The official Newspaper of Unrestrained Barrack Obama Knobslobbing™ (formerly The New York Times) has this misleading headline on the First Full Day of the Rapture™:
Few Protesters at Inauguration
Well, I’ll concede that there were probably few (if any) Conservative protesters at the inauguration.
Mainly because “standing around on the sidewalk holding signs and chanting” (otherwise known as “protesting”) is the intellectual property of the American Moonbat.
In fact, Obama’s Paper of Record goes on to point out that the protesters who were there weren’t even there to boo or hiss at President Obama. No — they were BDS-suffering idiot liberals there to boo the outgoing President of the United States.
Either that or they were Hillary supporters still not assuaged over the mistreatment of their gal Hill.
Classy, huh?
No or few protesters at President Obama’s inauguration? Not true. There were nearly a million of them there. Most of them just put away their “Bush=Hitler”, “No Oil for War”, “Drop Dope Rhymes, Not Bombs”, and “Arrest Bush for War Crimes” signs that they usually carry to political events or rallies.
Also on Monday, a number of groups seeking to “Give Bush the boot” set up a 15-foot-tall inflatable doll of Mr. Bush in a flight suit in Dupont Circle and threw shoes at him.
Unity? A coming together in AmeriKKKa under Obama? Not freak’n likely. I’ll no more attempt to “unite” with classless fucksticks like this than I would try to find common ground with an STD-riddled $10 crack whore.
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
Could you imagine if there had been an inflatable Clinton that people could throw cigars at? The media would’ve been indignant and Bush would’ve been apologizing for it for weeks.
I’m about to write my own blog post about my feelings on the new president. On one hand it wouldn’t be patriotic of me to hope the country goes in the toilet, so I do wish Obama well. On the other hand, I can still taste the vile bitterness spewed at me in 2001 and 2005 over Bush’s inaugurations. So should I retaliate and spew back? Or take the high road and let Obama crash the country into a wall? In cases like this I have found it’s best to say nothing and just let reality play itself out.
I also wonder if living in Texas has skewed my thinking. Old friends who used to be Reagan/Bush Republicans are now hard core Obamaniacs. I just don’t get it at all. What are they seeing that I’m not?
As far as uniting goes… I do think it can benefit the country if the two parties can work together. But they have to meet halfway. Too often the Democrats won’t budge, insist the Republicans move completely to their side, and when they don’t accuse the GOP of “playing politics” and “not compromising”. It’s an ideal versus reality. I would like to think Congress truly acts for the good of the people, but I know that’s not true.
I was sort of all over the map yesterday on Twitter and Facebook. I really need to map out what I’m thinking. Part of my problem is I am able to see both sides on many things (doesn’t mean I agree, but I can see both sides). I’d make a lousy politician which is why I’m not one.
John, I really have to differ with you that Texans who were once Reagan Republicans have jumped to the dark side. My own town of 4,000, 80% Democrat, went heavily for McCain. My county, also heavily Democrat (until four years ago, if someone ran for office on the Republican ticket, it was a guaranteed lose and we have the first Republican sheriff in our county’s history) carried McCain. And it can not be contributed to being heavily weighted with white voters as we have a strong Hispanic constituancy. All my friends, 95% Democrat, voted McCain on the excuse they were voting against Obama, not for McCain.
Do I wish Obama well and hope he is successful in his goals? No. Instead, I wish my nation well, hoping that Obama cannot implement his socialistic views on my nation. Obama does not have to be successful in his platform for the nation to do well. Quite the contrary. Perhaps you should read the Communist Manifesto and tell me how Obama’s policies are different?
And please, be advised, the actions of Nancy Pelosi in blocking any actions taken by Republicans last week dashes any hope there will be an bi-partisan action on the part of Congress. The Democrats are heady with power now, and for that, all of us will pay.
