveillance tactics, and the party that wants to pull our troops out of Iraq, NOW, and who cries, "Uncle!" when the going gets tough, this is the party that will protect Americans here and the world over? Only the French have less fortitude than Democrats..."
Harry Reid and countless other Democrats want you to believe that fighting in Iraq is a "wrong priority" and we are "diverting our focus" from the "war on terror." Who do they think we are fighting over there, anyway, Ahab the Arab? We are fighting Islamofascists in Iraq and many of them are Al-Queda operatives. We need to have a presence in the region because terrorist states like Syria and Iran could dominate the region without our intervention. Trust me on this, the terrorists want us out of Iraq and out of the Middle East. They want us hiding behind our shores, waiting until we are surrounded by them.
It is reminiscent of the 1930's, when Hitler was gaining power rapidly and Mussolini was doing his thing. The League of Nations did nothing, the United States did nothing, and appeasement was the formula the free world followed. Winston Churchill warned us all that disaster was about to strike. What if a John Kerry had been in power in England and there had been no Churchill? What if the Japanese had held off attacking us until they had consolidated their stranglehold on the Pacific Ocean? Would we be speaking German right now, or Japanese? Have the liberal Democrats have no grasp of history whatsover?
~~~
Here is Amy Proctor's exposure of Charles Rangel:
Rangel Says US Human Rights as Bad as Cuba
NY Congressman Charles Rangel was on Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto," August 3, 2006. This intellectual giant touched on a slew of topics to include Israel's war on terror, Fidel Castro and of course, President Bush, against whom Rangel made several undignified and adolescent remarks. You can WATCH the interview here or READ the transcript here. Below is the exchange between Cavuto and Rangel on Cuba's Fidel Castro and Rangel's threat to leave the House if Dems don't win the majority:
CAVUTO: Let's talk about Fidel Castro . There have been people dancing in the streets in Miami thinking he's dead or close to it.
RANGEL: That's obscene.
CAVUTO: Why?
RANGEL: Because, no matter what the forces, here's an old guy. You like him, you don't like him, but to be dancing in the street hoping that he would die, so you can go to Cuba when you and your parents have never even been to Cuba, it's politically ridiculous.
...But I hope you wouldn't expect your president, the leader of the free world, not only to be supporting you, but to be asking for money to overthrow Castro, not knowing who follows Castro. It's ridiculous to have an embargo...
CAVUTO: Well, are you saying you're for Castro?
RANGEL: No. I want a democratic change. But I don't believe dancing in the street and spreading out money in Havana and in Miami is the a way to do it.
CAVUTO: Charlie, this guy killed a lot of people.
RANGEL: Well, I wonder how many people we killed at Guantanamo. I mean, we don't have the human rights record.
CAVUTO: Well, wait — wait a minute. Are you equating Fidel Castro with what's happening at Guantanamo?
RANGEL: You bet your life, if we're — if we are talking about human rights.
CAVUTO: So, President Bush is just like Fidel Castro?
RANGEL: No. But what I'm saying is, if you want to talk about the inhuman human rights that Castro has, in arresting people and not presenting them with why they were arrested, not giving them lawyers, and having a secret trial, hey, we're doing the same thing...
CAVUTO: Now, are — are they (Cubans against Castro) wrong in wanting a guy like that to be dead?
RANGEL: Let me tell you a very, very quick story. A guy stopped me in the Capitol. He says, "You're doing a great job, but, on Cuba, you are 100 percent wrong."
I said, "Why?"
He said, "Because Castro took everything away that my grandparents have, just took the property."
I said, "What did he take?"
He said, "You know, I don't know. I have been telling that story for so long, I don't even know what they had." He says, "But I'm to the talking to you, because you're taking away my inheritance."
This is the Castro that we endorsed when he overthrew Batista, you know. This is the same guy. This is the Castro that we wanted to normalize relationship with and...
CAVUTO: But I seem to remember the Bay of Pigs. I seem to remember nine U.S. presidents trying...
I would like to believe that Americans are not afraid — afraid of Castro and his communism. We should open the doors, have trade. People should be able to visit.
CAVUTO: Real — real quickly, I want to talk — you said you would quit if Democrats don't take control of the House.
RANGEL: ...if the American people believe that the war, the deficit, the corruption, that they want a continuation of this, I will not be able just to sit on the bench and see this harm being done to my country. And I would not be expected to sit there for an additional two years.
CAVUTO: OK. So, you don't think it (Republicans winning House) will happen. But, if it does, you're history?
RANGEL: I'm out of there, yes.
I would — this would be the first time that I would take any election personally. And it would be very personal to me if the American people says: "Rangel, you're dead wrong. We want more of this."
CAVUTO: OK.
RANGEL: You can have more of Bush, but you ain't getting more of me.
Oh, please! If New Yorkers are stupid enough to re-elect Rangel they deserve him. What an ego. What a great incentive for Republicans to get out and vote in November as well.
Notice how Rangel equates dislike for Castro to old irrelevant fables that people have told "for so long" that they cannot remember the details. The connotation is that Castro is getting an undeserved bad rap from people who clearly are spreading old wives' tales.
THIS is what goes on at Gitmo, and the human rights violations are against US soldiers, not terrorist thug detainees, Congressman.
It's hard to imagine this man is actually a representative in the United States Congress. The standard just keeps getting lower and lower."
Do I have to even comment? Rangel hates Bush and defends Castro. Aye-aye-aye!
The liberal Democrats were exulting over beating Joe Liebermann in the primaries. Lieberman is a liberal, has been all his life, but he agrees that the war against terror includes the Iraq campaign and for this transgression the Dems booted him! No room for a man of honor who cannot toe the party line concerning Iraq, not in a Blue State. Now Lieberman is going to run as an Independent. Can he win? I don't know but I admire the guy.
Did you know that Al Gore and Dick Durbin were once fiercely anti-abortion but sniffed the winds of change and changed their positions? Lieberman is pro-abortion, which is one reason I disagree with him and would not vote for him in most scenarios. But he didn't come to that position to get votes, he believes it should be legal. Of the three, which one deserves respect?
Anyway, how did the Democratic Party come to this point? Are we going to get a steady helping of George McGoverns and Gene McCarthys? Is appeasement going to win the day?