The Democrats Were Wrong......again

Well, I was listening to ol' Rush Limbaugh again today and I gleefully listened as he hammered on the democrats being wrong on the war in Iraq. I'll put a transcript from rushlimbaugh.com here and let it explain itself.....

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Something really big has happened, but nobody, and I mean nobody, is talking about it other than me, ladies and gentlemen, and that is the Democrats have already been proven wrong about the war in Iraq. They've already demonstrated that they were wrong about what we should do there. They were wrong about what we can do there and will do there. They've already been shown to be wrong about their predictions. They've already been shown to be wrong about surrendering and denying funds and opposing the surge. Does this not demonstrate that they are unqualified to lead this nation?

By the way, speaking of that, Barack Obama is on a tear now. I guess he did an interview for Nightline, and I'll get you an exact quote in just a second, but paraphrasing what he says, "Look, I'm sure that President Clinton and Hillary had a lot of conversations, just like Michelle and I do, but just because my wife talks to me about things going on in the Senate doesn't make her qualified to be a senator," meaning just because Hillary is talking to her husband who happened to be the president doesn't make her qualified. This is getting fun. The time is right, we're past all the Labor Day, Thanksgiving stuff now, and it's going to really, really heat up. Oprah is going to hit the campaign trail for Barack Obama, not just endorsement, she's going to go out there on the campaign trail. This will no doubt lead to a phone call from Don Vito Clintonleone to Oprah, and maybe Hillary will be on the call, too. What will they say to The Oprah about her campaigning actively and aggressively for Barack Obama?

Back to the Democrats here, folks, they have shown to be wrong about their predictions. They have been shown already, right now, to be wrong about surrendering, denying funds, opposing the surge. This demonstrates, does it not, that they are unqualified to lead the nation? We cannot allow them off the hook on this. We cannot allow history to be rewritten. We have books full of their predictions and defeatist comments. We have audio sound bites from our archives that do the same thing. This is not ancient history. It is today's facts. Another thing, all these retired generals who have been on television for the past two years: "This will never work. We don't have the troop strength. We really can't pull this off, it was an ill-fated, misguided mission." Have not all these retired generals been proven wrong as well? People are streaming back to Baghdad and Iraq in droves.

Here we go, a couple of Rush See, I Told You So's. The New York Times today, Patrick Healy: "'As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts.' As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy." Told you. I told you, the elections are about the future. They're not going to be about the Iraq war. The future of the country is what's going to be the dominant issue in the presidential race next year. But here's a piece in the New York Times, what are the Democrats going to do to massage this? You notice every piece, every Drive-By story is not about: "Boy, Democrats blew it, Democrats wrong, Democrats unqualified, Democrats have demonstrated that they can't be trusted, Democrats have demonstrated X, Y, Z," all the things I just went through. No, it's, what do the Democrats have to do now? It's a delicate balancing act. The Democrats have to find some way of saying they were right when they were wrong and saying Bush was wrong when he was right and then change the subject after that.
They have to say how they'll surrender and not lose the war. The total shift is to hammer political gains over military successes, or lack of them, and that's really nothing new, either. Michael E. O’Hanlon, the senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a supporter of Mrs. Clinton's and a proponent of the military buildup said, "The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness. If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it -- how you would get our troops out and not lose the war." (laughing) So the Democrats are worried here now that the progress is underway, and the Democrats are on record as having said, "We can't win. We're not winning. In fact, we are losing, and we gotta get the troops outta there." If they do that and Iraq looks promising, and then we end up losing it, then what? He said, "The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in."

Can I remind you of something, too, ladies and gentlemen? I forget how long ago this was, maybe two months, I remember this little story, and everybody blew a gasket over it, but the president apparently had a private conversation with Mrs. Clinton, and this is when she started changing her tone on the war, by the way, and got a lot of grief from the anti-war kook fringe in the Democrat Party. He said, "Look, you better start thinking about how you're going to deal with this, if you're president and not a candidate, because it's a much, much different situation when you're sitting at this desk, the Oval Office and the White House, than when you're out there on the campaign trail." He did that because this is serious and this matters and he understands politics is politics and campaigning is campaigning, and ever since then Mrs. Clinton has pulled back.

The Associated Press, Charles Babington, another Rush See, I Told You So: "Now that violence in Iraq is abating and other issues are consuming more of the presidential debates, political activists are wondering if the war will prove to be the defining issue that Democrats have long assumed." No, it won't, and they know it now. I told you this weeks ago, maybe months ago. (interruption) You couldn't understand it when I said that, H.R.? Yeah, H.R., trusted chief of staff, now speaking to me on the IFB as though you people aren't even here, suggested, "I thought you lost your mind when you said that. I couldn't believe that you would go out on a limb and say that." Don't doubt me. I say it, you believe it. That's the rule here. They've gotta figure out what to do. "Some Democrats say frustrated voters have given up on altering President Bush's handling of the war, and will make Republicans pay in 2008. Others say Democratic candidates are stubbornly and dangerously out of step with an improving situation, and their most promising campaign issue may prove far less potent by next November. ... 'The Democratic Party has become emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq -- reluctant to acknowledge the progress our troops are now achieving,' said Sen. Joe Lieberman. Many Democrats reject that notion. It is highly unlikely that Iraq will be significantly more stable next fall, they say, and millions of voters have made their final judgments about Bush and the war."

