Posted on Wed, 11/28/2007 - 01:34 — by Clayton
I think Ann has a makes a very strong point linking the demise of the Democrats to the demise of the biased liberal press. Their arrogance, expressed in the outrageous lies they tell and the assumed level of stupidity of their opponents, is the lodestone sinking their ship. By not electing a tax and spend agenda like Hillary’s is the only way to keep the sinking Democratic ship from harming the entire nation.
NYT: Suicide Manual for Dems
by Ann Coulter (more by this author)
Here's a story that may not have been deemed "Fit to Print": In the six months that ended Sept. 25, The New York Times' daily circulation was down another 4.51 percent to about a million readers a day. The paper's Sunday circulation was down 7.59 percent to about 1.5 million readers. In short, the Times is dropping faster than Hillary in New Hampshire. (Meanwhile, the Drudge Report has more than 16 million readers every day.)
One can only hope that none of the Democratic presidential candidates are among the disaffected hordes lining up to cancel their Times subscriptions.
The Times is so accustomed to lying about the news to prove that "most Americans" agree with the Times, that it seems poised to lead the Democrats -- and any Republicans stupid enough to believe the Times -- down a primrose path to their own destruction.
So if you know a Democratic presidential candidate who doesn't currently read the Times, by all means order him a subscription.
On Sunday, Times readers learned that despite this year's historic revolt of normal Americans against amnesty for illegal aliens: "Some polls show that the majority of Americans agree with proposals backed by most Democrats in the Senate, as well as some Republicans, to establish a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally."
Was the reporter who wrote that sentence the Darfur bureau chief for the past year? By "some polls," I gather he means "a show of hands during a meeting of the Times editorial board" or "a quick backstage survey in the MSNBC greenroom."
As I believe Americans made resoundingly clear this year, the only "path to citizenship" they favor involves making an application from Norway, waiting a few years and then coming over when it's legal.
Americans were so emphatic on this point that they forced a sitting president to withdraw his signature legislative accomplishment for his second term -- amnesty for illegal aliens, aka a "path to citizenship" for illegals.
This was the goal supported by the president's acolytes at the Fox News Channel as well as a nearly monolithic Democratic Party and its acolytes at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, MTV, Oxygen TV, the Food Network, the Golf Channel, the Home Shopping Network, The in-house "Learn to Gamble" channel at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas and Comedy Central (unless that was just a sketch on the "Mind of (Carlos) Mencia").
But ordinary Americans had a different idea. Their idea was: Let's not reward law-breakers with the ultimate prize: U.S. citizenship. And the ordinary Americans won.
The Times disregards all of that history to announce that it has secret polls showing that Americans support a "path to citizenship" for illegals after all! These polls are living in the shadows!
Only those "angriest on immigration," the Times said, are still using the various words related to immigration that liberals are trying to turn into new "N-words," such as, for example, "immigration." With an exhausting use of air quotes, the Times reports that: "The Republicans have railed against 'amnesty' and 'sanctuary cities.' They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep 'illegals' out."
In liberal-speak, that sentence would read: "The Republicans have railed against 'puppies' and 'kittens.' They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep 'baby seals' out." (In my version, the sentence would read: "Believing New York Times 'polls,' Democrats irritate 'voters.'")
Half the English language is becoming the "N-word" as far as liberals are concerned. Words are always bad for liberals. Words allow people to understand what liberals are saying.
According to the Times, all decent, cultured Americans cringe when politicians use foul words like "illegals" to describe illegals. Apparently, what most Americans are clamoring for is yet more automatic messages that begin, "Press '1' for English." That, at least, is the message the Times got from the stunning victory of grassroots over the elites on the immigration bill this year.
It is against my best interests to mention how utterly out of touch Times editors and reporters are with any Americans east of Central Park West and west of Riverside Drive. I enjoy watching the Democratic presidential candidates take clear, unequivocal positions in favor of driver's licenses for illegals and then denouncing those very positions a week later (after the real polls come in).
Some people love watching the trees change color every fall. I enjoy watching the candidates' positions on immigration change.
But it is too much for any human to endure to read the Times' version of history in which "most Americans" agree with the Times on illegal immigration in the very year Americans punched back against illegal immigration so hard that the entire Washington establishment is still reeling. It's not like we have to go back to the Coolidge administration to get some sense of what Americans think about amnesty for illegals. (I mean "amnesty" for "illegals.")
Using the Times' calculus, "most Americans" have also enthusiastically embraced soccer and the metric system.
Read The New York Times, Democrats. Make my day.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=23572
In sum, it is time to start the planning for the party to celebrate the demise of the Democrats.
C
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 313
You and Ann Coulter certainly have a lot in common. You are both attack dogs for the far right wing and you add nothing to the discourse beyond a lot of shrill name calling and unsubstantiated generalizations and stereotypes. Do you really expect anyone to take seriously the rubbish that you constantly spew i these forums?
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1185
Do you really expect anyone to take seriously the rubbish that you constantly spew i these forums?
So you have the arrogance, which is a democratic trait, and the hypocracy to label my opinions as rubbish in the same post where you criticise me for shrill name calling? I am not publishing rubbish; many people do take Ann seriously. She is funny, she is point on with her political commentary, and she rankles PC puppets like you.
Back to the point of the discussion, I am predicting that if the Democrats lose this election that by 2012, your party may splinter into many, ineffectual sub parties. I would alos psit that it would be the best thing that could happen for the United States.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1185
and it seems that a law suit brought by a Hillary minion will be the downfall or your boy, BO.
