254 posts tagged “obama” (page 3)

"I don't want to go on the air and tell you he's done nothing, I mean his whole village is waiting to kill a cow." - Barry Young

Regardless of the outcome of the election, I will be watching a lot less on Fox News. I realized this last night as I was first screaming at O'Reilly, and then Sean Hannity. Why?

Actually for different reasons. As I've mentioned, I despise Bill O'Reilly. In his never ending effort to appear "fair and balanced," he says and does the most phony and outrageous things - last night he defended Obama.

He also asked people to vote on how they felt about his coverage of the candidates: did he favor Obama, McCain, or neither? I voted that he favored Obama. That's because they didn't offer the choice: Am I helping to elect the Rottenest Man Who Ever Ran?

If he'd asked that, the answer is clear - any favorable coverage of a man who is so deceitful and dangerous is treason.

Have I gone way over the top? I hope so. I mean, I still can't figure out how America can elect scum that has assumed human form, but if it does, I so want to be wrong in every possible way. The only trouble is, I won't be. Obama has already shown plenty of who he really is in a thousand different ways.

Sean Hannity is very different from O'Reilly, but the result is the same. That's because he's only half the show, the stronger half to be sure, which is surprising in itself considering how weak he is overall. I mean, he talks a good line, but he's far too friendly with people who hold views which are anathema to him.

And last night, Hannity had Huckabee as a guest, someone almost a clone of himself, but weaker still, and while Huckabee talked a good line, at the very end, he smiled at the Nonentity. I came unhinged. My wife said, "All he did was smile." I told her that it was possible to acknowledge him without smiling. Smiling conveys equality.

And then there's those endless panel discussions all over Fox everyday. They serve no purpose other than to fill up time, and I'm forced to sit through liberal garbage (to be kind) in order to hear what the conservative has to say. And after doing that, you invariably realize that you've already said or thought what the guy who's right is saying. I need that?

So enough of Fox. I'll listen to Rush, and I'll try to catch Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn when they're on, and I'll even listen to Hannity's radio show, but I don't want to hear another liberal again - ever. And that goes even if McCain wins.

If that sounds harsh, I assure you, they feel the same about you, and the difference is that they'll be trying to silence even the O'Reillys if and when they have all the power.

July 4th is America's birthday. November 4th may become the birthday of the new America, which would really be back to the future. I know it's unlikely, but I consider it updating the American Dream.

You've heard of "Jungian?" well, now there's "Jongian."

The dictionary defines it as: harboring  the most paranoid yet hilarious beliefs in utterly unfounded conspiracies, and name-dropping them onto your prominent friends who had, heretofore, only been regarded as run-of-the-mill liberal loons.

Steven Milloy is to science what Mark Steyn is to politics. He's done more than anyone I've read to debunk the religion of "global warming," the idea that we can operate our electricity grid on wind power, and the belief that coal can be "cleaned" economically.

He has a column today about something I hadn't heard - that a bunch of Nobel laureates have endorsed Obama - and he methodically, thoroughly and completely debunks them!

A radio caller just now, decrying those who want to win by losing - who hope that Obama will screw things up so badly that Republicans will be welcomed with open arms in 2012, pointed out that the changes Obama can and will make will still be affecting his unborn granddaughter.

Michelle Larson responded that "The changes he'll make will be irrevocable... irreversible."

Barry Young followed that with the al Qaeda militant's prayer:

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him,"

You might want to copy that so you can use it the next time you don't like somebody?

For my part, I'd like to restate something I first said in 1992 - there is no limit to the damage a Democrat can do in four years.

And we've just been warned that if Obama isn't elected, the streets will run red with blood. I don't know about you, but I'd pay to see that!?

---------

Do yourself a favor and get today's Barry Young podcast, and listen to the second hour (he's only on two hours a day).

The Almost Famous Barry Young, America's best local talkshow host, noted today that if Obama is elected, Democrats and Republicans both will be crying on November 5th.

By the way, podcasts of his show are now available on the KFYI website. I think you'll love him. Like Obama, he often says nothing, but he says it way better than Obama does, and very unlike Mr. Emptysuit, Barry can be hilarious...

My wife and I have our computer screens to our front-right as we sit in the family room at might, and we read different articles while watching a movie or the Fox News lineup... or Chuck or The Office, of course, on their particular nights. We continually talk back and forth about what we're watching and reading, and I often send her links to something I think she might find particularly interesting.

