In my high school US History class (circa 1964) I recall implicit reverence expressed for the United States Supreme Court. Now, unfortunately, after seeing Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s appearance on Egyptian TV (video below), I can’t help feeling a bit like Dorothy when the curtain was pulled back on the Wizard of Oz. What a letdown. Sigh. On the other hand, Ginsberg did give us another powerful demonstration of how thoroughly Leftism has infected the highest levels of our government.
Why did Justice Ginsberg do this interview in the first place?
First, did she really think Egyptians would honor the opinion of a woman, an American, and a Jew? Isn’t that a hatred trifecta for Egypt’s vaunted Muslim Brotherhood as well as the “Arab Street”? Remember what happened to Lara Logan during the “Arab Spring” demonstrations? Why consent to an interview at all? Did she really think she’d reflect well on herself, the Supreme Court, or our country with this interview? It ended up being rather the opposite, I’d say.
Second, if Justice Ginsberg really must draw back that Wizard-of-Oz-like SCOTUS curtain, could she at least have shown a bit more respect and praise for the Constitution that she swore to preserve, protect, and defend? Evidently not.
Said Ginsberg to the Egyptians:
I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.
I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary … it really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.
Much more recent than the US Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.
Well, thank you, Madame Justice. I had no idea how inferior our Constitution was to Europe’s, Canada’s, and South Africa’s. And how noble and courageous you have been to suffer our dusty old Constitution so stoically for nearly 20 years.
But perhaps I do the Justice an injustice. What is it that Ginsberg finds so attractive in those other constitutions? Given her comments, I infer it must have something to do with what she means by “human rights”. So I looked first to the South Africa Constitution since Ginsberg singled it out as a “great piece of work.” It’s available online.
The first thing I noticed about the SA Constitution (1996) is its sheer size. The US Constitution is only 4400 words long, but the SA Constitution is over 43,700 words long. Much more stuff. And more means better? Anyway, it’s so big that I could never have read it all, so I focused mainly on Chapter 2, the SA Bill of Rights.
Our American Bill of Rights is rather short — just those first ten tersely worded amendments. The SA Bill of Rights is over 4600 words long and contains 33 major headings. Among these are many noble and proper declarations somewhat like our own, but there are others — namely, the ones that I presume Justice Ginsberg admires. Three in particular declare the following (with my emphasis added) as the supreme law of the land in South Africa:
24. Environment — Everyone has the right:
(a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
(b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that
(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
(ii) promote conservation; and
(iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.…..
26. Housing:
(1) Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.
(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.
(3) No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.
27. Health care, food, water and social security:
(1) Everyone has the right to have access to:
(a) health care services, including reproductive health care;
(b) sufficient food and water; and
(c) social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.
(3) No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.
Isn’t this nice? What’s not to like? It sounds like an Occupy-Wall-Streeter’s paradise. It sounds like the promises made whenever socialism has been sold to a hopeful and unsuspecting populace. It reads as does the European Union Constitution, where attempts to deliver on promises like these threaten to collapse whole economies and lead to massive civil unrest.
Note that nowhere in the SA Constitution does it say that SA “rights” are to be conferred by any means other than those of “The State”. At virtually every turn, The State is the implied guarantor, provider, and benefactor.
However …
Note also the remarkable Item (2) in italics under Headings 26 and 27 above. The phrase “within its available resources” is a convenient way for The State to renege on the associated promised right. I interpret that clause in italics to mean: If we cannot squeeze enough money from selfish South African ‘makers’ to cover our promises to South African ‘takers‘, then this ‘human right’ may not be fulfilled after all. The State has few resources of its own, you see. So if these promises don’t come true, please remember to blame the selfish ‘makers’, not The State.
Note also the use of the interesting phrase “progressive realization”. What do they mean by “progressive”? It could mean gradual, which gives the state a way to put off demands for all these guaranteed freebies. Or it could mean Progressive in the political sense, which implies heavy taxation on those wealthy makers and little or no taxation on the takers. Either or both can help prolong The State’s hold on power.
So I’m left wondering whether Justice Ginsberg admires those SA Constitution human rights promises or those weasel-worded escape phrases. Perhaps it’s both(?).
Of course our own Bill of Rights is fundamentally different. Ours is about what the Federal Government cannot do to us rather than what it must do for us. To a Leftist like President Obama, we know that sounds like a defect — he’s told us so. But Conservatives know that the American approach has led to the most prosperous populace, at all economic levels, in the history of the world. And similar approaches have worked well in other places (albeit to varying degrees) such as Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Chile.
On the other hand, where the Left has had free reign and made the grandest of promises, like those in the South African Constitution, the results have been horrific beyond belief. Just listen to people who have lived through it in the 20th century (here, here, and here).
Scanning through the South African Constitution I found several other areas that may have attracted Justice Ginsberg’s admiring eye. To limit the length of this article, I’ll include just one more … namely, an amazing provision in “Chapter 1, Founding Provisions” that reads:
6. Languages
(1) The official languages of the Republic are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.
(2) Recognising the historically diminished use and status of the indigenous languages of our people, the state must take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages.
(3) (a) The national government and provincial governments may use any particular official languages for the purposes of government, taking into account usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population as a whole or in the province concerned; but the national government and each provincial government must use at least two official languages.
(b) Municipalities must take into account the language usage and preferences of their residents.(4) The national government and provincial governments, by legislative and other measures, must regulate and monitor their use of official languages. Without detracting from the provisions of subsection (2), all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably.
(5) A Pan South African Language Board established by national legislation must
(a) promote, and create conditions for, the development and use of (i) all official languages; (ii) the Khoi, Nama and San languages; and (iii) sign language ; and
(b) promote and ensure respect for (i) all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa, including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telegu and Urdu; and (ii) Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and other languages used for religious purposes in South Africa.
In short, South Africa has 11 “official” languages and a Language Board that “promotes” 15 more. To a poor, benighted soul like me, this sounds like a politically correct polyglot run amok, but perhaps this too won Justice Ginsberg’s approval?