Obambi is Not a US citizen, he is an illegal alien. Here are the details of the suit proving that you have no candidate.
Besides Obama, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Federal Election Commission (FEC) are also named as defendants.
In the motion's supporting memorandum, Berg charges that the DNC failed to verify Obama's eligibility to run for president.
In order to be eligible, presidential candidates are required to be "natural born" citizens and may not hold dual or multiple citizenship from foreign countries, according the suit's legal memorandum.
According to Obama's birth certificate, which his campaign posted on its Internet site in June to quell rumors, the senator was born in Hawaii on Aug. 6, 1961.
The lawsuit, however, questions the Democratic candidate's claim that he was born in a Honolulu hospital.
The candidate's late father, Barack Obama Sr., was a native of Kenya, and Berg claims the 47-year-old presumptive presidential candidate's Kenyan relatives say he was born in the African country.
Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in Kansas, and his parents met at the University of Hawaii when Dunham was a student there, according to the Obama campaign.
Eventually, Obama's father returned to Kenya, and his son grew up in Hawaii with his mother and for a few years in Indonesia after Dunham married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro. As well, Obama lived with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii.
Dunham reportedly traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy, and she was prevented from boarding an airline flight from Kenya to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, the lawsuit alleges. She reportedly gave birth to Obama in Kenya, then flew home to Hawaii and registered his birth there.
Under U.S. law at the time of the Illinois lawmaker's birth, if he had been born abroad, and one parent was a U.S. citizen, his mother would have had to live 10 years in the U.S., five of which after she reached 14 (years of age), according to court papers.
However, Dunham was only 18 years old when she gave birth to her son, not 19, Berg says, and Obama therefore would not have met U.S. citizenship requirements.
Berg concludes that the Democratic candidate is a Kenyan citizen. And because he never renounced his Kenyan citizenship, he is ineligible to run for president.
Berg's office has not received confirmation that Obama's campaign has received the legal complaint, but he feels certain the campaign has heard about it.
"Six days later (after the suit was filed), there's not been one word from his campaign, which tells me I'm on the right track," he said.
The 64-year-old Whitemarsh attorney has been fielding phone calls almost nonstop after word got out about the legal action.
On Friday, Judge Surrick denied Berg's emergency request, Berg said, because Obama had not yet been served with the legal complaint and a summons.
The U.S. Attorney's Office of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania accepted service of the suit on behalf of the DNC and FEC, according to Berg's office.
Once the senator is served, Berg will be able to move the suit forward in court. The case is still "very alive and active," according to an e-mail message from his office.
The lawyer plans to file another motion for a temporary restraining order once Obama has been served.
http://www.timesherald.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1672&dept_id=33380&newsid=20095084
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 997
The lawsuit is a frivolous bit of pap brought by a discredited conspiracy theorist that even World Net Daily says bases his claims on discredited information. Â Sorry Clayton. Â This rumor is empty.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1185
The Democrats are Attacking each other, with renewed vigor. Here is an exerpt from an article covering the battle.
Noting that the latest Iowa poll from the Des Moines Register shows Obama ahead of Clinton even among women, the e-mail from Campaign Manager David Plouffe states: “The poll also showed that — by a wide margin — Iowans have found that Senator Clinton is running the most negative campaign of any candidate.
“And sure enough, less than 12 hours after the poll results were released, the Clinton campaign launched multiple frantic, baseless attacks against Barack Obama.”
According to the e-mail, the Clinton campaign “falsely claimed” that Obama doesn’t support universal healthcare, attacked the Obama campaign’s youth organizing efforts, and tried to “intimidate” Iowa college students planning to take part in the upcoming caucus.
“They even published an article on their Web site attacking Barack for telling his kindergarten teacher he wanted to be president when he grew up,” Plouffe writes
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Obama:_Hillary_Desperate/2007/12/04/54451.html?s=al&promo_code=3EA8-1
When one candidate attacks another for comments made in grammer school, can the end be far off?
Edited 12/4/2007 3:13 pm ET by Clayton
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1185
like the Democratic party is splitting at the seams. I for one think that is a very good thing.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 997
This message triple posted ... this is the third copy; I removed it myself.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 997
This message triple posted ... I removed it
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 997
I hardly think the Democratic Party is splitting apart. Â Eighty-five thousand people showed up to watch the next President deliver his acceptance speech, and over one hundred million watched it on television. Â Only in your wildest dreams will the dems be split, and you are growing more and more frantic in your effort to dredge up anything at all to "prove" it. Â Good luck. Â Guess the next eight years will be pretty hard on you. Â But I can understand. Â I never accepted the last eight years ... the only difference is that 80% of the American people now agree with me that we are heading in the exact wrong direction.
It's time for a change.
Almost anyone would do, just so long as they are not Republican. Â But we're lucky, we will get someone special just when someone special is needed. Â You see, even though you can't see it and refuse to admit that it might be true, we are being presented with that rare, once-in-a-generation intelligent, compassionate, experienced leader who listens to what people say, empowers them to make good decisions, and restores our sense of national pride and can-do roll-up our sleeves and pitch in determination that has helped us dig ourselves out of deep holes of misery and pain in the past ... Lincoln comes to mind; FDR, too; and possibly Kennedy, though his time was cut short by very sick people who also refused to admit that the time had come for a change (so we'll never know exactly where we might have gone back then).
I am pretty darn excited. Â More excited than I have been in a pile of Sundays
And I am pretty cynical when it comes to politics.