THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

My column yesterday asked liberals where they get their information. The whole point of the article was to show them that it is ok to question beliefs, rather than take everything at face valuable. Whether republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, one should be a thinker. I received a response from a liberal that only reinforced the negative stereotypes that many Americans have about liberals to begin with. The response read:

“From the Daily Kos of course! (hate speech link to the Daily Kos Deleted)

Try it, you just might learn something.

Oh yes: here is what your post reminds me of (insulting Anti-Bush supporters link deleted). Cheers and Godspeed!”

He called himself “Berkeley Guy.” Now I normally would not blog about a person like this, because it just gives them more attention, but if you look at the arrogant, condescending, smug nature of the response, it seems to fit in well. I was challenging liberals to question their beliefs, and the fellow responded with an insulting cartoon. Here is my response to him, in a civilized manner that I wish liberals could emulate.

“Thank you for commenting on my blog www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com

Given that your name is Berkeley Guy, and you believe the Daily Kos has educational
value, I will avoid trying to engage in constructive dialogue with you, because
I doubt it would change your mind. I suspect you are not in the persuadable category.

Also, as a Holocaust survivor’s son, seeing the Daily Kos compare Bush to Hitler
is pure hate speech. My goal is to raise public discourse, not lower it.

The slash and burn approach of the Daily Kos group obscures the fact that Kos Candidates
are 0 for 26 in elections. You have every right to believe you are mainstream America,
but one thing the far left does not understand is that many people may disagree
with George W. Bush, but they do not hate his guts. They do not want to destroy
him, grind him into dust, and humiliate him. The Daily Kos/Deaniacs tactics backfire,
and only help republicans.

Disagreeing with the Clintons is fine. Hating their guts serves no purpose. Despite
your believing the Daily Kos offers positive constructive dialogue, I hope you are
not motivated by hatred.

Good luck, and I will defend to the death your right to speak, regardless of how
you may feel.”

The difference is crystal clear. Liberals are interested in winning argument and elections, but conservatives are actually trying to do things. This is not a game or a blood sport. People resort to insults when they have no ideas, which is today’s demagogic party.

Nobody would ask a black man to read the KKK websote or a Jew to read the Hamas website to get other “perspectives.” Asking conservatives to read the Daily Kos in the hopes that we might “learn something,” is ludicrous. Conservative websites and blogs contain actual policy ideas. Liberal websites and blogs such as this simply contain hatred for George W. Bush, and bigotry (what else is hate speech towards one group?) against Bush voters.

The point I made yesterday, and stand by, is that it is vital to challenge one’s own ideas, which could make them weaker or stronger. Either way, the questioner benefits. If liberals from Berkeley think that the Daily Kos gives them enough information, than perhaps they should just talk to each other, and convince each other that they are larger in numbers than the two million screamers that they are. Oh wait, they already do that.

Elections are won, and policies are enacted, by persuading those in the middle who are open to ideas. The left still prefers rage, hatred and anger to reasoned discussion. For those who ask “It is just a cartoon, can’t I take a joke?” These are the same people who are against the Danish cartoons about Muhammad. Cartoons are a warm fuzzy way of occasionally spreading invective.

There are plenty of intelligent publications out there that are not only informative, but thought provoking. Two excellent examples are the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily. The Economist is a good read, as is Foreign Policy Magazine. It is not that they are “conservative,” it is that they are well written, and not constantly forced to retract page 1 stories with page 30 corrections, such as the Jayson Blair Times.

Where people get their information is vital, because if the premises are wrong, the conclusions are wrong, and the whole syllogism collapses under a weight of faulty deductive reasoning.

Although liberals insist they are smart and conservatives are dumb (when not saying they are good and we are evil), I will not take such an arrogant view. I will just say that we have more and better sources of information. Then again, compared to the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post, that does not say much.

