Friday, August 13, 2010

The Left and bad news.............

What is with the Leftwingers?
Remember THIS regarding Tony Snow?
How about THIS regarding Dick Cheney?
Now, as our blogger-buddy Chuck so rightly brought to our attention, we have THIS.

Have you seen Rightwingers say anything CLOSE to those kinds of things?

What's WITH these people? And what do you suppose would have happened in the media had a Republican wished that Barbara Boxer had gone down in a private plane crash (God FORBID)?
(by the way; check out the pictures below...some happy news always feels good!)
z

34 comments:

beamish said...

Even resident leftist Ducky wants Andrew Breitbart in a body bag.

When you belong to the side of the political spectrum that consistently fails to display intellect, all that's left of all that's Left is a bunch of mouth-breathing morons.

We're talking about people who's foresight ends with packing up Molotov cocktails for "peace rallies."

Always On Watch said...

The true face of the left!

Death wishes -- the ultimate silencing of dissent.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
Even resident leftist Ducky wants Andrew Breitbart in a body bag.

Hear it in Duck's own voice on The Gathering Storm Radio Show.

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...

Murder is always where the inhuman opinions of the left ultimately lead.

Chuck said...

Thanks for the mention.

Hatred is at the very heart of liberalism.

-they support the murder of unborn children

-their arguments, once they reach the inevitable breakdown of reason, turn hateful and insulting (as mentioned here, see the Duck)

-virtually every movement on the left is full of anger and hatred for those different than them - gay rights, feminism, civil rights, support for illegal immigration, labor

-they are racist and intolerant. Sit down and list the racist comments in the last decade or so and see which side of the column the majority of the comments come from

I followed up on this post this morning with a clip from the AP reporting on this Sarah Palin death wishes bit.

Look at how the media portrays the left and the right. Who is portrayed as angry? Who is portrayed as racist? Who is portrayed as having blood on their hands?

soapster said...

-they support the murder of unborn children

Which is of course no more worse than the advocacy of some on the right who support the murder of innocent unarmed civilians.

More on that here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/graham-d1.1.1.html

Z said...

soap: Limbaugh doesn't represent me and the author's extrapolation that he does represent Conservatives is, frankly, silly.
But, having said that...what's sad is that our enemy today's goal is collateral damage, the more the better.
This is utterly RIDICULOUS from your link:
"There are fundamental contradictions in the political and moral views among many Americans who describe themselves as "conservatives" and Limbaugh exemplifies them. Limbaugh asserts that he believes in human freedom, limited government, decency and eternal values of right and wrong. He is one of the Good Guys. The Bad Guys are opposed to what Limbaugh upholds. Yet, the contradiction can be seen in his endorsement of the targeting of civilians in war"

So, since LIMBAUGH thinks one way, suddenly Conservatives are the Bad Guys? W0W :-)

Beamish..I forgot about the Breitbart line...you're right..another example.

Always...silencing dissent is so scary. Thanks for the link! Boy, are YOU a computer techie!!

Faith, it sure seems so.

Chuck, I'll go to your place now. I agree with all your points.

soapster said...

"This is utterly RIDICULOUS from your link:
"There are fundamental contradictions in the political and moral views among many Americans who describe themselves as "conservatives" and Limbaugh exemplifies them. Limbaugh asserts that he believes in human freedom, limited government, decency and eternal values of right and wrong. He is one of the Good Guys. The Bad Guys are opposed to what Limbaugh upholds. Yet, the contradiction can be seen in his endorsement of the targeting of civilians in war".


Ridiculous? Is it really Z??

Let us reflect for a moment shall we...

How many "conservatives" can you think of that support or supported the following:

- smoking bans on private businesses

- public subsidies for professional sports arenas, ethanol, light rail

- ever more bureaucracy vis a' vis the creation of the DHS, the addition of Medicare Part D, NCLB

- undeclared wars and a perpetual engagement against terrorism that has no limits or bounds

- religious intolerance vis a' vis opposing a Muslim cultural center (not ON but rather near Ground Zero)

You get the gist. The fact is there are a great many (as the article correctly states) self described "conservatives" who support all of the aforementioned and a great deal more.

To do so and then declare oneself a "conservative" to me is what is absolutely ridiculous.

Chuck said...

Soapster,

-first, do not lump me in with Limbaugh. This has gone beyond pathetic how the left uses one man as a bludgeon for the right. Quite frankly it's boring.

-if I were to support Limbaugh's statement, which I do not, I would say this.

Civilians are killed in a war to bring an end to it thus saving the lives of military members of the country committing this transgression. Abortion is used as a convenience so that men and women do not have to face personal responsibility. Some of the innocents killed in a war turn out to be not so innocent. The unborn child did nothing but have the bad form to be developed by two very selfish and irresponsible people.

Sorry, your analogy appears to be lacking any merit.

I will go on record condemning this practice of killing civilians, what say you about abortion?

