Laugh at Liberals Archive for January, 2005
DEMOCRATS AND DODO BIRDS: A STUDY IN SIMILARITIES
I’ve said it before, with face aglow, the modern Democratic party is dying. It deserves a quick death and a hopeful ressurection as true party of ideas. But in light of recent events and challenges to my thesis that the party is dying, I’ve put together a comparison between Democrats and the DoDo bird. You be the judge.
The Dodo is a lesson in extinction. First sighted by sailors around 1600 on Mauritius, an island in the Indian Ocean, the Dodo was extinct less than eighty years later.
The Democratic Party was founded around 1800 and was extinct about 200 years later.
There are no complete Dodo specimens. The primary causes of their extinction were the destruction of the forest (which cut off the Dodo’s food supply), and the animals that the sailors brought with them, including cats, rats, and pigs, which destroyed Dodo nests.
There is no such thing as a true Democrat. The party is a coalition of special interests groups who’s only commonalities are a desire for suckling at the tax payer’s teet and the misguided idea that they deserve more than they really do. The causes of their destruction are lack of honesty, elitism and the rats and pigs they’ve allowed to takeover the party and guide it’s platform. (suspected invading species are the MichaelusMoreass and the BarbaricBoxer)
The Dodo’s stubby wings and heavy, ungainly body tell us that the bird was flightless. Moreover, its breastbone is too small to support the huge pectoral muscles a bird this size would need to fly. Yet scientists believe that the Dodo evolved from a bird capable of flight into a flightless one.
The Democrat’s constant puffery about how much it cares about so many different issues tell us that the party really has no soul and no guiding principles. Moreover, it’s record of accomplishment is to small to support the huge claims of success at curing social ills. (Please refer to Health Care, Education, Terrorism and Social Security for more information.) Scientists do believe that the Democratic Party was once a capable party that did things, but evolved into nothing more than a party that opposes things.
It is likely that an ancestor of the Dodo landed on Mauritius, it found a habitat with plenty of food and no predators. It therefore did not need to fly, and, as flying takes a great deal of energy, it was more efficient for the bird to remain on the ground. Eventually, the flightless Dodo evolved.
It is likely that sometime in the early 70’s the Democratic Party leaders discovered that opposition to something (Nixon, Watergate, Vietnam, etc.) could bring together, under one banner, groups that had no other meaningful or recognizable connection. It therefore did not need to have ideas and principles to gain power and thrive. That took a great deal of energy. Instead, the party began adding more and more groups and causes to it’s fold until it became all things to all people and nothing to anyone.
The Republican Party, under the leadership of George Bush and with the political guidence of Carl Rove, are only a few more coffin nails away from burying the Democratic Party as you have known it for decades. (Ask Zell Miller)
QUICK QUIZ?
1. Name the party that has put more African Americans in the higher offices? HINT: (Colin, Condi, Clarence) REPUBLICANS
2. Name the party that is actually promoting new ideas to help the African American community become better educated(school vouchers) and financially independent (private social security accounts)?REPUBLICANS
3. Name the party that has unwaveringly been on the side of Israel in every conflict the Jewish nation has faced? REPUBLICANS
4. Name the party whos senior senator is a former Klan member and recruiter? DEMOCRAT (Robert Byrd)
5. Name the party that has more millionaires in congress? DEMOCRATS
6. Name the party that collected and spent the most in corporate political donations in 2004? DEMOCRAT
7. Name the party that had the most donations from private individuals? REPUBLICANS
8. Name the party that helped it’s president enact the policy of telling gay people they could not talk about being gay if they wanted to be in the military? DEMOCRATS
9. Name the party who’s senior senator has been accused of murdering a woman and who’s president was accused of rape? DEMOCRATS.
10. If you are black, Jewish, gay or a woman, What has the Democratic party done for you lately?
HOW MANY LIBERALS
Here is another poem from our favorite “right-er” of verse, Russ Vaughn
How many Liberals does it take to win a war?
How many of you Liberals does it take to win a war?
Well how the hell can we tell? You won’t fight one anymore.
You say that you support the troops, but the truth’s plain as your face,
You’d pull us from the battle, march us home in full disgrace.
You’ve no stomach for the fighting, got no mettle, got no pluck;
If you ran this war on terror, we’d be a very well plucked duck.
The wolves of Jihad smell your dread, can smell your craven breath,
And emboldened by the fear they scent, lust for our bloody death.
“But wait,” you protest piously, “We are fighters for the poor.”
Might we suggest you start to fight, before wolves come through the door?
Do you think they’ll still believe in you, your poor, your gays, your blacks,
When the wolves run wild among them, sinking fangs into their backs?