I do not expect the left to have the graciousness or decency to check out alternative information. They might find out conservatives are human beings, which is more information than they are prepared to absorb and accept at this time.

eric

The joke regarding prayer is that it is perfectly normal to talk to God, but time to realize you have slipped over the edge when he starts talking back.

While I believe in God, blind faith is not the answer to everything. Logical reasoning does not have to be part of our religious beliefs, but it must guide our ideological beliefs. Not having all the answers is not the same as being ignorant.

Of course, this brings me to liberalism. If Socrates was the great questioner, then liberals are the emphatic opposite end of the Socratic spectrum. It is not that they have strong opinions. It is that they are so positive that they are right that facts and logical reasoning become irrelevant if contradictory.

Global warming has to be a fact. Al Gore said so. Of course, he has to be right because some scientists that are respected told him so. Yet don’t other respected scientists disagree with him? That does not matter.

What about the 3 million homeless people? Ok, so the number is a lot less, but who is counting? What about the 70 million without health insurance? Of course this counts those that voluntarily choose not to buy it, right?

Guns are destroying our society. How come the areas with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates, and vice versa? Well that is irrelevant. Of course the second amendment is about a collective right…right? Well that makes perfect sense that amendments one and three through ten would be about individuals, but the second amendment would be about a collective. When grouping 10 items, and making an exception, I would pick number two as the perfect spot for the aberration.

People have every right to be liberal. All I ask is that they do some actual research on issues, and not let raw emotion guide them. At the very least…question things.

If liberals can prove to me that George W. Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, I am willing to listen. However, memo to liberals, just because Michael Moore uses fake footage in a movie and calls it a documentary does not make it so. He is not what we call in the journalism world a credible source.

I am aware that the conspiracy theory nuts do not make up the entire democratic party, but they are growing. Environmental and animal rights activists are not known for rational debate. If someone wants to tell me that smoking causes cancer, I am willing to accept that as fact at this point in history because enough credible sources have come together to validate this view. As for second hand smoke…I question it.

Now liberals go insane when anyone questions gospel such as global warming, second hand smoke, the need for gun control, etc. What they do not realize is that if they questioned their own beliefs, and then they turn out to be right (hard to imagine, but this is a hypothetical example), they have only strengthened their own arguments.

If all a liberal does is read the Jayson Blair Times and watch CNN or the BBC, of course they will get a viewpoint that would be far different from someone taking the time to read the Wall Street Journal or watch Fox News. When the democrats canceled their Fox News debate, they claimed that they did not want to speak before the enemy. What they failed to grasp is that by only speaking to the sycophants who already agree with them (which they still believe is a majority of America, hence the need to resist change), they are missing out on trying to persuade the persuadables.

I am not as hardline on illegal immigration as some of my fellow republicans would like me to be. However, when anyone who questions an open border policy is considered a nativist and a racist, it pushes me towards the hardliners.

When diplomatic missions repeatedly fail, liberals simply attack warmongering neocons, instead of thoughtfully asking why diplomacy keeps failing.

Liberalism works well in an ideal world, but life is not ideal. Bad things happen to good people, and bad people do things to make things worse for good people. I hate to have to break it down in Sesame Street language, but it really is no more complex than that. Some things are what they are. 2 + 2, despite efforts to question it, really is 4. However, much of life is unproven.

Just because some obscure dour senator from Nevada says we have lost the Iraq War, I am more inclined to trust armed forces commanders with boots on the ground. They say the war is going a lot better than is reported in the Jayson Blair Times. Just because some hippie children of hippie children believe in the beauty of social democracies with large welfare states, I am more inclined to look at the failing bureaucracies of Europe, hence the desire of these nations to finally start emulating America.

Truths will stand the test of time. Pythagorus told us that a2 + b2 = c2, and centuries later, that still stands. However, when theories change on a weekly basis, they might not be as sound.

