politicalpartypoop.com

and why they are not as serious about the war as they say.

Tens of Thousands March Against Iraq War - BIG FUCKEN DEAL!

WASHINGTON (AP) - Convinced this is their moment, tens of thousands marched Saturday in an anti-war demonstration linking military families, ordinary people and an icon of the Vietnam protest movement in a spirited call to get out of Iraq.

Celebrities, a half-dozen lawmakers and protesters from distant states rallied in the capital under a sunny sky, seizing an opportunity to press their cause with a Congress restive on the war and a country that has turned against the conflict.

Marching with them was Jane Fonda, in what she said was her first anti-war demonstration in 34 years.

“Silence is no longer an option,” Fonda said to cheers from the stage on the National Mall. The actress once derided as “Hanoi Jane” by conservatives for her stance on Vietnam said she had held back from activism so as not to be a distraction for the Iraq anti-war movement, but needed to speak out now.

Read the rest (here) but why bother
I was in DC for six days, was in the Capital area on numerous occasions.
The entire time only one lone dude with a sign saying “Bush just purchased 90,000 acres in Paraguay” was the only representative of the loony left on display, what the hell!
Also remember I was there the day of the State of the Union Address.
If these mutherfuckers on the left are were outraged at the war and troop increases, then where the fuck were they on State of the Union Tuesday?

The area around the mall was full of satellite trucks, a couple of the network evening news programs were done live from there that day.
There were reporters all over the damm place and that does not include the folks covering the Libby mess.

So where the fuck were the protesters? On a day where you could have received shit loads of attention and coverage you choose to stay away?

So today they have some bullshit protest with what 10,000 idiots lead by Hanoi Jane and Sean Penn? Where is the goddamm outrage, where are the hundreds of thousands of people?

It only tells me that either there is not as much momentum on the left as the media says there is or you people on the left have punked out.
All of your bitching before the election is now down to a dull roar.
Your designated representatives who were suppose to go to Washington and bitch slap Bush and take back Washington from the evil GOP are now looking like a bunch of punk ass pussies passing “non-binding” resolutions and making bullshit trips to Iraq.

Why didn’t these bastards take their asses to Iraq before the elections?

This is why I’m almost glad the idiot Democrats won in November, because they look like a bunch of ignorant, confused dolts, confused about what direction they want to go in and unable to come to a consensus about any damm thing.

The Republican Party is kinda jacked right now, but with the Democrats fumbling their opportunities, the GOP will hopefully have time to get their shit together before “08.” 

Where too was Cindy Sheehan? I brought my camera just to get that idiot bitch on tape.
Even she was too damm lazy to protest. Snoop was soooo disappointed!

This post is another take on what I have below: “Professor Stumbles on the Obvious: Conservatives More Generous Than Liberals” Since it tis written by Sowell I had to include.
When I think of this I remember back during my activism days working with numerous community groups and organization and it was telling that most of the leftist types were not nearly as charitable and giving of their time as more conservative types.
I think back to some of my fundraising efforts and the people who gave the most were churches and business leaders.
People who were left leaning tended to only involve themselves on individual issues.
Young leftist types equate putting flyers on cars and light polls and marching down the street chanting shit like “Fuck Bush, Fuck War” as activism.
Liberals have no interest in making society and their communities “better.”
They are only interested in their own “self rewarding” interest and trying the hijack the government into exposing more tit for society to suck off of.
Again why I think liberals are the biggest frauds.
But that’s just me.

By Thomas Sowell - Human Events 

More frightening than any particular beliefs or policies is an utter lack of any sense of a need to test those beliefs and policies against hard evidence. Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision.

One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring. It is liberals who advocate “forgiveness” of loans to Third World countries, a “living wage” for the poor and a “safety net” for all.

But these are all government policies — not individual acts of compassion — and the actual empirical consequences of such policies are of remarkably little interest to those who advocate them. Depending on what those consequences are, there may be good reasons to oppose them, so being for or against these policies may tell us nothing about who is compassionate or caring and who is not.

A new book, titled “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks examines the actual behavior of liberals and conservatives when it comes to donating their own time, money, or blood for the benefit of others. It is remarkable that beliefs on this subject should have become conventional, if not set in concrete, for decades before anyone bothered to check these beliefs against facts.

What are those facts?

People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.

You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism.

So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.

Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

According to Professor Brooks: “If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent.”

Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find — so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake.

What is the reason why some people are liberals and others are conservatives, if it is not that liberals are more compassionate?