Well …
The Left, including Barack Obama, still loves to portray its socialist leanings as some sort of new, forward-looking, if-only-we’d-try-it philosophy of government that will finally bring us all social justice and fairness. But given its cataclysmic failures and atrocities in the 20th century, I’d say that Leftism and Socialism are both long past their sell-by date.
—————————————————————————–
The road to serfdom begins with the belief you can overcome natural differences to create a tie at the finish line of life.
Herbert London
Now THAT is a Conservative voice! Bravo, dleeper47! Please write and submit more articles like this. You did a superb job! You tell it like it is and don’t pull your punches! Hats off to you!
Thanks for your support, Conservative American! If you’ll keep reading ‘em, I’ll keep writing ‘em!
You’re most welcome, dleeper47!
Deal! You write ‘em, I’ll read ‘em!
I concur, dleeper47, excellent piece. Our nation is in deep doo-doo (and getting deeper) because of activist judges and politicians who have only disdain for our founding documents and our Founders.
Thanks, RonJ! Keep speaking out … it’s going to be a long struggle with the Left, but already there are more of us than them, and our numbers keep growing!
She’s half right, but for the wrong reason. The US Constitution evolved from the 13 colonies, first and foremost, and it’s still alive today because now we’ve got 50 states all supporting the same structure. There haven’t been any revolutions, and the Civil War ended up greatly increasing the power of the national government, for better or worse.
Constitutions are agreements highly dependent on historical circumstances. One of those circumstances needs to be that the people making the agreement are “constitutionalists” and involved in longer-term commitment.
Well, Alex, your argument is self-defeating. It is the nature of our Constitution which enabled the “historical circumstances” which prevailed. Therefore, any nation which desires similar circumstances to prevail should enact and enforce a constitution which emulates The Constitution of The United States of America.
Have a nice day, Alex!
Seems to me that there must be a solution to the problem of a Supreme Court Justice who does not believe that the Constitution is a document that should be honored or used as an example around the world. There is no way that the citizens of this country should ever have confidence in this judge. Impeachment must be an option. I believe that we can “Get her” after this comming election if the results are to our liking. She must pay for this rare moment of her honesty.
The US Constitution, separated from the historical context of the nation, is a somewhere between a useless piece of paper and a half-interesting artifact. The US Constitution “worked” because of our English traditions, like the tradition of constitutionalism itself. Without people who have a constitutional spirit or disposition, the document is a mere…document.
Alex wrote: “The US Constitution, separated from the historical context of the nation, is a somewhere between a useless piece of paper and a half-interesting artifact.”
Since The Constitution IS part of the historical context of the nation, how would you “separate” it from the historical context of the nation?
Alex wrote: “The US Constitution “worked” because of our English traditions, like the tradition of constitutionalism itself.”
The Constitution worked because it is law and there was the will and the means to enforce that law.
Alex wrote: “Without people who have a constitutional spirit or disposition, the document is a mere…document.”
Quite true, Alex. The Constitution being law, there must at least be those willing to enforce the law who have at their disposal an effective means of enforcing it.
This reminds me of something I read a few years ago when Iraq was writing its constitution. It went something like, “We ought to give them our constitution. It was written by some very smart men. It served us well for over 200 years. And we’re not using it anymore.”
Wow, pretty grim, Ken, but more and more true with each passing year! However, the American people are often underestimated. They will tolerate a lot but there IS a point where they will draw the line. The worse things get, the closer we get to the American people putting their foot down.
There are ways that Congress can “get rid” of a cancerous growth like this evil prune Ginsburg. It is my understanding that impeachment is an option, also the Constitution does not say how many justices that are on the court, but that there shall be a court. Eliminating her seat could work as well.
Maybe something easier like passing a resolution of distain would convince her to beat it.
“24. Environment — Everyone has the right:
(a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being;”
Of course, the second someone wants to put a landfill or high tension powerline by your house, you’d be off to the races, eh, dleeper?
Maybe if they amended it to “People like me, not you, have a right to an environment that is not harmful to their health and well-being. After all, it’s not like my kids should be drinking polluted water. We’re important.”
“South Africa has 11 “official” languages and a Language Board that “promotes” 15 more. To a poor, benighted soul like me, this sounds like a politically correct polyglot run amok…”
Yeah, probably does. But perhaps our resident Africa “expert” wanumba would like to chime in on this one, to explain the importance of language in Africa, and why official recognition of language is important, especially in post-Apartheid South Africa.
Finally, here’s Antonin Scalia, also being taken out of context, claiming the USSR’s Constitution was better than ours (but of course, dleeper, doesn’t understand things like “context”, because dleeper’s all about the ragegasm):
http://youtu.be/Vaqc0CieXoU
Need a one way ticket to South Africa, Klute?
Now tell us what it is you detest so much about Communists and the Communist Party USA.
“Need a one way ticket to South Africa, Klute?”
Round trip, actually. I’ve always wanted to go on safari at Kruger and cage diving off of Cape Town.
“Now tell us what it is you detest so much about Communists and the Communist Party USA”
So, your position today is that you do care what I think? Like Mitt Romney, your positions change so often, I really don’t know what you actually believe.
I don’t care what you think. I simply asked you to tell us what it is you detest so much about Communists and the Communist Party USA. I asked you that because, just like every time in the past when I have asked you a similar question, you’ve given no answer, just like you haven’t given an answer this time. Why is that, Klute?
“Why is that, Klute?”
Because it’s a tiny psychic abrasion that bothers you so much yet means nothing to me. It’s amusing.
You have, yet once again, refused to answer the question regarding what it is that you detest so much about Communists and the Communist Party USA.
That’s all we need to know, Klute; that you consider questions about Communists and the Communist Party USA to be a “tiny psychic abrasion”. That makes it very clear where you are on the political spectrum. Thanks, Klute!
That’s right.
And I’m glad it bothers you so much.
It’s nice to know that you are someone with a nature such that you are glad if people are bothered. Ah, the glorious humanitarianism of liberals, LOL!