Global warming exists, so we should forget about global cooling, the rage of the 1970s. Tax cuts are bad, except when leading to more growth, and more revenues, which is pretty much always. The stock market is a club for rich white men, except for the millions of small investors placing $100 per month into their mutual funds.

I do not have all the answers, but I am constantly questioning things. I did not support Reaganomics because I was a republican. I supported it because it was proven right. It worked, and still does. My political party does not tell me what to believe. I have a core set of principles, and the republican party met those principles, so I joined them. However, it is the principles that matter, not the party.

I do not support free trade, supply side tax cuts or a preemptive foreign policy because they are republican ideas. I support them because they are right. Democrats like JFK supported supply side theory, back when democrats did not reflexively reject any idea that came from the other side.

The way to have a stronger argument is to attack your own ideas and then attack the attack, aka build the ideas back up. What does not kill us makes us stronger. This is true with humans and with ideas.

The next time a liberal decides to explain to you that George W. Bush is trying to destroy the world so that we will all be dead, preventing democrats to ever win another election, do not immediately call the men in white coats to take these people to their respective rubber rooms. Simply look at them and ask them where they get their information. Offer them an alternative respected publication not to change them, but to allow them to at least think the entire issue through. If they simply tell you that what they are saying is fact, then the men in white coats can always be called back.

My college calculus professor used to always say “When all else fails…think.” My beliefs are solid because people of credibility have failed to tear them down (In some cases I have changed my viewpoint, because “facts are stubborn things.” Empirical evidence does matter). Liberals would do everybody, including themselves, a big favor by merely acknowledging the possibility of alternative viewpoints to their dogma.

When liberals start ranting, just coolly ask them the one question that will lead them down the road of mental crisis and uncertainty. Liberals, where do you get your information?

eric

One of the great things about being a presidential candidate with no chance of winning the nomination is the freedom to say and do anything. Shouting one’s relevance from the top of the lungs does not make it so, but many people in society became famous celebrities just by announcing repeatedly that they were famous celebrities. Zsa Zsa Gabor, Arianna Huffington, and Melrose Larry Green fall into this category. Elizabeth Taylor and George Hamilton did at one point have acting careers, so they get a quasi-exemption.

This is fine for Hollywood, and tolerable for commentators (barely one rung above), but it is a nuisance for serious presidential candidates, which in the republican party consists of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney. The remaining 7 republican dwarfs are a distraction. They have had their 15 minutes, and it is time for them to exit the stage. The problem is they won’t. They will have to be banned form future debates sometime in the near future.

One of them is a former Arkansas governor that is not corrupt, which in Arkansas seems to warrant a medal. Another one is a non-descript former Midwestern Governor. Some others are filling in where Alan Keyes and Bob Dornan left off.

Remember Morrie Taylor the tire executive? Look, he probably knows more about steel belted radials than I do, but politics? Come on.

So what is the problem with these fringe candidates? They take up valuable time. We are fighting a war on terror, and three adults cannot have a serious conversation with 7 children crying for attention.

The moderators did not help by asking some inane questions. Why were all the men on stage white males? Should they apologize for this? I do not remember any of them forcing Condi Rice not to run. I think she was too dignified to be put through a dog and pony show where even the most unequal of candidates are forced to be treated as equals.

The sheer stupidity of the event was highlighted by Ron Paul. No, he is not the rastafarian who sings “I’ve got the right temperature to turn you on.” That is Sean Paul. Apparently the text message surveys showed he won the debate,which only goes to show that for all their mill-vanillion flaws and incompetencies, liberals do know how to text message.

The Jayson Blair times will report Ron Paul won the text message poll, mainly to extend a bogus theory that a healthy percentage of republicans have turned against President Bush and the War in Iraq. They haven’t. The top three candidates support the War on Terror, and understand the complexities in Iraq. So do most republicans. A 90 minute debate between McCain, Romney and Giuliani could give each of them almost 30 minutes. It would be substantive.

