Okay, before you shit yourselves at the title, at least let me explain. One of my goals (beside converting everyone, living, dead or otherwise, to my mode of thought) is to gather as many readers as humanly possible to peruse the glorious content that is SPD, as well as visiting my other blogs. But here, especially, I seek all readers and opinions, both from the conservatives I agree with mostly, and the liberals who have more than just a screw loose. But I have occasionally come under fire for agreeing with the libs on occasion. So the idea for this post did not come from a lib, but the bastion of Reagan conservatism that is Mike's America. Incidentally, that's where I find many of my liberal readers.Speaking of liberal readers, I would like to thank Shaw over at Progressive Eruptions for the inspirational (and sadly true) picture illustrating the excitement John McCain brings to Campaign '08.
This brings me to the point of this post. There are four reasons I'm glad to have the liberal bloggers out there and right here.
First of all, let me address the moonbat sites. These are pissed off people with (cow) chips on their shoulders, with smoldering fire of eternal damnation for anything remotely conservative. On the right, these are our glorious wingnuts, who are just as bad. The advantage of having these mindless propaganda machines is that they really get us talking. Otherwise, the blogosphere would be as exciting as C-SPAN on the weekend, when they're replaying only the most boring speeches by the most incompentent people (Congressmen) they can find.
Second, the liberals who come here generally do so to wage verbal war with facts, sometimes, even with good facts. In this, I am forced to have to read more, search harder, and refine my wit further to counter and destroy their rather paltry effors to derail my magicifence and intentional misspelling. By challenging me, they merely hone me into a finer instrument with which they may be cut down. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA!
Third, even the drunkest of the drunk are bound to have a moment of clarity. And I have occasionally found these nuggets as I have dissected liberal arguments with refutation and counterpoint and questions that don't allow for a cut-and-paste response. It's easy to slap on the moonbat sticker and exercise your wit. It's a whole lot more challenging to decipher the few good ideas from the copious flow of vomited text. And sometimes, it's something that's easily good, like the pic above.
And finally, I realize that the average liberal blogger is a true believer in the ideals of liberalism, not the truth known to the elite leadership. In that, they believe that what they are espousing is what is best for the country. In other words, we share a common goal to make the country better, and only disagree on the way to do it. This means that, if they have the courage to debate honestly, they may learn why we so distrust Barack Obama, the United Nations, and the third world dictators of the Castro mold. They may, in time, begin to see what we have learned over the years is the greatness of America, the potential of the people, and the purpose of the Constitution in restraining government and not the people.
So in the end, it is possible to separate the moonbats from the honest liberals (no, that wasn't a joke line). And I remember this guy who did just that back in the 80's, by drawing a wide array of people to conservative thought. First person to guess correctly wins a prize. Not sure what the prize will be, but I'm sure it will probably suck.
20 comments:
My guess is Ronald Reagan, and I will accept no lesser prize than top billing for my blog on your blogroll.
As for your commentary here, I say a hearty AMEN. I agree 100%, we do all want what's best for this country, and real thoughtful debate is constructive and helpful in achieving our goals.
TGIF, have a great weekend, Patrick!
Hey, that's a great idea for a prize. Done.
I have to work all weekend. My free days were Wednesday and Thursday.
But that means I can spend time working on the story blog if it's slow enough.
Wait, so in saying you distrust Obama, you are saying you trust Bush? If there is one key figure to mistrust these days it would be Bush. Hell, I trust Ahmajinedad more than Bush. Don't get me wrong, they are both crazier than a shit house rat but I believe at least 25% of what comes out of his mouth.
Ok, so can you now stop calling liberals America hating traitors? Just because we want the right to burn the flag doesn't mean we will use it. It's a freedom people in a free country should have. In fact, if you are against flag burning you are against freedom and the American way.