Actually, Klute, it doesn’t “bother” me at all. I’m glad we’ve cleared things up!
Although, who knows, CA, maybe I’ll answer your questions here:
http://www.evermorenevermore.com/republicon2012/
Republic-Con! Catch the Xcitement!
I’m terribly sorry, Klute, I didn’t hear why it is that you so detest Communists and the Communist Party USA. Just give us a few of the biggest reasons, patriot.
Oh, sorry, Kute. Your ticket is only one way, The good news, though, is that you can go to North Korea or any other Communist country of your choice instead!
“I’m terribly sorry, Klute, I didn’t hear why it is that you so detest Communists and the Communist Party USA. Just give us a few of the biggest reasons, patriot.”
See, that’s the thing. It’s something you want. And like Commander Kruge from Star Trek III, I’m not going to beam Spock to the Bird of Prey (rhetorically speaking of course), because you wish it.
“Oh, sorry, Kute. Your ticket is only one way,”
Well, fortunately, I’ve got a job so I can pay for the trip back. Still knocks the cost down a third. Thanks!
Well, that’s alright, Klute. Then you can tell us what makes The United States of America so much better than Communist countries. How about that?
Well, let’s try this, Klute. How long have you been a member of the Communist Party USA? That’s an easier one to answer, isn’t it?
Hi, Klute — Thanks for the comments. You seem to have a good grasp of welfare-state issues and genuine compassion for all mankind.
So you may be just the person to ask:
Clauses 26 and 27 listed in the article above only guarantee housing, healthcare, food, water, and social security. I looked at the rest of the SA Constitution, and I can’t find clothing. Why not clothing? Would you recommend SA add that in too? What good are all the other rights if you can’t clothe yourself?
Also, what about telecommunications? How can anyone function without it in this day and age? Would you recommend “free” phone, cable, and internet services too? Please tell me where to stop (if anywhere) … please.
And how about free education beyond high school? Surely that should be included, no? Actually, it is.
Clause 29 reads as follows (without duplicating the formatting exactly):
Everyone has the right to a basic education, including adult basic education; and
to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.
Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable. In order to ensure the effective access to, and implementation of, this right, the state must consider all reasonable educational alternatives, including single medium institutions, taking into account
equity; practicability; and the need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices.
How’s that? This is even better than bilingual education, no? This is polylingual!
There may well be more “rights” missing in the SA Constitution … please follow the link in the article (“available online”) and provide a few suggestions from your higher moral position. There are so many of us poor benighted souls who could benefit from your wisdom.
And in particular:
Would you recommend Clauses 26, 27, and 29 for our own revised US Constitution? There’s an ideal, utopian society in here somewhere … we just need to build off the SA Constitution, no?
Please also view the interviews at the links listed in the aticle (linked at “here, here, and here”). Cuban, German, and Soviet socialists all promised to fulfill promises like those in the SA Constitution. What went wrong there? How can we avoid their mistakes in the future?
FYI, Klute is a member of the Communist Party USA.
Wow. If I had the time to waste, that comment might be legally actionable!
So let me see if I understand what you are saying, Klute. You are stating that you are not a member of the Communist Party USA. Is that correct?
I’m not saying that at all – again, I will not answer that question. What I’m saying is that you’re presenting something as fact that you have no way of knowing is true or false in an attempt to defame me. It’s called libel ad hominem.
Thanks for clarifying that, Klute. And how do you know that I have no way of knowing whether it is true or false as you claim?
Because you said, and I quote:
“FYI, Klute is a member of the Communist Party USA.”
Only I know whether or not that’s a true or false statement. Unless you’ve committed actual crimes (i.e. hacking into my bank account, hacking into e-mail, illegally viewing public records as a political or civic official and then distributing them online, etc.), you have no way of knowing whether or not that the statement is true or false.
Are you a common criminal, Conservative American? Have you breached the public trust?
I could solve this whole debate right now, but again, I won’t, because I run the whole Klute show.
You think that to know that would take a criminal act, LOL? You’ve been watching too may spy movies, Klute!
You really run the WHOLE Klute show? Wow! I had no idea you were that big!
You remain unimpressive.
Well, I have to consider that the source of the above comment is someone who habitually wears a black trench coat, LOL!
Dleeper, you should have seen by now that you will be talking to the radical liftists poster boy if you converse with Klute. He will run every tangent posible while he just really wants to disagree and insult. It is a shame that this site is polluted by these Marxists malcontents, and I feel that ingnoring them is the best policy.
1. If you think I’m a “radical leftist”, then you really don’t know what a radical leftist is. Thanks though. I’ll definately be blurbing this on the back of my next book. Veritas Vincit and Wanumba got shout outs on the last book, Hate You Can Trust. Available whereever you’ve got a Nook or Kindle.
2. “I feel that ingnoring them is the best policy.” – Just like you did there.
Thanks, Sgt. Flapjaw and American Conserviative. I suspected as much, and after reading his 2nd post, he removed all doubt.
Strange that poster below, who goes by “True Conservative”, seems to have doubts, isn’t it?
Shorter Dleeper47:
“See, I’m really just looking for an echo chamber, not a debate.”
Also, I just noticed the Herbert London quote. No wonder Ginsburg suggesting South Africa’s new Constitution as a model for Egypt is so offensive to you.
Well, come on back when you learn what the term “debate” means, Klute.
Actually, it was the very definition of debate. He presented a question to me, I answered it, with the reasons for my answer, he couldn’t refute what I had to say, so he toddled off with his tail between his legs, trying to manufacture some semblance of a position.
Is English not your first language?
I fully understand why you question if English is my first language as you don’t want to learn English from someone for whom English is a second language.
Fortunately, my English teachers through school knew the meaning of the word “debate”.
I’ll send you a dictionary if you want, so you can brush up the whole… “words” thing.
Oh goodness no, Klute. I can only use an English dictionary, not your liberal dictionary, LOL!
Now here’s a classic radical, left wing liberal deception for you!