As for the debate itself, Giuliani was the big winner. He slapped down Ron Paul hard, although this guy seems too self absorbed to gracefully bow off of the stage. McCain held his own, and Romney messed up badly when he announced he was against the assault weapons ban but supported the 2nd amendment. That was a straddle that I would expect from troop supporting cut and run democrats, not a non-Ron Paul republican.

The bottom tier candidates took some jabs, but the disagreements between the top tier was civil. Romney went after McCain hard at one point, but it was based on policy. It was not personal.

The losers continue to be the watchers of the debates like myself. While this debate had some real substance, especially from Giuliani, there is too much nonsense.

The 7 republican dwarfs have had their fun. They need to go back to whatever it is they actually do professionally. If Duncredo Gilthompabee wants to be a top tier candidate, he needs to debate even less serious candidates, such as Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Joe Biden. Think about it. These guys can’t even reach the level of the Hilbamards monstrosity. Now that is insignificant. When one does not have enough substance to be top tier in a party that stands for nothing, the only solution is to go back into the forest and be that tree no one hears.

The democrats can do what they wish, because ntohing about them is consequential. Republicans, however, have a relevant message. It needs to be heard free of noise. The 7 dwarfs need to go back to their Snow White existence. The three adults have some serious business to discuss.

eric

Like a blinking VCR that is right twice a day, the democrats do get things right in equal abundance. While their presidential candidates would offer America a disastrous set of policy prescriptions, at least the democrats have a legitimate choice of disasters to choose from in the primaries. Republicans normally do not have such luck.

Republican candidates do not win primary elections. They get anointed. Pat Buchanan once remarked that “The (New York) Republican Party of 1996 is equivalent to Russia in 1956.” He was referring to the arcane ballot rules that tilt heavily in favor of the frontrunner, often keeping challengers from even having the right to compete. Not only is this unhealthy for democracy, it is unhealthy for the winner of the primary.

Pundits who complain that the presidential process is so protracted that it causes the best and brightest not to run completely miss the point. Running for president allows candidates to become battle tested. “Star” candidates that back out do not do so because of the process. They realize that they will peak the day they enter the race, and will eventually not win. Colin Powell, the darling of 1996, did not have the fire in the belly. Mario Cuomo opted out in 1992. People lamented that they were far superior to Bob Dole and Bill Clinton, but if they were that superior, they would have run and won. Regardless of how people felt about Clinton or Dole, they met the challenge immortalized in the Guns ‘n’ Roses song “Get in the ring.”

The people who opt out or dither do so because lack of passion is code for “not going to win.” Forget about the strain on the family cliche. There is not a man (or in some cases woman) alive that would turn down the job if offered. It is akin to a young man at work saying Paris Hilton is a bimbo. The man’s coworker responds “you wouldn’t kick her out of bed.” The bottom line is that if human biengs could be given everything easy, be it sex, power or money, they would take it. Real guts involves undertaking an arduous struggle. Running for president is that struggle.

With rare exception, the democrats have had real primaries. Some would say that John Kerry won too quickly in 2004, leaving him “untested” and gaffe prone in the general election. However, he did mortgage his house and roll the dice to win when he looked dead in the water. I give him credit for nothing in terms of his ideology, but that move was gutsy. Most democratic primaries are true tests.

Republican primaries are coronations. The anointed successor gets all the money, governors (state organizations), and county commissioners. The other candidates all fight to be the alternative to the frontrunner in case of a stumble. They avoid attacking the frontrunner until they make the top two, so as to avoid being eliminated from contention for the vice presidential slot. John Edwards perfected this in 2004, and 2008 sees Bill Richardson and Mitt Romney being very gracious towards their rivals.

The frontrunner faces a blip on the road to a pre-ordained win, and it is treated as news. Iowa gave us George HW Bush in 1980, and Pat Robertson in 1988. New Hampshire gave us Pat Buchanan in 1996 and John McCain in 2000. The frontrunners then win everything else, and all is right with the world.

