Maher Finds out the Downside of Being a Liberal

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzrUD-5hf1A]

This was a real treat!  The only people dumb enough to believe that the government was involved in 9/11 conspiracies are liberals (aside from the crazies supporting Ron Paul).  Here we go again with more “Building 7” propoganda.  (The same conspiracy Rosie O’Donnell believes in).

I feel sorry for Maher.  Aside for the fact that his guests were Sheila Jackson Lee and Chris Matthews; he actually has to try and sit through an audience of liberals who have spent too much time surfing 9/11 conspiracy sites, Alex Jones sites, and reading Rosie’s blog (and not working like the rest of us have to) . 

I like Bill Maher in the sense that the man is actually smart and funny.  But it has to be said that up until this point, these crazies thought they’d be welcome in his audience.  More Democrats and Ron Paul should vocally denounce these crazies every chance they get.  But unfortunately, most fall into this trap (let’s face it, Paul needs every vote he can get).

If Maher would have spent more time making fun of these crazies in lieu of degrading his President that has kept him safe since 2001, perhaps this type would not show up to act as opportunists.  And perhaps they would never think that this type of venue would welcome them in the first place.

Nice to see him make fun of them and throw them out!

BTW, I didn’t see Sheila Jackson Lee or Chris Matthews vocally denouncing the crazies as Maher did. (Unless it’s in a later segment.)  Prove me wrong otherwise.

****Update****

Apparently Maher did bring this up a month ago and made fun of the 9/11 conspiracy loons.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOljd9oOzo

I give him credit for that, but I still find it funny that he really is the only mainstream liberal pundit to make fun of the Rosie-crowd to this extent.  Maybe Ann can get him really drunk one night and convert him.  😉

My Tribute to Liberals Crazier Than Rosie..

boohoodems.jpg 

You know, whenever liberals try to debate common sense, it’s always fun to throw a general question out there to them like “what could George Bush have done to prevent 9/11?” taking into consideration liberals’ policy of “be nice to our enemies.”

I’m always leery of folks like this fella; Jurassicdork, whose website has one of those phony counters claiming that the United States is responsible for almost one million deaths from the Iraq invasion.  That number; by the way, greatly exceeds the phony John Hopkins’ study performed three years ago — the one Rosie O’Donnell still cites —  “655,000 dead, who are the terrorists?”  Whenever someone owns a blog that posts a phony death counter that exceeds the insanity of Rosie O’Donnell, I become suspicious.  But like a trainwreck, Lindsay Lohan, or the Anne Nicole Smith Show, it’s kind of fun pokin’ your nose in every once in awhile.

Low and hehold, this is just a bellicose blowhard who needed some attention.  I’m happy to say that we over here at the loving and accepting GayConservative.org (people like myself, Philip, Airforcewife, Jennifer, Shawmut and more) were happy to oblige.  In getting his feedback, I’ve decided to highlight some of the funniest moments ever in the history of liberal repartee.

Jurassicdork states in response:

“Because it seems Gay Conservative Steve has a problem with my pointing out the holes in Ann Coulter’s argument”

I don’t think so — I merely asked him to answer what Al Franken could not.  With all of the ridiculous rules and regulations put onto our CIA post-watergate by idiot-Democrats in Congress, what could George Bush have done even if  he knew all of the specific details of the September 11th attacks?  All of his blather factually boils down to once conclusion: NOTHING.  (Also, there were no “holes” in Coulter’s response.  In fact, Coulter pointed out the “holes” in the Democrats’ argument by putting the question to Franken.)

Next, he says:

“Coulter’s stupidity speak for itself without resorting to ad hominems.”

Has JurassicDork checked YouTube lately?  Has he checked with Al Franken?  Has he checked with Bill Maher?  Generally, when people are stupid, we don’t spend endless hours and millions of George Soros’s dollars on attempting to debunk them.  Moreover; let’s ask the college liberals on campuses that throw pies and hurl insults not only at Coulter but at countless other conservative speakers.  When was the last time a conservative threw a pie or attempted to physically attack a liberal speaker?