If you read the right sources and ignore other, you will always find a way to disprove someone’s point or prove your own. For every study for a cause I can show you a study against it. The difference is where this information comes from and how credible it is and how in line with other interpretations is it? If you get all your news from Limbaugh, you aren't getting the news at all. So when you say you "destroy their paltry efforts" after reading more, you aren't always winning the argument if the information you found is based on bullshit. WMDs is a good example of this. When I say there never was WMDs in Iraq you can find a British report saying there was, or MIkes Americas favorite is to ignore the point all together and find quotes from Democrats who said Saddam was a danger back in 1995. That doesn't win an argument. That doesn't put WMDs or a weapons program in Iraq in 2003. Mike thinks he scores points by citing Clinton's speech about something that happened in the no fly zone back in the mid 90s. It allows him to retreat to a world outside of reality and bloats his ego because he thinks he won an argument or proved someone wrong. Now, I do something similar to that when I put things into perspective for people by pointing out the fact that it's mainly Republicans who get divorced, try to bone guys in shitters, hire male prostitutes etc. when they try to talk about the Democrats not having family values. I don't try to defend Spitzer but merely point out there are way more republicans who committed worse offenses yet don't take responsibility for it and stay in office....for example.
What do you not trust about Obama? He used to call my house all the time during his Senate run, He was my a state senator and has been my senator for a few years now, he’s from Chicago, I know the neighborhood he lives in, what do you want to know about him? What do you not trust?
I think I would have more trust for someone like Obama as opposed to someone like McCain who changed his religion, stance on abortion, stance on tax cuts, etc. once he decided to be the conservative nominee for President. That’s some shady shit. What else will he flip flop on?
Toad, did Obama call your house personally, or was it recordings of him? Does him calling you make him trustworthy?
I personally have my doubts about all politicians anymore, I question all of their motives. But old Barry, he has a certain voting record and now you hear him sounding much less liberal, how can you trust that? Not that I think McCain is better, his reaching across the aisle ticks me off!
I truly believe that President Bush thought he was doing the right thing by going into Iraq. That you said all along there were no WMD doesn't change the fact there was evidence to the contrary, and a CIC who doesn't act upon information as given to him could have just as easily been criticized for inaction, should the WMD been in existence and done harm to people.
Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen, but you and I weren't in the meetings and briefings, and sometimes we are forced to place our trust in our government. And since I don't like having to do that a lot is why I am a conservstive who would like to limit the government in our lives.
btw, regarding your story blog, I will need to take a look see when I have more time, but don't you worry about copyright issues by putting it out there in cyperspace, should you ever wish to publish?
Hell, I trust Ahmajinedad more than Bush.
Toad: Perhaps this is why people tend to throw the term moonbat at you.
Let me clarify on the word distrust. I distrust Obama's motives, policies, associates that he's thrown under the bus, and him in general as a politician. However, as President, I would trust him when the crisis came, assuming he grabbed some decisive action. Most Presidents face a crisis or two, and that's usually when they are at their best, because politics falls away at that point.
Also, if Ahmajinedad were about to start some real shit, I think Barry would get up the balls to drop a bomb or two.
If you get all your news from Limbaugh, you aren't getting the news at all. So when you say you "destroy their paltry efforts" after reading more, you aren't always winning the argument if the information you found is based on bullshit.
If you notice, when I'm trying to get facts, I shoot for less biased sources. My first bits of info may come from questioned sources, but that's what doing your homework is all about.
As for the WMDs, Saddam did have them. Apparently, he didn't by the time we were on the ground, but I have yet to hear where and when they disappeared.
As for trying to tally the horny in DC, it probably splits down the middle. In this case, each party needs to clean its own house.
I agree with you on McCain. I really don't know a lot about Obama, but I haven't liked what I've seen and heard, even when I filter out the bias. Which gives me an idea for a post for you.
I had 7 questions I posted that covered my questions for each candidate. Since you have more experience with Obama, perhaps you could answer them according to what Obama has written. Then we'd at last be clear.
Beth: About the copyrights. I thought about it, then before answering you, I went ahead and added a creative commons license. Otherwise, there's a legal trail created as I write this, and it's a matter of people respecting my shit.
Plus, I'm holding the best back for actual publication, after I revise it again, that is.
I like the story so far, read two chapters. But to find out how it ends I will have to buy the book then, huh?
Actually, it will go up to the point just before the book begins. And the story I'm writing here won't focus on the main character of the book.
You'll see eventually.
I'm a mooning-winged nutbat.
Get your facts straight before you start slinging epithets around.
(tehe)
Actually, it will go up to the point just before the book begins. And the story I'm writing here won't focus on the main character of the book.
You'll see eventually.