Rahm Emanuel actually said, quote, unquote, "George Bush is on the ballot in 2008." Rahm, you're not stupid. You may be a liberal, but you're not stupid. He's not going to be on the ballot, and you're not going to be able to make people think that he is. It's funny. It is actually funny to watch this. "Candidates Ponder Voters' View of Iraq." No, not candidates, Democrats! And note the message here. Democrats: "What do the voters think? What do the polls say?" Not what's best for the country, not what's right, but what can they do to cement power for themselves?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: One more Iraq war story also from the AP: "The Democrats' flagship proposal on Iraq is aimed at bringing most troops home. Yet if enacted, the law would still allow for tens of thousands of US troops to stay deployed for years to come." Another Rush See, I Told You So. Even though the Democrats got their wacko base thinking they're going to pull everybody out of there if they ever get the chance, it ain't happening, ladies and gentlemen, and particularly if the Democrats win, and if the surge continues to work, and if the victory is at hand, they are not going to secure defeat on their own watch.
END TRANSCRIPT


.......hoooo boy, I love Rush. And I will throw my shoes at the TV when Oprah flaunts her support for Barack Obama.

Also, it bugs me whenever liberals are wrong and they refuse to admit it and then they have the gall to try to prove themselves right when they have already been proven wrong beyond a doubt and they are stupid enough to try to make Bush wrong while they're at it. Yeesh.

WHOA

I forgot that this blog was here. I didn't post here for a month; I guess that I haven't been feeling very philosophical/political/whatever else there is.......................oh well. This blog may just sit here for a very long time before something comes up....

Theocracy

This is basically what Mr. Loomis talked about for our devotions up at science camp. So, where does the term Theocracy come from? Well, a Theocracy would be a government that is centered on God, which is what Israel was before they wanted a king. The United States was founded as a theocracy but that all changed when the liberals and media screwed it all up. But, the point is, that even though we live in a capitalist government, we ourselves should lead lives of Theocracy. In contrast to this is a term Mr. Loomis made up: a "Me"-ocracy. A meocracy is obviously a form of government centered around oneself. And believe it or not, the American Dream where you can go to any college you want, get any degree you want, and get any job you want and get money so you can have a family is a me-ocracy. Why, you ask? Well, look at what I said. It's all about what you want, not what God wants. See, in a theocracy you fully submit yourself to God's will and God will take you where He wants you to go. If we try to do things on our own, we'll probably do something like go to college then med school for 3 years only to find out that you get rejected your fourth year and 7 years of hard work gets flushed down the toilet and then you end up like that bum you see in the ghetto.

.....hey, I actually got theological. I feel smart. Better not let it get to my head......

(edit on 15 Oct 2007) Yeah, I just discovered that Theocracy is also a Christian metal band. I don't know if I'll go check it out, I'm still getting caught up on listening to August Burns Red's Thrill Seeker and Messengers.

Why I Write Blogs

...well, it comes around to this. I sat down at the computer and came here and the question just crossed my mind: "Why the @#$% are you typing a buncha !@#$ that no one's gonna read?" So I decided to start typing and see what kind of a response I get from myself.

...so it all started when Silas showed us in class some claymations he made and put up on his blog (semtex13.blogspot.com). And I thought to myself, "That would be really cool for me to get a blog." So I got one but that's back when I was a freshman and therefore wasn't as intellectually advanced as I am right now. So, after 2 posts it just sat there and I have no idea as to where it is or what website it is. So I have a ghost blog sitting around somewhere and I just resigned up for another one. So, heck.

And then last year, I found myself messing around while I was supposed to be doing homework and thought: "Maybe I should take up blogging again." So here we are now. And why do I type nonsense that no one is reading? (...or are they...?) ...well, I just read my first post on my other blog and it should make sense to you.....(clicka ze herE)

Top Ten Reasons To Procrastinate

1.

First Post of the Second Blog

....hello, fans. This is my second blog, A Long Time Ago There Were No Idiots. The purpose of this blog is....hmm, I'll have to think about that. However, in a sense it is a prequel to my other blog title (Very Soon There Will Be Doom). I like to think of the old times when there weren't idiots; when men like Dwight D. Eisenhower ran the country, and the media fully supported him. Now we've got chowderheads like Hillary Clinton who want to run the country, and George Bush is doing the best he can with what the liberal idiots in congress can give him and yet the media slanders him like crazy. Well, obviously because the liberals control the media.

...say, I am really getting political. I have a liberal advisory label on my other blog.....I think I'll not put one here and shock any liberals who come across this blog.

....and by the way, it is biblical that liberals are wrong; there is a bible verse (I forget which, but I am 300% sure it's in there somewhere) that says those on the left hand side of God will be destroyed.

So that is it for now and enjoy my future ravings