Redstate

actually goes to c17wife.  

Have you shared a copy of this with the Kossacks?

Not sure they'd see the humor in it.  Doubt that I've ever showed up on their radar screen, although I suppose it's something to aspire to.  Leon got front-paged the other day, pretty much made his week.

I'd love to participate in this, but I can't think of anything funny.  When I read kos' first post last night, I was FIGHTIN' mad.  After participating in the thread I posted today and watching DS of the darksyde spew over here and then go back and report to the kossacks, I think I'm just about done.

The sun is starting to shine out here in the PNW and my kids are out of school.  Nothing I say is going to help this gaping hole in political discourse right now.  

their's are funnier than mine, because they are so blissfully unaware of how hopelessly misguided they are.  Liberals are TOLERANT?  Ya just gotta laugh.  Yeah, that's the word I think of when I think of NOW, ACLU, PFAW, and Janeane Garofolo.  Tolerant, yeah.

And yes, the big ditch is so wide, and there's so much as stake right now, that I don't think it can be anything but Armageddon.  We're eventually going to take back not only abortion but a whole rogue's gallery of leftist policies that have only been acomplished by judicial fiat.  They know it, they can't stop it, but they will fight to the death.  That's why this is so ugly.  

I guess it would be funny if it weren't so sad.

but just wanted to say that I find all the above pretty darn cliche.

a place to indoctinate children to hate Christians and Jews, hate America, blame America for one's own misery, and at all costs, not learn anything about how to contribute to the national economy and technologica advancement

Where did you get this idea that "liberals" hate America? How original. Was it Hannity or Limbaugh who etched those thoughts into your pliable mind?

I guess adding Hating Christians and Jews is anew and unsuprising twist to this tired cliche so I guess I'll say "Good job", I guess for achieving new levels of self-satire.

Accusing liberals of not wanting to contribute to the economy is just plain error riddled and innacurate. I don't know how you guys manage to blot out completely the fact that Clinton actually balanced the budget.

Holding in all that denail like you do really can't be good for your health. That ulcer would stop bugging you so much if you could only just say it. Go ahead, it's easy. "Clinton balanced the budget".

Furthermore, you should really just admit to yourselves that Clinton tried to go after Osama, but whenever he did he was accused by the right-wing minority of trying to obfiscate the Monica Lewinski case.

And blaming liberals for not wanting to add to technological advancement is just out and out laughable. I guess stem-cell research is not scientific enough for you. Also, I must ask, "Which President presided over ushering in the internet age?

That's right Clinton.

Let's also not forget Al Gore, who you know deep in your hearts never said he invented the internet. What he did say was, "I took the initiative in helping to develop the internet" You know what? That statement is true, look it up. He was a crucial Senator in enacting legislation that turned a little known network called ARPANET into what it is now today. The internet.

Furthermore. There is no liberal media. The above mischaraterization of Al Gores words on the internet, love canal etc. can be directly attributed to a complicit media involved in distortion of documented fact.

And how you manage to claim media bias in favor of Liberals just makes me wonder if all of you were at rapture practice during the public lynching of Clinton over Lewinski.

You could not have been anywhere near T.Vs otherwise you would be so embarrased listenting to yourselves talk about liberal media bias.

Meanwhile, homosexual sex is going on in the White House (Jeff Gannon/Guckert) and the media is deathly silent about it.

I mean Karl Rove is looking right about now to be indicted as a traitir to his country. That's right a traitor, if you believe George Bush Sr, who said himself that the outing of a CIA agent is treasonous. I guess he would know. He was the head of the CIA. And still right now, the liberal media is holding off on this story. Go figure.

With all the scandals brewing in the White House, to dispel the notion of liberal bias, one only needs to apply the WIADDI rule. The anogram stands for the "What if a Democrat Did it".

Then you simply apply the 2000 election, the 2004 election irregularities in Ohio, The outing of an active covert CIA agent for political retaliation, The Downing Street Memos, The entire Iraq war, no WMD, 16 little words and the other countless potential scandals of this admin, and you ask yourself how the media would be acting if a Democrat were responsibel for any of these things.