He says:

“Alas, logic and civility are not enough when dealing with that “other” ilk.”

While in the same message he simultaneously says:

“I’ve taken heat in the past from my own readers that sometimes my cursing is too gratuitous, that I’m too angry. So this first paragraph is for those readers. Your thoughtful pleas for more civility and less anger are very often taken under advisement and, when the mood strikes me, I oblige by laying out the facts with my arguments while not resorting to angry rhetoric. Today is different because circumstances compel me to do otherwise. So, to you gentle souls, if you have delicate sensibilities, allow me to warn you right now that what follows will be the vilest, filthiest, most furious post that perhaps I’ve ever written and will act on you like a microwave oven on Dick Cheney. So take this as your final opportunity to allow your mouse to migrate on over to the right side and click on the link of someone more civil and elegant, like Glenn Greenwald, for instance.”

Is his goal to be “gratutitous” or “angry” or is he begging for “civility”?  Moreover; whenever I hear a liberal discuss civility, I politiely refer them to the loving reactions of Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn (along with the college campus incidents mentioned above.)  Just like their love of the gay community while liberals will use being transgendered or gay in a moment of convenience to better attack Ann Coulter, this joke excuses himself and his rhetoric by proclaiming that it’s the only way to deal with conservative “ilk.”

That part isn’t even the funniest or most ridiculous of his snorefest.  The best is when he “attempts” to inject facts and “common sense” into the debate, which in turn only strengthens the conservative argument against big-government policy and the possibility of liberals owning “common sense” to begin with.

He says:

Yeah, Ann. Better to ask a comedian when the next al Qaida attack will be than to ask your hero who’d been posing as the leader of the free world for the last six and a half years.”

How idiotic!  If a stand-up comedian (or a bellicose-blogger for that matter) is going to continue to run around using the idiotic “Bush was warned!” argument, they better damned well be able to sufficiently answer the questions put to them by anyone.  If Al Franken is just a “comedian” (Jurassicdork’s words, not mine) — that happens to be running for office by the way — then why in the hell is he even blathering about something that Jurassicdork himself even admits that he is unqualified to talk about in the first place?  See to him, Franken’s using it to promote Bush-hate is sufficient, but Coulter asking him to clarify what it is that George Bush could have done with the inept policies put in place by Jurassicdork’s party is totally out of the question.

Hey Jurassicdork, how about unqualified liberals shut up about it altogether?  Then we’ll stop imposing our questions of common sense onto you, okay.

He then inadvertently reminds us of the utter failure known as big government by droning on about ridiculous federal programs like FEMA with the intent to spotlight Bush’s cronies.  Right along with Hillary, Jurassicdork is happy to portray the Federal Emergency Management Administration as “Bill’s FEMA” where eight years ago (long before Katrina), Hurricane Floyd occured in North Carolina that killed 56 people and evacuated over two million.  Clinton, the king of crony placement, and his wonderboy James Lee Witt (then director of “Bill’s FEMA) were so slow to respond to the tragedy that even Jesse Jackson complained.

Conservatives in 1999 could have used this chance to do to Clinton what liberals do to Bush and spotlight Clinton’s cronyism with appointing Witt.  However; as a general matter, it is not conservatives that endorse ridiculous federally funded organizations like FEMA.  In North Carolina and Mississippi for example; when there are massive storms, the local government are on the spot as well as the residents who pull up their britches and get to work.  “Bill’s FEMA” believes the best way to handle an emergency is to pass out debit cards to victims and watch our federal funds be used for such vital supplies from merchants as Bloomingdales and don’t forget the visits to the strips clubs as part of the victims’ healing process.  (Taking the strip clubs into consideration, no wonder Hillary refers to it as “Bill’s FEMA!”)

Liberal idiocy has decided to set up these nuisance organizations at our expense while simultaneously selecting moral outrage over which cronies are worse.  How about we just do away with liberal policies altogether? 