Think then that they’ll be caring, when they’re counting out their dead,
We inflict pain on a captive wolf to learn what’s in his head?
Do you really think, you bleeding hearts, when they bleed in scarlet torrents,
They’ll care we cage the savage wolves, search lairs without signed warrants?
For years we watched your “feel good” courts defang our criminal laws,
Handcuff our police, give felons rights, espouse the criminals’ cause.
Felonious wolves were freed to prey, and we suffered their wild rages
Till “thinking” men took back the courts, put the wolf packs back in cages.
With your same old clueless “feelings” you now decry this war;
And with your same old fuzzy logic, common sense you still ignore.
We must look into “root causes” and we must try to “feel their pain;”
Pardon if our eyes start rolling, at your same old lame refrain.
It’s hard to fathom whence you come, perhaps some flawed eugenics,
That begets utopian pessimists, sires optimistic cynics.
Thanks be the power to rule the land remains beyond your means;
A regime of yours, would be like, no doubt, being ruled by pimpled teens.
Your quixotic quest for a world love nest, denies some truths quite real,
Like the need to have some “thinking” folks to preserve your right to “feel.”
Abhorring blood on your own hands, there’s a hard truth you’ve ignored,
Someone else must take your plowshare, and beat it back into a sword.
So how many of you Liberals does it take to win a war?
Or is there simply nothing you believe worth fighting for?
How is it that you’ve never learned, like most when they grow older,
That appeasing badness is a bad idea, only makes the bad guys bolder.
Has your fear of spilling human blood made you Jihad’s useful fools,
Ignoring that their wolf packs never fight within the rules?
By your demand we stay our hand, you weaken and you bind us;
Forcing us to fight off wolf attacks with that hand tied behind us.
So we bend some rules, in war you fools; so what? Show some respect,
When it’s your fuzzy-headed “feelings”, “thinking” men fight to protect.
Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66
THE SECOND TERM, GOD ON BOARD!
By Buck Evinger
I had a gut reaction to George Bush’s inauguration speech. Big, Bold and fantastic! I waited to post my thoughts on W.’s inauguration for two reasons. I wanted time to read the text of his speech and to time to take in some of the post speech coverage and analysis. I think it’s important to see what other people think before forming an opinion.
I am also anxiously awaiting a post from my good friend Zack, a regular contributor to this site. He attended this inauguration and the last.
After a period of reflection, I’m still giving it an A on all counts, but I’m intrigued by some takes. Peggy Noonan, one of my favorite conservative writers, is concerned that Bush and his administration may be a little ambitious, if this speech was any indicator of things to come. In her latest internet post, she takes issue with Bush’s call to ” end tyranny” on the planet. She makes a good point, one that I’m sure will be seized upon by Bush detractors. She says this is not heaven, this is earth, and no amount of doing is going to make it the utopia of freedom and liberty of which Bush spoke.
My take is this. In the Christian faith, God commands his followers to go forth into all the world and spread the gospel. Make everybody hear it and covert everybody that you can. Now this is a virtually impossible task, but God commands that Christians give it their best shot, none-the-less. It would seem to me that this is the same motivation that allowed those words “end tryanny” into Bush’s inauguration speech. I think Bush and everyone who heard the speech recognizes that ending tryanny completely is not going to happen, but it’s a good goal, isn’t it?
Noonan’s column helped me to understand a little more about why Bush is so hated and maligned by is foes. Not only does he have strong convictions, he doesn’t screw around when it comes to acting on them. Bush knows he is president, knows what he wants to do and is setting about doing those things, critics be damned. That is the definition of a leader.
I think Bush is the first president of modern times to be truly religious, and have a spine. At least he appears to be, of course, his true heart is only known to him and his creator. Now I know all you liberals will point to Jimmy Carter, and yes, he was a “Godly” president. But he was also the weakest, most un-respected president, probably of all time. It’s Bush’s combination of religious belief and Texas, “Get’er Done” mentality that scares the left. They’ll tolerate someone who says their religious, but not if they actually are religious.
This inauguration speech demonstrated to the world two important, and to some, two very scarey facts. George Bush is a man of religion who counts on his belief for guidance, and, he is not afraid to act.
I’ve known truly Godly and religious men in my life. They were not kooks or flakes. They were good men. Men you could trust. Their decisions, even down to the mundane decisions of daily life, were guided by their principals of faith. If George Bush is a truly Godly man and relies on prayer and the principals of his faith to guide him, so be it.
I trust his advisor.