Finally, the operative word in your sentence was "some". Would you like to make an honest comparison of how many on the right approve of killing civilians v how many on the left support killing unborn children?

soapster said...

"What say you about abortion?"

I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

Sex, as unsexy as it might sound, is a contract of sorts. If one voluntarily engages in and consents to sex, they assume with it the risks (Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and yes P)regnancy).

A women who is forced against her will to have intercourse and thus becomes pregnant has consented to nothing.

I support abortion in cases of rape, incest, or where the life and health of the mother would be compromised.

Ironically enough the "word verification" word is PREGO. lol

Opus #6 said...

I bet the left are secretly FOR capital punishment, but if it is ONLY reserved for their political enemies, and not for their murdering, leftie friends.

FrogBurger said...

Psycho nut jobs with bad childhoods. That's why they're so messed up and want to destroy families and individuals.

Reminds me when I went to this group interview and the guy made fun of Sarah Palin's disabled child as a joke.

Z said...

there is a HUGE difference between going after women and children to kill them to get their community to force their warriors to fight us.......and collateral damage.
I've heard situations which could endanger our soldiers for their being told to fight as purely as they can. War is HELL and bad things happen...when we're giving a week's notice before we check homes for contraband or terrorists, or when we're giving exit dates or strategies, or when we have leaks that jeopardize our side, or when we're giving Mirandas to terrorists, or doing other things which put the enemy first, we're putting our own in danger; if we REALLY feel our efforts are righteous, all of that has to stop and we should back OUR KIDS 1000% no matter what.
If we're fighting a half-baked war where being nice is more important than winning, we need to get out.

re abortion, it's a tough situation when an innocent child is killed because the mom was raped. If we're anti-abortion, is it more for the mom or the child? Just thought I'd throw it out there.


And soapster, we will never have a PURE CONSERVATISM that's against all those things you mention. You're living in a kind of utopian wish that I thought only the left chases.

Z said...

By the way, soapster, you posted that link to only show that Republicans, too, say nasty things about death? I'm curious...
It's odd, because I can't imagine anything like individual conservatives jamming a website with glee over the death of a Democrat, or publicly wishing a Dem had died and not getting SKEWERED for having said so in the media, or being thrilled a Dem is having heart problems.

soapster said...

"If we're anti-abortion, is it more for the mom or the child?"

I'm not anti-abortion in so much as I'm Pro-Life.

Life and Liberty are mutually inclusive (this explains why individuals risk their life to come from Cuba to America), advocating that a woman who is impregnated against her will and then forced to have a child she did not consent to, is an infringement upon her liberty for the course of 9 months.

Now, if a women herself has no compunction with carrying to term a child she did not consent to then by all means that is her prerogative, but it is not in the name of Liberty that she can force her will upon another woman to do the same.

Regarding the pure conservatism statement...3 words....

Self Fulfilling Prophecy

So long as we tell ourselves it isn't possible and accept from our "conservative" leaders their shortcomings, then yes...we will never attain it. It is not my intention to sanction progressive liberalism by way of the policies I'd mentioned. Doing so is detrimental to the cause and makes it increasingly difficult for the party to speak with a unified voice in opposition to said policies.

Ducky's here said...

Beamish, putting him in a body bag is a figure of speech.

Get a clue.

Since I'm goe and censored don't talk behind my back like a flaming coward.

Ducky's here said...

Goes for you to AOW.

FrogBurger said...

It's always a figure of speech with you leftist.

Always. In the meantime we crazy right wingers are racist, bigoted, etc...

YOU are the cowards. You throw something and you run away. Never man up.

You mess up economies across the world, and refuse to take the blame for it.

You kill millions of people and you refuse to look at it, and even associate it to the right.

We're tired of people like you, Ducky. I personally despise your kind with all my guts.

And that's not a figure of speech.

Chuck said...

While I myself am anti-abortion, I am a little more ambivalent about rape and incest. I do not favor the exceptions and think Z made a good point in that ultimately it is for the mother, I do think it would be horrible for a woman to have a child from rape.

With this said, I am still not in favor of it. I feel it is still killing a child, whatever the reason.

Chuck said...

Far be it for me to speak out of turn, but how is wanting someone in a body bag a figure of speech?

Kind of like wanting Palin dead is a figure of speech or wanting Limbaugh to die of kidney failure is a figure of speech.

Bottom line:

-if a lib says it, it's a figure of speech

-if a conservative says it, it's hateful, racist, or, hateful and racist.

soapster said...

"With this said, I am still not in favor of it."

So then the question becomes whether your preference is to ban the practice for such instances nationwide or to return the issue to the separate states and let them decide the issue as it should be?

"I feel it is still killing a child, whatever the reason."

And truly it is feeling which is at the heart of the matter and limits one's ability to entertain any other angle on the issue.

Z said...

Chuck, if that's how I sounded, I am SO SORRY and I can see how one could read it that way.