I find it hilarious when I send her too many links, too fast, because each new one appears mid screen. Sometimes she's reading in an unaffected area, but more often, it lands smack on top of where she's at, and she'll quickly, without making a sound, drag the note top-right until she's ready to consider it. So when one follows another, sometimes in a matter of seconds because I'd been saving the links since I'd come across them earlier, they start to form a vertical row on her screen, and then there's the occasional "tsk" that gets me to laughing silently.

I mention all this because last night, after a while, I noticed we'd had a prolonged period of quiet, and there was a vertical row of notes on the right of her screen - she hadn't commented about anything, and I hadn't been screaming for a while, so I asked, "What are your reading?" Often her answer to that question comes back, "Things," but last night, I got an unusual reply - a Jeopardy style reply...

Wife: Who do you admire most?

Twenty years ago, I would have instantly said, Ronald Reagan, but that's just how long it's been since I've thought about it, and how long we've been just that short of heroes.

But still, it didn't take me ten seconds to respond.

Me: Rush Limbaugh

For an instant, I surprised myself, but as my thoughts caught up to my mouth, I realized that no one better embodies the values and attitude that made America what it is and would make it better than this brilliant man.

Yes, I said "brilliant." No one can do what Rush Limbaugh does, much less for five days a week for twenty years. He entertains while he educates. Even Ronald Reagan didn't do that. But Rush's brilliance isn't about longevity and perseverance, it's about how quickly the man thinks, and how often his instant analysis is both so dead on and immensely more detailed than any two other people could hope to come up with during a long dialogue.

Wife: He's a lot like you.

Me: No, I'm something like him... but just in the way we think, I wish I could be like him in demeanor. I'm much closer to Michael Savage.

Wife: Oh yeah!

Me: Limbaugh's amazing. He really does it the right way. People accuse him of being arrogant, but God knows what I'd be like if I were that right, that often, the way he is. I think he's actually very humble. He puts up with callers I couldn't tolerate for a second, and he usually so gracious and affable and funny, and I'm often astounded because he doesn't need that nonsense. He's truly giving himself for his country and what he believes in.

(Pause)

Me: Why did you ask me who I admire?

Wife: I'm reading an article about Rush Limbaugh.

As everyone knows, The LA Times has a damning tape of Barack Obama honoring a Palestinian terrorist frontman at the guy's going away banquet (don't worry, lefties, he didn't go that far away), and while the paper reported on it in April, it did not release the tape.

And it won't release the tape.

The Times claims that it has a deal with the source not to reveal it. That's a lie, and I don't say that in the same way liberals say, for example, that Bush lied. The Times is actually lying. Who turns over a tape with the condition that the media not publish it? And in any case, why didn't the Times say they had such an agreement prior to the last day or so?

But of course, we want to give liars the benefit of the doubt, so keep the tape, just give us the transcript. Granted, the transcript is a poor substitute for seeing Obama actually pal around with terrorists, but it will likely be enough, and most important, the Times has no excuse not to do it.

None.

If you missed Sean Hannity tonight on Fox, you owe it to yourself to record the replay at midnight EDT. This may be the best show he's ever done, and as a side benefit, you even get to see Mr. Nonentity tongue-tied.

The latest Gallup Poll has Obama leading by a mere two points, but there's also an expanded version that shows Obama winning with a margin of 618 electoral votes to McCain's 151. That poll takes into account the Greater USA which includes all 57 States, the Middle East Countries, Cuba and Venezuela.

Other polls show the race narrowing. Gee, who could have expected that?

But these latest developments have done nothing to reassure me about conservatives who, for eight years sat silent while George Bush destroyed the Republican party and spent more money than Barack Obama could ever hope to raise in illegal donations.

I put more energy into watching television than they did in letting Bush know they were furious. Then again, they probably weren't. Even now, you don't hear a word of criticism from conservatives about their worst ever and always President*

They aren't even mad as hell at liberals. Or maybe they are and they just exspress differently than I do - by whining and moaning and threatening. No, not threatening liberals, threatening to give up.

They never seem to write a follow-up about what happens then.

I mean, I hate to invoke memories of Jeremiah Wright, but it's not "'I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore'... no, no, no... it's 'I'm mad as hell and I can't take it anymore, so wake me when it's over... or at least before you go-go'"

Just look at the difference: liberals never give up. Before you think they're taking a cue from Churchill, it's that they're more like they're zombies - they keep on coming until you shoot 'em in the head.

But really, somebody point me to a liberal's blog where he's whining about how conservatives are so relentless, and he just hopes he can hold on?!

