Deciphring liberal bullshit

don't you love that gasy liberal talk?

Obama on how he wants "empathy" in a supreme court justice:

"I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."

TRANSLATION:

Obama wants a justice that:

1. supports suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.

2. supports throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.

3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal immgrants.

P.S.

on Matt Ygelisas. think progress blog i wrote in regard to a post on Sotomayor

1. daniel schwartz Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

   can the people who support Sotomayor, please also say

   that they:

   1. support suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.

   2. support throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.

   3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal imgrants.

   stand up tall and pride!

the responces:

1. Barbar Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

   How do borderline illiterates wind up with opinions about who belongs on the Supreme Court?

2. SLC Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

   Re Daniel Schwarz

   Should one pay any attention to a fucking asshole like Mr. Schwarz who can’t even spell constitution? A visit to Mr. Schwarzs’ website (which I don’t recommend as it recalls visits to Don Blacks’ stormfront website) shows a bigoted shithead who hates Latinos.

3. daniel schwartz Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

   great arguments guys!

   you really made serious arguments, didn’t you?

   why don’t you address somethin besides my lack of spellchecking?

   how bout’ some actually arguments? how about you tell me how i’m wrong? tell me about why the mayor of new haven is right? etc.

Slogan or Reality? POltics or Country? Lies or Truth? Oh the questions the treasonous face from Kabul to the rio grande.

When Obama's sets a date for a big press conference inwhich he'll present his policy on a subject he and his team have been nworking on for months, don't except to be able to tell anybody what obama's policy on that subject is, the day after you've watched that press conference (and read that white house press realese). (And this is the very vagueness disguised as articulatness that makes so many peopl ga ga. Personally i prefer presidents with a lexicon they can fit into the back pocket of there levi's who give to you, straight and ungrammaticaly correct, but i guess alot of white liberals love watching black men talk properly and act presidential no matter how substanceless and gasy.)

That's why i'm not suprised -the day after obama "unvieled" his afgan policy- to find that this is the headline to Fred Kaplan's piece in slate today:

"Do You Understand Obama's Afghanistan Policy? Me Neither."

Well, he's sending more troops which is bad enough. lets hope he gives up on dmeocracy and signs some quite agreements with the taliban, god knows his/our media won't let americans know if he does.

Afganistan will show alot about dmeocrats and my theory about what treason bastards they are who put poltics befor ecountry evry time.

"lets go fight the good war! kill bin laden!" has been the best slogan for the democrats for the past 8 years, and i'm sure theyre notw illing to give it up even if they know that "the good war" is the unwinnable hopeless war that we must get out of fast and stop wasting so much needed money in every month.

why is it hopeless? well wait till tommrow ill tell you and the answer will be alot more substance than anything you've ever heard obama say.

In praise of staright forwardness and candor

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=palin+cbs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=2#q=palin%20cbs%20reads&emb=0

First of all as the above video demonstrates, Palin is embrassing often. To be honest she looks to me like a hockey mom stuck in a bad dream where she is running for vice president and has to answer all the press' questions when she really desperatly just wants to say "i don't know!" and go home and play with her baby, Trig.

But i also think Palin views things in a clear way that is often muddled by academics and people who fancy themselves as "intellectual". Some may laugh when she says that she wouldn't question Isreal if they attacked Iran's nuclear facilties because she as she says she sees Amnejihad as a "bad guy" and Israeli's as good guys. I don't. In fact it's quite refreshing to hear people calling it like it is in that way.


There is one area inwhich i think her being opposite of Obama is a good thing and that is that she doesn't bullshit cause she isn't agile enough to bullshit. Obama is spectacular at not answering questions and giving supremly hazy ones when he does answer, and it's because he's so articulate. Palin and Bush's minds unlike Clinton's, for instance, don't allow them to lie like Clinton did.

There are many issues where Palin's clear sightdness is infinetly preferable to Obama's harvard educated intellect. Palin just see's what has to be done, bottom line(and her instinics i think tend to be pretty good):

immgration? Build a fence. Deport those caught. Penatlize empoleyers who hire illegals. Stop giving wel fair to illegals.

Iranian nukes? Iran must never get nukes. The things the iranian theocrats have said and done make that unacceptable and we will do whatever nesscary to stop them from acquiring nukes.

Diplomacy with Iran? The europeans have tried it for 4 years and it's been proven futile. The Iranians have broken every treaty and agreement theyve gone into on such matters.

Making education better? Give Parents the power of choice with vouchers, make schools compete. Tv's and radio's have gotten better and cheaper only because they've had to compete, why exzempt something as important as education from such productive compeition?


Lowering Energy prices? Advance altertive energys but also drill for oil that we have untapped. we are going to buy oil, why not put money in the treasury in Washington D.C. rather than ones in Tehran and Riyadhi?

Obama on the otherhand will answer these questions differntly for whatever paticular audience he is speaking for. For Obama, when asked why he sat in the pews of a america hating reverend who happened to be his mentor he gives a 40 minuete speech on race and doesn't answer the question though he impressive all the Ivy league intellectuals. It was a elouqnt speech writing like a Harvard dissertation, but it's core points where fraudglent and deplorable and it compeltly avoided the question of why he stayed in Trinty UNited for 20 years.

I think it's about time we gave a little praise to straight forwardness and transperency given that it is so rare among Polticians.

on the debates

Mccain certainly did not look like a man a few years away from death. He looked vital. But the debate was even which helps Obama.

Mccain could have done better on taxes and iran. He missed alot of oppurtinties, esepcially on not attacking Obama's tax policy or exsplaining his tax policy. He should have mentioned in regard to Iran diplomacy that such diplomacy with Iran has been proven futile for the last 3 years as the European's have tried and failed to do what Obama wants to do more of. Mccain should have put out the facts also that Iran has broken all there agreements and treatys before. Is Amnejihad just waiting to shake a American presidents hand in order to give up his nuclear pursuit?

Ironically Obama gave a much more compelling case for why Iran must not get nukes. Mccain should have exsplained how easily Iran could give nuclear material to Hezbollah who can make dirty bombs which by lobbing into Israel can make 80 oercent of that nation unliveable. He should have mentioned that Iran blew up a jewish community center in Argentina and that if they were to get nukes we would be setting a precendent on nukes which would allow anyone to acquire nukes.

I think Obama did the best he could, Mccain will win the next debates because he can improve on his first debate performance which was itself pretty good.

It was defintly the best poltical debate i've seen in 8 years.

Aside from policy, we have nominated two very likeable people.