Can somebody say – Oooops! 

I love how Olbermann even attempts to make a case for when it’s okay to insult the office of the President and Dean still says no. I just laugh – again, as Ann Coulter has proven, there is one set of rules for liberals and another set they try to apply to anyone else who isn’t.  Sorry, Keith, looks like yo boy doesn’t have your back for the thousands of times you’ve degraded the President as a fascist. Nice. Also, Dean should watch himself when he lectures Republicans on not having the right to express criticism for the President when it’s a Democrat. The Internet has a funny way of keeping things on the record, like oh, say some of Dean’s own quotes:

“People have said I’m the candidate of anger. Well, we have a right to be angry. We lost 3 million jobs. We lost our place as the moral leader of the world.”

“This country was the moral leader of the world until George Bush became president.”

“The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong.”

“We’ve not had one Republican president in 34 years balance the budget. You can’t trust right-wing Republicans with your money. You ought to hire somebody who has balanced a budget. I’m much more conservative with money than George Bush is.”

Gee, sure does sound like Democrats never once wished the President to fail or called out the administration as imperialistic, fascist, etc. at all during the time period of 2000 – 2008 (snickers).

The last Dean quote is a real hoot considering a). Dean cuts off his timeline just after the Carter administration (because that was the worst budget until Obama’s) and b). just spent the last two years promoting Obama who’s already broken records in spending within the first three months of his administration. (side note: ever notice how Democrats purposely leave out all things Carter; I’m waiting for in 20 years when they try to leave out all things Obama)

I’m tired of Democrats saying that people are no longer able to call for the President’s policies to fail, considering they had the freedom to do so during Bush’s administration. I love how this little gem only made it onto Fox News within the last month. Cue flashback:
 

Rush Limbaugh took a lot of heat for saying he wants President Obama to fail — but a lot of Democrats felt the same way about former President George W. Bush during his second term.

An August 2006 poll conducted by FOX News/Opinion Dynamics showed 51 percent of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed. Thirty-four percent of independents also did not want Bush to succeed.

By comparison, 90 percent of Republicans said at the time that they wanted Bush to succeed, and 40 percent of Democrats said the same.

Conservative radio talk show host Limbaugh says he doesn’t want the economy to fail — just Obama’s policies. But his comments last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference drew sharp criticism from the White House.

And there’s how many records of political pundits like James Carville (”I certainly hope he [Bush] doesn’t succeed.”), Keith Olbermann, Al Franken and Bill Maher getting the big spotlight based solely on their obsession of all things Bush-bashing??? Exactly.

So I think the Dems just need to sit back and take it. You dished it out, now it’s your turn to take a dose of your own medicine. I don’t particularly care for the excuse of let’s bygones be bygones or taking the higher road on this one. Politics, and human beings for that matter, can be petty in their nature so until Dems start leading by example they shouldn’t throw a tantrum of being unfairly criticized when the shoe is on the other foot. As Hillary Clinton said during the campaign, people have a right to question and criticize their government. Just because you’re guy is in power doesn’t mean that right should be minimized or go away. And if you don’t like what you’re hearing, well here’s a simple answer – turn the channel.

So, this week emails are uncovered by Judicial Watch from Pelosi and her staff as Princess Pelotox acts like one of those Sweet Sixteen brats on MTV when making numerous, outrageous requests to use military planes for her personal use. I guess Princess Pelotox forgot about hypocritical past of hers while she was going on and on, like an angry villager with a pitchfork, about corporate executives using private planes. Hey, Princess! You’re not entitled to waste our taxpayer money for private planes either. Do what the rest of us do and fly coach. But I guess that isn’t acceptable for her. From the email when a particular military plane wasn’t available at her beckon call one weekend:

The documents also detail correspondence from intermediaries for Speaker Pelosi issuing demands for certain aircraft and expressing outrage when requested military planes were not available. “It is my understanding there are no G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable…The speaker will want to know where the planes are…” wrote Kay King, Director of the House Office of Interparliamentary Affairs. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, King writes, “This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset [s]peaker.”

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Poor thing! She didn’t get her private plane. Whaaaaaaaaaaaa! Shhhh, now there you little Spendocrat, it’ll be all right….Shhhhh.

Anyoverworkedrelatedexhaustion, I’ve also been away from the blog due to debating on Facebook. Some of you who’ve met me on FB know this about me – nothing gets me more worked up then debating the crazies over in the social networking world. I think that’s what has pushed me more to the right is debating with the far left nutroots – and TRUST, I don’t approach them. I’ll just post an article and it’s like flies on maniure. This past year has taught me that most liberals aren’t there to listen to your side, they’re just waiting for their opportunity to say you’re wrong. I know – gooooood times.