He then complains and mentions Walter Reed.  It has been well-documented that indeed it is again – liberal policy- that put no-good maintenance men in charge at these facilities, that are funded and paid for by taxpayers, to care for the facilities that serve our wounded troops.  While all individuals can agree that the actual medical care at Walter Reed is excellent, liberals then decided that it was Bush’s fault that maintenance men working under liberal policy (making it impossible for them to be fired) aren’t doing their jobs. 

He blathers on about toothpaste, bad food, and liberal hysteria that admit problems with — say it with me — LIBERAL POLICIES AND PROGRAMS.  We all know the kind of people that work for places like that and if it makes Jurassicdork feel any better, I will voluntarily sign away all nomination rights to FEMA and the FDA.  Hell, put Teddy Kennedy in all of those positions for all I care!  We conservatives advocate taking care of ourselves and we’ll save our desired appointees for real positions like the Supreme Court.

This is a perfect example of how a liberal is when they are forced to recognize the failure of large government.  It’s these same idiots that create myths of global warming (just 30 years after they were warning us of the next ice-age) to propose massive tax on gasoline and government funded “programs” (like FEMA) to pay unqualified folks to pointlessly count how many leaves fall from oak trees in November.

The frustration is equal, but liberal socialization and big government have been failures stemming way back to FDR.  I’m paying the maximum amount of social security tax that anyone can pay each year to put into a fund that is currently paying for others who did not put in nearly as much as I have.  (And I’m only 33!)  Will it be there for me when I’m 62? These programs have served liberals in two major ways.  First, they get to take more of our money (since working for their own is out of the question).  Second, they get to blame the failures of their own programs on Republicans. 

Moving forward, Juassicdork continues:

“You ask what Bill Clinton had done to fight terrorism. First, let me ask you: What did HW do to fight terrorism because the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was just a couple of months after Clinton took office.”

More attacks happened during Clinton’s tenure than any other administration’s except for Reagan’s.  Reagan had an excuse, he was stuck cleaning up a mess created by the peace-lovers who handed us buckets of unemployment and international enemies, Carter and Mondale.  I forgot, Clinton did bomb an aspirin factory.  That went over well, didn’t it?  I do believe it was Senator Feinstein who insinuated that it was this sloppy attack that made Bin Laden angry enough to plan and execute 9/11.

What did HW do?  Well if you pay attention, between the 1988 Pan-Am flight hijacking and the WTC bombing of 1993, we enjoyed a near five-year break from Muslim violence (all through HW’s term).  This was the longest span of peace between attacks on our interests from 1979 to 2001, but not quite as long as the gap of Muslim violence on American interests since 2001 until the present (six years).  I think HW’s five-year break may have had something to do with us bombing the snot out of Saddam’s regime in Desert Storm that made them think twice before messing with America, plus I think George W.’s six-year break has something to do with our troops kicking some major ass in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

The surge of Muslim violence got its confidence up after Clinton ripped our troops out of Somalia. 

Continuing with his sad concern for national security he says:

“So far in Iraq, Bush has killed a million hostages to get at a few hostage takers.  At the very least, Clinton never went on record to say, “I am truly not that concerned about him” less than seven months after the original World Trade Center bombing.”

That is incorrect.  We have rounded up all of Al-Queda’s top guys (explaining why we aren’t as worried about OBL as an imminent threat) and are holding them at Guantanamo (you know, the thing you guys keep crying about while simultaneously proclaiming that Bush could have done more to prevent 9/11.)  We have deposed of Saddam, had three elections where millions upon millions of Iraqis have voted, killed HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS of insurgents and terrorists and rounded up more.  All of this with 3,000 American deaths.  Compare that to the 60,000 in Vietnam, 300,000 in WW2, or 600,000 in the Civil War, and I cannot help but wonder what exactly Jurassicdork would have had to say during WW2.

