Friday, December 19, 2008

Anger Up! Anger Down!

As some of you may know I didn't take the election results well. To put it bluntly, I was PISSED!!!! I wrote a short post on the election venting my anger, which included hoping for the Big O's assassination. Well, I've calmed down a bit. I'm no longer angry at Obama personally--although I wouldn't shed any tears if he ate a bullet--but I am still pretty roiled at all the people who voted for him, especially the hardcore libtards. In fact, I think it was them whom I was really angry with all along. So my anger at Obama is down, but I'm still pretty peeved at the electorate who put him in power.

What really riles me about the libtard voters is how they want Obama to be accepted and respected as president when they gave neither acceptance nor respect to Bush. Why, I ask, should I respect Obama? Because he's the president elect? Well, Bush is the president yet both the American and international Left has given him nothing but disdain, to put it mildly, for eight years. But now that their god is about to take office they suddenly believe in respecting the president. Their hypocrisy is shameless. Jerks!

Alan Colmes, of Fox's "Hannity and Colmes" show, is one of the better known loony left hypocrites. Colmes has been just shocked that some conservatives seem eager to tar Obama with scandal in this onging Blagojevich affair. Why, Colmes has whined, don't conservatives give Jesus--oops!--I mean Obama the benefit of the doubt? Why do they seem so eager to drag the Messiah before Pontius Pilate? Colmes is such a liberal diehard that I'm sure he sees no inconsistency in his moaning over the "unfairness" being heaped on li'l ol' Obama. He just doesn't get that conservatives are treating Obama exactly the same way that Colmes and the rest of the Left has treated and continues to treat George W. Bush. In Colmes' universe criticizing and disrespecting the president is ok ONLY when the critics are liberals and the president is conservative/Republican. But when conservatives criticize or disrespect a liberal president well, that's just downright mean. Hey Alan, get a grip!

For the last eight years liberals preached and practiced political and ideological hatred with a vengeance. They trashed George W. Bush mercilessly, gave moral support to our enemies, and slandered our troops from the highest halls of power. In doing this, they showed not the slightest interest in truth, fairness, decorum, or the good of the nation. All they cared about was creating a state of despair that they hoped would propel them back into domestic power. And now that domestic power is theirs they want civility to reign. I don't think so!!!!

Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, once talked about chickens coming home to roost. Well, Obama and his libtard devotees must now contend with the chickens of partisan animosity landing right on their doorstep. So far they've shown little stomach for catching the kind of vitriol they so liberally--pun intended--threw out. It just strengthens my conviction that "liberal" is another name for "coward". If American left-wingers can't run with the big dogs they need to stay under the porch and leave the country in the hands of real men. And while real men might not be Bush and Co., they sure as hell ain't Obama and his wimpy worshippers.

20 comments:

JMK said...

Here's the thing, Seane-Anna, it really WASN'T the far-Left "libtards" who voted Obama in!

In fact, our electorate remains about 33% self-proclaimed Conservatives, about 17% self-proclaimed Liberal and appx 50% "Moderate," or unaffliated.

That merely shows that a large majority of Americans have little interest in or affinity for the political system.

That's why our very Liberal MSM is such a help to Democrats!

But this time around, it wasn't even THAT.

Bottomline, Bush has NOT governed as a Conservative his second term. In fact, he's cooperated about as well with the Pelosi-Reid Congress as Bill Clinton had with the Gingrich Congress.

Unfortunately, (1) Clinton's cooperation and capitulation to Gingrich resulted in the best economic period since the 1950s, most of it based on the FIRST federal budget cuts since prior to WW II....while (2) Bush's cooperation with Pelosi-Reid coincided with one of the greatest economic disasters of our time, a disaster born of Democratic over-regulation (the turbo-charged CRA forcing banks to deliver tons of high-risk, subprime loans) and banking industry greed - tons of short-term cash was made off all the fees from those subprime (government-backed) mortgages!

Regardless, the President in office (BUSH) took credit, or in this case BLAME for that implosion.

THAT helped Obama a LOT.

McCain also helped Obama a LOT by running an incompetent campaign.

McCain was, to be kind, an embarrassment, from his huckster, "Well, my friends...." vaudevillian delivery, to his phoney appeal to Conservatives over the bailout - he didn't even stand up for the Congressional Conservatives who merely wanted those monies earmarked for lending ALONE!

McCain's ill-conceived bailout photo-op shit the bed and basically signalled that his campaign was not really serious about governance, let alone winning the election.

In short, blame Bush's cooperating with Pelosi-Reid, blame McCain's ineptitude, blame Moderate Republicans for consistently selling out Conservatism, BUT don't blame the Liberals!