Okay, now I am confused.
Saty: Okay, then you woon-minged Butnat.
Beth: Good, that means you'll keep reading.
To clarify, here's the story: I wrote a short story featuring some of the characters you've read about. Then I wrote another with characters I'm going to introduce in the next chapter. Then I wrote a third where I hooked up all the characters of those two stories.
And Then I wrote a book that picked up the story of another character (already introduced) at the end of the last short story.
What I'm writing online will incorporate the short stories and tie into the book.
Still confused?
Beth,
What I am saying is that I probably know a little more about Obama that a Libertarian from Ohio who only bothers to find out things about Obama told to him by Rush Limbaugh who has a blind hatred for anything black and liberal.
As for your questions, I don't know if I can say for sure what he plans on doing at this point, but this is what I know:
1. War.
Begin a step down of forces in Iraq and focus on the real threat in Afghanistan or where ever the real terrorists may be hiding.
In the intelligence game, apparently he doesn't mind unconstitutional wire taping as he voted for the telecom act. That’s a surprising move but should rally conservative to his cause as they apparently don't like freedom and want to give the federal government more power. Otherwise, I would say he would gather intelligence they was we have always gathered intelligence and operate within international laws.
2. Taxes. Don't worry, you won't pay any more in taxes if Obama becomes President and you will probably pay less and probably get more for your money, at least your children will.
3. Size of Government. Since the government has grown by 60% since Bush has taken office, I don't think you want to trust another Republican with the task of reducing the size and power of the federal government as we all know giving them the power to tap our phones and what not is not going to reduce the size and power of the government. I don't know Obamas plan for "reducing the size of the government" but it would be hard to make it worse.
4. Global Warming. I believe I have heard talk about working with automakers to help them with their transition away from using massive amounts of oil. By improving average mile per gallon we not only stop emitting record amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere but also move closer to energy independence. The world is getting warmer whether you like it or not, that is an indisputable fact. Another fact is that both CO2 and Methane are powerful greenhouse gases, they are the reason Venus, which is twice the distance from the Sun as Mercury, has higher average temperatures than Mercury. That wouldn't be possible without all The CO2 in the atmosphere. More CO2= more trapped heat. Period.
5. Health Care. I really don't like anyone’s plan for health care. Staying alive or receiving medical treatment shouldn't be a problem with a "pro life" rich, country but apparently it is. Obama wants everyone to have health insurance.
However the problem with health care is health insurance and drug companies.
*The American healthcare system is already the most expensive in the world.
*Americans already spend over 2 Trillion dollars, 16% of their GDP or $6,697 per year, on healthcare and that number will only increase over the next couple of decades.
*In Canada, they spend 9.7% of their GDP on healthcare for everyone.
*The US Government is already the largest insurer in America and government programs already account for over 44% of healthcare expenditures.
*More than 30% of US healthcare costs go towards administrative overhead which could be greatly reduced under a single national system.
*Germany, Australia, Canada and Sweden all provide national healthcare and have more nurses per capita than the US.
*Sweden, Germany and France all have more doctors per capita than the United States.
*There is a nurse shortage in the United States.
*Americans spend roughly $200 million per year for prescription drugs.
*For prescription drugs, Americans spend more than 50% more than what is paid by people in other industrialized nations because costs aren't monitored by any oversight.
*Over half of all family bankruptcies today are caused by medical bills.
*There are more than six prescription drug company lobbyists for every United States Senator.
*Society already pays for the gang/gunshot victims, the drug overdoses and other uninsured emergency room visitors in the form of higher taxes, hospital costs and insurance premiums for everyone.
*With private healthcare, Americans have one of the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancy rates in the industrialized world and this administration claims it is pro-life.
*For the money Americans spent on health care last year, we could have hired a group of skilled physicians, paid each one of them $200,000 to care for just seven families, and provided healthcare for every single American citizen.
6. Oil Prices. For someone who so champions the free market you seem to have a big problem with gas prices. When you take a country who has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, and take their oil off the market due to instability, you are going to raise the price of oil. Sure there are speculators who contribute as much to this as the SUV driver who is too fat to walk a block. It's what happens when you elect a Texas oil man with ties to the Saudi Royal family to the office of President.