We will win this war and even Jurassicdork’s own Democrats in the House and Senate refuse to put their money where their mouth is and vote against it or its funding.  We can win it a lot sooner if we stop catering to the idiot Democrats in Congress who keep crying phony crocodile tears of concern over blacks, gays, civilians, and the troops. 

To quote Michael Scheuer in regard to winning this war, we can win it:

“Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.”

If liberals would stop politicizing our troops and Iraqi civilians with their counterfeit concern, we could finish this thing tomorrow but as has been pointed out and proven over and over again by liberals like Jurassicpork, they; in their mission to watch this country and its humanity self-destruct, would rather our troops fail to further illustrate their hate for Bush rather than grant Iraqis the same freedom that they take for granted everyday.

“Faggots” and Ferris Wheels – Elizabeth Edwards vs. Ann Coulter

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t36TDc8m19A&mode=related&search=]

I have to admit, when I learned that Chris Matthews on Hardball had a secret deal with Elizabeth Edwards to ambush Ann Coulter on a few “comments” during Matthews’ interview with Coulter to promote her updated paperback version of Godless: The Church of Liberalism, I was immediately affected by this as I again was shown how devious liberals can be and indeed how clueless some “conservatives” are.

 

In the video posted above, Chris Matthews and Elizabeth Edwards (wife of John Edwards) uses this opportunity to stress to Ann Coulter the importance of sticking to the issues and cutting out the “personal attacks.” 

 

It all started about six months ago when Ann Coulter joked about the pathetic state of our politically correct society when asserting that she would not be commenting on John Edwards because using the word “faggot” would put her in rehab.  Immediately afterwards in the same speech when asked about gay rights, Ann said:

  • “Screw you, I’m not anti-gay, we’re against gay marriage, I don’t want gays to be discriminated against”

and went on to say………….

  • “In addition to blacks, I don’t know why all gays aren’t Republican because I think we have the pro-gay position which is anti-crime and pro-tax cuts, gays make a lot of money and they’re victims of crime.”

There, Coulter genuinely acknowledged the history of cruelty, bigotry, and crimes against the gay community.  Conservatives have acknowledged that same fact for years.  But apparently being against gay marriage equals a level of hate directly associated with the types of morons that partake in such awful crimes.

 

The same weekend that Coulter made that comment, Bill Maher remarked about Dick Cheney being slaughtered by terrorists.  Not one liberal came out against him with a fraction of the energy they put into focusing on one line uttered by Ann Coulter.

 

Say, when will we get a phone call from Lynne Cheney as Maher is being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity? 

 

Next, the “Coulter makes Edwards cry like a big girl” drama-fest was extended when Ann Coulter; on ABC, just a few days ago stated her obvious surprise that Maher’s comment about Cheney being assassinated by terrorists got no press attention compared to her joke about John Edwards.  In this current interview, Coulter said two funny things.

 

Holding to her intention that her “faggot” remark had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with John Edwards being a total wuss she remarked:

  • “I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards….THAT would be mean”

Then realizing the striking difference displayed by liberals in their reaction to what she said versus what Bill Maher had said, she joked:

  • “I’ve learned my lesson, if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish that he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

Now, a few days later, Elizabeth Edwards and Chris Matthews use this as evidence of a “personal attack” against John Edwards.  Nothing she said in this interview on ABC attacked John Edwards personally, other than the cute joke about not comparing all gays to him. 

 

There are a few things I’d like to point out in the midst of the entire hullabaloo raised by liberals and “concerned conservatives.”

 

First: Every time Ann Coulter makes a joke about a liberal, I get buckets of e-mails and messages from liberal friends, gay friends, conservative friends, etc. wondering if this is finally the moment that I would be willing to denounce Coulter. 

 

Let me be the first to say that I proudly agree with the idea that John Edwards is a total wuss.  In fact, my agreeing with Ann Coulter in that respect has been utterly confirmed by the wife of this Presidential candidate when she feels the need to conspire with a liberal talk-show host to insinuate that Coulter stop writing and speaking in a way that she chooses to express herself which is an amusing way that attracts enough folks to score her five massive NY Times bestsellers. 

