Have we had enough yet?

Hypocritical lefties.
http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/06/13/truly-shocking-feminists-back-anthony-weiner/


The head of the Brooklyn/Queens chapter of the National Organization for Women said she could separate Weiner’s sexcapades from the liberal track record that earned the group’s support.

“I wasn’t happy to discover that my congressman is a 14-year-old boy,” said Julie Kirshner, president of the NOW chapter.

“But he happens to be one of the best politicians out there, so we’re in a bad position. We’re trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.”

Feminist Amanda Marcotte, who previously carried water for John Edwards, called the reporting of a congressman’s lewd photo scandal “new standards” of which we should all fear. She was taken down eleventy notches by The Other McCain:

Note how Ms. Marcotte deploys “ideologue” as an epithet against Breitbart when she is herself an avowed adherent of the ideology of feminism. Indeed, if it weren’t for her idolatrous devotion to feminism, Ms. Marcotte would have nothing to write about. Her entire raison d’êtreas a writer is to filter the world through a feminist lens.

She is one of those writers who, despairing of achieving notoriety in the larger literary world, seeks a readership in some ghetto niche occupied almost entirely by third-rate talents, so that her occasional second-rate contributions appear conspicuously impressive by comparison. And in her feminist niche, the only standard by which anyone may be judged is according to their zealous devotion to The Sacred Cause:

Weiner has an outstanding record supporting sexual rights of others, with100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and has a strong record of support for gay rights.

See? He votes the right way. And isn’t that what really matters?

You sound like someone who's been a conservative for a very long time.

Yes, I saw the light about 30 years ago.

That explains a lot.

I don't know what you mean. I hope it's good.

What kicky is telling you is the simple fact that you are cutting your own throat (including family members and friends) by denying unions the right to negotiate.

What you fail to understand is that unions have helped non-union workers get better pay and benefits. That happens in an environment where employers who do not keep up with union pay and benefits; they will lose workers to unions. It's a bargaining tool that has helped all workers.

That's Econ 101.

What I mean is, once you define yourself as something for such a long time, you get so attached to it that even when the definition of that term (conservative) gets so perverted and defiled as it has been by many of today's top Republican leaders, it's very hard to break with them and go your own way.

It reminds me of what I've heard some Republican-minded people saying lately. "I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left ME." It can be very difficult to leave a group that you've been so personally identified with for so long, even if that group has been so changed as to be unrecognizable. Labels can be very powerful things.

kicky, I'm one of those wishy-washy kind of guy who started out as a democrat, changed to a republican, and finally chose to become an independent. All because, as you say, the parties have changed to an unrecognizable organization. From my pov, I see good and bad in both parties, but their extremism leaning far left or far right had me cringing in my beer, so I'm now an Independent.

I like it this way.

I don't believe unions belong in government. I'm fine with unions that negotiate with their employers in private business. Govvernment unions are wrong and un-American.

You are a human and have always been a human, but you are not the same human you were 30 years ago. Hopefully, you grew and are still growing as a person. Labels are nothing. That's why people debate, or at least that is what America is supposed to be about. Looks lately that the only thing the left has are personal insults, empty promises, and a crappy economy that is getting worse despite promises of a stimulus that would work. How's that Gitmo thing going? How's those 4 wars going?

I'm not a republican and never have been. I'll vote for Donald Duck before BO.

Wow, for someone who thinks labels are nothing, you sure use them a lot. How many people have you disparagingly used the term "leftie" on?

And why is it that we debate? Because labels are nothing, or because people grow? Or maybe because people are human? You are a very confusing person to talk to.

But that's what you get when you blindly cling to labels that don't mean anything anymore.



Exactly my point. You are rigid, entrenched and unmovable. That doesn't sound like growth to me.

Tell me why I should vote for BO.

So how dumb is dumb Debbie?
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2011/06/irony-dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman.html

Perhaps you are correct since I can only look at socialists from the outside...

Here are three quotes from our President.

Obama, Dec. 2008: "We've got shovel-ready projects all across the country. And governors and mayors are pleading to fund it. The minute we can get those investments to the state level, jobs are going to be created."

Obama, Dec. 2009: "The term 'shovel-ready' - let's be honest, it doesn't always live up to its billing."

Obama, June 13, 2011: "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected."

Looks like the President you dumb asses voted for admits he's full of BS.

Nothing like when GW Bush said Iraq had WMDs. Do YOU know how much humans and money was sacrificed for his lies?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

GWb wasn't telling any lies about WMDs in Iraq.

You're right. Saddam had plenty of time to move them during all the talk, talk, talk at the UN. These dumb liberals think everyone is as stupid as they are.

I have to say that this site has about the weakest lefties I've come across in quite a while. Not much here to play with.