Alarming News

October 26, 2008

Everybody’s linking it

Charles Krauthammer has the McCain endorsement. This is my favorite part:

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling “Stop!” I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I’d rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I’ll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory.

That’s right, no truck! And the socialist/atheist conservative line is funny too. He does a pretty good job explaining why McCain is superior to Obama, if you’re into that sort of thing (with just a few days left until the election, I’m unconvinced that there are really any undecided voters left).

Posted by Karol at 10:57 AM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

LOL, I agree. However there are people who claim to be undecideds. Hopefully there are more of them, than their are votes stuffed by ACORN.
Now here’s some truly Alarming News: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/the_public_must_never_see_this.html

Posted by: Casca at October 26, 2008 at 2:27 pm

By far the worst thing about a Dem victory will be the Rep “Truthers” who will appear with stuff like they did with Clinton (Remember the Clintons killed a guy?). These people will tell their zombie lies and will make both the ‘Bush stole the election 2000′ and the ‘9/11′ crowds seem like rank amateurs.
Don’t get me wrong, btw, there was plenty of stuff Clinton did (and didn’t do) to warrant super amounts of criticism, but the simple lies were prefered to the complicated reality.
The Monica stuff was bad, the reps said, not because of the blowjobs, but the lying. Well, I wonder if there were any lies told during this administration which don’t seem to matter so much.

Posted by: bryan at October 26, 2008 at 3:47 pm

No, the worst thing about a D victory will be the elevation of blatant socialists, and some communists, to the highest positions of power in the republic in every branch of the government. Of course that’s a parochial view. If you live in Israel, the worst thing will be the incoming Iranian missiles, and the administration in Washington that did nothing to stop them.

Posted by: Casca at October 26, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Casca, since WW2, taxes under several governments have been higher (dem and rep). I’m sure this (often used) socialism threat would seem greater, had the present prez (supported by his parties chosen successor) not just nationalised the banks. Heck, even Palin has done windfall taxes to people.

Posted by: bryan at October 26, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Hey, I’m just glad I’ve voted already so I can hunker down on election day. :)

Posted by: James at October 26, 2008 at 7:56 pm

I’m sure that I didn’t even mention taxes, or a defense of the current administration’s desperate measures. We’re on the verge of stepping into the abyss as a culture, where every half-baked leftist idea will be elevated to gospel. All by the hands of those so hungry for power that truth does not exist for them, except as it falls from their dear leader’s lips. Beware to any who fail to adopt the orthodoxy. Truth will not be a defense.

Posted by: Casca at October 26, 2008 at 9:13 pm

“Well, I wonder if there were any lies told during this administration which don’t seem to matter so much.”
Oh hell, especially after I’ve told you, how can you still be so blind to Democrats having taken up so many things? They’re doing so only from a partisan perspective, though. Being “rude” to lawyers is completely trivial to the real bad things Bush has done.
For more objectivity, you need to read more libertarian publications/blogs. Patriot Act (including warrantless surveillance of communications and library activities), out-of-control spending, nationalization. Don’t be so myopic about Bush’s personality traits when his actions are what should be alarming.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 26, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Does going down with the McCain ship without a truck (dude’s got a transportation fetish) mean that if Mccain loses, he too will be a pimple on history’s arse?

Posted by: nds at October 26, 2008 at 9:53 pm

What I am going to find amusing (in a gallows sort of way) are all the people on the right who are suddenly going to realize that those of us who have been screaming about the laws getting passed in the wake of 9/11 just may have had a point.
But, hey, we’ve been “safe” right?

Posted by: James at October 26, 2008 at 9:55 pm

Perry, I know. You are right that some bad stuff has been done. I would imagine that your list would differ slightly from mine, but that’s to be expected. The bullshit that comes with it is what annoys me most. What’s the expression? Don’t pee in my pocket and tell me it’s raining.

Posted by: bryan at October 26, 2008 at 10:16 pm

The old joke goes that the difference between heaven and hell is that in heaven the chefs are french, the garbagemen german, and the police english. In hell, the chefs are english, the garbagemen french, and the police german.
The humor is in the truth, and the truth of our predicament is that democrats can’t be trusted with power. They’re like the kraut coppers who are willing to take everything to their natural extreme, because in their world view, they’re right of course, unlike the brit who’ll look the other way, because he understands the limits of human justice.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2008 at 12:29 am

The thing Casca is that the most left wing thing the dems may have done (namely bailing out the banks), has already been done by their supposed right-wing adversaries. Haven’t heard a peep from you about that doozy. Are you just keep repeating your ‘dems are evil, dems are the devil’ mantra until somebody comes up with something else?