First off, there aren't near enough of them to win anything and secondly, I can't balme the vast majority of Moderates for voting Obama over McCain.

McCain's campaign was a sad, pathetic joke....and a disgrace to Conservatives everywhere.

Seane-Anna said...

You're right as usual,JMK. Obama's election DID have a lot to do with Bush fucking up his second term and McCain doing the same with his campaign. However, I still think I made a valid point in my post. While "libtards" may not have been solely responsible for Obama's victory on Nov. 4th, they ARE now expecting him to be treated with a degree of respect and civility that they never gave to Bush. As I said in my post, their hypocrisy is shameless. That's why I'm angry, right or wrong.

WomanHonorThyself said...

welcome back girly!..happy holiday hugss!

JMK said...

"...While "libtards" may not have been solely responsible for Obama's victory on Nov. 4th, they ARE now expecting him to be treated with a degree of respect and civility that they never gave to Bush." (Seane-Anna)
<
<
While that is certainly true, far-Left loons tend to be emotionally disturbed people, Seane-Anna. So, their expectatios are a double-edged sword.

They've already been bitterly disappointed in his initial choices - Rahm Emanuel (a relatively Conservative Democrat and former israeli soldier) as his Chief-of-Staff, keeping Robert Gates on the job, appointing the Republican Governor of AZ (Janet Napolitano) Homeland Security Chief, and bringing on a pretty market-oriented economics team have all pissed off the Left royally!

Now gays are "outraged" over his choice of Rick Warren at his swearing-in.

Believe me, the far-Left is going to be the bane of the Obama administration's existence in short order.

Personally, I think this administration will be far more Centrist, "unacceptably Centrist" or "too Right-wing" to the far-Left.

Now THAT'S going to be fun to watch!

I LIKE Emanuel...I really do. He's more Conservative than a lot of Republicans...sad but true.

This is just my tack, but I'm not going to complain until I have something to really complain about...and I'm sure that'll come soon enough. Hell, I complained about Bush's support for the "SHAMnesty Bill," and for his excessive spending, so I expect even more bad news coming from this group....but I'll wait. I'm not going in looking for it.

But that's just me.

Roadhouse said...

The "libtards" had to make up most of the controversies about Bush. I suspect that we will have so many REAL controversies about Obama in the next few years that we will have to figure out a good way to prioritize them all.

So at least we got that going for us.

virgomonkey said...

Every time that I've seen the words, "God", "Savior", and "Messiah" attached to Obama, it has always been in Republican blogs.

I think the problem is that some confuse dissent or debate with having some sort of perverted obsession with Obama.

Actually, liberals are the cynics. And proof of that is that many of the far left and some even on the Left feel alienated by Obama because of some "centrist" choices that he's made. The far left don't want him reaching across the aisle. So many of them are angry right now.

I won't evaluate his presidency until I see how he is as a president. I was like that with Bush too.

A lot of Libs are also angry about that crooked Illinois governor. If you really see what we're talking about in our blogs (not the MSM but real people), you'll notice that nobody is in love with Obama.

And lastly, just as the conservatives hate being lumped into with the far right, liberals feel the same way. There's a huge difference between a liberal and a far leftist.

We just need to remember that we are all Americans. What makes me particularly sad is how much more dived we are now as a nation. We were bitterly divided during the Bush administration, but now things are considerably worse. Those who despise us the most live in other countries. We should be dividing with them. They GENUINELY hate us - significantly more than your average or looney lib.

If you want to see those who truly hate America, you should have a look through this crazy jacked up crap.

Maybe I am naive, but I believe the majority of us Americans (regardless of our political orientation)all have the best interests of our country in mind.

Anyway, Sean Anna, I am not as nice as you think I am. I just try to be nice in other people's blogs because I have already been banned from two European blogs because I resorted to personal attacks. :/ I think you and I are both passionate about politics and I don't think there's anything wrong with you being upset with the election results.

On my own blog, I'm an arse and spend my free time annoying the hell out of people. :)

JMK said...

There's a huge difference between a liberal and a far leftist. (VM)
<
<
That’s correct, and I’ve seen NO ONE suggest anything else.

BUT, when Liberals defend America-hating, far-Left kooks like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Al Gore, Keith Olbermann, etc. it comes off as either (1) a disgusting attempt to provide moderate/centrist cover for radical “fellow travelers, OR (2) an ill-conceived means of stifling so-called “Right-wing" reaction to far-Left hate.

Those who truly recognize that difference between the far-Left and Center-Left Liberals delineate that (as I always do) from the Right, and excoriate those who bring discredit to their own Left-of-Center views, from the Left.