If you do this and still believe that a Democrat would have not been beaten to death by the press already for even one of these things, then you are more delusional than even most  republicans are generally known to be.

Anyway. I'm going to bed, but I think you'll be seeing more from me around these parts.

if you continue to post screeds such as this one, you won't be here long.

BTW-this is required reading for all newcomers, at least it should be,

You Are Entering a Republican Zone  

By: Nick Danger · Section: Republicans  

http://republicans.redstate.org/

Happy reading and best of luck to ya.  You'll need it.

Clinton balanced the budget.

Ah. The memories of him in a standoff with Gingrich over spending cuts he didn't want to make was just a fever dream. Along with that notion about Congress having the power of the purse.

Furthermore, you should really just admit to yourselves that Clinton tried to go after Osama, but whenever he did he was accused by the right-wing minority of trying to obfiscate the Monica Lewinski case.

Except for when he blew off negotiations with Sudan to hand Bin Laden over. Or when he refused to retaliate for the USS Cole attack for fear of collateral damage.

Which President presided over ushering in the internet age?

Yeah, I remember when Clinton cut the ribbon for the unveiling of pets.com. That was really exciting. Almost as good as when George III presided over ushering in the Industrial Revolution.

...

Hmm, I see that in your world Jeff Gannon was gettin' it on in the White House (during press conferences, I suppose), and Fitzgerald has revealed to you that he's going to indict Rove. OK, game over. Please take your vapid talking points, stick 'em in your ear, and head back to dKos, where you can crow about how Republicans are quivering cowards who won't face your Awesome Reality-Based(TM) Facts[1]. And do let the door hit you on the way out.

[1] Contains 3% factual material from concentrate.

are you really Nick?  Man, that was a good one.

You are in rare form tonite.  I've never seen such snark from you.

I'll second everything you said.

That personally attacked a commenter. The comment and the user have been deleted.

The whole idea is that it's supposed to be cliché. The cliché is what makes it amusing to read. I do agree that dKos' was a bit more amusing to read. KISS = funnier :P

On that note, I recommend America: The Book. Obviously it's liberal but who cares I laughed at everything "George Bush can't make a law. He can plead with Congress, he can stomp his feet and shake his fist, and he can make a sandwich for Congress, but he can't make a law." I butchered that quote, but whatever. That book was so entertaining.

Not that I don't get how a conservative would find this article humorous, that I get. It just seems so counterfactual that I wonder what color the sky is in Redstate. I know I shouldn't try to inject serious discussion into what is a light-hearted posting, (on both sites) but here goes.

When you say that items should either be funny or accurate, does that mean that you don't actually believe the things on the list but you think it's funny to troll with them? Take this one, for example: [paraphrased] "Liberals: Islam is way cool and should be rammed down everybody's throats." I honestly don't know where this one comes from. Is there some real-world event that I don't know about that would support this characterization? Or is it one of the "funny cause it's trolling" ones?

Skirts

Al Queda/Taliban -- our men wear skirts, and we treat our women like dogs

American [liberals] -- our men wear skirts, and our women wear the pants

American conservatives -- we believe that men are men and women are women, and there's something inherently very good about the differences. Including the way the ladies fill out those skirts.

This one is actually interesting. Unlike all the other items, this description of liberals is true. Liberals believe that society will not come to ruin if men wear skirts or women wear pants. Additionally, it is desirable that women "wear the pants" (ie have political power) more than they have in the past.

Of course, these beliefs of liberals have absolutely nothing in common with radical Islamists, who believe that men are men and women are women, and that women should not be seen in public. Thank God the idea of repressing women's sexuality by hiding it never caught on with the religious conservatives over here.

Religion in government

Conservatives: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Liberals: People with "strong" beliefs cannot be trusted with public office ... That's why the filibuster is in the Constitution (... somewhere) ...

Schools

Conservatives: Parents should be able to direct their children's education, religious, non-religious, public, private, etc.