TC wrote this:
“TruConserv says:
February 4, 2012 at 9:50 am”
“If Obama does something good, let’s encourage him to do more. For example, he is now deporting illegal aliens at a rate higher than any previous president.”
Well let’s all applaud B. Hussein Obama along with TC. Wait! No! Let’s not! Why not? Because TC, in classic liberal fashion, didn’t tell the whole truth. Well, what did she leave out?
“Deportations”, in the strict legal definition, are up by 198,775 over the year 2000 BUT the total number of illegal aliens gotten out of the country by B. Hussein Obama in 2010 is DOWN by over 1,000.000 compared with year 2000!
So yet once again, TC proves herself to be a classic, deceptive Obama liberal attempting to mislead the people just like her hero, B. Hussein Obama! Well ain’t that something!
The issue of deportations is illustrative of the larger point, the one you continue to cower from.
My position is that when Conservatives praise Obama when he does something good, it both encourages him to continue doing good and it gives us credibility when we critic him.
For example, he has increased deportations. That’s a good thing. We recognize his efforts and encourage him to do more. Nonetheless, Obama has still failed the country. His immigration and border security efforts fall short of what is needed to protect America. When Obama was elected and then sworn in, all Americans hoped he would be be the most successful president of all time. He failed us. As is true with so many of his initiative, he only went half-way, did half the job. We need to elect a President that is unafraid to do everything needed to secure our borders, protect our jobs and respect the rule of law.
CA – now that you finally acknowledge that Obama has increased deportations, what of the above do you disagree with?
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
As directed, I have thought deliberately, TC, and this is one the parts of the above I disagree with.
You stated that Obama is now deporting illegals at a rate higher than any previous president. You also wrote, “When Obama gets it right, not only should all Americans say so, all patriots should say so loudly” and that ““If Obama does something good, let’s encourage him to do more.”
Now when it comes to SB1070, you said this: “I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”
So as regards deportations, you argue that we should praise Obama for having done something right and that that will “encourage” him to do more. When it comes to Obama opposing SB1070, however, you argue that a reaction to SB1070 from the left “forced” Obama to respond.
So, according to you, a “reaction” has a “forcing” effect on Obama. You cite the example of a reaction having the effect of “forcing” Obama to “come after” SB1070. You are advising “all Americans” and “all patriots”, however, that speaking out loudly when Obama does something good is the path to take because that will “encourage” him to do more. You cite no example where “speaking out loudly” or “encouraging” Obama do to more has been effective in “forcing” Obama to do anything.
You post here, at a Conservative blog, advising readers that the way to go is to praise Obama when he does something good but the only example you cite where Obama was “forced” to do something came about as the result of a “reaction” from the left.
So one of the parts of the above I disagree with is your direction of Conservatives toward an approach not proven to be effective, praise, and away from an approach which you allege is proven to be effective, reaction.
If we follow your paradigm, Conservatives will be praising and the left will be reacting but you have only cited an example of the “forcing” effect of reacting.
How is it that you believe that Conservatives should praise Obama for doing something right, because that will allegedly encourage him to do more good things, while citing an example where you claim that “reaction” had the effect of “forcing” Obama to act and citing no example where praise and encouragement has forced Obama to act?
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
Answer the question wingnut.
Enough dodging.
You asked what of the above I disagree with. I have anwered the question what of the above I disagree with in my comment at 8:28 am.
You, however, have not answered the question I posed to you in that comment:
“How is it that you believe that Conservatives should praise Obama for doing something right, because that will allegedly encourage him to do more good things, while citing an example where you claim that “reaction” had the effect of “forcing” Obama to act and citing no example where praise and encouragement has forced Obama to act?”
Now think deliberately, answer the question presented.
Answer my question wingnut.
I did not instruct you to give a critic of my positions, but of the statement regarding whether conservatives should support Obama when he does good.
Focus, dear boy, focus.
Excuse me, TC, but I asked you a question just as you asked me a question. I have answered your question but you have failed to answer my question.
TC wrote: “I did not instruct you to give a critic of my positions, but of the statement regarding whether conservatives should support Obama when he does good.”
That’s a lie, TC. You didn’t ask me to give a critique of anything, including the statement regarding whether conservatives should support Obama when he does good. You asked me the following question:
“CA – now that you finally acknowledge that Obama has increased deportations, what of the above do you disagree with?”
Can you ever make a comment without lying?
I answered your question in my post above at 8:28 am.
You whine when I “cut and paste” but you can’t even see my post above so here is your answer yet once again:
Conservative American says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:28 am
As directed, I have thought deliberately, TC, and this is one the parts of the above I disagree with.
You stated that Obama is now deporting illegals at a rate higher than any previous president. You also wrote, “When Obama gets it right, not only should all Americans say so, all patriots should say so loudly” and that ““If Obama does something good, let’s encourage him to do more.”
Now when it comes to SB1070, you said this: “I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”
So as regards deportations, you argue that we should praise Obama for having done something right and that that will “encourage” him to do more. When it comes to Obama opposing SB1070, however, you argue that a reaction to SB1070 from the left “forced” Obama to respond.
So, according to you, a “reaction” has a “forcing” effect on Obama. You cite the example of a reaction having the effect of “forcing” Obama to “come after” SB1070. You are advising “all Americans” and “all patriots”, however, that speaking out loudly when Obama does something good is the path to take because that will “encourage” him to do more. You cite no example where “speaking out loudly” or “encouraging” Obama do to more has been effective in “forcing” Obama to do anything.
You post here, at a Conservative blog, advising readers that the way to go is to praise Obama when he does something good but the only example you cite where Obama was “forced” to do something came about as the result of a “reaction” from the left.
So one of the parts of the above I disagree with is your direction of Conservatives toward an approach not proven to be effective, praise, and away from an approach which you allege is proven to be effective, reaction.
If we follow your paradigm, Conservatives will be praising and the left will be reacting but you have only cited an example of the “forcing” effect of reacting.