BUT, just as few “moderate Muslims” actually speak out against radicalized hatred in their name, very few Liberals have spoken out against the far-left hate of the Soros crowd (Media Matters, the D-Kos, the 9-11 Truther crowds), the Olbermanns, Frankens, Moores and Gores.

I can see where it can lead many independents and Conservatives to feel that there is very little distinction between “Liberals” and “the far-Left.” I take it on inference that when Seane-Anna and others say "Liberal" they mean "the far-Left."
<
<
“Actually, liberals are the cynics. And proof of that is that many of the far left and some even on the Left feel alienated by Obama because of some "centrist" choices that he's made. The far left don't want him reaching across the aisle. So many of them are angry right now.” (VM)
<
<
Not exactly. Cynics are skeptics at heart, people who are jaded enough to realize that “politics is politics" and that no politician, regardless of affiliation, is going to be much more trustworthy than a used car salesman.

BUT that’s NOT what the Left’s “feeling alienated” over Obama’s Centrist choices manifests. In fact, it manifests the reverse! They're not "cynical" at all, they're parochial and they believe that ONLY their view is correct....same as many of those on the Right.

Conservatives tend to believe that Liberty (especially ECONOMIC Liberty – the wild, free-for-all of the open market) works best ("provides the most prosperity for the most people") for the greatest number of people and believe that without economic Liberty, there is no foundation for any other kind of Liberty, political or otherwise.

Conservatives tend to believe, as Alan Greenspan does, that “It’s inconceivable that investors/speculators and bankers would actually put their short-term gain ahead of the long-term economic stability of the entire market system."

For the most part, that’s true, but there are amoral and immoral people...and that’s why we’ve had the REGULATED market that we’ve had in the U.S. since about 1912.

Leftists, BOTH far-Left and Center-Left people, tend to believe that government must take a much more activist part in the economy and actually insure a more “equitable distribution of the wealth.”

In my view, no idea can be more anti-LIBERTY, anti-individualist and anti-human or misanthropic than that.

Government is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN the solution, it has been, as Ronald Reagan presciently noted, THE (primary) problem.

Whereas private individuals must provide some benefit, a “win-win” for others, in order to prosper, government DOES NOT. Government often thrives on various “win-lose” propositions that harm the vast majority of people in order to benefit a small minority – the “political class.”

That’s why the far-Left, including MANY in the MSM, are indeed outraged over the coverage the Blagojevich scandal has gotten. Many in the MSM failed to name his Party affiliation for days after the arrest and even now, there are many far-Left voices saying, in effect, this is “much to do about nothing,” when in FACT, it is only more proof of the innate corruption and incompetence of the institution (government) that the Left bases its worldview on.

There are certainly a fair number of Center-Left people in the country, but on the whole, those folks identify themselves as “Independents," because “Liberal” has been hijacked by the far-Left – the Moore-Gore-Franken-Soros group, that has slimed that label by their embracing it.
<
<
We just need to remember that we are all Americans. What makes me particularly sad is how much more dived we are now as a nation. We were bitterly divided during the Bush administration, but now things are considerably worse. Those who despise us the most live in other countries. We should be dividing with them.” (VM)
<
<
Wait! That appeal, when made by Conservatives, like Hannity and others, over the past eight years (and it was made many times by such Right-wingers), fell on deaf ears from not only the far-Left, but much of the vast middle of this nation.

So why should similar pleas not fall on deaf ears now?

It didn’t start with Clinton...in fact, historically, we became an increasingly polarized nation during Nixon’s second term. At the time, many Americans, though disgusted with many of Nixon’s flaws, felt he was being savaged by a decidely and nakedly Left-of-Center MSM and a Democratic Congress for political gain.

Nixon’s fall led to the rise of the stupendously incompetent Jimmy Carter administration. Ironically enough, Jimmy Carter actually WAS “one of the smartest people ever to occupy the White House.” Sadly, his administration didn’t reflect that and Reagan was able to successfully politicize “Liberal incompetence” (the Iran Hostage ordeal and STAGFLATION – double digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates and the highest post-WW II Misery Indexes) all the way to the White House.

Ideally, the political tit-for-tat SHOULD HAVE ended there – the Left got Nixon, the Right got Carter...should’ve been end of story, BUT the Left went after “Moderate”/Liberal Republican George Bush Sr. and as they say, “Shit was on.”

Clinton’s own flaws nearly brought him down and they very definitely distracted him from dealing more forcefully with al Qaeda and the growing radical Islamic menace. Invasion plans for Iraq were on the desk of the Oval Office when he left office.