Fundamental differences in ideology go back to fundamental assumptions about human nature. Based on one set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a liberal. Based on a different set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a conservative.

The two visions are not completely symmetrical, however. For at least two centuries, the vision of the left has included a belief that those with that vision are morally superior, more caring and more compassionate.

While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well. So the idea that liberals are more caring and compassionate goes with the territory, whether or not it fits the facts.

Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test — and how completely it failed that test.

The two visions are different in another way. The vision of the left exalts the young especially as idealists while the more conservative vision warns against the narrowness and shallowness of the inexperienced. This study found young liberals to make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds.

From Neal Bortz, yup this sums it up real well… 

I notice that the newspaper and broadcast pundits are telling us who the winners and losers are in Tuesday’s startling elections.  Well … I might as well get in the game here with everyone else. 

The envelope please.

And the winners in this year’s midterm elections are:

Islamic Fascists

(Accepting the award for the Islamic Fascists will be Osama bin Laden)

The focal point of the war against Islamic fascism was Iraq.  The jihadists were sending their fighters to Iraq, there to be killed in gratifying numbers by American and coalition troops.  What was once American resolve is now American weakness.  The people have listened to the politicians — one group that wanted to finish the job, another that didn’t — and gave the nod to the quitters.  Today America is weaker in the eyes of those who would destroy us.  Not a cause for celebration.

Slackards

(Accepting the award will be Shirley Sternfaulter, a young mother of three who wants the government to pay for her child care.)

A huge percentage of the people who went to the polls on Tuesday went there to vote for a living.  They feel that the purpose of government is to make sure that the basic necessities of their lives are paid for, while they spend their own money on the newest technology in flat-screen televisions, gadget-filled cell phones and subscriptions to People Magazine.

Illegal Aliens>

(Putting down his leaf blower to accept the award is Pedro Lopez-Garcia-Menendez-Gonzalez, who pays no taxes in the U.S., and sends 80% of each paycheck back to Vera Cruz to take care of his wife and children.)

Yesterday President Bush as much as said that amnesty would be the order of the day.  Now that those pesky Republicans have been kicked out of the majority in the House of Representatives, the president and the Senate will have clear sailing on their plan for amnesty for the 20 million plus illegal aliens now residing in this country.  Oh .. and the border?  Nothing will be done to stop the Mexican invasion, so as soon as Pedro has his paperwork Maria and the kids will be on a bus.

Those who want a weaker America

(Accepting the award will be Dominique Marie François René Galouzeau de Villepin, sometimes known as Dominique de Villepin, the Prime Minister of France. Dominique was the leader of the Axis of Weasels before he became Prime Minister.)

A poll earlier this year said that something like 58% of Europeans wanted a weaker America.  They got their wish on Tuesday.  Who is going to be there to pull their candied asses out of the oven when they finally wake up and realize the great strides that have been made in the Islamification of Europe?  Hello Eurabia.

The first blow to be struck in the weakening of America will be for the Democrats to get rid of John Bolton as the Ambassador to the United Nations.  They’ll replace him with someone who will not stand up to UN corruption and the forces who want to weaken us.

The Libertarian Party?

(I would be happy to accept this reward, but the don’t like me all that much because I believe that we need to defend this country from both the Islamic fascists and the Mexican invasion.)

Tuesday’s vote showed that a lot of conservatives and libertarians in this country are completely fed up with the Republican Party.  If ever there was a time for the emergence of a third party that would adhere to conservative and libertarian values — without an obsessive allegiance to religious fundamentalists — now is the time.  The Libertarian Party could be just that party.  We’ll see if they’re up to the task.

The leftist media.

(Accepting the award for The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The Boston Globe, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine and too many more to mention will be Dan Rather)

Ninety percent or more of these people vote Democrat.  They engaged in a six-year campaign of demonization of George Bush.  It worked.

Washington Lawyers

(Accepting the Award will be the President of the D.C. Bar Association)

Get ready for two years of investigations, subpoenas, hearings…you name it.  Everything will be investigated, then investigated again.  But the Republicans did it to themselves…every last bit of it.

 

By Thomas Sowell - Townhall.com

A long-standing joke at election time is that if someone were to run under the name “None of the above,” that candidate would win. This year, the Democrats are running as “None of the above” and polls show that they may well win the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate.

Can we afford to have Congress controlled by people who refuse to discuss their own record or agenda, at a time when a nuclear Iran and a nuclear North Korea loom over our future and over the future of our children and grandchildren?