How is it that you believe that Conservatives should praise Obama for doing something right, because that will allegedly encourage him to do more good things, while citing an example where you claim that “reaction” had the effect of “forcing” Obama to act and citing no example where praise and encouragement has forced Obama to act?
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
Answer my question wingnut.
I did not instruct you to give a critic of my positions, but of the statement regarding whether conservatives should support Obama when he does good.
Focus, dear boy, focus.
No, TC, your’e lying yet again. This is what you asked me:
“CA – now that you finally acknowledge that Obama has increased deportations, what of the above do you disagree with?
I’ve given you my answer countless times in this thread but here is the short version yet again. We can keep this up as long as you would like, TC, LOL!
“Conservative American says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:28 am”
“So one of the parts of the above I disagree with is your direction of Conservatives toward an approach not proven to be effective, praise, and away from an approach which you allege is proven to be effective, reaction.”
Now you answer my question, TC! You wrote this to me:
“Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans…”
What proof do you have to offer that I “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?
Answer my question, Miss Libera!
Focus, dear girl, focus!
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
I have done further deliberate thinking, as directed, TC, and this is one more of the parts above I disagree with.
According to the legal definition of “deportation”, Obama is “deporting” more illegal aliens than any previous president. However, compared with the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. through both “removals”, deportation, AND “returns”, voluntarily leaving the U. S., the number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration in 2010 is more than one million fewer than were gotten out of the U. S. in the year 2000.
So the part I disagree with is presenting propaganda. Is it fair to call what you presented propaganda? Let’s find out!
Here is a definition of propaganda:
“Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.”
“As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Here is an example of one type of propaganda:
“Half-truth”
“A half-truth is a deceptive statement, which may come in several forms and includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
So what you presented fits the definition of “Half-truth” propaganda in that, “The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth…”
The whole truth has to do with the relative performance of the Obama administration in getting illegal aliens out of the U. S.. Addressing legally defined “deportation” only is addressing only part of the whole truth.
Why did you choose to present information regarding only illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration under the legal definition of “deportation” instead of addressing the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the country by the Obama administration?
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
Answer the question wingnut.
What part of the following do you disagree with?
Conservatives should support Obama when he does good, thereby encouraging him to do more good and giving them credibility when they do offer criticism.
Come on CA, man-up and answer the question.
“Conservative American says:
February 11, 2012 at 12:55 pm”
“So one of the parts of the above I disagree with is your direction of Conservatives toward an approach not proven to be effective, praise, and away from an approach which you allege is proven to be effective, reaction.”
Now that is posted as part of my answer to you in numerous locations in this thread.
My turn now, TC. You wrote this to me:
“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”
“Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans…”
What proof do you have that I have “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?
Come on, TC, man up and answer the question here and now. No avoidance. No feeble excuses. Answer my question just as I have answered yours.
Your response makes no sense.
Praise is a reaction. Obama is given to react, it’s one of his weaknesses. We should exploit it by reacting with praise when he does good.
Seriously, if you don’t understand the good that comes from praising Obama when he gets it right, and instead think we should always attack him, then surely you must understand why you have absolutely no credibility when you offer criticism.
If all you ever respond with is a negative, even when someone has done good, how can we ever know when you are just faking outrage and when you actually have a legitimate point to make?
Given your admission that you think the only way to respond to someone you have identified as your ideological enemy, why should anyone engage you in conversation, when no matter what is written you will, by your own admission, find a way to twist it into a negative?
Now that we’ve established, by your own admission, that you can’t be trusted, then there really is no reason to continue this discussion. You’re just not honest enough for it.
The only good that has come of this is that (1) you finally admitted that you are nothing more than a contrarian and (2) you’re now the poster-child for why wingnuts should not be allowed to speak as if they were conservatives.
Sawadee Khup, Wingnut, Selamat tinggal, Zai jian, Annyong-hi kyeshipshio.
And so you feel that the “reaction” from the left, which “forced” Obama, against his will to go after SB1070, was one of praise and that is your logic for wanting Conservatives to praise Obama. Is that it, TC, LOL!
TC wrote: “Seriously, if you don’t understand the good that comes from praising Obama when he gets it right, and instead think we should always attack him, then surely you must understand why you have absolutely no credibility when you offer criticism.”
No, sorry, I don’t understand that. I know that liberals “understand” that just as you “understand” why Obama went after SB1070, LOL!
Now how about you cite some examples where praise from Conservatives has resulted in Obama changing course and dropping his “progressive” Democrat, radical leftist agenda?
Now, by your own admission you have no proof whatsoever that I “demonized” Hispanics, particulary Mexicans. Thanks for clarifying that, TC!
And, at long last, you have finally admitted that you are a radical, left wing liberal propagandist posing as a Conservative. It took you a while to get there but in the end, the truth has prevailed!
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Liberal!
You see, TC, as a “progressive” Democratic liberal, you have a view of Obama as a reasonable person. As a Conservative, I see Obama and his administration as a force actively seeking to destroy America.
Obama IS the left. Obama most assuredly is my political enemy and I will offer him no praise. The only instance in which I would give Obama praise is if he steps down from office.
Are we clear now?
” I see Obama and his administration as a force actively seeking to destroy America.”
Why does it always come down to black helicopters with you?
You genuinely think Obama is actively seeking to destroy America?
Given your proven difficulty with basic English vocabulary, let me read back to you the meaning of what you wrote: you think Obama is deliberately, purposely and with evil intent seeking to cause the collapse of the United States.
You think the President of the United States wants/ desires to see the United States fall to ruin.
That is the plain and ordinary meaning of your writing.
Is that the meaning you intended to convey?
“Obama most assuredly is my political enemy and I will offer him no praise.”
And that is why no takes you seriously on any issue – you’ll always go negative, even when you should, if you were a principled human being, agree with “your enemy.”
That’s okay for you. You’re no one. I’m no one.
But for the conservative movement, which should win every election if it stays true to its principles, that is the death knell. If the conservative movement only criticizes Obama, then the public will give no credibility to our message. If our reaction to every issue is that Obama is evil, then the people will never know when we’re playing politic and when there is legitimate cause for concern.