LAL
SOMEBODY GET TEDDY A DRINK
By Buck Evinger
Ted Kennedy appeared as the sole guest on CBS’s Face The Nation this past Sunday. Yes, the network that claims it has no liberal bias gave a solid, unchecked hour to one of the most liberal voices in politics. I don’t really have a problem with a single guest getting a chance to voice their opinion, but Kennedy is old news. He never has anything new or constructive to say. He is the gadfly of the wacko left. Just take a look at some of what Teddy had to say.
Iraq is “clearly is George Bush’s Vietnam.”
The fact that Ted Kennedy claims to see anything clearly is laughable, but how can a sitting Senator compare Iraq to Vietnam and expect to be taken seriously. This Vietnam comparison came up during the election and it just doesn’t hold water.
Vietnam: A 10 year war, ran by Democrats, an unmitigated failure. We lost. 50,000 dead US soldiers.
Iraq: A couple of years in, we’ve already won the war, now we’re fighting to build a democracy, a little over 1000 US soldiers killed in action. A nation on the mend.
Somebody get Teddy a drink.
“….They have been unable to make up a plan — they’re making it up day by day. Until Iraqis are going to fight for their own country we are going to have a very, very dangerous situation…We have to let the Iraqis make the judgment and the decision about the elections. The United States has been manipulating and making all the calls in terms of Iraq. The Iraqis have to make the judgments,”
Here’s the plan. Invade Iraq and take control of the country. Check. Find the evil dictator and put him away. Check. Reubild the nation into a thriving democracy. (Still working on it.) The problem with liberals like Kennedy is they are planners and not doers. Their ideas look good on paper, they just can’t be done. Could things have been done better in Iraq? Absolutely. Thank you Mr. Hindsight.
Yes, we do need to let the Iraqis make their own judgements. Which Iraqis? Hello! Isnt’ that why we are trying like hell to make these elections happen as quickly as possible? We want Iraqis to start making decisions about their own future, but the structures of government have to be in place to execute those decisions, don’t they?
Make that drink a double.
“Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves this very basic question. And that is, is the face of the United States part of the liberation and security and the stability in that country, or are we a force that is perceived to be expanding the kind of uncertainty and savagery and revolution that’s taking place there?”
If you would stand behind your President and be a true patriot the answer to that question would be yes. You, and your fellow whiners, are the only people expanding uncertainty about our motives. When the world can quote your wack-job conspiricy theories and use that against our efforts, that is what causes doubt and uncertainty.
On second thought, just give the man the bottle.
LAL
BLIND AND OBLIVIOUS CRUSADERS
By Buck Evinger
I haven’t actually read the report about the investigation into CBS’s hatchet job on George Bush and his alleged “miscoundct” while in the Air Force Reserves. Why bother? Did anyone really expect CBS to publish a report that said they were liberal and they manufactured a story that was based on lies?
Mary Mapes, the producer who did most of the lying and manufacturing, lost her job and some upper management big wigs are out. Blah, blah, blah….It won’t change anything because there is an institutional liberal bias, not just in the “mainstream media”, but in the entire profession of journalism.
I’ve had this opinion for a long time. The first time I voiced it was when I was hosting a talk-radio show in 1986. A caller brought up the subject of liberal bias in the media and I said it would never go away for two reasons.
Reason #1: Journalist are, by their very nature, crusaders. Ask any working journalist or any journalism student why they want to be a journalist and the answer will almost always be, “to make a difference.” This is the 60 Minutes Syndrome. They all want to be investigative reporters “outing” the evil giant coporation that polluted the environment, or discovering the memo that links the evil deed to the prominent politician. Crusaders are, by their very nature, liberal. They want change from the status quo. They want new ways of thinking and new ways of doing things. These are the kind of people who become journalist. They are taught by these same kind of people. If you really get to looking, you’ll discover that most career journalists are liberal and most conservative commentators are not career journalists. Re-read that sentence. I’ll wait…. most career journalists are liberal and most conservative commentators are not career journalists.
Most career journalists went into college leaning to the left and just got more indoctrination. Most conservative commentators never went to college to study journalism and came into the field late in life. Do a little checking, you’ll see that I’m right. (No Pun Intended) Most career journalist scoff at the fact that they are biased. Most conservative commentators don’t hide the fact that they are biased.
Reason #2 The nature of the media, even to certain extent with the internet, allows all those career journalist complete control over what stories were written, how they were written and when they would be told. This is on all levels. Go to a local city council meeting. They last about 4 hours. The cub reporter in the back the room scribbles furiously, but can really only write down the points he or she thinks are important. Before the story is even written, the gathering of facts is influenced by the reporters opinion. Then the editor, a former cub reporter and respected journalism student, has to edit the reporter’s story, again, choosing to include the facts he or she thinks is important and removing the rest. Then the publisher has to decide what stories are important enough to include in the paper, on the front page, etc. All of these decisions are made by people and are influenced by thier opinions. It’s the same for newspapers, TV, radio, web-sites, etc., and since most of those people making decisions are liberal……
Two things have happened within the last 10 years to even the playing field. 24 hour cable news has exploded and, of course, the internet. The 24 hour ne3ws cycle is a hungry monster that needs constant feeding. That has opened the door for conservative voices to speak. The internet also gives voice to people who have conservative viewpoints.