Clinton’s savaging followed Reagan’s savaging over Iran-contra and Bush Sr.’s over Gulf War I and his own Ted Kennedy inspired tax hikes, and was followed up with the savaging of Bush Jr. over everything from a Cap Gains rate cut that has had Cap gains revenues skyrocketing ever since and an across the board income tax rate cut that also INCREASED tax revenues to Iraq and the current Dodd-Frank engineered subprime-fueled credit crisis.

Some of our political differences are merely a “team sports” kind of thing among political junkies. For instance, Rudy Guiliani differed only mildly with most Center-left Americans. They believe in “good government, not just big government,” and Rudy believed in effective or “good” big government. In fact, he’s one of the architects of “Big government Conservatism.”

Look, IF the Left, even the Center-Left really wanted peace, they’d accept that the 1960s inane emphasis on inept, dependency-based social programs and the goofey belief that “inside every bad person is a good one trying to get out,” FAILED MISERABLY, while Bill Braton’s (Rudy’s first NYC Police Commissioner) tough-on-crime (three strikes plans, going after quality-of-life crimes, etc.) approach to get predators OFF the streets was the BEST possible “social program,” we’d already HAVE peace, as the vast majority of Americans seem pragmatic enough to accept that sort of comprolise.

Not me, of course, I don’t much like Rudy’s “Big Government Conservatism” much better than I liked old style “Big Government Liberalism,” which is to say, not much at all.

So, on the whole, I’m kind of glad that the Left hasn’t had the grace and practicality to accept the Rudy “half a loaf,” but that unwillingness to embrace even that bit of practicality highlights the deep ideological divisions between Right and Left in this country.

And it doesn’t look like it’s going away any time soon.

virgomonkey said...

"BUT, just as few “moderate Muslims” actually speak out against radicalized hatred in their name, very few Liberals have spoken out against the far-left hate of the Soros crowd (Media Matters, the D-Kos, the 9-11 Truther crowds), the Olbermanns, Frankens, Moores and Gores."

Very few conservatives have spoken out against their own fringe groups as well.

You made an excellent point about how the far Left have hijacked the Libs. But I feel if I call myself an independent that I am being disingenuous. I am not a full-fledged Liberal if you see my political profile on my blog. I am just a bit left of center. But because I lean to the Left, I call myself a Lib because it's easier.

Here's a perfect example of a self-proclaimed liberal who is ANYTHING BUT a liberal. This "liberal" is convinced that I'm on the far right and a "blind nationalist". LOL

So, my being somewhat a moderate, I get the most hate mail and vulger incoherent comments from both sides. But it's still worth it.

In my opinion, I feel that both libs and conservatives believe in big government. The difference is where we want the government to help us. But that's another story for another day.

Your Jewish Master said...

Not such a good year for conservatism. McCain was not a strong candidate, and look at how Bush is handling the economic crisis!
We're in the wilderness until the democrats fumble (which they will)

Merry Christmas!!!

JMK said...

"Very few conservatives have spoken out against their own fringe groups as well." (VM)
<
<
That's probably because there are no Conservative equivalents of the Daily Kos, the MoveOn kooks, the Soros Brigades (Media Matters and other slimers), or the likes of Franken, Gore, or Moore.

The GOP has largely been dubbed "America's Conservative vehicle," but it is dominated by largely moderate, even socially Liberal voices - the Bush's, the McCain's, the Whitman's and Rockefellers are ALL "Moderate" (read LIBERAL) Republicans!

Besides, even the truest pf Conservatives, folks like Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan are far from "hate-mongers." In fact both of those guys are true scholars and educators.

The "Religious Right?"

While I'm not at all religious, I've never had a problem with any religious people. I have no problem eschewing being "saved," and I've no problem with them demanding that the rest of us respect the FACT that pretty much our entire moral code is derived from the Western (Judeo-Christian) religious tradition and that America was founded on "Biblical principles."

In asserting those things, they're right.

They're not forcing anyone else to "believe," but factually and historically, they're right.

Absent those, there are no other "hate groups" with any political affiliations.

It's as disingenuous to call members of "the Aryan Nation" and the KKK, "Right-wing," as it is to call members of the Nation of Islam, the new Black Panther Party and members of ALF and ELF "Left-wing."

On the Left, however, a LOT of outright hate (Moore-Gore-Soros-Franken) is mainstreamed...I haven't seen anything like that phenomenon among Conservatives.
<
<
<
<
"I feel that both libs and conservatives believe in big government. The difference is where we want the government to help us." (VM)
<
<
That's where you're wrong.