Liberals: Leave religious teachings to parents and sunday school. And anal sex, cunnilingus and fellatio to public shools.

Women

Conservatives: Equality of the sexes, born and unborn.

Liberals: Equality of the sexes. Unless the woman happens to cross a Democrat President, then he's entitled to one free grope.

Religious freedom

Conservatives: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Liberals: Christmas cards violate the "Seperation of Church & State" (which is in the Constitution ... somewhere). "Piss Christ" does not.

Homosexuality

Conservatives: Do what you want ... but please keep it to yourself.

Liberals: "The third grade class field trip is to the Gay Pride parade ... so?"

dkos vs. redstate softball game.  

liberals: our huge OBP will conquer you!

conservatives: we will emphasize defense and fundamentals!

the taliban: there is a bomb under second base!  forfeit or die!  

When you see a list of sophomoric comparisons highly insulting to your side you say:

When I see crap like this, I really feel for our country.  I just don't know how we can ever manage to narrow the great divide.

When you see a list of sophomoric comparisons highly insulting to the other side you say:

Those are good ones.

Madam, if you really want to narrow the ditch yo might try turning off that backhoe you're using to help dig it.

comments are quite different from Kos's, but I don't expect you to understand it.

The point of the thread is humor, not vitriol, but I guess you wouldn't understand that either.

I can only say that your sentiment is sad, and indicative of an inappropriate view of the Judicial Branch's purpose.

(1)  What's a Legal Formalist?  If I was guessing from the context, it'd be somebody with no humor about the judiciary taking a pie to the face....

(2)  OK, what is it you find inappropriate about my view of the judiciary's purpose?  I've pretty much made my views known on this thread and elsewhere.  You've taken a small crack at my view, which is fine, but it's just a non-specific dig.  Like me saying Ted Kennedy's a jerk.  You have not said what it is you don't like.  So what's your view?  I'm down for some discussion, and it can be as civil as you want.

Of course it's gleefully sophomoric - just like it was on dkos.  But there's this one little irritating difference.   Martin's accurate when he points out that Bill Pryor was viciously smeared by the Dems in the Senate because he did not want to take his kids to Disneyland  on 'Gay Day' (or whatever it's called).  [Martin, I'm expanding on your comment 'People with "strong" beliefs cannot be trusted with public office', hope you don't mind].  And the lefties at kos are dangerously, certifiably loony if they think libs are the TOLERANT ones.  If I just toss out a couple of examples like ACLU and NOW, and if you would ponder for a moment whether it's more possible to be pro-life in the Dem party or pro-choice in the GOP, can we just skip the lengthy slam-dunk proof of which political philosophy is 'tolerant'?

So when c17wife says 'good one', maybe that's just because there is a difference between factually right and factually wrong.  It's not just left vs right, and they're on morally equivalent grounds.  We have the truth.  They have the press.

I'll take you seriously -- but first, a term correction.  Trolling is, loosely defined, going to the OTHER side (which for me would be dKonstipation) and deliberately inflaming and dropping bombs on them.   What I'm doing is mean, nasty, insulting, and demeaning -- but it's not trolling.

You suggest I'm seriously truth-challenged.   The fact of the matter is that I'm prepared to defend -- by data, example, the Constitution, and Merriam-Webster's dictionary -- every word, every chracerization, every implication and every innuendo in this post.  It's true and it's correct.  That said though, tonight I'm just going to give you the short-hand, I don't have time to dig up a bunch of links.  Hypocrite?  You bet I am....

So, since you brought up this one

Public Religion

Al Queda/Taliban -- Islam is way cool and should be rammed down everybody's throats.  Christianity should be practiced in private, if at all.

American Taliban -- ditto

American conservatives -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: (hummm, where have I heard that before?)

that's the one I'll address.  

(1)Al Queda/Taliban -- I take it you won't dispute this characterizaton.

