A Pathetic Week For Republican Flaming

Remove all ads!

Republicans and conservatives "struck back" today amid their downward spiral in the eyes of the American people. A three pronged attack of fun, flaming and general foolery led by the George II, Pat Robertson and Bill O'Reilly left behind the steaming wreckage of another abysmal attempt at belittling everyone on the planet who did not agree with their meager ideas about the war, God and army recruiting.

Get this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10004606/

Yes, don't question, unless one wants to be accused of not being patriotic enough and not supporting the "war effort." When all else fails....

But that's not even the best of it, as proved by Pat Robertson:

Pat can call down the wrath of God upon all political enemies it seems. Don't laugh yet, this guy means business:

Yes, God told him so - it seems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995578/

But madman Bill O'Rielly called upon terrorists to help him out with those in San Francisco who just won't go along with the "Factor." It seems he didn't need God, who would be busy in Dover, PA anyway, but Bill gave terrorists the go ahead to attack an American city:

It would seem Bill doesn't need the help of God, maybe just a few of the Taliban to help him out with those who are just too independent and able to think for themselves:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10004302/

That's a "great American" there - no mistake about that. A very stable and thoughtful spokesman representing "The Cause." It gives new meaning to the term "American Taliban."

This week, I've never been prouder than to be counted among the opposition to these "great Americans" who stand for "peace," "liberty" and "Godliness."

[ November 14, 2005, 04:48: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

It would seem the Republicans forgot the first law of politics: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

P.S. Wasn't Pat Robertson the chap who issued a fatwa for the assasination of Hugo Chavez?

 

"Shocking" about sums it up.

The planet is in the hands of these people? Nice.

 

Robertson did indeed say Chavez should be "taken out" but later said "taken out" doesn't necessarily mean killed. It could mean "kidnapped," according to Robertson. In his defense, I don't see "thou shalt not kidnap" in the Ten Commandments.

Shortly after 9/11 Robertson also said the attack on America was allowed to happen by God because abortion remained legal in the USA.

This is the same guy who regularly does faith healing on his "700 Club" TV show. Y'know, the usual crap along the lines of "Right now God is telling me there's a woman in our audience who has pain in her left knee... God is healing that pain right now! She can walk again! Praise God! Thank you Jesus!"

And to think this guy once ran for president.

 

Robertson and O'Rielly disgust me but Bush scares me. If the Democrats don't get their act together and stop this madness it is time to vote independent and loudly so.

 

It seems that when you've lost most of your credibility, you may as well just try to confuse the issue and blame those damned Leftist scum for everything. The average person would know that Robertson and O'Reilly are full of it, anyway; they're just trying to hide their vitriol behind a facade of piety and/or patriotism. I have no sympathy for these people; like the link says, the chickens are coming home to roost now. All I can say is that I hope they are shown greater mercy than they have exhibited, and it's a shame that it took this long.

Kudos to the people willing to stand up for the supposed values of the nation - irrespective of what side of politics they're on.

Like Wiggum says - "No, no, dig UP, stupid!"

EDIT: Fixed link

[ November 14, 2005, 02:33: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

None of this surprises me that much. Well, maybe O'Reilly's remarks. It's a little unusual for a nationally broadcast newsperson who at least pretends to respectability to openly call for the annihilation by terrorists of citizens who just happen to disagree with him on an important issue. A few letters to Fox News would not be inappropriate, although the remarks were probably cleared before he ever uttered them. It was around a month ago that O'Reilly, with his usual sensitivity, defended the use of torture of prisoners during an interview with Senator McCain, who underwent prolonged torture during his five years as a POW in North Vietnam.

Robertson's remarks are not just irrational; they edge into the territory of downright insanity. A genuine foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic. Imagine him on the loose if these people achieve their dream of complete control over our lives.

As for Bush, it's now well established that the charges levelled by his critics are fully supported by the facts and that in fact, he and his cronies are the liars here. There are few facts unrefuted and he is reduced to hollering "liar" at his opponents, who appear to be disconcertingly growing in numbers.

Shortly after the conquest of Iraq, one of Bush's aides said, "We create our own reality. And by the time the critics catch up with that reality, we'll have created a new reality." A statement of incredible arrogance, almost of setting one's self up as God. The ancient Greeks held that Nemesis lay in wait for such people, and that does seem to be what's happening now, as reality lays an inescapable hand on their pretensions of competence and power.

They can't stand it, seeing the power they so craved slipping from their grasp, and they are lashing out, flying out of control, behaving like rabid dogs, before our eyes, on national television.