Rudy Guiliani's "Law and Order," Big Government Conservatism was and IS a HUGE departure from traditional ("Get the government OUT") Conservatism.

Government is inherently and irevocably corrupt.

I believe that the vast majority of Conservatives and by extension a clear majority of Americans tend to believe that Liberty (especially ECONOMIC Liberty – the wild, free-for-all of the open market) works best ("provides the most prosperity for the most people") for the greatest number of people and believe that without economic Liberty, there is no foundation for any other kind of Liberty, political or otherwise.

I and many others still believe, as Alan Greenspan claimed, that “It’s inconceivable that investors/speculators and bankers would actually put their short-term gain ahead of the long-term economic stability of the entire market system."

The fact that the world is populated with imperfect people is one of the reasons we have the regulated market we have today, BUT we SHOULD NEVER think, nor expect that government is not as motivated by greed and even more corrupt than the sleaziest scam artist out there.

In one sense, maybe it's GOOD that governments are naturally and inevitably awash in corruption, as only a scammer can catch another scammer and only so long as the motivation is personal enrichment, in this case, the "greed" of wanting his (government's) cut.

Of course the real threat then would come from corrupt private institutions coalescing with corrupt governments to form a corrupted monolith, BUT as Doleres J (a PhD in Economics, now teaching at the London School or LSE) has said, "Such an event would almost certainly result in something very much like, what I'd call a 'pink frock" day. That is, as such a monumental achievement would make it impossible for its achievers NOT to press their advantage, they would, and on EVERYONE, even if it had to be done via a series of impertinent, even foolhardy edicts, like requiring EVERYONE under their auspices to wear a pink frock."

I like Delores' analogy and I tend to agree that such an event WOULD come with outrageous dictates, so for that reason, I think we're still pretty far from that all encompassing corrupted monolith.

JMK said...

"Not such a good year for conservatism. McCain was not a strong candidate, and look at how Bush is handling the economic crisis!" (YJM)
<
<
Sadly, Conservatism was nowhere to be seen this year...nor, for that matter, over the past four.

McCain was the most Liberal of a group of chameleon Republicans (Rudy, Romney, etc) who pretended to be "Reagan's heir" for the base during the Primaries.

G W Bush has, ironically enough, turned out to be as Keynesian as his Dad, albeit with a bit more "old time religion."

Bush Jr., did TWO Conservative things, both in his first term; (1) he confronted "radical Islam" albeit AFTER 9/11 and (2) instituted two Supply Side tax cuts - a Cap Gains rate cut (from 20% down to 15%) which has resulted in skyrocketing Cap Gains revenues and an across the board income tax rate cut, that again, resulted in massive increases in revenues.

Other than that, he's supported amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants, while, ironically enough, cutting back on the number of H-1B Visas needed to address the problem of structural unemployment, he's spent more on reckless social spending (even adjusted for inflation) than even LBJ did and he cooperated as well with the Keynesian Pelosi-Reid Congress, than Bill Clinton cooperated with the Supply Side Gingrich Congress.

Unfortunately for Bush Jr., while Newt's ideas (a massive Cap Gains rate cut, from 30% to 20%, massive welfare reform, etc.), resulted in all those budget SURPLUSES in the late 1990s, along with some of the LOWEST Misery Indexes since the 1950s.....the Pelosi-Reid ideas have resulted in....well, the subprime meltdown and the global credit crisis we have now.

I think things will get a LOT worse before they get any better and NOT because the incoming Obama administration is overly Liberal....probably not much more Liberal (ironically enough) than the present Bush administration), it's just that we've taken the WRONG ideas from the current economic crisis - we're blaming "DEREGULATION" for a problem (the subprime mess and the subsequent credit crisis) caused by OVER-REGULATION, or, at least, wrong-headed regulation.

Some of the same culprits who got us into this mess (Barney Frank & Chris Dodd) are in even better positions to inflict even more inadvertent mayhem.

It's as though we're heading for a cliff and Frank and Dodd have thier feet planted firmly on the accelerator.

virgomonkey said...

"That's probably because there are no Conservative equivalents of the Daily Kos, the MoveOn kooks, the Soros Brigades (Media Matters and other slimers), or the likes of Franken, Gore, or Moore."

In my opinion, that would be Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Little Green Footballs, Instapundit, GWB, Moonbattery.com, and more from the fringe will be coming out the the woodwork since the Dems won this year.

The fringe element of the Left stood so tall because of Bush. And if we look at history, every fringe group stands tall and loud to counteract another fringe group. It's always been blue vs red - red vs blue. So, now that the Blue is in power, the Red fringe will stand tall. The next president elected all depends on what group in general is the most annoyed before every Nov. 4th.