Some clever people say that Democrats will have two years in which to discredit themselves in Congress before the 2008 elections. But clever people have led many nations into catastrophes. Is this the time to experiment with “None of the above”?

Who are the Democrats who will take over key Congressional committees affecting the destiny of this nation if their party wins the House of Representatives?

Do we really want Congressman Alcee L. Hastings, who was impeached as a federal judge and removed from the bench due to charges of accepting bribes, put in charge of a committee handling top secret national intelligence?

Do we really want far-left Congressman Dennis Kucinich to be chairman of the subcommittee on national security?

This is the same Dennis Kucinich who once introduced a bill “to abolish all nuclear weapons,” who has refused to condemn Hezbollah terrorists, calling instead for us to have a “recognition that connects us to a common humanity and from that draw a flicker of hope to enkindle the warm glow of peace.” Poetic but dumb.

Do we really want John Conyers to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, when he has already indicated that he wants to use that position to impeach the President — which is to say, to absorb endless hours of White House staff time answering his charges instead of spending those hours dealing with one of the most dangerous international situations ever faced by this nation?

Then there is Congressman Charles Rangel, who has favored tax increases time and again and bitterly denounced tax reductions equally as often and as loudly. He would become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, in charge of tax legislation, if the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives.

On the Senate side, do we really want Senator Pat Leahy to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he and Ted Kennedy pioneered the techniques of character assassination of judicial nominees known as “Borking”?

The only judges who could get confirmed under Leahy’s chairmanship would be the kind of judges who will create new “rights” out of thin air for terrorists, as they have created new “rights” out of thin air for criminals, and who would impose gay marriage on the country, regardless of what the people or their elected representatives want.

Legendary House Speaker Tip O’Neill once said that all politics is local politics. Yes and no.

In one sense, there are hundreds of local elections for Congress, rather than a national election. But the consequences of these local elections will be national and lasting, especially as regards the confirmation of federal judges who will have lifetime appointments.

Even voting for a moderate Democrat like Harold Ford in Tennessee for the Senate can mean putting extremists like Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy in charge of the Senate and liberal activist judges on the bench for decades to come.

Voting for a moderate Democrat for the House of Representatives can mean putting extremists like Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, and Charles Rangel in charge of the House, where all spending bills and all impeachment bills originate.

Some people are justifiably angry at some of the Republicans in Washington. But voting to vent your emotions will have national and long-lasting consequences, both through lifetime judicial appointments and through the prospect of seeing the United States denied the resources needed to fight international terrorists at a time when our future and our children’s future are on the line as never before.

 

You know I have to say this, I don’t know what is going to happen next week, well I’ll predict that that Republicans will hold court next week.
Even if the Republican lose control, people like John Kerry, Patty Murray, Dick Turbin, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and just about all other Democrats is reason enough for me to repeat what I have said many times. I THANK GOD; I’m not a Democrat, nor a liberal.
I have never been more serious.
If I were an individual who looked up to, admired, supported and Lord help me voted for   the likes of the people mentioned above I would have to have some serious issues goin on upstairs.
While watching John Kerry implode yesterday all I could do was smile because this piece of crap anti-American thug now has NO CHANCE of running this country and that tis something to be thankful for.

 

Kerry insults the troops
Kennedy and the KGB *Part 2
Durbin smears the troops
Murray praises Osama

 

 

 

 

 WATCH VENT HERE

 

 IN CASE YOU FORGOT… 

Murray’s remarks on bin Laden draw GOP ire

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Sen. Patty Murray intended to be provocative when she told a group of high school students terrorist leader Osama bin Laden is popular in poor countries because he helped pay for schools, roads and even day care centers.

“We haven’t done that,” Murray said. “How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?”

Murray’s remarks, to a group of students in Vancouver, Wash., started even more discussion than she expected after they were published Thursday in The Columbian newspaper of Vancouver and then picked up by The Associated Press.

By Friday, the Murray story was the lead item on the “Drudge Report” Web site and a main topic for talk show host Sean Hannity and other conservative pundits.

Murray’s comments sparked national debate on talk radio and prompted readers to bombard the Web site of The Columbian, the Vancouver newspaper that first printed Murray’s remarks.

“Between (Murray) and Baghdad Jim (McDermott) I’m surprised the rest of the country even lets Washington send reps to DC anymore,” wrote one e-mailer, identified only as robertb.

Another e-mailer, identified as Truthspeaker, said that if Murray “does not like the way President Bush is running the government, then by all means, she is free to leave.”