Posted by: bryan at October 27, 2008 at 7:11 am

bryan, is Pelosi a Republican? Is Reid? How is this a Republican bailout?

Posted by: Eric at October 27, 2008 at 11:55 am

Riiight, because W wasn’t able to veto this. He wasn’t even in power at the time. Remember the days when presidents manned up to what happened ‘on my watch’?

Posted by: bryan at October 27, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Eric,
While I won’t say that I think the GOP should totally own this bailout, the fact remains that it’s their Treasury Secretary whose directing the nationalization.
The President gets blamed for good or ill, rightly or wrongly.

Posted by: James at October 27, 2008 at 3:12 pm

bryan, I don’t blame a leader for problems he inherited. But I do blame him for whatever actions he himself takes, whether or not the problem began before he took office.
I don’t blame Bush for inheriting a bad economy that Clinton had no responsibility for, or inheriting terrorists whom Clinton very much emboldened. But I do blame him, and Democrats alike, for making this crisis worse than it had to be. Engineered by government, exacerbated by government.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 27, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Bryan, so Bush doesn’t veto it and that makes it a Republican bailout? I think not. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives – the president can’t even propose a spending bill without someone in Congress actually fronting for him.
Democrats have been so used to blaming everything they don’t like on Bush they’ve been blaming Bush for things Congress is doing. Congress has far more power than the president does – the Republicans haven’t been “in charge” since 2006. Or as Nancy would say, the gavel has been in the hands of the children.
James, I agree with you – the president will get blamed for it. But that doesn’t mean he deserves the blame. And the fact that Paulson is doing the dirty work doesn’t change the fact he has no authority to do any of this without Congress. Well, some would claim he doesn’t in any case, but that’s a different argument.

Posted by: Eric at October 27, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Eric, you never know, in the future, W might be praised for this bailout, along the lines of ‘he took the country down a hard but ultimately sensible road.
Perry, don’t disagree, but the ‘emboldening’ of Bin Laden and friends actually started with the west’s covert ops in Afghanistan during the 1980s. They actually beat Russia at their own game. So I don’t think there is any specific presidential tenure which can really have the blamed laid before it. I did here tell that some mad mullah recently said that McCain’s insistence on staying with the war pleased his group, as it meant their fight could continue. That said, it was probably a dem zombie lie.

Posted by: bryan at October 27, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Eric,
The issue I have with the President is that he’s said over and over again he believes in free markets, but when economic Darwinism reared its ugly head everything suddenly seemed “too big to fail.” Which, hey, if he had some random schmoe deciding who got what bailouts would be bad enough, but with a Treasury Secretary that used to be in the business? Yeah, banking by nepotism is either happening or going to happen now that this particular Rubicon’s been crossed.

Posted by: James at October 28, 2008 at 2:58 pm

the ‘emboldening’ of Bin Laden and friends actually started with the west’s covert ops in Afghanistan during the 1980s. They actually beat Russia at their own game. So I don’t think there is any specific presidential tenure which can really have the blamed laid before it.
If you want to talk about gaining courage in a more general sense, ok. However, I’m referring to Clinton’s inaction that effectively said to terrorists, “Hey, we can attack American targets, and they won’t do anything!” What did Clinton do after the first WTC bombing, or the twin American embassy bombings, or the attack on the USS Cole? Nothing. Thus what I’ve said before, the terrorists figured Bush would be similarly weak.
I did here tell that some mad mullah recently said that McCain’s insistence on staying with the war pleased his group, as it meant their fight could continue. That said, it was probably a dem zombie lie.
So if the U.S. stopped fighting, terrorists would have no more purpose to live and would disband? No way.
I say, hey, if they want to be martyrs, let’s oblige them. We can make it quite painless for them, too: they can never know what hit them.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 28, 2008 at 3:39 pm

James, I have no intention of trying to defend the president on his domestic policies. I’m a conservative, and Bush isn’t.

Posted by: Eric at October 29, 2008 at 5:55 am
Post a comment