« Moving Parts | Main | Ginsu Bama »

June 04, 2009

Comments

david

There's many reasons the chosen one wont win these people over.Everything the left stands for in this country.they are against. Homosexuality.abortion.woman's right's.All no no's.In this country you are forced to go along with these things.We are a modern country and society.Change's have to come from within.From the heart.And it take's time.Many tears will fall because of the lefts lack of commen sense.And many on the right.Later

returnoftheking

Will of the people doesn't mean $hit. If you asked whites in the south in the 50's to vote on Black rights, you know how that would turn out. I don't get to 'vote' on your rights and you don't get a vote on mine. It's ingrained in the Constitution that rights are inalienable.

thorn66

The problem for Homosexual Advocacy is to convince Americans that the secular US Constitution makes un-natural marriage possible. Most Americans don't believe that it does or should.

Since the Homosexual Advocacy more or less realizes this, it will try to use a handful of strategically placed judges to enforce its will against the will of the people.

Posted by: gringoman | June 05, 2009 at 01:17 PM

Conservatives have always complained that one shouldn't try and "legislate social change".
This was their rallying cry against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent Supreme Court Rulings. Conservatives also railed against laws that prohibited discrimination against gays in employment and housing; calling those basic rights "special rights" or "privileges". The conservative robots also like to use words like "ungodly" and "unnatural" to describe behaviors that they disapprove of including, in days gone by, marriages between whites and non-whites. http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html

thorn66

Since the Homosexual Advocacy more or less realizes this, it will try to use a handful of strategically placed judges to enforce its will against the will of the people.

Posted by: gringoman | June 05, 2009 at 01:17 PM

Really? Weren't the majority of California Supreme Court judges who initially ruled in favor of gay marriage (pre-Prop. 8) Republican appointees?

Also, on the federal level, you didn't seem to mind when a slim majority of "strategically placed" SCOTUS-bots allowed George, Jr. to steal the election in 2000.

gringoman

Really? Weren't the majority of California Supreme Court judges who initially ruled in favor of gay marriage (pre-Prop. 8) Republican appointees?

Also, on the federal level, you didn't seem to mind when a slim majority of "strategically placed" SCOTUS-bots allowed George, Jr. to steal the election in 2000.

Posted by: thorn66 | June 05, 2009 at 03:50 PM

Fortunately for Republicans, I have no power over them, and in fact rarely ever voted for one of them.

Re George Bush, as Dems love to yell, "stealing" the election. If the Republicans actually did "steal" it, which I doubt, despite the Dems' so-called "proof," they still have catching up to do with the Dems who clearly stole 1960 for Kennedy over Nixon, and have a lock on big inner city vote tabulations for decades where independent poll watchers even fear to go, such as the New Black Panthers caught on film in Philly for Obama, holding clubs like they were in Zimbabwe, defending "black power" against "Whitey." This is clearly Afro-Stalinism or fascism. It enables the white lib racists,cleverly managing their neo-plantation, with unions, to grab a number of States against the taxpayers, if we're on the subject of Grand Theft in today's US elections. But I don't think the "corporate" media wants to delve into that too closely.

John Galt

Good evening, Dr. Crowley, and thank you for another awesome show! Just a couple of thoughts that your great show spawned:

1. The libtards idea of "justice" is equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity, which as you know is in direct opposition to the Constitution. Witness the "Four Freedoms." Well, now the Bama is trying this on the international stage; it's all just affirmative action and redistribution of wealth writ large. Instead of the domestic programs that tear down the producers who have earned their way, he wants to tear down the greatest Nation in the history of the planet to make us equivalent to a bunch of 3rd world thugs and looters.

2. It appears that he is embracing the "soft power" theory of international relations. He wants to win the hearts and minds of the enemy. (I still like the old "grab 'em by the balls, and their heartsand minds will follow" theory, but I guess I'm old school.) He seems to forget that the homicide bombers see self destruction as a promotion tothe next world, so logic will not work with them. As he pursues "Peace in our time," I want to ask you your highly regarded opinion: has this tack ever worked? (Chamberlain had great success, didn't he?) He seemsto forget about carrying the big stick as he speaks softly. Unless, of course you're a Black Panther committing hate crimes at a Philadelphia polling place--then big sticks are apparently OK.

3. He mentioned God in his speech--as well as the Bible, the Talmud and the Quran. He is a federal official, and is he not prohibited from doing these things by the First Amendment, Establishment of Religion clause of the Constitution (as interpreted)? (I know he's not, but I'mtrying to make a point!) Lord knows, he could not say those things if he were a teacher in one of our public schools. Why does the MSM not call him on his hypocrisy?

4. And finally, I just wanted to mention that you certainly seem more than capable of selling magazines by being on the cover--although I'd probably buy it for the articles ;-) (I do like what you have to say on your blog after all!). And I'm sure you could sell a sweater just byputting one on as well... Not that comparing you to the Bamamate is agood thing, but Mr. Williams did seem to be breathing through the Bama's navel. What dreck! Thanks for a great show!

Ummahgummah

.

Told that he had no reason to fear Uday any longer, Mr. Jaafer demurred. "You say he's gone, but can you tell me where he is?" he said. "Can you be certain he will not come back? As long as Saddam Hussein and his sons are still alive, they are dangerous."
His fear is understandable. This building was equipped with torture contraptions that included a sarcophagus, with long nails pointing inward from every surface, including the lid, so victims could be punctured and suffocated.