So why is this republican primary different? Because the two rules for anointing the successor are in direct conflict. Republicans always nominate the frontrunner. That is Rudy Giuliani. Republican always nominate the person next in line. That is John McCain.

The democrats have had candidates come out of nowhere, such as Jimmy Carter. Sparing the remark about wishing he had stayed there, this does not happen with republicans. Giuliani should face a brief imagined crisis, and then go on cruise control. Yet McCain is next in line. Despite his maverick reputation, he was the loyal soldier in 2004, actively campaigning for George W. Bush’s reelection, and fiercely defending the war on terror. He wants to expand the war in Iraq at a time when most Americans want out. He is right, they are wrong, and that is a bold gamble. However, he is not as inevitable as Bob Dole.

When Lamar Alexander said to Bob Dole “Senator, it may be your turn, but it isn’t your time,” he was expression frustration that a candidate with a solid campaign (or equally brilliant foreign policy experience such as the cerebral and cordial Dick Lugar) could not dislodge a weak frontrunner, solely because “Bob waited patiently. He earned it.” If that is the criteria, Strom Thurmond would have run again in 2000, only 52 years after his first defeat. Bob Dole was given the nomination, and his untested campaign lost badly. Bill Clinton in 1992 was more battle tested then any candidate in recent memory.

Rudy Giuliani or John McCain will be the nominee. Period. The also rans will also run. Mitt Romney will make a respectable showing. The others…nobody outside of their families will know they even ran. Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson will not run. Newt enjoys playing  history professor and Fred enjoys playing Arthur Branch. The pay is better and he only has to answer to the voters every 100 episodes or so.

I like Giuliani and McCain, and will be thrilled with either of them. At least this time, there will be a real battle for the nomination. It’s about time. Beating Hillary Clinton (Obama and Edwards will be destroyed by Lady Macbeth’s Clintonistas, leaving her possibly less tested than previous democratic nominees. I sure hope so.) will require a battle tested candidate. John McCain is a prisoner of war. Rudy Giuliani was there when World War III began. Running for president is a walk in the park compared to horrors they have faced. Competing against each other will not weaken them and leave them vulnerable in the general election. It will strengthen them and allow them to have their weaknesses exposed…and more importantly dealt with…long before the general election. This avoids November surprises, such as the one that nearly cost President Bush in 2000.

The republican party is about to get a lot better off. Coronations are for prom queens and  the occasional egomaniacal wife of MacBeth. Giuliani vs McCain will be a battle royale, and our 2008 candidate will have beaten their most worthy opponent.

Giuliani vs McCain. To quote boxing referee (and for young folks the voice of the claymation boxing referee in MTV’s Celebrity Deathmatch) Judge Mills Lane, “It’s time for a good (perhaps) clean fight. LET’S GET IT ON!”

eric

 

November 8, 2004 — Families of 9/11 victims yesterday reacted with shock, sympathy — and anger — after a Georgia man killed himself at Ground Zero on his 25th birthday because he was distraught over President Bush’s re-election.

The suicide victim, Andrew Veal, was discovered on a concrete slab in the construction pit near the Church Street subway entrance Saturday morning. A bottle of Jack Daniel’s was by his side, and a 12-gauge shotgun lay across his body.

Authorities believe that Veal, who was engaged to be married, killed himself sometime Friday — his birthday, friends said. Law-enforcement officials and friends said Veal, a project coordinator at the University of Georgia Research Center who also did political polling, had been depressed over the outcome of the election. Friends also said he may have killed himself to protest the war in Iraq.

“He cared about politics, people and the state of the world,” Mary Ann Mauney, his supervisor at the university, told the Athens Banner Herald. “Andrew was definitely sending a message [with the suicide]. Certainly, it was a protest.”

Excerpts from the above New York Post Article are still relevant 2 1/2 years later. This mother’s day weekend finds one mother without her son. I am sure she could care less about anything political. She misses her child. My heart goes out to her.