Already, Obama has suspended ongoing trials for the Gitmo detainees accused of contributing to 9-11. He has challanged Bush’s last effort to withhold funding from those organizations that discriminate against doctors and nurses who refuse to perform abortions based on their religious beliefs (no doctor should be required to perform a proceedure that goes against their personal beliefs) while I have no doubt that Obama would uphold Muslims rights to blast their call to prayer five times a day into a quite, sleepy community like old Katy, based on the Muslim’s religious beliefs.
And to the troll, Pat:
perhaps while you are touting the claims of the U.N. you could also point out the atrocities committed by U.N. troops participating in rape and human trafficing that the U.N. seems helpless to control? Perhaps you can show how the U.N. has managed to help millions of people in Darfur or the genocide they allowed to happen in Rwanda?
And maybe you can suggest to your U.N. friends, that they sweep their own steps before they have the audacity to sweep ours. Perhaps prosecuting at the Hague those U.N. officials who benefitted greatly from the Oil for Food program would be a good start.
Pat’s wet dream is lying in a bathtub, pleasuring himself as Kofi Annan, Harry Reid, and Ban Ki-Moon give him a golden shower.
Patty, the Pavlov’s Dog!
As soon as he thinks he finds something negative about Bush, he automatically assumes it’s true. Doesn’t read it. Doesn’t understand it. Doesn’t have the intelligence to determine if it applies. LOL
Retire05 –
Can you give a link to
“He has challanged Bush’s last effort to withhold funding from those organizations that discriminate against doctors and nurses who refuse to perform abortions based on their religious beliefs”
I’ve heard this but never seen any concrete evidence of it. If it is true, there should be hell to pay.
He has challanged Bush’s last effort to withhold funding from those organizations that discriminate against doctors and nurses who refuse to perform abortions based on their religious beliefs (no doctor should be required to perform a proceedure that goes against their personal beliefs)
So true. In a country in which autonomy and freedom is so highly valued, no person should have his/her autonomy limited by the government. We can not advocate autonomy for the patient while simultaneously denying individual health care providers their autonomy as well. Physicians are human beings and should be able to observe their values and exercise their rights. Upholding a woman’s right to choose is quite one thing, but forcing physicians to perform abortions when it is against their deeply-held values is quite another.
“First, do no harm” is the creed taught in medical schools and taken to heart by all good doctors. Many view abortion as doing harm to a human being. And who is the government to dictate to individuals that this belief is wrong? We can not dictate to others what they should believe. So, while we should respect the right of a woman to make her own decision, we should likewise respect the right of the physician to make their own ethical decision regarding whether they will or will not perform abortions. Any government that makes demands on doctors to violate their ethical beliefs is not a government that values the rights of all citizens.
And maybe you can suggest to your U.N. friends, that they sweep their own steps before they have the audacity to sweep ours. (In reference to the last two paragraphs of Retire05′s post, above).
Very well said. The UN (not to mention the “world court”) is quite hypocritical, isn’t it? Perhaps they should try to remove the plank from their own eye before they go about trying to remove the speck from someone else’s. They would see so much better and would be a bit more credible.
The UN, by itself, is utterly irrelevant. A debating society, nothing more.
Without America, the UN can accomplish nothing at all. Never has, never will.
The alleged diplomats at the UN can jack their jaws all they want, but everyone knows that when it’s all said and done, if America doesn’t play along, it’s nothing but hot air.
Unfortunately, the last Democrat President we had turned America into the UN’s lackey, giving the UN a free hand to do pretty much whatever it wanted. And that’s a Bad Thing. Even more unfortunately, our current President shows every indication of emulating his Secretary of State’s husband. And that’s a Worse Thing.
Many doctors work (or donate their time) to publically funded clinics. When the government dictates that they are required to perform abortions, it will only create a loss in doctors who no longer work for those clinics or donate their precious time to those clinics.