That matters. Wingnuts like you, with your fear of your own shadow and anti-social black-and-white, good-versus-evil mindset are bad for the conservative movement.
Living with shades of grey takes advanced social and cognitive skill – something your cyber-stalking reveals you lack.
You may be on the right, but you are not a conservative.
Are we clear now?
Well, TC, let’s address just how credible you are, LOL!
According to the legal definition of “deportation”, Obama is “deporting” more illegal aliens than any previous president. However, compared with the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. through both “removals”, deportation, AND “returns”, voluntarily leaving the U. S., the number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration in 2010 is more than one million fewer than were gotten out of the U. S. in the year 2000.
So the part I disagree with about TC’s presentation is that she is presenting propaganda. Is it fair to call what TC presented propaganda? Let’s find out!
Here is a definition of propaganda:
“Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.”
“As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Here is an example of one type of propaganda:
“Half-truth”
“A half-truth is a deceptive statement, which may come in several forms and includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
So what you presented fits the definition of “Half-truth” propaganda in that, “The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth…”
The whole truth has to do with the relative performance of the Obama administration in getting illegal aliens out of the U. S.. Addressing legally defined “deportation” only is addressing only part of the whole truth.
Why did you choose to present information regarding only illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration under the legal definition of “deportation” instead of addressing the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the country by the Obama administration?
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Liberal!
Let’s get back on topic: Ginsberg’s comments.
Her comments are less about showing disrespect for the Constitution and more about showing her activist self.
As a lawyer, a former editor of a scholarly constitutional law journal and a conservative, let me provide some background: when the South African drafting committee started examining how to write a new constitution, the US Constitution was used as an exemplar. The committee was concerned about how the US Constitution had to be “interpreted” to find rights the committee considered substantive.
To you and I, we call that interpretation “activism.” We see it in language such as the court declaring some rights can be found in the “penumbra” of the Constitution. (the shadow). Further, as we know, judicial activism leads to uncertain law, as the whims of the judge or the panel can change.
The South Africans decided that rather than hoping a court would “find” the same rights in the manner the US did (or does not so find) it would detail them.
When Ginsberg is commenting that Egypt should look to South Africa, she is expressing her belief that it is better to delineate rights than to have to find them lurking in the shadows of the Constitution. She has, thereby, admitted that is something she must routinely do: “find” rights not expressed in the Constitution itself. She is admitting to activism.
That is damning enough. No need to add in personal attacks that may or may not be sustained by a reader. Also, its a bit disingenuous to complain the South African document has equivocation when that is true for every Constitution. “Reasonable” “probable” “due” those words of equivocation, and others, make US lawyers rich.
For more information about what modern left-leaning scholars suggest for the drafting of a Constitution, see http://www.interpeace.org/constitutionmaking/the-constitution-making-handbook. That explains the approach that Ginsberg is suggesting Egypt takes.
For the conservative approach – just consult your pocket version of the US Constitution. Don’t have one – the Heritage Foundation can help you … that’s where I got mine.
Yes, let’s get back on topic and the topic is TC. How is that so? It is so because you post under the user name “True Conservative” when, in fact, you are actually a “True Liberal”. That means that each and every time you post, you are telling a lie.
Secondly, as someone feigning to be a “Conservative”, your comments have no credibility. Let me provide an example. You wrote to me:
“Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans…”
Can you provide proof of the allegation that I have “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
I’m not going to fight old battles, even the ones I have won.
Why should I post anything, when a few minutes later you’ll just pretend I never responded?
Go back to telling the lie that I’m a paid propagandist … at least that was funny, that you’re so afraid of your own shadow that you think someone would pay a lawyer to come here to counter your arguments. That’s even better than your black-helicopter conspiracies.
You’re a joke. The only threat you present is to the conservative movement. The left loves you. If anyone were being paid, it would be have you post more, not less.
Excuse me, TC, but you didn’t follow direction, the very same direction you saw fit to give me: “Think deliberately, answer the question presented.” That is what you directed me to do above. You haven’t answered the question presented, as you demanded that I do. If you look at my posts above at 8:28 am and 9:26 am you will see that I answered the question which you presented.
Let’s get back to the question.
Can you provide proof of the allegation that I have “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
1) you never answered my question.
2) you post is off-topic
3) I’ve already answered this question in other threads
4) you’re a creepy cyber-stalker, you really think I’m going to reward your bad behavior?
TC wrote: “1) you never answered my question.”
Let’s find out if TC is telling the truth or if she is, as usual, telling a lie, shall we?
Here is the question which you posed to me in your post above at 5:22 am:
“CA – now that you finally acknowledge that Obama has increased deportations, what of the above do you disagree with?” That is the specific question you asked.
I answered your question in my posts at both 8:28 am and at 9:26 am above. Do you see those posts, TC?
TC wrote:”3) I’ve already answered this question in other threads.”
ROFL! That is what you always claim when cornered, LOL! And my response to you is always the same: Direct me to where you have already answered the question. And your response is always the same as well; you fail to demonstrate where you have already answered the question. Your response will be the same this time and you will, as always, offer some kind of esoteric, liberal, pseudo-intellectual excuse for how it violates your principles to do so. Come on, TC, let’s hear it, ROFL!
Come on, TC, man up! Point me to the threads where you have “already answered” my question regarding what proof you have to offer to back up your allegation that I have “demonized” Hispanics, particulary Mexicans.
Answer the question! No avoidance. No feeble excuses! Show me where you have already answered the question. Come on, Miss Liberal, it’s put up or shut up time!
Just as I stated above, as someone feigning to be a “Conservative”, your comments have no credibiltiy. Thank you for proving my point, TC, by failing to think deliberately and answer the question presented.
If you asked a question that was on point, I’d respond.
For now, you’re just a loony cyber-stalker with an obsession for lying.
Sucks to be you.
Your reason for failing to respond is irrelevant, TC. The fact remains that you have failed to respond as directed. Let’s go over it again, shall we?
