Posted on 12/23/2009 6:26:14 AM PST by IrishMike
"This is not an administration that takes bad news well," Jennifer Rubin wrote on Commentary's blog, referring to Robert Gibbs' fit when asked to explain the Gallup poll showing the president taking on water, sinking into the high-to-mid 40s, and losing ground fast. Neither apparently does much of the left, which, faced with cratering numbers for both the health care proposals and for global warming, responded with all of the rational discourse and respect for debate and dissenting opinion that has made them so widely beloved.
First, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who emerged in the health care debate as the leading Republican anti-bill spokesman, was widely portrayed as sorry old coot acting from "bitterness," and who squandered his chance to establish a legacy by opposing the bill out of spite. He was a maverick, not an ex-Democrat, and his ally Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., fared even worse.
He was described as a "putz" by Jonathan Alter, as "the L-word" and as "Joe the Bummer" by Chris Matthews. He was also described as a traitor to Judaism by various bloggers -- by Jonathan Chait as the one Jew in the world too clueless to know what he's doing, and by Ezra Klein as a potential mass murderer, "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score." Paul Krugman wanted him "hung in effigy," and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., urged he be "recalled" from office, though by whom was uncertain.
Unfortunately, there is no provision in Connecticut law for recalls (much less for lynching) so they will have to wait for their chances in 2012.
In related news, Rep. Alan Grayson, Lunatic-Fla., known mainly for saying the Republicans' health plans called for asking the sick to "die quickly" and for telling former Vice President Cheney to "shut the f--k up," sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking the Department of Justice to investigate, fine, and perhaps send to jail for five years a Florida activist who reacted to his behavior by setting up a fundraising Web site called "mycongressmanisnuts.com."
He complained that the blogger was "senseless and juvenile." "Just five years?" queried blogger Ed Morrissey. "Why doesn't Grayson just demand that Holder chop off her head?"
Then there was global warming, or the First Church of Al, where Al Gore sought refuge after the Florida recount and rapidly built a cult following. This was largely by warning that the Earth was in such danger from fossil fuel usage that in order to fight it he was compelled to jet all over the world spreading the message, and run up monstrous utility bills in his three or more homes.
When this cause was imperiled by e-mails showing that the global warming police had doctored the data -- and film showing Obama flying into a snowstorm on his trip to the summit at Copenhagen, Denmark, and then flying back into an even more extravagant blizzard in Washington -- certain members of the pundit-industrial complex responded by asking that news that impugned their consensus should be -- you guessed it -- suppressed.
ThinkProgress blogger Matt Yglesias complained that CNN ran a show called "Global Warming: Fact or Fiction" without taking sides on the side of the "Goracle," or saying that what he called the global warming "deniers" were totally out of their minds. He then said the news media -- along with the rest of what he called the elite of the country -- had a moral duty to the rest of humanity to censor their output, so that opinion contesting the "global climate-warming consensus" would never again see the light of the day.
At the New Republic, Ed Kilgore was in total agreement, blaming the mainstream press for being browbeaten by right-wing fanatics into thinking they ought to air different opinions, and even cover all of the news. Morals in this case seem to equal suppression.
"Yglesias is right," he concluded. "This is one area of public policy where 'respect for contrary views' and 'editorial balance' are misplaced."
What a good thing Democrats are the party of logic and reason. They might tell their critics to "Shut the f--k up."
anything goes, as long as they conquer the health care industry.
Other Talking Points:
1) racist
2) extremist
3) Corporate shrill
4) bitter clinger
5) religious kook
6) Denier
7) chauvanist
8) uncle Tom
9) uncaring
10) greedy
The part about Alan Grayson makes me want to start up a website - HeIsNotMyCongressmanButHeIsNuts.com
I’m laughing at the fact there’s a group called “Move On” STILL complaining about the 2000 election.
Well, that’s their base - highly emotional, knee-jerk reaction types. They don’t need a reasonable arguement, just a catchy talking point or two.
These criminals, these degenerates, these marauding filth on the left are going to go down hard.
The sort of social and financial tyrannies they seek to impose can only be accomplished with terror and violence.
I truly do not believe they will find the reaction surviveable.
LOL! OUTSTANDING!!!
Red, white and blue, too!
They will call us any number of things...but the one thing they will NEVER do...is debate the evidence.
BTW, AlanGraysonIsNuts.com is taken, though no web site yet.
The Prius with the "Yes We Did" sticker.
The house in the neighborhood that had all the "0" signs.
Any Media truck.
And, in years to come when you are diagnosed with something fatal that Obama care will not treat....
All politics is local.
Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” — President Harry S. Truman (D-MO)
You forgot:
Intolerant
Bigot
Homophobe
Misogynist
For your holiday conversations:
What is “Global Warming”?
It is the theory that the mean temperature of the earth is increasing due to the greenhouse effect, caused by greenhouse gases such as CO2, which is produced by humans burning of fossil or carbon based fuels for energy. The solution to this is the reduction of the use of carbon based fuels.
OK, now that we agree on that, let’s step through this.
1st, what is the “right” mean temperature of the earth?
Has it ever changed without man’s influence?
2nd, the greenhouse effect in and of itself is not a bad thing, it is a good thing - we’d freeze to death at night or in the winter without it.
3rd, What is the most abundant, and also the most contributory “greenhouse gas”?
CO2?
No, it’s water vapor, comprising 95% of the greenhouse effect. Man’s contribution to the amount of water vapor is less than .001%, so we can ignore it.
Back to CO2. CO2 contributes around 3.6% to the greenhouse effect.
But what percentage of CO2 is natural and how much man-made? 97% of CO2 is naturally occurring, 3% due to man’s actions.
This amounts to a 0.117% man-caused contribution to the greenhouse effect due to carbon emissions.
So, even if we ELIMINATED the use of carbon based fuels for energy production, thus destroying our lifestyle and civilization, we’d have less than a .117% effect on “global warming”.
Now, I know that leftists are married to these “solutions” and will want to implement them anyway, regardless of their ineffectiveness. Now, can we discuss why? (topic for another post)
Source:Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers
They’re not “anti-religion”. Their god is government, their priests are the elites, their sacrament is human sacrifice.
They’re just anti-Christian.
The Christian worldview is in diametric opposition to theirs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.