 

In fact, if I could be mad about anything, it would be because the Edwards people have scored massive amounts of campaign-funding since Coulter’s remarks.

 

So when Coulter says something that makes liberals go crazy, what is the real message here?  While some of my most soft-hearted friends and concerned conservative folk characterize it as:

  • Coulter gives energy to liberals, they will win because she expresses herself, speaks her mind and God forbid exercises her right to the first amendment. 

I seem to be one of the only ones with enough common sense to discover the real message here which is:

  • Edwards cannot handle jokes, attacks, or criticism from a blond 100-pound writer but he simultaneously wants us to believe that he’s going to effectively combat members of Al-Queda, deal with Iran, North Korea, and pull us out of Iraq in a way that does not portray us as a country full of Barbra Streisands and Rosie O’Donnells. 

Is Edwards going to have to his wife call up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the case he is so politically incorrect to assassinate Edwards with a “personal attack?”  What would conservatives think of George Bush or Ronald Reagan if they had Laura or Nancy calling up talk-shows to do their fighting for them?

 

Second: While Chris Matthews and Elizabeth Edwards blathered on about “personal attacks” and “debating the issues,” did it occur to them that they never touched on one issue at all in that entire time?  The entire interview was a “personal attack” against Ann Coulter.  I have read Godless from cover to cover and can personally attest to the fact that Ann Coulter covered many “issues” in her book.  If Matthews and Edwards want to debate issues, why didn’t they pick at least one of them to debate Coulter on? 

 

To all the hysterics out there, I ask that you realize the fact that there is a reason why Edwards and Matthews could not stay on the issues and chose to parse Coulter’s language for the entire course of that interview.

 

Third:  The latter part of this interview features Matthews engaging in another personal attack on Coulter by again; avoiding the issues, and scolding her on words that Coulter used to describe Hillary’s legs. 

Curiously enough, one year ago on Hardball, Chris Matthews in an interview with Tucker Carlson asked Tucker if he found Ann Coulter attractive.

 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you find her physically attractive, Tucker?”

 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Well, she doesn’t pass the Chris Matthews test.”

 

Utter hypocrisy at its worst.

 

As a gay man, I was not offended at Coulter’s use of the word “faggot.”  I knew what she meant, I agree with her that putting someone in rehab over the use of a word is crazy, and I knew how liberals would respond.  But the way conservatives are responding is what is making me sick. 

 

Conservatives are now buying into this rhetoric without understanding the price they are willing to pay which involves compromising everyone’s right to true free speech! 

 

We are selling ourselves out as conservatives by caving into the politically correct madness created by the mainstream media.  We are more obsessed now with monitoring the words uttered by Ann Coulter than we are at observing our enemies. 

 

Coulter has been attacked repeatedly on the Senate floor by various Senators including John Kerry.  She is the first political writer to ever be called up by the wife of a presidential candidate.  Couple these firsts with the fact that she continues to sell massive amounts of books, I’d say that I am ready to make my final point:

 

Liberals (even the elected ones) are so threatened by Ann Coulter’s ability to articulate political messages that they use their time on the Senate floor and their time as political candidates to test the backbone of the Republican Party.  I have to say, by recent actions, I am completely disgusted at Republicans for caving into this utter manipulation.  We are reacting just as they want us to.

 

Being a victim today is like taking a turn on the Ferris wheel.  It’s stardom, it’s attention, and it’s a sorry excuse to be indignant and to sound interesting for about five minutes.

 

If Republicans lose the election because of comments uttered by Ann Coulter, it won’t be because of her comments alone.  It will be because of our “wuss” reactions to the mainstream media, the tree-huggers, the anti-war moms, and the political correctness set forth by hypocrites like Chris Matthews and Elizabeth Edwards.

 

If people don’t want to be characterized as “faggots,” how about they stop giving illustration to the characterization?