In your above post at 5:22 am you directed me as follows:
“Think deliberately, answer the question presented.”
In my above posts at 8:28 am and 9:26 am I did exactly as you directed and answered the questions which you presented. In each of those posts I posed a question to you and directed you, exactly as you directed me to: “Think deliberately, answer the question presented.” You have failed to do so.
Furthermore, I presented another question to you:
“Can you provide proof of the allegation that I have “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?”
I once again directed you, as you directed me, to: “Think deliberately, answer the question presented.”
You have failed to respond to that question as well.
Those are the hard, irrefutable facts, TC, and no amount of liberal verbiage is going to change them.
No – you still refuse to answer the question.
It’s a simple one.
What part of the following do you disagree with?
“Conservative should praise Obama when he does good. It encourages him to do more good and also gives conservatives credibility when we offer criticism.”
Given your refusal to answer I think we can surmise that you only oppose the statement because I made it and you have some bizarre obsession with me. Somewhere in the back of that “don’t drink flourinated water” mind of yours is the remenant of sanity that says “he’s right.”
TC wrote: “No – you still refuse to answer the question.”
No, TC, that is a flat out lie. You whine when I “cut and paste” but you leave me no other choice because of your persistence in lying.
Here is what you wrote, verbatim:
“True Conservative says:
February 11, 2012 at 5:22 am”
“My position is that when Conservatives praise Obama when he does something good, it both encourages him to continue doing good and it gives us credibility when we critic him.”
“For example, he has increased deportations. That’s a good thing. We recognize his efforts and encourage him to do more.”
Then you asked me: “CA – now that you finally acknowledge that Obama has increased deportations, what of the above do you disagree with?”
I answered your question in two parts, one about praising Obama and one about deportations. Here is my answer to the first part:
“Conservative American says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:28 am”
“As directed, I have thought deliberately, TC, and this is one the parts of the above I disagree with.”
“You stated that Obama is now deporting illegals at a rate higher than any previous president. You also wrote, “When Obama gets it right, not only should all Americans say so, all patriots should say so loudly” and that “If Obama does something good, let’s encourage him to do more.”
“Now when it comes to SB1070, you said this: “I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”
“So as regards deportations, you argue that we should praise Obama for having done something right and that that will “encourage” him to do more. When it comes to Obama opposing SB1070, however, you argue that a reaction to SB1070 from the left “forced” Obama to respond.”
“So, according to you, a “reaction” has a “forcing” effect on Obama. You cite the example of a reaction having the effect of “forcing” Obama to “come after” SB1070. You are advising “all Americans” and “all patriots”, however, that speaking out loudly when Obama does something good is the path to take because that will “encourage” him to do more. You cite no example where “speaking out loudly” or “encouraging” Obama do to more has been effective in “forcing” Obama to do anything.”
“You post here, at a Conservative blog, advising readers that the way to go is to praise Obama when he does something good but the only example you cite where Obama was “forced” to do something came about as the result of a “reaction” from the left.”
“So one of the parts of the above I disagree with is your direction of Conservatives toward an approach not proven to be effective, praise, and away from an approach which you allege is proven to be effective, reaction.”
“If we follow your paradigm, Conservatives will be praising and the left will be reacting but you have only cited an example of the “forcing” effect of reacting.”
“How is it that you believe that Conservatives should praise Obama for doing something right, because that will allegedly encourage him to do more good things, while citing an example where you claim that “reaction” had the effect of “forcing” Obama to act and citing no example where praise and encouragement has forced Obama to act?”
“Think deliberately, answer the question presented.”
Here is my answer to the second part regarding deportations:
” Conservative American says:
February 11, 2012 at 9:26 am”
“I have done further deliberate thinking, as directed, TC, and this is one more of the parts above I disagree with.”
“According to the legal definition of “deportation”, Obama is “deporting” more illegal aliens than any previous president. However, compared with the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. through both “removals”, deportation, AND “returns”, voluntarily leaving the U. S., the number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration in 2010 is more than one million fewer than were gotten out of the U. S. in the year 2000.”
“So the part I disagree with is presenting propaganda. Is it fair to call what you presented propaganda? Let’s find out!”
“Here is a definition of propaganda:”
“Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.”
“As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
“Here is an example of one type of propaganda:”
“Half-truth”
“A half-truth is a deceptive statement, which may come in several forms and includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
“So what you presented fits the definition of “Half-truth” propaganda in that, “The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth…”
“The whole truth has to do with the relative performance of the Obama administration in getting illegal aliens out of the U. S.. Addressing legally defined “deportation” only is addressing only part of the whole truth.”
“Why did you choose to present information regarding only illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration under the legal definition of “deportation” instead of addressing the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the country by the Obama administration?”
“Think deliberately, answer the question presented.”
So here, in one single comment, we have both your question and my answers to it. Now let’s hear you lie again and say that I have not answered you question, TC.
If somewhere in that unreadable hot mess of cogency fail you attempt to answer my question, it’s lost.
Here’s my question: what part of the following statement do you disagree with?
Conservatives should praise Obama when he does good, so as to encourage him to do more good, while also giving conservatives credibility when offering criticism.
Focus dear boy, focus.
No, TC, your’e lying yet again. This is what you asked me:
“CA – now that you finally acknowledge that Obama has increased deportations, what of the above do you disagree with?”
Now I’ll give you the short answer again, TC. We can keep doing this as long as you would like TC. I don’t mind at all! Let’s shoot for an initial goal of one thousand times, shall we! You game?
“Conservative American says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:28 am”
“So one of the parts of the above I disagree with is your direction of Conservatives toward an approach not proven to be effective, praise, and away from an approach which you allege is proven to be effective, reaction.”
Now you answer my question, TC! You wrote this to me:
“Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans…”
What proof do you have to offer that I “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?
Answer my question, Miss Libera!
Focus, dear girl, focus!
Think deliberately, answer the question presented
Your response makes no sense.
Praise is a reaction. Obama is given to react, it’s one of his weaknesses. We should exploit it by reacting with praise when he does good.
