He goes on to write, "Is it any wonder the demonic left trashes Ryan whenever they can? They cannot compete intellectually, they cannot refute him on the facts. Therefore, he must be destroyed. That's how they roll."
Oh, and here's some more of that *civility* and non-violent rhetoric that the children on the Left keep mentioning:
"One person is controlling the agenda of the United States of America and his name is Grover Norquist. Grover Norquist was Newt Gingrich’s butt-buddy..."
Butt buddy? Really?
“This is just another example of how dumb some of those Fox anchors really are.” ~Schultz
Ed, of course, edited the clip, which takes out the context of what Martha was discussing. She was talking about the massive dependency on the govt. and that the country has become so dependent on federal dollars, that the govt. can't financially handle unexpected things, like the wars.
But I want to ask you one more question because when I watched the president last night, he talked about the things that have driven us to this situation, and he said two wars that we couldn't pay for, a prescription drug plan that, you know, was way too expensive to pay for, and the financial crisis that followed and that was, you know, toward the beginning of his watch and overlapping the Bush administration.Also, Ed claims a huge chunk of those 80M checks go to veterans - 4.5 million checks got to Veterans. And no where did she say she “would rather use that money on war.”
But I couldn't help thinking, well, if we weren't in such a precarious situation and hadn't overextended ourselves to such an incredible extent, where we are sending out 80 million checks a month - the U.S. government - wouldn't we have been able to handle those things like the two wars in a much better, stronger fiscal position, and isn't THAT where we really want to be as a country, where a war doesn't bust us because we've got good fundamentals?
Who thinks having a huge chunk (~27%) of the country dependent on the federal government is a good idea?? How can you not agree that the country should have money available to handle tragedies and wars, etc. and not drained because 27% of the country is reliant on monthly govt. checks?
Don Surber wrote a post about the New York Times chart Ed references, Where the New York Times got it wrong.
Here are two different clips from Left wing loon Thom Hartmann (most people have never heard of him, and my guess is he is trying to make a name for himself...). Click on the links below for the vids:
"Boehner Is a Lazy, Short-Fused Liar Who's More Comfortable On a Bar Stool" ~Schultz
Steny Hoyer celebrates the New Civility by claiming House Republicans ‘want to shoot every bullet they can at the president’
From Treacher:
Because nothing eases tensions and brings people together quite like claiming your opponents are assassins.Debbie Wasserman Schultz says GOP seeks ‘dictatorship … spark panic'
And the libs cry: “But he was speaking metaphorically!” That’s not what you said about Palin and “Don’t retreat, reload.” That’s not what you said about her Magical Voodoo Map that supposedly made Jared Lee Loughner go crazy and shoot a bunch of people. That’s not what you said when Michele Bachmann talked about making sure people were “armed and dangerous (with information on energy taxes).” You claimed all that stuff, and more, was toxic hate speech.
Funny how it’s only “violent rhetoric” when liberals think they can use it politically against conservatives.
In other Lefty Projection News, Harry Reid thinks Tea Partiers aren’t real Americans, and Ed Schultz thinks John Boehner is a drunk. If you want to know what’s in these guys’ hearts, just listen to what they say about their opponents. Especially when they’re backed into a corner. Whoops, is that “violent rhetoric”?
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Wednesday that House Republicans are trying to impose “dictatorship” through their tactics in the debt-ceiling negotiations. She said the GOP rhetoric could “spark panic and chaos,” which she called “potentially devastating” to the economy.Read more.
And when the White House can't defend or explain themselves, they resort to their typical response of dismissive mockery.
Jay Carney Accuses FNC’s Ed Henry Of ‘Creating Something For Fox’
Tommy Christopher notes:
"For those who have gotten the idea that Ed Henry has suddenly turned into a bulldog because he went to Fox, you haven’t been paying attention. Ed has always had a tough, persistent style that’s masked by his amiable persona. He does look relatively badass with the stubble, though.Heck, even the NYT, Politico, and CNN are noticing that Obama is sitting on the sidelines, and out of touch.
What has changed, it seems, is Carney’s attitude toward him. At first, I didn’t think the “talking point” dig from yesterday was directed at Henry, but rather at the meme itself, but at today’s briefing, Carney put in a dig at Henry while answering another reporter’s question.”
ADDED: I just came across this video and article, Obama 'Unpresidential,' 'Petulant' 'Dividing Us': Langone.
President Barack Obama's conduct during the debate over the debt ceiling has divided the country and will inflict damage that will last well after the battle is over, former New York Stock Exchange director and Wall Street stalwart Ken Langone said.
"He is dividing us as a nation," Langone said. "He's not bringing us together. He's willfully dividing us. He's petulant."
"The thing I fear the most about the future of America is...divide us, we all lose. This has got to stop."
"He is not acting presidential. He is behaving in a way designed in my opinion to divide us, to make us look at each other with skepticism, with suspicion. That is the end of America as we know it," he said. "The destruction he is inflicting by his behavior will carry on long after we settle the debt limit."
Make sure to listen to the whole thing, and look for his answer to this questions, around the 16:30 mark:
"If you could convince the President that it's just as virtuous to give someone a job as it is to redistribute wealth, from someone who's rich, that would be, that might take care of everything right there, wouldn't it? We might have a completely different mindset."
0 comments:
Post a Comment