 

Seconded.

mm. I really need to start watching that show; if it's anything like you're describing, it must be hilarious.

 

What you should realise that this is a tactic the administration and their right-wing allies have used succesfully time and over again (demonizing their oponents, that is). I lost count of the number of times some story damaging to the administration has been sidelined and then forgotten after a counterattack from the right.

The interesting question is, will this continue to work ? Looking at the latest poll numbers, the people seem to have wised up to Bush and co.

 

I just wanted to post more of President Bush's speech, rather than parts that could be taken out of context.

Even more interesting I find the conservative blogs have started an "Anti-Bush Lied" campaign. Their key piece of evidence is actually Google which is showing what everyone believed in 1998 and what they said about it. Not a bad read.

Without a doubt I think both the conservatives and liberals are working on a little bit of revisionist history.

 

I think the problem is that everyone agreed to going to war because everyone saw the same cherry-picked, flawed intelligence. The Democrats can easily explain thier actions by saying, "Based on what was known at the time, and based on the intelligence that was provided to us, going to war was the correct decision." I do not think it is reivisionist history to state that they would not have voted in favor of the war if they had saw other evidence that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

But of course this didn't happen. If you're preparing a report on WMDs in Iraq, of course you're going to leave out evidence to the contrary. Heck, you don't try to prove your point by citing your opponents as sources.

 

True, but if you click on the google link you will see that the evidence was from 1998 and earlier. This same "flawed intelligence" was from before President Bush ever got into office. It has been flawed for a really long time.

It is my position it is flawed because that is what Sadaam wanted everyone to believe.

 

Yes, but the previous administration had the good sense not to invade Iraq over the flawed evidence.

 

Perhaps, although at least President Bush did something. I think the old saying goes "Doing something, even if it isn't the right thing, is better than doing nothing at all" (I tell my soccer team that all the time).

We are doomed to hear a lot of pissing and moaning about Iraq for a good ten to twenty years. It is a shame, that we won't know if it was "good sense" until then. I remain ashamed of the people (not Chandos) who hope it turns into a disaster just so they can say "I told you so".

 

Doing cocaine, even if it isn't the right thing, is better than doing nothing at all.

Ha, you live and learn.

Edit: And what was the other: Blamed if you do, blamed if you don't ?

 

@Iago

That isn't even remotely amusing. It is a saying about decision making.

I know this link is like poison to many, but you should see the latest GOP video . It has many Democrats quite upset that their own words are being used to haunt them.

 

Yeah. But decision making is a difficult thing. One has to live with the consequences of one's decision. As far as I know, "to act" can be divided in three parts: act, tolerate or omit. There's a right and a wrong time for all of them.

The best one about decision making I've heard until now is that one:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Therefore, acting without thinking may be seen as unwise. Thinking without acting may be seen as the same.

It's the information that one has that makes all the difference (or a whole lotta (un)luck). Given the situation at it is, that huge information failure should be worrisome. Still, all future acts are necessarily based on the available information. That doesn't augure any good, if the reliability won't be heightend.

It's the main purpose of accounting to gather the information that is the necessary base for all future decisions. If the accounting is poor, all decisions that are made depend on sheer luck. Decisions are only as good as the information they are based on.

In a soccer game, there's not a lot of information that is inaccuarate or not available to all. It's a game, all games distribute knowledge evenly. It's about keeping track of the events around oneself, quickness and instinct and mostly about pre-practised sequences.

 

I was against invading Iraq and certainly against the way it was done. I do not want it to turn into a disaster but I would like us to get out of there. This will be my third (3rd) no-win 'war'.

As far as I am concerned both Democrats and Republican where wrong to jump on the band wagon.

If we are going to toss catch phrases around how about:

"Two wrongs do not make a right.."

In my opinion the war was wrong and it only compounds the wrong to continue to support it.

Now let me make this clear...that does not mean I am against our soldiers in anyway. Their job is to obey. That is what they agreed to when they joined the service.


I do not see that the video proves the Democrats were dishonest. Maybe disinformed. Everyone (even men) have the right to change their minds if they believe they have sufficient proof to do so.

 

Back in 1975, when Nixon's presidency was crumbling, he embarked on a series of globe-trotting, hand-shaking expeditions to foreign parts to shore up his fading credibility, to look "presidential". Herblock drew a marvellous cartoon about it in the Washington Post at the time: an unclothed Nixon dancing across a stage, holding a globe to conceal his nakedness. It seems to me that that's pretty much what Bush is doing right now. And after all, Nixon is Karl Rove's favorite president. Perhaps he's forgotten how it worked out.