MY POINT is that it's about unborn children and saving their futures..and so it's more about the child than the mother, in my opinion. While I think it's a grizzly thought to imagine living with a child of rape in one's womb, if PRO LIFE is TRULY about the LIFE, which I THINK IT IS..then................

Soapster, those FEELINGS are based on something inside us which prompts that FEELING, whether it be faith or decency. That term has every right to be a 'figure of speech'...silly to hold Chuck's feet to that fire, in my opinion.

cube said...

Don't forget Journolist member Sarah Spitz' comment about gleefully watching Rush die from a heart attack. These lefties
are vile.

soapster said...

It is just more than a little bit of a contradiction to hear people (some on this very blog) talk about Muslims wishing to impose Sharia law or their will upon Americans and then listen to some of those same people take a position which imposes their Pro-Life position on someone who may not subscribe to that particular view.

To assert "well this is an unborn child" as a defense is still a huge contradiction and does not excuse the imposition of one person's will upon another. Seriously...think about that.

Z said...

Soapster, we've all been thru this before with you here, and I always appreciate everyone's input including yours..
Mine is clearly from a theological point of view and I don't ever intend to force that on anyone.
If a woman can live with herself and her god and have an abortion, that's up to her...I'll grieve for her child, however. I grieve particularly for the disproportionate amount of black babies killed thru abortion, by the way.

BUT, were there an election on this point, I would probably vote PRO LIFE for our country. That's probably hypocritical..okay by me.

By the way, ISLAM is not the faith our constitution/country were founded on...I see no parallel at all.

Faith said...

To assert "well this is an unborn child" as a defense is still a huge contradiction and does not excuse the imposition of one person's will upon another. Seriously...think about that.

A sane nation always imposes the will of the People on murderers and other criminals, soapster.

Think about that.

(although I do think most women who abort wouldn't do it if they honestly faced that that's really what they are doing -- even when the child was conceived by rape or incest, yes -- it's still a child.)

Anonymous said...

"putting him in a body bag is a figure of speech."

Ducky, are you kidding? A figure of speech? I heard you on the show that day. How can you deny something you clearly said?

What the hell is a body bag except a bag to put a body in?

You can't express wanting someone dead so cavalierly unless you mean it, and tend to think that way as a matter of course.

Pris

Z said...

Pris, imagine what Ducky'd have done had one of us suggested any Dem should be put in a body bag? Whew!

Faith, I have a friend who works in a clinic which advises re pregnancies, etc. She can't say a thing about HER choice re abortion or not having an abortion, but she shows the girls the information...whether it be ultra sounds or whatever.......she's changed quite a few hearts and saved quite a few children.

I wish the Left, so many of whom support Planned Parenthood (including Blacks on the LEft) knew why Margaret Sanger started it (to prevent more Black children being born)....maybe they'd wake up to their own atrocities.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Z said...

How Planned Parenthood Duped America

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

beamish said...

Speaking of the lack of capacity for rational thought in the rank and file of the left's mouth-breathing morons:

Beamish, putting him in a body bag is a figure of speech.

Mmmmhmmm.

Since I'm goe and censored don't talk behind my back like a flaming coward.

Were you talking behind Andrew Brietbart's back when you "figuratively" expressed a desire that he were dead?

Would you put Andrew Breitbart in a body bag "figuratively" to endorse his right to free speech?

Speaking of free speech, Ducky, when are you illiterate leftists going to master the difference between being "censured" and being "censored?"

You've never been "censored." You may feel your trollish and oafish behavior has merit in the same way you believe it meritous when you proclaim a photograph of a jar of piss or a person smearing shit on themselves is "art," but the only flaming cowardice on display is yours.

Frankly, I don't understand the seeming joy you feel from expressing yourself in ways you can't stand behind, don't really mean, or won't pass muster in an intellectual arena.

I mean, beyond the fact that your obliviousness is a product of your innate stupidity.

beamish said...

Soapster would do well to keep his tests of ideological purity on the left and Ron Paul / Moonbat Pat Buchanan "paleocon" crypto-left where they belong.

"Conservatives eschew ideology." - Sir Edmund Burke, neocon (lol)

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
I am NOT talking behind your back.

This is a public forum, and my comment is public.

As far as your getting censored, well, I'm not keeping up with the blogs lately much.

But knowing Z, I'm guessing that you've taxed her patience too far.

Her site, her rules.

Get your own blog, and I'll be there to comment.

Chuck said...

Z, I agree with you, I was not responding to you

Soapster, the left always goes to this in defense of abortion

To assert "well this is an unborn child" as a defense is still a huge contradiction and does not excuse the imposition of one person's will upon another

Who's will is being imposed upon? The assumption here is you are talking about the mother. What about the will of the child?

This is the heart of the abortion debate.

Pro-abortion (I do not accept the "pro-choice" position) uses the rights of the mother as the rationale for abortion.

What about the rights of the child?

As far as the Muslim/Sharia analogy, I defer to Faith in that we have always prevented one human from perpetrating violence on another human.