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

 From Hot Air - Sen. John Kerry held a press conference moments ago (2:45edt)  to address a controversial remark he made implying those who are uneducated serve in the military and get stuck in Iraq. Kerry made it “crystal clear” that he apologizes to no one, adding his remarks were a “botched joke” about the President, not the troops.

Press Conference Video HERE.

The liberal bloggers will try and get their shit together and come up with excuses for “Herman”
But his attacks on the military are not new.

Posted by JOCUSN on Newsbusters - December 6, 2005 - 09:42.

On Sunday’s edition of CBS’s “Face the Nation”, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) said in an interview with Bob Schieffer that U.S. troops were terrorizing Iraqi women and children. 

Here’s a blurb from the transcript:

“And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs.” 

And then he tells us who needs to be terrorizing the women and children:

“Whether you like it or not…  Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.”

Once again, John Kerry shows us his disdain for the military and the lies he will spread to further the twisted agenda of the Democratic Party.  With everything else heard from Rep. Murtha and Howard Dean in recent days, it’s clear the liberal left doesn’t want democracy to take hold in Iraq.  They want us to fail so they can prop themselves up for the ‘06 and ‘08 elections.

You can read the entire transcript from Sunday’s “Face the Nation” at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/18/ftn/main856364.shtml. 

x

 Democrat Poverty Pimps strike again!

 By Amanda B. Carpenter - Human Events

To drive home his point about the need to increase the minimum wage Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) gave a named minimum wage worker named Janelle Williams his microphone at a press conference with Sen. Teddy Kennedy, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Hillary Clinton this morning. Janelle is a young, black overweight mother from Baltimore, Maryland, a state where the minimum wage was raised a dollar to $6.15 earlier this year. She said, “It’s [the minimum wage] been raised, but it’s still not enough. We need a little bit more.” Williams, who had worked at Burger King and other low-paying jobs railed, “I am totally against the tax cuts and tax write offs for wealthier people who don’t work as nearly as hard as I do…I vote yes for raising the minimum wage and uplifting my community and all other communities like mine, but I definitely vote no for giving people more than what they deserve.”

As she left the podium the senators clapped approvingly and Hillary, who came to the conference late and left early, embraced Williams. Kennedy repeated his well-rehearsed line, after many press conferences on raising the minimum wage on Capitol Hill that, the issue was of particular interested to women, children and black Americans. “Because women are the majority of those that receive the minimum wage. Those women have children; it’s a children’s issue, a women’s issue. It’s a family issue. It’s a family value issue. It’s a civil rights issue, because the men and women that are behind us today are men and women of color.” Hillary was eager to make it an issue of faith as well. Wearing an ornate gold cross on hanging from a heavy, red sparkling necklace, she presented Sister Simone Campbell, the national coordinator of NETWORK, a Catholic social justice foundation. Sister Samone said, “I’m here today to give a faith voice because it is about politics, but it is also about the soul of our country.” She pleaded Congress to reject the minumum wage bill facing the Senate because, “as a person of faith, I find abhorrent because the fact is that by cutting revenues, we’re going to have to cut — the Republicans will say that we’ll have to cut programs; the programs that service these very people who live at the margins and do the most menial work.” Clinton, who has been repeatedly criticized for being “angry,” said that she had “run out of patience” trying to increase minimum wage. “You know, if you work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, you’ll bring home about $10,700. And that’s below the poverty line,” she said. “In the comparable time since it’s been that we last saw a minimum wage increase, Congress has raised its salary by nearly three times that amount. And that’s on top of an already generous salary, far above what most Americans make.” Clinton has worked with Kennedy to introduce legislation to tie an increase to the minimum wage to congressional pay raises. Her bill does not retract money from the Presidential pay raise her husband former President Bill Clinton authorized in 1999. He doubled Presidential salaries from $200,000 to $400,000 per year.

Liberals are good at giving out table scraps. Poverty pimping is a liberal phenomena
But they refuse to acknowledge the reason why people are working minimum wage jobs is because they fucked around in school, or they fucked around.
Oh but who gives a shit, lets just pay all those fast food workers $20 per hour, maybe they can get my orders right, or give it to me white it’s hot or stop giving me those big white bitter hunks of lettuce on my burger that I hate, or slopping on the mayo and ketchup making my burger soggy or maybe Taco Bell employees will stop forgetting to put hot sauce in my order, or completely fucking up my order, or maybe Burger King will stop making those nasty ass fries, or Wendy’s will stop fucken asking me if I want to super size! Will a minimum wage increase help that shit, I doubt it. 