The only talking head that I can relate to politically is BILL O'REILLY! And I think he's why some on the right find Fox News to be liberal - because of O'Reilly. And also because that have a token libby even out the divide.

CNN is considered heavily right wing according to the foreign Left and the radical US left because of the token conservatives to even out the divide.

The way Bush spent $$$$ in the white house and took care of illegal immigration, the Iraq war, you can't really say he's a conservative... or a liberal. I just find him a failure, for the most part. I'm not one of those libtards who blame the weather on him, but I simply didn't agree with the way he managed this country. I'll take Reagan back, Bush Sr.... maybe even Nixon, but not Bush Jr. See, I didn't dislike Bush just to get revenge of the Conservatives. I just didn't like his policies. I've seem some on the Right saying that they're gonna give Libs hell all for the next four years to "get back at us". I would expect that from kids, but from adults - I was shocked!!!!

No doubt the Obama admin will screw up too. I don't think there's been one admin throughout US history that was flawless.

Aren't all politicians crooked at the end of the day?

Anyway, this conversation is stimulating. Thanks for letting me opine here.

Have a Merry Christmas all. :) Sean Anna - chin up! The US is still a kick ass ('x-cuse mah French) country and will always be! Just think about the people we're married to, our children, our families - none of them are perfect - but we love them anyway, right?

JMK said...

"In my opinion, that would be Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity..."
<
<
No fan of Anne Coulter, but she is, at her worst, rude and intemporate.

Limbaugh is at his worst, sarcastic....and dammit, most of the time he's right, although I haven't heard him in eons.

Sean Hannity is a Republican shill, which is his right. He's a COMMENTATOR, what I have a huge problem with is that about 80% of the MSM "NEWS" people (anchors and reporters) consistently deliver Left-leaning commentary.

Moreover, it's not as if there's a valid opinion out there that goes something like, "Anyone who spews that pro-market, Capitalist garbage is really spewing hatred."

Now, there IS indeed a valid opinion out there that goes something like, "Those that oppose Capitalism and the market-oriented economy oppose individualism and Liberty (freedom) and that's not only anti-American, as it opposes everything this nation was founded on, it's really all about spewing hatred, as well."

To be honest, I know a lot of Center-Left Liberals and yet I don't believe I know ANYONE who'd take the position that Mike Moore, George Soros and other far-Left loons have that "Capitalism is evil."

That seems to be a very marginal viewpoint, which is good, because in my view, it's an extremely corrosive one too.
<
<
<
<
"The only talking head that I can relate to politically is BILL O'REILLY! And I think he's why some on the right find Fox News to be liberal - because of O'Reilly." (VM)
<
<
Now, I like O'Reilly too, BUT I'm a Conservative Democrat...I call myself a "Zell Miller Democrat." And I do find O'Reilly somewhat Left-of-Center on most issues.

O'Reilly does have what I'd call "New York," or at least "Northeast sensibilities."

As a result he's misguided on anthropomorphic global warming - the growing consensuis is that there's no real evidence for that, although, that said there's also no evidence for my own view that we NEED to have 4 to 6 times the current CO2 levels in the environment to bring Earth back to what I call its "stasis period" - the default climate it had when the dinosaurs reigned for 200 million years!

No kidding, I actually have working computer models a small greenhouse enclosed "earth model," and I've actually had some climatologists consider it "interesting," although the general consensus in that community (at least to my knowledge) is that I'm "batshit crazy."

Which may be true, but so was Copernicus. Suffice to say, most people, with any accredited credentials and any desire to keep them, don't take my calls.

At any rate, I find O'Reilly interesting and he does seem to actually try to be "fair-minded," although his northeast biases do come out often, as when he interviewed Ben Mezrich (author of Rigged). When Mezrich tried to explain how commodities markets worked and why the price of commodities (like oil) go up and down, O'Reilly just shut him down.

After Mezrich gave a very sound and reasonable explanation of how the commodities markets worked, O'Reilly asked, "So who're the guys who sit in the back room and decide the price of oil?"

Stunned, Mezrich tried to explain AGAIN why there is NO such man or men and that the price of oil, gold and cattle futures all rise and fall on "spec" (investor speculation, based on info that impacts supply & demand)...before O'Reilly cut him off with, "So you don't know who they are either, which is fine, because I don't know them either, but I'm gonna find out who they are."

Same with his overrinding Megyn Kelly over the law, just because he THINKS it should be the way he likes....or his view that Exxon-Mobil and Chevron, etc. were all "price gouging" despite numerous investigations clearing those companies of such charges.