My own personal physician does not do abortions. He feels it is a violation of his oath as a physician to save lives, not destroy them. He did contribute time to a local public that now is pro-abortion (without providing the woman with information on an alternate solution) so he stopped donating his time. The clinic has not been able to replace him.
My son started nursing school and I asked him if he was required to attend an abortion or even view a video of an abortion. He told me it was optional. He chose not to as he doesn’t agree with the practice.
When the government starts telling doctors that their duty trumps their personal beliefs, then we will lose doctors at publically funded clinics, en masse.
When the doctors are controlled by government (socialized) we will not have enough doctors to handle 303 million people.
A few weeks ago Pat and I had a discussion concerning the notion that liberals are patriotic Americans who love their country just as much as conservatives.
But claiming to love America, while simultaneously salivating over the prospect of a former US President being prosecuted by the UN, requires a degree of doublethink that would make Mr. Orwell blush.
I agree that we will lose many good doctors if the government is given the power to dictate how they perform their healthcare duties, as well as which services they must provide.
I am a premedical student myself, but am currently experiencing second thoughts as I have been informed that medical students will have to participate in performing abortions — that is, if legislation touted by the left is passed. Thus, I am now considering a career in either dentistry or optometry — both careers in which I can feel assured that my “duties” to my patients would not violate my heart-felt pledge of beneficence and nonmaleficence to all. After all, I am drawn to the healthcare industry by a desire to help, not to destroy, lives.
The UN, by itself, is utterly irrelevant. A debating society, nothing more.
Ah, yes. The UN is a joke.
As for the troll, the cut-and-paste was completely irrelevant to the topic. Yet at least it sparked some later intelligent posts which I found thought-provoking enough to merit discussion. Sorry to get so off-topic.
Before you can order any medical person to do anything, they have to be qualified.
Only doctors with gyn experience who routinely do abortions would be qualified. Nurses, I would assume, would have to have OR/outpatient surgery experience and recovery experience.
Forgot: They will never be able to order people to perform abortions that object to them. What they might do is expect federally funded clinics to hire people who will perform them.
is the intellectual
propertyvoid of the American Moonbat.There, fixed it for you.
The U.N.?
Did someone mention the U.N?
You mean this U.N.?
Only a devoted moonbat wearing an ass-hat, and consumed by BDS, give a single care about what some alleged U.N. expert on torture had to say.
I define torture as, standing in a window in the WTC, being roasted by burning jet fuel, and preparing to leap from over one hundred stories to a certain death.
Being tricked into believing you’re drowning, is not torture.
He did vote against the “born alive” legislation in Chicago.
B-HO is who he is.
Hate to say I told you so, but:
According to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll released 1/21/2009, a majority of Americans (50-47%) believe that the Obama administration should investigate whether the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees was illegal. When asked: “Do you think the Obama administration should or should not investigate whether any laws were broken in the way terrorism suspects were treated under the Bush administration?,” Democrats overwhelmingly favor such investigations (69%), while Republicans oppose them by the same margin, and independents are slightly against.
Relatedly, Americans would have opposed (52-42%) the issuance of pardons by Bush to those “who carried out his administration’s policy on the treatment of terrorism suspects.” The poll confined itself in these questions to investigations into detainee abuse, and did not ask about investigations into other Bush crimes, such as illegal spying, obstruction of justice and various DOJ crimes.
What’s most remarkable about the fact that a majority of Americans favor investigations is that one has to struggle to find even a single politician of national significance or a prominent media figure who argue that position. The notion that Bush officials shouldn’t be criminally investigated is about as close to a lockstep consensus among political and media elites as it gets, and yet, still, a majority of Americans favor such investigations. The liberal media really is the Bush supporter’s best friend.
Somehow I doubt that.
So the overwhelming majority of Democrats hate George W. Bush, even more than they hate America. What’s new?
I see that Patty, Pavlov’s dog, graced us with another one of his turds. lol!
The only thing patty told us is that he has not read the actual treaties and does not understand how they work.