"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Hannity & Colmes at Say no to P.C.B.S.

This is one of those posts that bring to mind the times you watch a show and find yourself screaming at the TV. Some type of system that would allow immediate satisfaction would be kind of nice, although being able to blog about it is the next best thing.

Colmes' question/statement regarding those opposed to the war should have a right to voice their opinions is certainly true, however, as Jenn says in her post they are nothing "but a hate filled spin machine." So in actuality, they don't oppose the war, just reality. When an escaped mental patient runs around screaming "I don't know who Tattoo is, but I know he killed Grandpa," he is allowed to say it and the fact that he killed Grandpa is only his opinion; there is however, nothing in his statement that is coherent so there really is no point in his saying anything.

I do agree that the Left's continuous ranting about this, that and the other thing, most of which is, can or should be disproved is detrimental to world opinion of the U.S.. If you say, "Bush lied, people died" often enough some begin to take it as fact. The Left isn't used to having it's headlines challenged, so they have a screamingly continuous hissy fit, which has left them bereft of any coherency. Eventually they begin to believe their own lies and wonder why people are not more concerned about the death of Grandpa.

Jenn's post is challenged by a commenter: "So then our founding fathers should have kept quiet and let King George just keep on keepin' on?" Is the commenter implying "anti-Iraq-Bush" people as comparable to the "founding fathers?" It doesn't really matter what this escapee thinks, because it has little if anything to do with the post. It's akin to JFK2Not saying his patriotism was being challenged during the campaign; touch on the periphery of a subject just enough to imply that it is about the same thing and let loose. If no one is listening or reading close enough, what you say will ring true and wise. Comparing yourself to the founding fathers, that's a stretch - see, I just did it.

Read Jenn's post here


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks