Saturday, December 02, 2006

Party of 1999 Not "Progressive" After All.


Liberals and Democrats are stuck in the year 2000. (Cartoon by Cox and Forkum)



They have not "progressed" one day since.

To them, Algore should be President right now, Saddam should still be dumping thousands into mass graves, bribing the UN, stealing "oil for food" money and building his own "peaceful" nuclear program to keep up with Iran and N Korea.
There would have been no hurricanes and global warming would never have happened. But instead, "BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION" became the battle-cry for of all their discussions and the basis for all their opinions (about everything). They "assume" that since alGore lost, then "Bush stole the 2000 election", and then he must have LIED about everything since.
Bush lied about 9/11, Bush lied about Iraq's WMD and he lied about hurricanes, social security, flu vaccine, he stole the 2004 election and Bush lied about everything else since then. Everything.
"They have fallen and they can't get up".

Go ahead ask a liberal about Islamic Fascism/war on terror and what is their answer?
"Bush lied us into war, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 etc.)
Press further on the issue of terrorism and you will get more about "Bush is a liar", Bush ignored the DPB "Ben Laden intent on attacking US" and then they finally get to their real issue. The 2000 election. I had someone just this week who claims to be a "progressive thinker" resort to the same old tired claim via email. "Gore actually won in 2000". (no, he didn't)

Ask a liberal or Democrat what they think we should do about the middle east and you get this.
"Impeach Bush". Ask about the war on terror and you get "Afganistan" or a speech about what NOT to do in Iraq, but nothing, repeat nothing about fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq except that America (Bush) "created" the "situation" with Al Qaeda in Iraq.
These self proclaimed "progressive thinkers" don't actually do any thinking progressive or otherwise. They simply repeat the same worn out lie over and over and over... until they actually believe it themselves. Any/all evidence to the contrary is ....a Bush lie.

Democrats have no plan for Iraq, no plan for fighting terror and no plan for anything except how to impeach Bush and how to get more Democrats elected because thats as far as their "progressive thinking" has gotten them.
Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) NV said it best to Jim Lehrer recently.
"Jim, the Democratic position on Iraq... is that is the course of the war in Iraq must change, and this year, 2006, must be a year of significant transition. All Democrats agree on that".
That's it folks. "Change". Not victory or retreat or anything in between, just "change".
Pathetic.

The party of progressive thinkers has not progressed one day past that election day inNov of 1999 and the recount after recount and lawsuit that folllowed. Bush won.
Their brains froze solid when Gore lost. Progressive turned into regressive.
They cherry-picked information and lied to prove to themselves (and us) that Bush cherry-picked information and lied about Iraq's WMD.
So, of course 9/11 was not a terrorist attack but just another Bush lie, in fact some of them claim BUSH was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, took the people off the planes and had them assassinated in a airport hanger somewhere in the desert of New Mexico.
The war in Iraq was simply a scheme for Bush and friends to get rich. (not John Kerry kind of rich but rich none the less) Remember, rich is bad (unless you are a rich Democrat like Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Peloci, Algore...etc and others who are each richer than Bush and Cheney combined).

These intellectually dishonest "Regressives" hide behind a curtain of tolerance, compassion and science and higher understanding, to engage in intolerance, hatered, corruption, dishonesty and partisan powergrabbing at the expense of our security and future.

The progressives haven't progressed anything- ever. Republicans freed the slaves not "progressive" Democrats like Robert "KKK" Byrd (D) WV.

David Mayer wrote a nice piece on Progressives...
"The free-thinking journalist and social commentator H. L. Mencken gave a pithy definition of the “Progressives” that was dead-on right in its accuracy. “A Progressive,” wrote Mencken, “is one who is in favor of more taxes instead of less, more bureaus and jobholders, more paternalism and meddling, more regulation of private affairs and less liberty. In general, he would be inclined to regard the repeal of any tax as outrageous.” (Mencken, in the Baltimore Evening Sun, Jan. 19, 1926, quoted in The Quotable Conservative, edited by Rod L. Evans and Irwin M. Berent (1995), p. 145.)"