Now you know why Dan Rather retired. There is just not enought control left in the hands of the blind and oblivious crusaders.
BOXER IS PUNCH DRUNK
By Buck Evinger
When Sen. Chuck Schumer Dem-NY says you’re out of line, you are most likely a conservative attacking some liberal lunacy, but on Fox & Friends this morning, those were the words he used to describe Sen. Barbara Boxer Dem-CA.
Quick call hell and check for frost warnings!
Boxer, while officially objecting to the certification of Bushes ASTOUNDING election victory, is simultaneously driving yet another nail into the coffin lid of the Democratic party. There was no controversy that would cause one to question the validity of the Bushes victory. You can rest assured if there were ANYTHING, and I mean anything that was even remotely close to being questionable John Kerry and company would have pounced with the force of a thousand lawyers. (Not to be confused with a truckload of B.S.) This is a standing senator of the United States of America, subverting the bedrock of our nation because “she no likey Bush.” That is un-patriotic and un-American.
I get so tired of the Barbara Boxers and the Al-Michael Franken-Moores of the world whining about being called unpatriotic, then turning around and doing whatever they can to subvert American interests, all in the name of holding onto or reclaiming political power. My only solace is that their actions are so nakedly un-patriotic they are doing the exact opposite of what they want. Instead of convincing American’s they’re right, more and more, they are convincing Americans that the Democratic party is the granola party, consisting of nothing but fruits, nuts and flakes.
There is no justification for Boxer’s refusal to vote to certify the 2004 election. None. Zip. Nada. But, let me remind you of what there is…
There is a Republican president, elected by an overwhelming majority
There is a Republican majority in the Senate, now even bigger!
There is a Republican majority in the House, yes, even bigger!
Republican’s hold the majority of; governships, state senates, state houses, mayors, sheriffs, dog catchers and metermaids.
AND HERE’S THE KICKER…
I disagree with the Limbaugh echo syndrome. I don’t think Republicans are winning all of these elections because people are more conservative and want Republican leaders and ideas to win the day. I think the vast majority of American’s look at people like Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinney and their kind and say…”These guys just don’t get it.”
Thank you Barbara. Keep up the good work.
A final Publish and be Damned for 2004:
To end the year is a very Suzanne way, I decided to publish on this site, the recent email sent to me from the gentleman who wrote the Reply to the Open Letter to Europe.
Before I get to that, I must say, I have been quite surprised at some of the comments. It is very sad that some of you consider Europe to be a threat to us. I wonder, how many of you who wrote those comments have even visited Europe?
I am above all an American, I love my country. But, I am also a child of God, and of the entire Earth. Therefore, as America is my home, so is the World my playground.
Now, the following is not my words, but those of my friend. The only one who took the time to try and help me through a bad time in my life. All the way from across the pond.
__________________________________________________________________________________
A very happy new year to you, so far away, and with troubles lapping at your door
. I am aghast that some see you as the enemy (after all you have done for your country), but having read your website and some of the replies, it does not surprise me.
The Axis of Evil that surrounds your president leads to people being that intolerant, and forgetting that it is possible to disagree without being an opponent.
Oh well.
A final Publish and be Damned for 2004:
If it was not for us you would all be speaking German.
Apart from the historical error in this (not one of the countries Germany occupied before and during World War II were required to change their native language to German), we imagine that it is a metaphor for “America saved Europe from the nasty Nazis”.
Really?
When Germany started invading and occupying the different countries of Europe, did America stand in its way?
No.
When the last surviving opponent to Hitler was about to be invaded, was it America who stepped into the breach?
No.
It was the Battle of Britain (fought by the Brits and their European allies) who prevented it.
America only came into the war when its own ships were attacked, and even then it only declared war on Japan. It was the Germans who declared war against America, who then suffered eventually and were invaded by the Americans and the Brits, to bring the war in Europe to a close.
Let’s wind the clock back to 1588, when the Spanish (the dominant power in Europe, and main colonising power in the New World) tried to invade England. They were defeated, and as a result the naval power slipped from the Spanish to the English, and so it was English and not Spanish colonies that got established in America.
In other words, if it was not for us, you would be speaking Spanish.
Love and all from London
_______________________________________________________
Happy New Year to all of you
Suzanne