Let me be crystal clear for those who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. George W. Bush had nothing to do with this kid’s death. President Bush never met him, and the kid did not serve in any branch of the Armed Forces. This young man was deeply troubled, and his troubles consumed him. He got swallowed up by life, as many do, and he took his own life.

Having said that, I wonder how many liberals bothered to take the time to talk to this kid. He was one of them. Given how chic and trendy Bush Hatred has become, one would think this kid was the darling of dinner parties. The problem with spreading hatred is that people are so busy talking and hating, that they do not make time for loving and listening, even with people who agree with them.

No, I am absolutely not blaming  liberals, liberalism or democrats for this young man’s demise. What I am saying is that a culture of hatred can lead to despair. When a political mob gets its youngest and most impressionable supporters to the brink of overload, perceived failure can lead to a downward spiral that is irreversible. Palestinian children are trained to be suicide bombers. Political warriors train young armies to engage in destruction. When you are taught to invest everything into any kind of cause, and then when everything you believe in gets blown to kingdom come, the reaction of many is to end it all rather than go on.

How many Hollywood celebrities threatened to move to Canada or Europe if Bush was reelected? Why are they still here? For the same reason that Osama Bin Laden and Yassir Arafat never personally flew a plane into a tower or put on a suicide vest, or had their family do so. Why fight for a fake cause when one can recruit innocent impressionable young minds, and mold them into becoming true believers?

This young man was not born a Bush-hater. Somebody had to indoctrinate Bush Derangement Syndrome into his skull. Maybe had people bothered to teach him that life is precious, and that anyone can improve the world on any given day, he could have lived to see Nancy Pelosi become Speaker of the House. That may make me disgusted, but it would have made him smile.

While there are many situations where nothing truly can be done, there are times when the signs were clearly there. Kurt Cobain’s last song was called “I Hate Myself and I Want to Die.” Four million people bought that cassette, and had one of those people seen it was a cry for help, he might be alive today. I personally never cared for his music, but his daughter will never know her father. When a man is screaming that he wants to end it all, it might be wise to pose the possibility that he means it.

I was disgusted when Bill Clinton became president. My response was to become a member of the loyal opposition. Thanks to Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour and Rush Limbaugh, the country dragged Clinton rightward, and then gave us George W. Bush.

Perhaps it is an incredible mistake to offer rational explanations for irrational behavior such as suicide, but the coarsening of our culture is creating levels of rage, hostility, and seething resentment. Nothing positive comes out of this. What is the point of helping a candidate win an election if you lose your soul in the process? I fiercely disagree with liberals, but I do not hate their guts. If Hillary Clinton (God forbid) were to win the White House, I would be feeling negative thoughts and emotions that I hope I never have to describe. I would then go on trying to be a better person, and making something of myself in this crazy world.

This young man was engaged to be married. If enough of the true believers around him had spent less time spreading poison and more time truly spreading peace and love, this kid might have survived the 2004 election.

Bush Derangement Syndrome has got to stop. He may be the most powerful man in the world, but he cannot directly make my life better or worse. I am my destiny.

I pray that his mother somehow manages to get through Mother’s day.

Perspective is so easy to lose. I am grateful that enough people around me are there to give it to me, including my parents.

I love you mom. Happy Mother’s Day, and thank you for always giving me a sense of hope during my darkest hours. Knowing I can call you no matter how rough life gets…it is a life saver.

eric

 

In 2005, WMD were found. Yes, you read that correctly. It was quickly

considered a nonstarter as a news story because then the "Bush lied" 

crowd would have been revealed for the horrendous human beings that 

they are. The amount found was very small in nature, but then again, 

there is never just one cockroach. While other republicans choose to 

apologize for honest mistakes, at which point liberals respond by 

calling us liars, I prefer the battering ram approach. I wrote the 

words below two years ago. My feelings are unchanged. Again, keep in 

mind. We did find WMD. In 2005.