(2)American Taliban (liberals) -- it's cute, it really is, when you say I honestly don't know where this one comes from. Is there some real-world event that I don't know about that would support this characterization? Oh yes, OMG yes, my, oh me, oh my, O'Malley, did you miss a real-world event.  Hundreds.  Let me take the easier, 2nd part first (that about Christianity being practiced in private, if at all.  One word:  ACLU. (you did not specically dispute that, so I'm not sure what you think about its veracity)

But specifically about liberals digging Islam and ramming it down peoples' throats.  Besides an obvious one, continuing with the ACLU (which is a radical arm of the Dem Party, operating with the complete approval of the Dem leaders, and please don't try to dispute that), it is noted that they never file lawsuits about public displays of Islamic symbols, but bring their army of death if a valadictorian wants to pray at the podium, or an overtly Christian symbol is displayed publicly DURING CHISTMAS SEASON, for Pete's sake, even if it's mixed with the Santa them as well as Jewish and Muslim symbols.  Oh nooooooooooo, NOT good enough, the Christian symbols must be eradicated.  the others must be protected  Secondly, the national press (again, PLEASE do not try to dispute that the main stream media is anything but a liberal machine) is constantly painting the Wahabbi way as 'the religion of peace', terrorists as 'insurgents' (yesterday the NY Slimes called Zarqawi a 'Jordanian fighter' -- get that!), the press's all-out war against the American military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan (Abu Ghraib, the fake missing ammo story, quagmire, quagmire, quagmire, the one-sided doom-gloom daily picture of the reconstruction effort, and so ondo you want more?).  Thirdly, numerous liberal groups like moveon have opposed every single step of any war against Islamic terrorism.  Widely known-  shortly after  9/11, moveon sponsored a petition to demand that the US Government not respond drastically.  Liberals like that idiot Norman Mineta, who insist that we not profile young Arab men at airports but instead should feel up all the 60-year old white women that come through the line, looking for underwire bras or cuticle pushers that might be used to hijack the plane.  The left preaches, just as Karl Rove said, that we should try to understand and sympathize with those people who hate us so much.  Do you actually want to argue this?

OK, fourthly, and this is the real-world event that apparently you have not heard about.  Here's a link to a discussion on how Islam was rammed down the throats of California 7th graders.  Read it carefully, friend, and be advised that this particular artical from truthorfiction.com, was the most skeptical, the least flattering to my position.  They hold that while certain parts of the story were oversold by conservative groups, the substance is true.  The biggest dispute was whether it was all state-mandated, or whether the most outlandish portions were done by individual teachers.  Kids had to dress up like Moslems, pray to Allah, and imagine themselves being Muslim soldiers conquering Syria.

(3)  It's conservatives who are trying to get justices on the courts who interpret the Constitution as it was written.  It's libs who filibuster and pillory judges who don't worship at the altar of abortion-on-demand.  It's libs who (try to) summarily reject any judge that is a practicing Christian.  It's libs who celebrate the judicial decisions of the last 30 years that increasingly make it illegal to practice Christianity in public.

So, are you finding all this counter-factual?  Do you instead hold, as the dkos girls do, that liberals are the party of 'toleration'?  If so, bring it on, I'd like to hear you defend that.

Thank you for your detailed response. It is informative in that it answers my question to the affirmative, yes the sky really is a different color here. Basically everything you have just said is either factually incorrect or severly distorted, but I'm not sure it's worth a big discussion. I'll give it a shot.

Let me take the easier, 2nd part first (that about Christianity being practiced in private, if at all. One word: ACLU. (you did not specically dispute that, so I'm not sure what you think about its veracity)

The Taliban does not think Christianity should be practiced in private. They think that everyone should be a Muslim. That seems pretty clear. I don't know if American religious conservatives believe that Islam should be practiced in America. They have certainly given the impression that they would prefer it if everyone were Christian. American liberals don't care what religion people have, though some prefer people to have no religion. They would like to see the practice of religion kept as far away from the institution of government as possible. I don't see any overlap in the beliefs of these three groups, except maybe between the Islamists and the subset of Christians who believe Christianity should be the only religion practiced.