And don't think it's just because they think they're winning. They were always undaunted. In two previous Presidential elections, prior to the actual voting they danced around and made noises as if they were on some hallucinogen, always vowing to return afterward to delight in their victory. I was always glad I only had to observe this online because I know they were naked while doing it.

And now they're more excited than ever. So how delightful would it be if they failed again?

But the point is, when they lost in 2000 and 2004, they came back stronger... and dumber, but that's another story.

No, say what you will about liberals (and I defy anyone to say something I haven't already), at least they are fiercely determined to prevail, and they give no quarter.

And I mean that two ways, Liberals scream about the homeless, but most wouldn't give a homeless guy a quarter unless he was willing to file a fraudulent ballot in return.

But liberals don't know the meaning "surrender." True they don't know the meaning of many terms, many of those in the Constitution, but the point is, they don't get down. Their aim is to make their understanding of terms - yours

And how perverse can it get? One guy who shall remain nameless, John, also known as the Supreme Commander of Liberal Idiots On Vox said just yesterday (and as usual, without passing judgment himself on the scurrilous Barack Obama and his contemptible tactics which range from innuendo all the way to outright fraud) that we need to, at least in part, blame George Bush for Obama's dirty campaign.

Why not, my faucet's dripping and I blame Bush for that!

But speaking of drips, according to John, Obama couldn't help himself. He merely took a cue from Bush's two campaigns and improved upon it. I don't know about you, but I'd rather Obama learned from Bush that surging and winning is better than cutting and running, but that's probably as far above Obama's pay grade as rational thinking is above John's.

What really struck me though was how similar John's comment was to the one someone at the Politico made the day before - that John McCain himself was, at least in part, responsible for the overwhelmingly negative press he got because he's run a bad campaign. See, the media's motto is just: You Suck, We Reflect.

Which, coincidently, is remarkably similar to John's own motto: I Suck, You Genuflect

But as usual, I'm getting off-track.

I've been calling myself the Naked Conservative. That's because most everything I say is undressed, but now that I see conservatives so apparently willing to give up the fight, embrace defeat... and bitterly cling to it, I feel I need to distinguish myself from those who would be good losers... make that perfect losers, or as liberals call them, "losers."

So how about Ted West: Professional Conservative or Pro Con for short?

I got the idea from software - "freeware," to be specific. Developers are always asking people to upgrade to the "Pro" version. The free version usually has certain features disabled. That sounds a lot like your average conservative, doesn't it?

And of course, the pro version has a price attached to it. Me, I would crawl across broken liberals to spare members of the military from having to salute Barack Obama.

And "freeware conservatives?" What will they do, wait for the next beta version?

Do conservatives even realize there are only three alternatives**? They can fight, they can rollover and submit, or just die. But remember, "Might makes right, flight makes Wright."

Unless they're planning on checking out permanently if Obama wins, they're going to spend the next four years whining, probably louder than now, and to themselves, because I'm tired of hearing it, and conservatives won't even band together as one in pursuit of common ideals and goals. "Every man for himself" seems to be the conservative way... it's not the American Way.

Continuing to fight, and harder, for the sort of candidates and reforms they want is really the only viable alternative. But if they do choose that, 1) I'll be very surprised, and 2) there's no room for any more whining.

But why not get on with the cure? Make the best of things from this day forward? Conservatives should get in liberals' faces instead of crying in their beer which, by the way, they'll be buying a cheaper variety if Obama is elected... if he allows them any at all.

Because if you haven't heard, Howard Dean is running around and salivating over the anticipated Democrat control of all branches of government, with a veto-proof Senate as the cherry on top. According to Dean, that will allow Democrats to quote -RULE- unquote.

Now you can't blame Dean (John is at least partly responsible), history isn't one of the Democrats' strong points, so he's not aware that kings rule. In democracies legislators heed the will of the people and provide the judgment and guidance so that the best ideas become law - at least in theory. But I haven't heard any democratic theory that provides for a single party to rule its, dare I say, subjects?

And the subject is you, or at least you will be.

Even if we lose, like any liberal knows implicitly, the fight begins anew. Conservatives may not realize that because they're not used to fighting. It appears they don't even have a mind for it. But I'll never understand how, even when their backs are against the wall, they won't fight? Walls provide some support, but they're also the perfect background for a firing squad.

* Unless Obama wins

** A fourth option: going Postal - a bit premature, but since it's a liberal tactic they'd be at least partly responsible