Still Using Victims to Make their Points

I remember seeing a portion of a video on youtube (it was put on in 7 parts, I believe) that was part of the whole 9/11 conspiracy nut brigade.  I remember the segment where Rudy Giuliani’s on-radio interview with Peter Jennings had him saying that he knew the towers were going to collapse.  Now, the way the video stretches this is that Rudy had extensive knowledge of the fact that the towers were going to fall long before it occured.  What Giuliani had actually said was that the fire-fighters on scene had told him just before that they were going to collapse.

Here is a prime example of what liberals who watch youtube are doing with their time in response to nonsense like this.  As Giuliani was confronted by these nuts, you can actually detect that he feels real sympathy for the girl that he is talking to.   

The people hollering out around her prove that Rosie’s legacy lives on!

Sheehan Leaves! (This time without Police Force)

sheehan.jpg

Responding to the “attention whore” allegations thrown at her by both parties – or anyone  with common sense, Cindy Sheehan bids farewell on a popular left-wing blog.

Michelle Malkin made note of Sheehan’s cozy ties with Hugo Chavez and also made mention of the TV stations he has acquired that are in need of “far Left propagandist news directors.”

With that in mind coupled with the “attention whore” allegations; does anybody else find it ironic that Cindy Sheehan bids her “farewell” the same week that the nation’s attention has been riveted on Rosie bidding hers?

Perhaps Venezuela will have a left-winged version of The View

After all, the two share similar political views AND fasting habits.

Proof that liberals are lazy

This post; written by an anti-war nut, uses faulty information to make Rosie’s case for her.  Indeed, Americans are terrorists everyone!  That’s the conclusion of this post and many of the commenters.

 On a day like today (Memorial Day), where anti-war Presidential Candidate John Edwards expects the anti-war Democrats of the country be out protesting the war, fine Democrats choose to stay in the comfortable surroundings of their home and write absurd things like this.

The least they can do is respect the wishes of Edwards. 

What these folks keep forgetting is that their own Democratic representatives in Congress keep voting against the anti-war movement.  They keep forgetting that foreign countries consistently are electing conservative governments. 

All they have on their side are the phony polls put forth to the American people.  You know the ones worded like:

“Do you 100% agree with Bush’s war policies?” (831 people polled and used as a “representation” of the entire country’s position on the war.)

When are we going to get a question like this one:

“Do you believe we should lose in Iraq and leave it under the control of al Queda and other terrorist organizations?”

I’d love to see the results to THAT poll.

Great Analysis from Keith Blabberman

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk66Rk4Kjjg]

Commenting on the “who are the terroristS?” quote from Rosie, he blames the realistic characterization of her insanity on “Fox Noise.”

As this video points out, many folks on MSNBC drew the same conclusion.

Olbermann’s conclusion: she wasn’t talking about the troops – BUT SHE WAS talking about President Bush.

LOL – Calling an American President a “terrorist” I suppose is totally acceptable to Olbermann.

Someone’s makin’ some “noise” alright, but it aint Fox.

Cling Around the Rosie

rosie_edited.jpg 

Silly me.  I totally forgot about the media’s obsession with Rosie O’Donnell leaving “The View.”  So I suppose we won’t be hearing about the report released that proclaims that Bush was warned about the troubles we would face in Iraq (discussed in the previous post.)

 Though I’ve been at work all day, Fox talk radio as well as CNN and MSNBC have been droning on about how Elisabeth Hasselbeck finally stood up to the big bullying lesbian (self-proclaimed). 

I am growing tired of this story but if it really is true that Rosie finally left because of Hasselbeck’s debate with her last week, I’d be curious to know what would have happened to the duration of Rosie’s tenure if it had been Ann Coulter sitting across from her.

I’m guessing about two weeks. 

Obviously, Rosie is nowhere near the brain that Coulter is.  However; I have to admit that I’ve always wanted blather-engines like O’Donnell or even Michael Moore to have to face Annie.