By Jonah Goldberg - Townhall.com

For several years now, liberal eggheads have been having what seems like an important debate: Do they need “big ideas” like the conservative movement had during its long march to power? Serious-minded liberals launched what Democratic idea-broker Kenneth S. Baer calls “the battle of the battle of ideas,” in which they argue about whether it’s time to argue about important arguments.
Just this week, Baer and Andrei Cherny - founders of a new big-idea journal, “Democracy” - penned an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times calling for liberals to find new Big Ideas. In response to this effort, the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait says - and I’m not making this up - “Ideas? Feh.” 
A more eloquent statement was posted on the liberal blog TPM Cafe: “The problem isn’t getting people to believe in something - people can believe in anything. The problem is getting them to care.” That captures the essence of liberalism’s current plight. If it’s not about emotions - caring, hating, feeling - it’s about tactics. Big ideas have about as much animating force in liberal ranks today as Calvinism does at a porn studio.
Exhibit A is the liberal battle over Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman’s re-election. Lieberman, America’s favorite Jewish uncle, is in the fight of his political life because limousine liberal Ned Lamont is challenging him in the Democratic primary. Oceans of ink and pixels have been devoted to explaining the factions behind this “civil war” on the left. Some paint it as the “netroots,” or left-wing bloggers, versus the Washington establishment. Others talk of hawks vs. doves, or populists vs. elitists, the party line vs. independents, cats vs. dogs. …
Alas, Chait has it right: “Feh.”
For good or ill, there are no grand “big ideas” behind the anti-Lieberman cause. It’s driven by a riot of passions, chiefly against President Bush and “his” war. Any ideas are mere afterthoughts and rationalizations used to gussy up animus as principle. Several Lamont supporters, also known as “Nedheads,” have faulted Lieberman for such obscure transgressions as criticizing former President Bill Clinton’s behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Please. There was no lack of enthusiasm for Lieberman when the sainted Al Gore picked Joe as his running mate.
It’s also nonsense to say this is about “the people” vs. “the establishment.” Lieberman’s a three-term junior senator. Ted Kennedy, scion of America’s leading liberal dynasty, has been in the Senate 26 years longer. Is he not the establishment? Robert Byrd of West Virginia has been in the Senate since the mid-Jurassic period. That old, calcified chewing gum stuck underneath the establishment’s chair? He put it there. But while Kennedy and Byrd (and Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton) outrank Lieberman in establishment credentials, they arouse little ire from the Net-mob because they say what the throng wants to hear. (Hillary is a slight exception.) “The establishment” is just code for “people we don’t like.”
The hawk-vs.-dove analysis has similar weaknesses. The netroots crowd is passionately antiwar, while Lieberman supports the war. But there are other Iraq war supporters whom the Democratic base hasn’t targeted, such as Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who is also up for re-election.
Meanwhile, Lieberman claims that the war is the only thing distinguishing him from Lamont. That’s not exactly right. Lieberman isn’t only pro-war, he’s seen as pro-Bush - a far greater sin. While the netroots crowd calls Lieberman “scum” and a “lying” this or that, its most damaging attack is a picture worth a thousand dirty words. It’s of Bush kissing Lieberman on the cheek, and anti-Joe jihadists have posted it everywhere in the lefty blogosphere.
Hatred of Bush drives - or poisons - almost everything in liberal politics now. Chait himself wrote a bilious cover story for the New Republic in 2003 explaining why he hates everything, and I mean everything, about Bush. And just this week, Chait defended the proposition that Bush is a greater threat to the United States than Osama bin Laden because Bush has “wreaked enormous damage on the political and social fabric of the country” and has “strained the fabric of American democracy.” And Chait is seen as a moderate by the Daily Kos crowd.
But hatred of Bush is just one side of the coin. The other is this bizarre, almost pathetic yearning for Democratic self-esteem. It was amazing how much of the rhetoric from the recent Daily Kos convention in Las Vegas was about standing up, fighting back and feeling proud to be Democrats.
This liberal-pride crowd likes “fighting Dems,” and open expression of Bush hatred is the litmus test for whether you’re a fighting Dem. You can be a moderate, like Virginia Senate hopeful Jim Webb or former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, or a flaming liberal, like Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, and that’s fine as long as you’ll stand up and fight and refuse to take this (expletive deleted) from that (expletive deleted) anymore. In fact, you can believe anything you want. You don’t actually have to have big ideas. The important part is that you care.