Dear Liberals,

Now that WMD have been found, you have to begin the tortured process of 

explaining why this is not significant, and why even though you are 

repeatedly wrong about everything that matters in this world, people

should still listen to you. Here are some messages that are as harsh as 

they are accurate. We did not go to war because of WMD. We went to war

because Saddam Hussein was a sh*thead who needed to be removed. As for

why we do not remove every worldwide sh*thead...give us time...we should. 

Liberal politicians used WMD as an excuse because they desperately needed 

to vote yes to go to war to avoid getting shellacked in the 2002

elections.Liberals wanted badly to be against the war but were afraid

that after 9/11, that was an untenable political position. Therefore, you 

created a phantom issue because you did not have the guts to vote your 

convictions. You knew you were wrong, and you needed an out.

Saddam had WMD. We found them. There are plenty more. If you do not 

believe they are dangerous, allow yourself to be trapped in a room with 

them. If you are scared to do so...welcome to the real world.

Bush did not lie. Bush is not evil. Bush did not steal the election. You 

lost the 2000 AND 2004 elections because:

1) Elderly Gore voters could not read a ballot. Euthanasia would solve

this problem. I have no sympathy for people who are too careless to spend 

time reviewing a decision as serious as a presidential vote.  

2) Move on.org and its 2 million "Deaniacs" do not represent the 268 

million people who do not belong to your organization. Most people look 

at you and want you to put on a clean shirt, and stop hiring college 

students who resemble Charles Manson in terms of complexion and rage.

3) Liberals are unlikeable. McGovern, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry...Bill Clinton

got elected by running as far away from you as possible. Americans are 

optimistic, can-do people. The sky is not falling. America is good.

Abu Gharaib was nothing...Guantanamo Bay is insignificant. Haditha is 

irrelevant. Daniel Pearl is the way of life of our enemies. Our 

aberrations are their way of life. The USA are the good guys . The 

terrorists are the bad guys. Use the passion you have towards President 

Bush and direct it at Osama, Zarqawi, Saddam, the Mullahs, etc...

You stand for nothing. You support the troops but despise the mission 

that they support.Have the guts to either say you do not support the 

troops...or better yet support them and admit the cause they have been 

fighting for has been right all along.

Lastly, your heroes are worthless:

Dan Rather--You did a lousy job. You went from first to last in the 

ratings, and you were fired based on performance...Period. I can type up a 

document right now claiming you smoke crack. You might say that is false, 

but based on your bizarre behavior,my document would be fake but accurate.

NY Times--Jayson Blair...'nuff said.

George Soros--You are a convicted insider trader who made his money 

destroying the economies and currencies of 3rd world nations. You have 

profited not by merely feeding off of human misery, but by causing it. 

Barbra Streisand...You are a nasty shrewish woman who is abusive to 

your personal assistants.

Ted Kennedy--Who was driving the car? You lied, a woman died.

Robert Byrd--Joining the KKK is not a mistake...it is a disgusting act 

of bad moral character.

Cindy Sheehan--Your family is disgusted with you. You claim to be 

speaking for your family, but they want you to shut up, come home, and 

quit neglecting your loved  ones. Your anti-semitism is just icing on 

the cake.

College Professors who grew up in the 60s--Stop f*cking up our children. 

Actions have consequences, and the AIDS and drug crises we face in the 

USA today are a direct result of your irresponsibility. You should not 

have the right to teach until you learn. Kids will continue to not know 

anything useful in life when they are being taught by people who don't 

know anything.

John Murtha--I have the right to disagree with you without you claiming 

that your patriotism is being attacked. My right to dissent is as valid 

as yours. You are an American hero who is wrong on this issue. I honor 

your service then, and I fiercely disagree with your positions now. Your 

heroism does not stop you from being completely wrong.

Nancy Pelosi--San Francisco does not represent America. Even democrats 

don't want to hold their convention in your city ever again. 