O'Reilly is flawed, BUT despite those flaws, he by far, among the most consistently fair commentators, if by "fair," we mean looking at both sides as having some merit. He's also one of the best interviewers around - his Obama interview was excellent, as was his interview with Hillary Clinton.

But he does have those annoying "northeast sensibilities" and that's coming from me, born on Staten Island, worked a quarter century in the FDNY (two decades in the South Bronx)...we are far too insular and parochial in this part of the U.S. and too many northeasterners think everywhere else is gooberville.

I was lucky, I ahd that knocked out of me early on, in trips to my Dad's side of the family's ranch along the Montana/Wyoming border and my Mom's family...

I think the northeast is fine....it's just not "all that and a bag of chips," though.

As to, " So, now that the Blue is in power, the Red fringe will stand tall"....we'll see, shortly, but I haven't seen much that is troubling so far.

Disagreement and dissent is different than personal attacks.

I had no problems with those who criticized U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan...I had and have a HUGE problem with those who compared the U.S. to al Qaeda, who called the current administration "the world's foremost terror regime," compared it to the Third Reich and with those idiotic "9-11 Truthers." The former (the critics) are fine, the latter 9the haters and seditionists) are not.

If you see a Conservative equivalent of the 9-11 Truther movement developping, or major Conservative figures comparing Obama to Stalin or Mao, etc., let me know. Those folks would be on the same level as those who compared Bush Jr.'s administration to the Third Reich.

Seane-Anna said...

Hey Virgomonkey, as far as America is concerned my chin is up. I don't have a problem with America. Of course I know she kicks ass! I have a problem with the cabal of domestic libtard traitors who do everything possible to excuse our enemies and drag my country down to defeat.

I have a problem with the Ward "little Eichmans" Churchills and the Dick "Gitmo is Auschwitz" Durbins.

I have a problem with the city councils who call our military recruiters "unwelcomed and uninvited intruders" and then try to claim they're as patriotic as the rest of us.

I have a problem with the peace activists who burn our troops in effigy.

And I have a problem with those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome who try to dignify their rabid hatred of Dubya by calling it dissent. I have a problem with all of that, and all of that comes almost exclusively from the left.

And now we have a president-elect who cut his political teeth on that kind of fanatic, left-wing radicalism and too many Americans, including you, VM, think that's ok. That is as frightening to me as it is incomprehensible. Can you explain it, VM? Can you?

JMK said...

"And now we have a president-elect who cut his political teeth on that kind of fanatic, left-wing radicalism..." (Seane-Anna)
<
<
So far, Obama's been pretty centrist Seane-Anna.

Rahm Emanuel is a pretty Conservative Democrat, his economic team is pretty market-oriented and he's kept Robert Gates on as Sect'y of Defense.

So far, I've had little to complain about.

We're in a very deep financial crisis right now and that's probably going to limit the options of any team coming into office right now.

I'd be worried if this guy seemed reckless or radical, but at this point he seems neither, at least from my view.

virgomonkey said...

Yes, Obama is reaching across the aisle which is the same that McCain said he'd do. If you see the reactions of the far left, they are all having temper tantrums over Obama's centrist choices to date. So, he's definitely not pleasing the Left fringe.

If Obama doesn't cater to both sides, he is unwise. Any president who caters to only the fringe of any side is downright stupid. The majority of us are moderates, conservatives and liberals by their strict definitions. We are the voices that need to be heard as we are one nation. The fringes are the real un-Americans.

To date, I haven't seen Obama make any radical choices. In fact, some see him as being a Republican. Already, the foreign countries are complaining saying that he's continuing the policies of Bush.

So, if that's any indication...

Other than that, Sean Anna, with the exception of Bush, your take on the libtards is similar to mine. I think JMK was right. When you guys say libtards, you are talking about the same libtards (to a degree) that I rail against in my blog (although the focus is on foreign countries).

As to your comment on my latest post, Oh dear… that post was obvious hyperbole and meant for fun. Good grief Seane Anna, where’s your humor? Your reading of my blog is so selective!! You always so conveniently miss these posts for some reason.

It says a lot that you place me in with the radical left and the far left accuses me of being a radical right and blind nationalist of America.

That says a lot.

Find a post in there where I address Bush seriously, and then we can argue. But on a post that was intended to get a laugh out of someone?

Seane Anna!!!!!!!!

virgomonkey said...

Here's what's funny. The shoe-throwing game post that I had posted was the first liberal-ish post that I've done in a month or so. After I posted that the other day, I had some weird feeling that you'd be by my blog to see it.