So, this past week Ann Coulter published a hilarious and fitting article commentary. She calls out Keith “I’ll pretend to be liberal to be a millioniare” Olbermann for putting down conservatives with the sole reason of degrading them on their choice of education and specifically school choice. If you haven’t read the article, “Olbermann’s Plastic Ivy,” do so. Not only is it quite funny, but also has some classic jabs. Admit it, most of us have wanted to put the smackdown like Coulter just once to a school-elitist at some point in our lives. Here’s the gist of what Olberman said:

“Olbermann relentlessly attacked low-level Bush administration employee Monica Goodling for not going to a name-dropping college, saying — approximately 1 million times — that she got her law degree “by sending 100 box tops to Religious Lunatic University.”

And just to clarify – he said it. Why did he belittle Goodling and base his evaluation solely on where she went to law school, Regent University – ummmm, because he’s an ASS-HOLE. Oh, and because he’s like most elitist snobs that believe where you went to school actually matters to how well someone will succeed in life or do well at their job.  Now before anyone jumps to conclusions I’m not defending Coulter as a person.  Personally I think she’s a very smart, conservative woman who is really funny in her writing. Yes, she says controversial stuff I don’t always agree with but at least she doesn’t appear to be a stark raving lunatic on the verge of having a stroke like Olbermann. She does have a tendency to come off as a blunt jerk, but that’s the business she’s in – entertainment. Here was Coulter’s rebuttal to Olbermann’s stab at Goodling’s lack of “approved” education.

Indeed, Keith is constantly lying about his nonexistent “Ivy League” education, boasting to Playboy magazine, for example: “My Ivy League education taught me how to cut corners, skim books and take an idea and write 15 pages on it, and also how to work all day at the Cornell radio station and never actually go to class.”  Except Keith didn’t go to the Ivy League Cornell; he went to the Old MacDonald Cornell.

So now to the point ( I know – FINALLY! LOL). So I post this article on Facebook because ooooh, I was up for a fight I guess. Heh. Here are the responses I got blasting Coulter and DEFENDING (yes, I said defending) Olbermann. Apparently, Coulter was right – for liberals there is one set of rules for them and another set for everyone else who isn’t a liberal. Ain’t life grand!

• Cornell is a top tier school, while the Regent University Law School has been considered by US News and World Report to be the WORST law school in the country.

• Could someone post an example or point me to a transcript of when Olberman uses his degree from Cornell to belittle someone? I’ve never seen him do that (I don’t watch him that often), and I’m struggling to believe this claim that he uses his status as an Ivy League graduate in an argument.

• I know that she’s a chronic liar and exaggerator, so I can’t help but be suspicious that she might be making up an issue that doesn’t actually exist, just so that she has an excuse to insult Olbermann.

• Times I’ve seen Keith Olbermann reference his educational background: 0  Times I’ve seen Ann Coulter reference Keith Olbermann’s educational background: More than 0.

• If wanting to know if Olbermann actually did what Coulter accuses him of qualifies as defending an asshole, then I would say we should all be proud of defending him.

• There is a difference between going to one of the worst schools in the country and not going to a great school. Also, The truth is that KO did get his degree from an Ivy league school. That is the truth I am defending.

Okay, now you’ve seen some of these arguments not only attacking Coutler, but defending Keith as not having been an elitist jerk (soooo hard to imagine) AND totally missing the entire point of Coutler’s article. Am I surprised – Heck NO! I used to be a loud-mouthed liberal, so I know how the game works.

I’m on to yo’ game, LIBERALS!
I’m on to yo’ gaaaaame!

Basically, here’s the problem. Liberals will go to any tangent before admitting that someone on their “team” is wrong or doing something inappropriate. Regardless of who Coulter is and how many times Olbermann has mentioned going to Cornell are irrelevant! The bottom line is that liberals will defend Olbermann because he is liberal – there is no other reason. They just assume that a). because they’ve never seen him brag about going to Cornell therefore Ann must be lying about him bragging about it and b). even if he never bragged about going to Cornell that serves as a means to excuse Olbermann’s behavior toward Goodling and thus ultimately Coulter is wrong in doing the same thing to him. I can see how it would be difficult to accept Coulter’s account if you’ve never seen it, but I don’t see how even if you’ve never seen it that means she doesn’t have a point in doing the same thing to Keith what he did to Goodling (judging someone’s job performance based on ridiculing where they went to school).