Another device, witnesses said, was a metal framework designed to clamp over a prisoner's body, with footrests at the bottom, rings at the shoulders and attachment points for power cables, so the victim could be hoisted and subjected to electric shocks.
After the Olympic building burned, reporters visiting the ruins found the sarcophagus with nails abandoned out back, as if dragged there by the looters who emptied the building of its furniture before it burned.

The metal framework used for administering electric shocks turned up two weeks later at Al Hekmah mosque in Saddam City, the Baghdad neighborhood now renamed Al-Sadr City, where Muslim clerics said it had been taken by looters who had removed it from the Olympic building. The framework is now a display item at the mosque, symbolizing the repression of Iraqi Shiites by Saddam Hussein.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/emay/6_sports.html

Posted by: M/M | June 05, 2009 at 06:52 AM

--

LIEberals don't care about that, M/M!! It's only bad when Americans put a bug on a terrorist and get information out of him!

Or when we give them a hard time by making them listen to Madonna or Barbra Streisand.

Savage made another great point today: Why was Michelle Obama was MIA during his speech in Cairo?

A: That would have opened up a can of worms about the status and the treatment of women in these repressive societies he is trying to elevate above our own.

Any doubts that this guy is an out-and-OUT moslem?

I think it's getting really creepy.

Maybe his wife - when she's not too busy hating "whitey" - will begin to think why she wasn't invited to go.. SEGREGATION, honey!

.

M/M

Interesting Gringoman,

Imus was interviewing Debra Dickerson this morning and he mentioned that she hosted a radio show. Earlier in the year, Imus mentioned that WABC wanted to add more women and he mentioned that he thought Debra Dickerson would be a good choice.

When Imus was interviewing Debra Dickerson today ,she called Sotomayor’s critics racists. Later, El Bernardo had to explain to Imus WHY he should have “called her out” on that. Gosh Imus, it is sort of like when the whole world was told YOU were a racist by your friends and colleagues at MSNBC, NBC and CBS.

The good news is that Imus FINALLY seems to be promoting El Bernardo del Bronx. He mentioned that the crew laughs at El Bernardo’s jokes and they are a tough audience because they’ve heard everything. We seem to be hearing more of “The Cardinal”. Here’s the latest:

http://www.wabcradio.com/Article.asp?id=1355282&spid=22807

Bernard is the ONLY reason I keep listening to that show.

I’m sick of these radio wars. When their not fighting against “the Fairness Doctrine”, they fight against each other. When the get smeared, it seems as if their ratings go up, and I end up emotionally drained.

I mentioned Bill Cunningham because he did get attacked for using Obama’s middle name in the election, but I’m not a Bill Cunningham fan and I watch television on Sunday nights anyway. I can’t defend everyone, and I need to get a life.


M/M

UG, I heard that. Yup. Michelle would have to cover up her arms and put on a Burka.

Hey, looks like date night this weekend is in Paris.

M/M

We’ve noticed that when conservative women are being viciously attacked, Rush is always there defending them. I really enjoyed his feminism discussion last summer, when Gov. Palin was being smeared by the media.

Frankly, I think the Democrats are extremely sexist. I was EXTREMELY offended by the way the media treated Gov Palin and I don’t feel that N.O.W. represents me at all. I think the Democrats play identity politics and I’m not interested.

xbjllb

"Will of the people doesn't mean $hit. If you asked whites in the south in the 50's to vote on Black rights, you know how that would turn out. I don't get to 'vote' on your rights and you don't get a vote on mine. It's ingrained in the Constitution that rights are inalienable."

----

Except these bigots are arguing that only a man and woman have the right to hook up in a church, pop out several kids (preferably several), then divorce if one doesn't kill the other, do it all again, over and over ad infinitum until they appear on "Who I Wanna Be My Baby Daddy?" on Maury Povich.

They feel the right to pursuit of such happiness only applies to men and women, because only men and women can push each others' buttons and torture each other so completely and perfectly as God Himself ordained.

Gays have it too easy, these naysayers feel deep inside. It's not a matter of bigotry, it's a matter of jealousy. Not to say that Adam and Steve never fight; they do; it's just they understand each other perfectly from the beginning.

And for the one in fifty Christianists who miraculously have a real, honest-to-God monogamous happy marriage? For those freaks it IS a matter of superiority, bigotry and selfishness. God forbid anyone else have it as good as they do, because then they couldn't be so piously blessed and GD superior.

And so miserably stuck and envious of Adam and Steve who can leave at the drop of a hat...

RobertV

3 Iranian coup d’état was the Western-led covert operation that deposed the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq.[1][2][3] The coup was organized by the United States' CIA and the United Kingdom's MI6, who aided and abetted anti-Mosaddeq royalists and mutinous Iranian army officers in overthrowing the Prime Minister.[4] CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. organized Operation Ajax[5] to aid retired General Fazlollah Zahedi and, in the CIA history called TPAJAX with the TP preceding AJAX meaning that it was a covert operation taking place in Iran.[6] [7]
After deposing Iran's popularly elected leader who was taken to jail, CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt carried out the plan devised by CIA agent Donald Wilber to install Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri to establish a pro-US and pro-UK government, by bribing Iranian government officials, reporters, and businessmen.[8]
This Anglo–American coup d’état was to ensure Western control of Iran's petroleum resources and to prevent the Soviet Union from competing for Iranian oil.[9][10][11][12] Moreover, the Iranian motivations for deposing Prime Minister Mosaddeq included reactionary clerical dissatisfaction with a secular government, fomented with CIA propaganda.[8]

for more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

The comments to this entry are closed.