SA, I seriously think you have a sensor implanted inside you that detects "Bush-bashing" from afar.

You should tell these people and see what they say. Their latest post is about me, maybe you can set them straight and tell them that I’m one of them.

See, your “Bush can do no wrong” stance is just as perverse as the way you perceive “libtards” to cling to the “Obamessiah” - which isn’t true anyway as those same “libtards” are pissed at Obama now. Have you been following what has transpired these past few weeks?

If you’re going to denounce a group of people for something and don’t want to sound hypocritical, you shouldn’t do what you tell others not to (cling to a leader obsessively).

And if you can point out where I’ve told someone not to do something that I did, then we have an argument. Or written proof where I find all-things-Obama to be perfect, you'll have an argument there too.

Here's what I cling to - one thing only (in the political sense) - what's good about our country that others cannot see.

Seane-Anna said...

Virgomonkey, I don't have a Bush-can-do-no-wrong stance. You and other liberals have a Bush-can-do-no-right stance which, imho, is much worse.

To set your BDS addled mind at ease, VM, I think Bush was wrong on a lot of things. The issue that upsets me most is the border. Bush sold this country out BIG TIME on that one and I'm not afraid to say so. That issue was also one of my biggest problems with McCain.

I also think Bush's spending was out of control and that he made a huge strategic blunder with his Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace nonsense. So you see, VM, I don't "cling obsessively" to Bush, but you on the left DO obsessively hate him.

And as for your shoe throwing post, I understood it was supposed to be funny; I just didn't agree with its underlying point of view.

virgomonkey said...

"You and other liberals have a Bush-can-do-no-right stance which, imho, is much worse."

Actually, anything that falls into a "can do no wrong" / "can do no right" are worrying. Don't you feel that Obama can do no right?

Can you show me where I've said or indicated that Bush could do no right? You're putting words in my mouth, and they couldn't be further from the truth.

"but you on the left DO obsessively hate him."

Can you pinpoint out any post of mine where I show that I "obsessively" hate Bush? Do you think that you could be confusing me with someone else?

"And as for your shoe throwing post, I understood it was supposed to be funny; I just didn't agree with its underlying point of view."

What was the underlying point of view?

I do think he did tear our country to shreds, but let me repeat again. This doesn't mean that everything he did was wrong. Nor does this mean that all ills can be blamed on him. See, this is the part that you're not willing to accept. You appear to be wanting either black or white from me. It's not that simple. There are gray areas.

I HATE the Cheney/Bush administration. It's the policies I hated. What is wrong with me feeling this way? I could point by point explain each policy and tell you why I disagree with them in a thoughtful way, but I think it would be a waste of time, and it would call for a "let's agree to disagree" type of deal. Our minds are already made up, so it's just a waste of time.

Why are you allowed to criticise whatever political figure that you want, make Obama out to be Osama, and link him with Hitler et al, but I'm not allowed to opine that Bush ran our country into the ground - in MY opinion. I have 8 years to judge Bush by, and you have not one day to judge Obama by with the exception of his choice of cabinet members.

This is meant to be no disrespect to you or any other conservative for that matter. It's not personal. It's my opinion of some political policies.

JMK said...

"When you guys say libtards, you are talking about the same libtards (to a degree) that I rail against in my blog (although the focus is on foreign countries)." (VM)
<
<
Yes, the radical fringe is dangerous and unhinged and prone to be populated by deeply emotionally disturbed people.

Personally there has ALWAYS been far too much focus put on the Executive Branch and not enough on Congress.

Congress is NOT "guided by the President" at all.

Congress controls the nation's wallet - the budget, tax policy, etc.

Our economy turned south when the Pelosi-Reid Congress took power.

Yes, Bush Jr. cooperated as eagerly with that Congres as did the Supply Side Clinton cooperate with the Gingrich Congress.

What thwarts those with true ideals (right or left) is that BOTH Liberalism and Conservatism are somewhat stifled in the current two Party system.

The Moderate or "Rockefeller-wing" of the GOP uses the Conservative base and then stifles Conservative ideas and ideals at every turn.

In the Democratic Party, only about 42% of the base consider themselves "Liberal," and even though there are now MANY COngressional Liberals in control of committees, there are too many "Blue Dog Dems, too many Democrats from Conservative districts to risk voting for the real changes that the likes of Dodd, Rangel, Waxman and others would want.

The irony is that while there are conservatively (no pun intended) at least twice as many self-proclaimed Conservatives as Liberals in America, the Moderate GOP has done a masterful job of stifling any and all Conservative reforms.

We'll soon see how well the Blue Dog Dems do at the same thing.