Truthers got nothing better to do, the way I figure it. That, and the fact that they swallowed the "Bush is bad" horse pill that the lame-stream media has been trying to shove down our throats ever since his dad became VP. They need to believe in the boogeyman, just like when they were kids. It's fun for them, and they get to be different - and that's what they're really after.
What have you done with the old Blight Reporter, the one we came to know and love ? You've probably got him saran-wrapped in your rec room with an apple duct-taped in his mouth, wearing nothing but Spiderman undies and a pair of socks with clocks on them, you sick freak.
FREE THE BLIGHT REPORTER ! ! !
Now that I have that is out of the way - HAPPY BIRTHDAY PUNKINHEAD !
The reason they're not talking about it is because they already got their guy elected, so there is no reason to thump the economy any more. There's a hell of a lot more people out of work now than in 2008, so your argument doesn't pass the smell test.
Beware of sudden and apparently reasonable “calls for civility.” That pathetic mantra is usually voiced by a liberal administration and its supporters when criticism mounts that they are taking the country too far to the Left — like the Clinton implosion in 1993 or Obama today. I fear “civility” does not mean one should not write novels or produce movies contemplating murdering George Bush — that’s sort of an understandable agitprop art. “Civility” does not mean the New York Times should not give discounts to run ads in wartime like “General Betray Us.” That’s needed dissidence. Civility does not suggest that a Sen. Durbin, or Sen. Kerry, or Sen. Kennedy not use inflammatory language that compares our own troops or personnel to terrorists, Nazis, Pol Pot, Stalinists, or Saddam Hussein’s torturers; that most certainly is not uncivil. And it was certainly not impolite for Rep. Stark to call President Bush a “liar.”
“Civility” does not mean that we should not spew hate at anti-war protests; that’s grass-roots popular protest. It doesn’t mean that we should not employ Nazi and fascistic labels to tar the President of the United States like John Glenn or Al Gore or Robert Byrd did. “Civility” does not mean that a shrill Hillary Clinton should not scream that the Bush administration is trying to silence critics, or suggest that the commanding general of an entire theater was lying to Congress in ways that require a “suspension of disbelief.” That’s needed pushback.
O Ye of Little Memory! Do we recall any American shock when the Guardian published Charles Brooker’s lament — “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?” And I don’t recall anyone felt that language was getting too heated when Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, fumed, “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.” And was it not The New Republic that highlighted Jonathan Chait’s infamous “Why I Hate George W. Bush” article? Of course, there was that thoroughly civil New York play, “I’m Gonna Kill the President.”
So, please, spare us the sanctimonious rot about being shocked by conservative metaphors like “lock and load” or “targeting” vulnerable Democratic districts. Like it or not, “civility” has nothing to do with real civility that is bipartisan in fashion and necessary for tolerance in a politically diverse culture. It simply means that conservatives must be stopped in their Neanderthal opposition to an enlightened agenda by any means necessary — by being uncivil to them when conservatives are in power, and demanding they not do the same when liberals run things. All political parties wish it both ways; but in the present age, the media and a cultural elite really have convinced themselves that speaking out against Barack Obama is a sort of heresy while smearing the Bush “regime” was de rigueur.
Thanks for allowing us in on your son's military experience, Hayden. It's nice to know of GH boys guarding our freedom, and you have every right to boast a little, as he sounds like a fine young man.
Guam, unlike a lot of other Pacific islands, never received the press that the battle deserved. Taken from Spain in 1898 by the U.S., it was invaded in 1941 by the Japanese, who held it until the Marines landed on July 21, 1943. The three week battle cost us 1800 killed and 6000 wounded. Japanese losses were much higher - 18250 killed, 1250 captured. The last Japanese soldier surrendered on Guam in 1972, after living in a cave for 27 years.
Guam celebrates every July 21st as Liberation Day.
Yeah, it's kind of funny - when the left protests, they overturn and burn cars, smash windows, loot and pillage - it's called dissent, and the media will claim that they have every right to do so.
When the right protests, (which is extremely rare, as that all have jobs and are not on the dole) they gather peacefully, and hold up signs displaying their beliefs, the media calls them thugs and extremists, condemning them and their message.