Besides an obvious one, continuing with the ACLU (which is a radical arm of the Dem Party, operating with the complete approval of the Dem leaders, and please don't try to dispute that),

The ACLU and the Democratic Party are certainly ideological brethren. I doubt there is any kind of organizational link between the two. But that's neither here nor there. The ACLU takes a very aggressive stance on the issue of separation of church and state. They believe that government should not have any connection to religion whatsoever. They file lawsuits against the encroachment of government by Christianity because that is where the threat it. If Muslims were an equivalently powerful group in this country, the ACLU would be just as active as stopping Islamic encroachment.

Secondly, the national press (again, PLEASE do not try to dispute that the main stream media is anything but a liberal machine)

If this is your assumption, then it's true I will make little headway. But it is a false assumption.

...is constantly painting the Wahabbi way as 'the religion of peace',

Yes, not a day goes by that I don't see an article in the paper on how great Wahabbi Islam is.

...terrorists as 'insurgents'

Can't they be both terrorists and insurgents? They are trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Iraq. That makes them insurgents. I really don't understand how this is an issue.

(yesterday the NY Slimes called Zarqawi a 'Jordanian fighter' -- get that!),

Because he is from Jordan? I don't get this one either.

...the press's all-out war against the American military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan (Abu Ghraib, the fake missing ammo story, quagmire, quagmire, quagmire, the one-sided doom-gloom daily picture of the reconstruction effort, and so ondo you want more?).

When things blow up, it's news. If it bleeds, it leads. If the press is fighting an all-out war against military involvement in Iraq, they are doing a mighty poor job of it.

...Thirdly, numerous liberal groups like moveon have opposed every single step of any war against Islamic terrorism. Widely known- shortly after 9/11, moveon sponsored a petition to demand that the US Government not respond drastically.

At a time when some were calling for all out war against Arab nations at random. Thankfully, America did not respond drastically to the 9/11 attacks. I don't fault MoveOn for that in the slightest.

Liberals like that idiot Norman Mineta, who insist that we not profile young Arab men at airports but instead should feel up all the 60-year old white women that come through the line, looking for underwire bras or cuticle pushers that might be used to hijack the plane.

A system of random searches is more secure than one which only searches young Arab men. A search that targets only a particular profile is depressingly easy to defeat -- simply send through someone who doesn't fit the profile.

The left preaches, just as Karl Rove said, that we should try to understand and sympathize with those people who hate us so much. Do you actually want to argue this?

Karl Rove has a political and economic interest against telling the truth about liberals. He is also very good at his job.

Liberals believe we should understand how terrorists operate and what motivates them. Why? This is what Sun Tzu has to say on the matter:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

OK, fourthly, and this is the real-world event that apparently you have not heard about. Here's a link to a discussion on how Islam was rammed down the throats of California 7th graders.

I think I've seen that article before. It was a couple years ago, linked to by someone in a similar discussion. There's no date on the page you linked to, so I can't be sure. Quite a coincidence, that out of all the instances of our pro-Islam school system run amok, you would choose to link to the same article as some guy two years ago.

(3) It's conservatives who are trying to get justices on the courts who interpret the Constitution as it was written. It's libs who filibuster and pillory judges who don't worship at the altar of abortion-on-demand. It's libs who (try to) summarily reject any judge that is a practicing Christian.

Even with a strict definition of what a practicing Christian is, The vast majority of people nominated for judgeships in this country qualify as one. Liberals like and confirm judges that are liberal, and conservatives are the same way with respect to conservative judges. How is this a complicated issue?

It's libs who celebrate the judicial decisions of the last 30 years that increasingly make it illegal to practice Christianity in public.

Yup, we'll be outlawing religion any day now. Stay tuned.

it's not worth a big discussion.  You continually label my as words as factually incorrect, but you don't refute anything except to just say 'it ain't so'.  You just slather your own strange leftist spin on everything, and I find it just a compendium of opinions and non-facts.  

Marx, good day to you. I'd love to talk to you when you decide to listen and judge objectively.  Your devotion to your ideology keeps you from doing that.