Besides, progress requires actual thought and more importantly- action.
The only thought today' liberals are capable of is Bush hatred and the only action they seek is destruction of Bush.
Go visit the liberal blogs, go visit the Democrat politicians websites and find ONE single new idea that could be considered "progressive" in terms of making the world safer or lives better.
They have none. Oh sure, they talk about having a "grand plan" and talk about having ideas, but that's all.
Not one idea on iraq except "get out" because Bush is a liar and a failure.
Not one idea on terrorism except "Bush is the terrorist" and "Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism".
Not one idea- progressive or otherwise - period.

Now, watch them try and "progress backwards" (regress) to the 2000 election by nominating alGore (again) in '08, or maybe that pillar of progressive thought Hillary Clinton to re-do her failed healthcare reform plan.
Pretty progressive stuff. (not)

What a joke.
My dog Tater is more progressive than liberals, at least he learned a couple of new tricks in the past 6 years. That's progress.

More than we can say for Liberal Democrat Lefty's in the past 6 years.
They are still party-ing like it's 1999.

-red

13 Comments:

Blogger Joe in Wynnewood said...

Did I miss something or did the Supreme Court have something to say about the 2000 election?

Did I miss front page reports about our troops finding an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program?

Did I miss something else or is it not true that N. Korea kicked out international observers sometime after 2000, subsequently harvested plutonium that had been locked up and used that plutonium to build an unknown number of WMDs?

Did I also mistake the lack of troops sent to Afghanistan to really defeat Al Qaeda's best friends the Taliban and prevent a Taliban resurgence so we could invade secular, anathma to Al Qaeda Iraq?

Did I as well miss multiple calls from Democratic leaders for Bush to reengage in diplomatic efforts to secure peace for Israel?

Did I similarly miss the fact that it was on Bush's watch that Hezbollah precipitated war with Israel, further destabilizing the Middle East and burnishing Iran’s position sometime since 2000?

I could go on, but why bother. You make shit up as you go to prove your point which is similarly made up. Bush did lie us into a war that is in the last stages of pushing a formerly stable, if run by a despicable murderous tyrant, a none-the-less stable, Iraq to the point of disintegration which no amount of wishful thinking is going to put back together again. Bush has gloriously succeeded in at a minimum not preventing, if not precipitating an increase in terrorism around the world. Heckofajob Bushie for sure. So just keep following your fearless leader’s lying lead – you’re doing great.

5:26 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

yes joe you missed something.
The supreme court said you can't count votes that can't be counted.

As far as the rest of your comment goes you make my point.
dems wouldn't do anything about N Korea, Afganistan, Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Shia extremists, Iran or anything else and you know it.

All dems do is say Bush did this and Bush did that and Bush didn't do what he should have done...Bush... Bush... Bush, but fail to ever say what you or dems would do differently.
I understand it's because you don't know, because democrat politicians themselves don't know.

You "bash" without any progressive ideas or plans to offer instead.
you could run for office as a democrat.

Thank you for making my point so well.
Now go back to your Bush bashing and avoid the issues some more.
-red

7:58 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

Aftr further review, Lets look at joe in wynnewood's great progressive ideas for the future.

1- Bush stole the 2000 election.
2- Bush lied about WMD.
3- Bush let N Korea get nukes.
4- Bush took his eye off the ball in Afganistan and there is no war against Al Qaeda in Iraq.
5- Bush won't change his support from Israel to Palestine.
6- Bush was responsible for attacks on Israel.
7- Bush lied, Bush invaded a peaceful, stable country. Bush is responsible for all terrorism.

Wow, those are some VERY progressive ideas for how to deal with the future and what progressives stand for joe. (ie: nothing)

thanks again joe.
-red

8:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The plan, the plan, the plan. Last time I checked, the Democrats had a "twelve-point" plan for everything under the sun.

