Posts Tagged ‘double standards’

Nancy (sgt schultz) Pelosi

Posted: April 24, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , , , ,

It has been very interesting watching Mrs. Pelosi plead ignorance then have to back off:

Unlike the pope the other people at the briefings aren’t interested in saving her soul. The Schultz routine is not going to satisfy the monster left that she supported and enabled for all these years.

My gut says the president uses this as a chip, sort of like the AIG bonus stuff. You might remember once the vote took place it died. The president can bring this up at any time and crash and burn this congress. President Obama who as everyone of the left seems to have ignored was only briefly in congress and didn’t have those briefings.

Congressional democrats, particularly leaders, will in my opinion do ANYTHING to avoid this trap.

Can somebody give me the year…

Posted: April 23, 2009 by datechguy in Uncategorized
Tags: ,

…when people suddenly decided that Gay Marriage was the norm and marriage as it has been practiced for thousands of years became “controversial“? Maybe our brilliant miss USA contestants can answer this question. What year did all of us who maintain this belief, (the majority of the country and the world) suddenly convert into bigots? Can anyone name the year when people could believe this without being a bigot? What was the year? 1990, 1994, 2002? What year did you magically become a bigot by not supporting gay marriage? Were people like Richard Cohen and Frank Rich always bigots without knowing it until they changed their mind or was there a moment where they could remain unbigoted?

Do we have to assume all our parent and grandparents were bigots for their entire lives. Have all of our president been bigots?

It would be interesting to hear the answers to this. Any takers?

You know I seem to be noticing something. I could be totally wrong about this and I would like any of my readers on the right and left to tell me why I’m wrong or right on this but I seem to noticing a pattern on the president at least in foreign affairs.

In terms of Rhetoric and visuals he is Carter all the way, from Europe, to Ortega, to Chavez, to Iran, to Cuba his words drive any Bush supporter in general and person on the right in particular up the wall.

In action however the substance doesn’t seem to have followed the talk. He talks a tough game about Gitmo, but its still open and will take a ton of time to close, he talks about Afghanistan and disengaging then increases troops, he releases the memos then the info about the success about protecting LA comes out, he smiles and takes cudos from Chavez but acts with Uribe. He waffles on rendition and prosecutions.

Now on the domestic front it’s a different story but that the subject of this post. Dissenting Justice has been noticing stuff like this for a while and to his credit Sock Puppet extraordinaire Glenn Greenwald has been consistent in his beliefs.

Could the general strategy be to appease the far left with rhetoric but actually decide to do what is needed to keep us safe? His Clinton Era guys are more than savvy enough to play this game. The president has correctly figured out that short of picking Sarah Palin to replace Joe Biden the mainstream media will defend him come what may.

If that’s the case I’m all for it and the reason be damned. After all Johnson’s civil rights pushes in 58 and 64 were more about him than civil rights but who cares? I don’t care if he did it due to a bribe, the result was important.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If this president successfully protects us from attack and doesn’t neutralize our military I will deem it a success.

We are only three months in and things can turn on a dime but this is what I’m seeing. What do you think? Am I missing something?

He must be talking post civil war

Posted: April 22, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , ,

Maybe it’s just me but I don’t think RFK’s statement calling President Obama an Indentured Servant of the Coal Industry is racist.

There are other terms that would have a racial connotation, the servant of, the slave of, the sharecropper of etc…

You might recall in history that Indentured servants were not in fact slaves but once their committed labor was completed would in fact be freemen. One could claim that the post civil war sharecropping systems designed to keep ex-slaves in virtual serfdom might be

But even if he used these terms I don’t think it would be racist. He is criticizing the president using a valid metaphor.

The metaphor isn’t racist, however as Don Surber points out that doesn’t make it correct and it doesn’t prevent RFK from being full of it.