The only day your type of school matters is the day it opens a door for you to come in and interview for a job.  I’m sure we’ll get people to disagree on that comment there because they can’t handle a little thing called the truth. But back to reality, people choose to go to different schools for a multitude of reasons – rankings, scholarships, classroom size, religious beliefs, teaching programs, area of the country, proximity to home, curriculum, etc. Basically, what I’m saying is that rankings don’t mean much – especially when you consider they are based on things like alumni donations and class size. So anybody that tries to tell you that school choice determines work ethic and capability is an arrogant, naive nitwit. It’s probably these same people that believe the SAT can prove academic ability. Oookay! Yeah, tell that to my 3.8 GPA in high school, my 3.0 GPA in undergrad and my 3.9 GPA for when I got my Master’s degree. (snickers) 

OR, let’s just ask one liberal how much better his fancy, smancy Ivy League edumacation makes him over the rest of us mere public university folks. Here’s James Franco “attending” class at uber-Ivy Columbia. Shhhh! You’ll wake whe wabbit!

Nobody likes to be degraded when they’ve invested time in their education. NOBODY. And people, because of human nature probably, especially don’t like it when they are degraded by someone who could also be easily ridiculed for the same flaw. So kudos to Coulter for putting Olbermann in his place.

“I don’t know what you’re talking about” – Joy Behar

Ah, Joy, Joy, Joy. My favorite village idiot.  Nothing gets me more psyched than Behar getting put in her place. Well, Ann Coulter was recently on CNN with Behar filling in for Larry King (although it wasn’t much of an improvment on the host front).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Joy’s biggest defense in this “debate” with Coulter is “you’re exaggerating. you’re exaggerating.” Forget the fact that everything she says this to Coulter she doesn’t cite facts to back up her accusation of exaggeration. I LURRRRV how Coutler runs circles around Behar.  And then when Behar’s jaw is tired from not being able to contribute to the game of talking facts, she drops this gem about Rush’s audience base.

“Oh, 20 million listeners. That doesn’t mean anything to me.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Ummmm…slap me if I’m wrong, but something tells me that you (aka, liberal twats who are not open to listening to reason, facts and logic) are not his target audience. So it’s okay if it doesn’t mean anything to you since I don’t think Rush is losing any sleep over the fact that THE JOY BEHAR is not concerned with the success of his show. And she accuses him of fillibusting guests on his show. Ummmm – what the @$#@%# do you think you do on The View Crazy Hens Roosting show, Joy????

Anyego, I also love how 20 million people behind Rush isn’t anything but now that same figure behind Obama is now a movement, a force to be reckoned with. I mean, really, either it’s nothing or something – pick one you sad excuse for a talkshow host!

Let me tell you who we conservatives are:  We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

Booooooooooyah, CNN! What up noooow!  So much for Rush’s speech being “all about wanting the President to fail.” I’m waiting for the day the FCC can start fining these “journalists” for outright slander and libel.

Here’s more of Rush defining what it means to be a conservative and dispelling those caricatures the liberal media likes to skew us into.

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here he is closing it out. Sure does sound like your “typical-racist-homophobe-bigot-judgmental-crammingreligiondownyourthroat-conservative,” huh???  (rolling eyes)

Perhaps if our mainstream media oh, say, did their jobs for once there wouldn’t be the need for Rush to clear up the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Check out all the video at HotAir. And here is where the transcript is.

]]> http://www.unliberaledwoman.com/i-dont-stompi-battle/feed/ 0 http://www.unliberaledwoman.com/liberal-ego-pretends-to-get-it-my-eyes-continue-to-roll-nonstop/ http://www.unliberaledwoman.com/liberal-ego-pretends-to-get-it-my-eyes-continue-to-roll-nonstop/#comments Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:44:11 +0000 unliberaledwoman http://www.unliberaledwoman.com/?p=569 So I’m over on Facebook and one of my liberal FB friends (who goes to Columbia -ooooooooooof course) posts up a story about all the tea parties going on across the nation – you know, those “petty” protests of concerned voters standing up for the fiscal responsibility they think their government officials should exercise with their OWN money. Keep in mind these were protests where most people were dressed up in suits, had properly bathed, and went back to work afterwards.

Anyboohoo, here’s what my friend had to say about it…

These guys are adorable, it’s funny seeing the right-wing become the “dirty hippies” of America. “Get a job!!!” (Heh, I always wanted to say that.)

Good fucking night – what is it with this perceived right to arrogance that so many liberals exude. As if by being considered “progressive” is an automatic distinction to be higher up than other citizens who are technically defined as equal according to the Constitution. Oh, I forgot being progressive means opposing the Constitution – Oooops!