But then they get hammered for being all wonky and interventionist for using the governmnt to cure all social problems.

At the same time, guys like you accuse Democrats of not having a plan.

Stay the course. How's that working for you, red?

Or maybe you have a magic pony plan like "maverick" John McCain? More troops/bigger occupation?

Or maybe you have a "sooper sekrit" plan like Rick Santorum.

"Win in Iraq" is a goal, not a plan. Perhaps you carry your plan around like Papillon.

My plan is to get out now. Iraq cannot be saved from itself.

My prediction is of course this will not happen. At some point we will leave, but by then, we'll have to shoot our way out.

I hope I'm wrong and I wish you would enlist, mount your magic pony, and deliver America to victory.

10:27 AM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

hey oil, good to "see" ya.
How about we ALL leave the "plan" for winning in Iraq up to those who are there in charge of fighting it?
ie: the experts.

Led by General John Abizaid who warns that all the "options" suggested so far are useless or worse.
http://newsbusters.org/node/9283

I suggest you liberals start listening to the people who actually know and stop listening to people who only speculate. (including former generals who were not involved)

read my post on "save the planet" oil, it will do you some good.
thanks for playing.
-red

12:59 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

and here is the big 12 point plan for "evrything under the sun.
(lol)
from http://www.bluedogdemocrats.com
1. Raise taxes to balance the budget.
2. Raise taxes to pay as we go in future.
3. Limit spending or raise taxes
4. Budget freeze for unbalanced budgets.
5. Spending accountability
6. Raise taxes for Rainy Day fund.
7. No hiding debt limit increases
8. Justification for pet projects
9. Congress learns to read.
10.raise taxes to pay for More cost estimates
11.Make sure budget fits a new bill by raising taxes.
12 raise taxes to keep tabs on government programs.

By that is everything under the sun...except Iraq, war on terror, the border/immigration, abortion, gay marriage, job creation, racism, etc. etc. etc.

3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey oil, good to "see" ya.
How about we ALL leave the "plan" for winning in Iraq up to those who are there in charge of fighting it?
ie: the experts.


You mean like Ronald Dumsfeld?
[...]
Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.
[...]
Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.
[...]

Sounds like this is in conflict with leaving the decisions to the "Generals on the ground" crap the administration spews and you so dutifully parrot.

Sounds like he is advocating a reduction in the US footprint in Mess-O-Potamia, and the Murtha plan of re-deploy.

I suggest you liberals start listening to the people who actually know and stop listening to people who only speculate.

See, us libruls already knew all this stuff. Neocons refused to agree with us tried to use the war on terra for political gain.
Fool me once, shame on...me (how's that go again?) When they do acknowledge the wisdom of the left, they only do it in sekrit memo's. Dang them leaks anyway.

read my post on "save the planet" oil, it will do you some good.

I did, and I think you are absolutely batshit crazy. The World Trade Centers were bombed like fifteen minutes after Clinton took office.

No one ever blamed Bush Sr.

All guilty parties for that terrorist attack are now rotting in a maximum security jail in Colorado.

Where is Osama?

Dubya conducting a "Global War On Terror" is like changing a shitty diaper with a moltov cocktail.

He hasn't done anything about the shit, and now everything is on fire.

And you cheer him on. You are nuts.

5:58 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

so much for the polite debate huh oilslick?

when you run out of anything to add, you go to namecalling and such.
brilliant but progressive.

you should be jumping up and down cheering about rummy's sekret memo.
You need to get more of your fake nuze from somewhere besides airamerica and jon stewart.

Ahmadinehad wants to bring about the end of time and you think I'm the one who's bat**** crazy...
very progressive thinking oil.

and clinton personally ended terrorism with that arrest...and we all lived happily ever after until Bush stole the election right?

Since democrats don't believe there IS a global war on terror, I'll stick with the guy who wants to fight. Youcan disagree with HOW we fight, no problem, but democrats don't think were in a fight.

that's bat**** crazy my friend.