7. The United States of America. What does the Constitution mean to you? I really can't answer that for him. I do know that he has a law degree, from Harvard and knows way more about this than some Liberty University graduate in the Bush administration. I know he won’t try to redefine marriage in a constitutional amendment nor will he repeal the second amendment.
I think Obama would say America’s greatest strength is its people. The diversity and ideas and cultures from all over the world all contribute to make this country what it is today and what it has been in the past. The one thing which separates us from the rest of the world is our ability to adapt and to allow people from all walks of life to adapt to us. There are very few places in the world where people from all walks of life, religions, ethnic backgrounds, languages can all live together under freedom in relative peace and be prosperous. That’s my guess on what he would say, I doubt McCain’s response would be much different but he may emphasize something like work ethic or something like that a bit more.
And here I thought the President was someone who took the world's most thankless job, with an arsenal capable of destroying the world, 4-8 years of stress, and a duty to manage in chaotic times and in a world full of goofs like Ahmajinedad and his Ayahtollah masters who spew threats that they will wipe another country off the map.
If you can't see the difference, there's nothing that can help you.
I know, you don't like that he . . . is an American hating Muslim . . . etc. But of course, none of that is true.
Somehow you mingle honest perceptions with goofy wingnut conspiracy theories.
Let me explain what, in short, my problems with Obama are, as I haven't gotten around to that post.
Obama is really lacking in experience. That in itself is not bad, but that he makes statements that show that lack. He has shown himself to possess an elitist mentality. He has spent his entire time, up to his campaign, associating with radicals and Marxists. He has(documented) the most liberal voting record in Congress. And when he gets up and talks, he tries to say as little of substance as possible, which is all that seems to be on the teleprompter.
So I'm pretty damned skeptical that he's anything other than the liberal I expect.
I should amend my last part of the statement to say "since we have killed all the Indians and they are out of the way".
Maybe you should go to an Obama speech. Sure, Limbaugh and Fox are going to show you the speeches where he just talks about change; the media isn't going to let him talk about the "boring stuff". Go to his website for that.
Obama has more experience in elected office that Bush did when he became President and more than Hillary Clinton had. Now, Bush's on the job training has been a problem and it shows. Ill concede that. Bush happens to be an idiot, Obama is a smart guy, he doesn't just pretend to be one and he is a self made guy, unlike the Bush legacy. Self made guys don't get far by making the wrong decisions; a guy like Bush has been making the wrong decision his entire life and has always been bailed out by someone with money or power. Skipping out on National Guard Service: bad idea, Start Drinking: Bad idea, Driving Drunk: bad idea, Trading Sammy Sosa: Bad Idea, Drilling empty holes in the Texas Desert: Bad Idea if you are an oil company, Invading Iraq: Bad Idea, Ignoring 9/11 Intelligence: Bad Idea, I think you get where I am going with this. Rich powerful people have the luxury of being wrong and never have to make the right choice and deal with it. Obama has obviously made a lot of right choices in his life which means he is a smart man and I would rather have him in the white house than a flip flopper who doesn't even know what religion he is.
Which Marxists have been involved in Obamas presidential campaign?
Radicals? Rod Parsley, John Hagee, George Bush, aren't radicals?? I am waiting for the day I see McCain campaigning with Fred Phelps.
Elitist?? Do you want your garbage man running for president or do you want someone who thinks/knows he is smart enough and good enough for the job?? What person running for President isn't an elitist? If you think you can run the most powerful country and largest economy in the world, better than anyone else, you are an elitist...Period. I don't care if you are Obama, McCain or Nader; you think you are better than the next guy, end of story.
Liberal? Good, thank God! I mean, don't get me wrong, compassionate conservatism has served this country really well over the last 7 years but I'll take Liberal every day of the week and twice on Sunday if it gets us out of the mess we are in now which we got into by acting the opposite of liberal.
Toad: I've answered why I don't support Obama, but I'm not going to try to argue every point of it in the comment section. But don't worry, I'll have enough posts that lay out my positions and give you ample opportunity to be outdone.
And I just answered why you are wrong.
Sure you have. Again, save it for the top of the comment section, where people's eyes haven't glazed over. Wednesday's post will be worth it.
I love that picture. I'm totally snagging it.
Post a Comment