Yes, you can believe you are right and we are wrong (even though you’re wrong in that notion – heh) but to presume an authoritative ego of being better while belittling conservatives in their efforts to voice their concerns is only setting yourself up for the day humpty dumpty gets knocked off of the wall. And then where will you be – graveling for conservatives to be considerate???  Oh, and just to put the cherry on the sundae, let’s have a walk down memory lane about what a “progressive” protest looks like, shall we. (via Liberalities) Because you know, when a liberal protests it’s that he is “fighting” for freedom (to really tread on other freedoms) and not just seen as adorable in a condescending way.

No, my dear frenemy, what’s funny is that it’s okay for you all to have careers as “professional” students for life while the rest of go out there and produce capital for a living in Corporate America. Most of us don’t depend on the government for a grant paycheck.  Honestly, I should be demanding a productivity reports from all my friends in academia from now on since technically we greedy, evil corporate cogs are producing the tax revenue that pays for their academia gigs. From now on it’s happy hour cocktails with a peer review.

But the point about this (I swear I have one!) is how interesting (or quite possibly sad) it is that the new “radical” in this country is now someone who is speaking out in favor of MORE responsibility and MORE boundaries for abused freedoms. Before being radical was about getting the freedom of choice to be irresponsible. Now it’s like our society has overly misbehaved with the freedoms bestowed upon them so the opposition is to reel back in the crazy & wild antics of those who are abusing the freedoms of opportunity.  What has society come to when the responsible are now ubiquitously standing up against picking up the slack for the coattail-riding slackers???

Ummmm…..Just sayin’.

For as much as I hear people complain about CEO-pay, private jets, etc for failing companies, I don’t hear nearly (or even close to it) as much outrage over our legislatures who participate in the same amount IF NOT MORE questionable spending activities. Here’s ABC building back some of their credibility exposing what our legislatures have been up to with OUR money (via Black & Right). Also, keep in mind that Congress’ approval rating is right now around 30%. Last year it reached a low point of around 10% – if that isn’t failing I don’t know what is.

If this was a one-time incident I would probably look past it, but there have been too many instances of this crooked behavior coming out of Congress for years (Smancy Pelotox’s private planes and SUVs to attend her “Save the Earth”-type rallies, Charlie Rangel’s tax evasion and his 5-star, first-class trips to spots like the Dominican Republic and Florida, or the current administration’s love for tax evasion). Yet, citizens don’t say anything about it and what makes it even worse is that this is our money they are playing “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” with. At least the criticized CEOs are earning money through products and services, and the money used is typically from revenue brought in by customers that choose to pay for those products/services. The essential difference is that we are forced to pay in taxes, not by choice, to fund the outrageous spending acts by Congress.

So just think about this the next time you go to gripe about CEO pay, corporate spending, etc. There are always going to be some bad eggs out there whose behavior risks ruining the reputation of the 100,000s of CEOs/businesses who are doing things the right way. Everyone has the opportunity in this country to work your way up the corporate ladder – we shouldn’t throw stones at those successful businessmen who are having one rough year out of 20 successful ones but then not criticize the legislature who invokes this kind of psychological class warfare while engaging in the same “unacceptable” spending behavior as well.  If CEOs are crooked – then, yes they should pay the price. But just because you are a politician does not mean you are shielded by some Beltway forcefield created out of unicorns and excuses for the same behavior.

I dated a guy from Israel once, and although that relationship did not last I do believe I was meant to date him because had it not been for him I would not have had my eyes opened to how many Muslim-extremists in the Middle East actually behave when a CNN camera is not present. I mean he had loads of these truth-revealing documents and videos. Which brings me to today lesson on why jihadists deserve no sympathy, courtesy of Jihadist Joe: How to Properly Beat Your DisobedientWife (via AtlasShrugs). In this case disobedience means leaving the house or giving your husband an opinion he doesn’t agree with. Toooooooooooooolerance!!!!

I know these regimes were typically based in religion and people say we should let religion be. I get that, but it doesn’t make it right. If that was happening in our country it would make the national news. People outcry over when polygamists marry young girls but then also turn around and say we have no business helping women in other countries.  While we cannot change religious-extremists overnight we should at least support our troops who are doing what they can to install a stable government that is trying to create a society where at least many of these women can have a chance, just one chance to not be oppressed for the rest of their lives. What I don’t get though is when liberal politicians get up and talk about being the party of women’s rights but then turn around and defend creeps like this. Just some food for thought.