6:18 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

and (as usual) here's "the rest of the story" which you followers of the party of 1999 always seem to miss.

Rumsfeld "considering" something/everything and "recommending" something/everything is two completely different things.

..."the memo was as much about public perceptions as actual strategy".
http://news.independent.co.uk

okay, so rummy considered ALL the options... and you're upset because....?

7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you should be jumping up and down cheering about rummy's sekret memo.
You need to get more of your fake nuze from somewhere besides airamerica and jon stewart.


Strike one. I got that from the New York Times. The same paper that Judith Miller obligingly typed leaked reports from Darth Cheney and Scooter Libby about the nukular threat and al Quaeda links that existed in Iraq. Then said leakers would go on the Sunday talking head shows and cite the report in the New York Times.

Ahmadinehad wants to bring about the end of time and you think I'm the one who's bat**** crazy...
very progressive thinking oil.


Strike two.

Who is winning the war in Iraq? Iran. Neocon wackjobs like Dumya & Co. play right into his hands of consolidating power within his own country and exerting influence into neighboring Iraq. The Bush Doctrine has caused exponential growth of everything from anti-American sentiment to downright radical fanatics. People tend to react badly when you go to killing them and their family members. Go figure.

and clinton personally ended terrorism with that arrest...and we all lived happily ever after until Bush stole the election right?

Strike three.

There will always be wackjobs in the world. But I missed the memo where Iraq was preparing to invade Nebraska. Bush was just asleep at the wheel. When handed the PDB on bin Laden he reportedly told the agent, "Alright, you covered your ass." No questions no meetings, nada. After 9/11 he saw an excellent opportunity to put the Clinton budget surplus into the pockets of his campaign contributors by invading a country that had no connection to 9/11, had no WMD's and was contained.

No need to address your last point, red, cause after three strikes, your out.

9:25 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

sorry i know you libs like to think you should get the last word... but not here, i do.

And i played baseball in college so lets play ball.

strike one- i was referring to your "mess-0-potamia"/jon stewart reference but if you only draw your conclusions from the NY times... same thing.

strike two- killing family members... hmmm you mean like in the twin towers?
Or do you mean the family members of US troops killed by arms supplied by Ahmadinejad? (see NY times story, i know you like them)


and strike three (on a change-up)
You need to review what your fearless democrat leaders said about Iraq being a threat to.... nebraska and the rest of the US.
But I digress, you would have been one of those howling loudest if BUSH had gone after Bin Laden BEFORE we were attacked on 9/11 (without provocation) YOU would have condemned him for "invading a peaceful poppy growing sovereign state" like Afganistan.
(and you know it)
So cut the crap about the PDB unless you would have supported bombing Afganistan and Pakistan BEFORE 9/11.

game over Bush hater.

10:34 PM  
Blogger RustyBelgrades said...

If any of the commenters here believe that either party or any politician/candidate has a plan that is best suited for the American public, you are grossly mistaken. People, the political spectrum and its resulting events have little or nothing to do with you or me or anybody we know. Conservatives want smaller government, unless if has something to do with Pot, abortion, or what we watch or listen. Democrats are all about being "progressive" and free speech until Jesse Jackson gets on air saying we need to ban the "N" word. Its all a crock of shit people and it is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better. But the government's ability to keep most everyone uneducated on most subjects, and to keep the public squabbling amongst itself, is astounding. I hate the current administration and their policies, but I promise no real change will result from the recent political elections, or future ones.

8:30 AM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

You make good points Rusty.
As will Rogers once said,
"you don't have to be around politcs very long to realize that each party is worse than the other". (paraphrasing)

Having said that, I'll take the party that at least pretends to agree with me on the issues over the party that doesn't discuss the issues, doesn't recognize we are at war, and doesn't have any plan whatsoever for anything- except to raise taxes as the solution for everything.

Thanks for coming over and visiting Rusty, hope to see ya' again.
-red

9:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home