Howard Dean--You could not even win the nomination in primaries dominated 

by people who agreed with you. When liberals are frightened of you, you 

are scary. 

Liberal Voters---You are cowards. You desperately wanted to vote for 

Howard Dean,but knew he could not win. You supported an uninspiring 

candidate who believed nothing rather than support a candidate who 

actually represented your beliefs. You knew the American people as a 

whole continue to say you are wrong, so your options are losing 

presidential elections or sacrificing your principlas to win an election, 

knowing you will not be able to govern. 

If liberals want to know why they are so detested socially and 

electorally, I can offer a cure...in 3 words...

SSSSTTTOOOOOPPPPPP  BBBBEEEEIIINNNNNGGGGG WWWWWRRRRROOOONNNGGGGG!!!!!!!

Man that felt good to get off my chest. I would knock sense into them, 

but I wish not to scuff my fingernails.

Now if only conservatives would start fighting back. They could force 

liberals to sit there as we tell them "We found WMD. Now sit down and be 

quiet." This happened in 2005.  

Thank you and goodnight...from the right...from someone who IS right.

eric

We live in a society where the quickest way to become beloved, or if you are a republican, less reviled, is to apologize. Whether it be Marv Albert, Dick Morris, Mike Tyson, or any number of people who have been embroiled in celebrity scandals, apologies are a gold mine towards rehabilitation. You do not even have to be sincere. You just have to look sincere. In some cases you can even offer a “statement of regret,” which is a way of apologizing without saying “I’m sorry.” Bill Clinton excelled at this.

The problem comes in when people are pressured to apologize for things that they have nothing to apologize for. The main source of this nonsense is Iraq and the issue of WMD.

Liberals claim the war is going badly and shows no hope of improving. What do conservative jellyfish do? They agree that horrible mistakes have been made, but that there is still hope. How about conservatives and republicans develop a spine and bang fists on the table and explain that the war is going very well, is an overwhelming success, and things are getting better by the day. Saddam is gone. That is one of the most significant events of this century.

However, the biggest act of republican and conservative cowardice is on the issue of WMD. First of all, the President never said Saddam had them (although of course he did). The word used in the State of the Union was “sought,” not “bought.” Saddam did seek them. He probably bought them as well, but that is irrelevant since it was not claimed. Even so, the liberals claim that WMD was a lie, and conservatives claim it was an honest mistake. No, it wasn’t.

I will provide a steel spine for my fellow republican jellyfish. Saddam did have WMD. He most likely stored them in Syria, which we would find out if we could ever turn that nation into the 50,000 hole golf course it was meant to be. I will say it again…Saddam…DID…HAVE…WMD. Those who claim he did not ever have them ignore the fact that in the first Gulf War, he actually used them. We have not found them because he did a great job of hiding them. Maybe had we been allowed to torture him before his death, we could have gotte him to tell us where they are. In the slightest chance Saddam actually obeyed a single UN resolution (doubtful) and actually destroyed them, then he lied about having them, and he deserved what he got. If I threaten to kill you, I should not blame you when you kill me first, only to find out I was bluffing. That is why toy guns now have an orange tip on them.

The Iraq war was honest, decent, moral, and right, and has so far been an overwhelming success. Saddam did have WMD. George W. Bush is trying to make the world a better place from people like Hussein, the worst man since Hitler. Liberals are busy trying to compare Bush to Hitler. Republicans should stop apologizing, and start banging the table with certainty. I am a proud Neocon, which should be redundant.

Republicans and Conservatives have only one thing to apologize for…their cowardly nature that forces them to apologize when they are 100% right in what they are doing. George W. Bush was reelected, and withouthaving to apologize. Boldness works. Timidity gets people crushed. People respect those who respect themselves.

I will vote for the candidate in the republican primary that has the steeliest Presidential spine and says what I feel. I apologize for nothing about the Iraq War. It was…and is…right.

eric