Seriously, if you don’t understand the good that comes from praising Obama when he gets it right, and instead think we should always attack him, then surely you must understand why you have absolutely no credibility when you offer criticism.
If all you ever respond with is a negative, even when someone has done good, how can we ever know when you are just faking outrage and when you actually have a legitimate point to make?
Given your admission that you think the only way to respond to someone you have identified as your ideological enemy, why should anyone engage you in conversation, when no matter what is written you will, by your own admission, find a way to twist it into a negative?
Now that we’ve established, by your own admission, that you can’t be trusted, then there really is no reason to continue this discussion. You’re just not honest enough for it.
The only good that has come of this is that (1) you finally admitted that you are nothing more than a contrarian and (2) you’re now the poster-child for why wingnuts should not be allowed to speak as if they were conservatives.
Sawadee Khup, Wingnut, Selamat tinggal, Zai jian, Annyong-hi kyeshipshio.
Correction: My response makes no sense to a liberal like you, LOL!
TC wrote: “Seriously, if you don’t understand the good that comes from praising Obama when he gets it right…”
Enlighten me, TC. Give us some examples where praising Obama has benefitted Conservatism.
The rest of your comment can be dismissed as simply more of your liberal verbiage.
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Liberal!
Speak up, TC, I can’t hear your answer to my question.
Now think deliberately, answer the question presented.
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Liberal!
“True Conservative” asked me a question in this thread and admonished me to “Think deliberately, answer the question presented.” I have done so in posts above at 8:28 am and 9:26 am in this thread and again at 11:32 am in this thread.
I have asked “True Conservative” three questions in this thread as follows:
“How is it that you believe that Conservatives should praise Obama for doing something right, because that will allegedly encourage him to do more good things, while citing an example where you claim that “reaction” had the effect of “forcing” Obama to act and citing no example where praise and encouragement has forced Obama to act?”
Then I asked:
“Why did you choose to present information regarding only illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration under the legal definition of “deportation” instead of addressing the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the country by the Obama administration?”
Finally I asked:
“Can you provide proof of the allegation that I have “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?”
“True Conservative” has failed to answer all of those questions.
The excuse which TC has offered for not answering the last question is that, “3) I’ve already answered this question in other threads.” When I ask TC to point to those threads, she fails to do so.
Here is another TC excuse for refusing to answer a question:
“If you asked a question that was on point, I’d respond.”
Here are a couple more of her exuses for refusing to answer questions:
“I’m not going to fight old battles, even the ones I have won.”
“Why should I post anything, when a few minutes later you’ll just pretend I never responded?”
This is an absolutely classic, textbook example of the manner in which radical leftist liberals seek to escape the Conservative cleansing light of truth.
In “True Conservative” we may clearly see the repertoire of tactics routinely employed by the “progressive” left. The pattern is crystal clear and it is that pattern of disingenuous tactics which proves that “True Conservative” is no “Conservative” at all but rather a B. Hussein Obama supporting “True Liberal”.
Still waiting for you to answer my question:
What part of the following do you disagree with: Conservatives should praise Obama when he does good, so as to encourage him to do more good, while also giving conservatives credibility when offering him criticism.
You’ve hemmed and hawed and dodged and cowered. How ’bout you finally just answer the question?
No, TC, you’re lying yet again. This is what you asked me:
“CA – now that you finally acknowledge that Obama has increased deportations, what of the above do you disagree with?”
Now I’ll give you the short answer again, TC. We can keep doing this as long as you would like TC. I don’t mind at all! Let’s shoot for an initial goal of one thousand times, shall we! You game?
“Conservative American says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:28 am”
“So one of the parts of the above I disagree with is your direction of Conservatives toward an approach not proven to be effective, praise, and away from an approach which you allege is proven to be effective, reaction.”
Now you answer my question, TC! You wrote this to me:
“Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans…”
What proof do you have to offer that I “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?
Answer my question, Miss Libera!
Focus, dear girl, focus!
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
You’ve hemmed and hawed and dodged and cowered. How ’bout you finally just answer the question?
TC wrote: “…while also giving conservatives credibility when offering him criticism.”
So you think that Conservatives need to establish “credibilty” when criticizing B. Hussein Obama! ROFL!
Come on, TC, man up and answer the questions!
Question A: “How is it that you believe that Conservatives should praise Obama for doing something right, because that will allegedly encourage him to do more good things, while citing an example where you claim that “reaction” had the effect of “forcing” Obama to act and citing no example where praise and encouragement has forced Obama to act?”
Question B:“Why did you choose to present information regarding only illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration under the legal definition of “deportation” instead of addressing the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the country by the Obama administration?”
Question C: “Can you provide proof of the allegation that I have “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?”
You haven’t answered one of these questions. Come on, get on the stick! No avoidance! No more feeble excuses. Answer the questions, TC!
Think deliberately, answer the questions presented!
QA: Huh? Can you write a cogent question and then I can evaluate whether it merits being answered?
QB: Because returns and removals are differant issues and have differant causes. I’m not here to be an apologist for Obama, but I do respect that he has stepped up the use of the courts to deport illegals. That’s a good thing. It’s not enough, and that’s should be our response, but when wingnuts like you start slobbering out the hackneyed “but … but … but … look at this” arguments you look foolish. Heck, it took three days of fevered research, even with jocular proding from me, for you to FINALLY understand the meaning of the word deportation.
I selected immigration because it is an area where Obama has done some good things, but not enough. When we take the “all Obama is evil all the time” approach that you seemingly advocate the liberals can point to these demonstratively good things to make us look like simple-minded contrarians. (Trust me, that is how you have come off in this discussion.) When we reply that while he has done good, it is not enough, and as such he needs to be replaced by someone who will do what is required, then we have credibility and have a shot at persuading undecideds to join the conservative movement. (I’ve now answered that question for you some three or four times. I will not answer it again.)
QC: Asked and answered. I will not reward your creepiness by refighting old battles, especially ones that I have already won.
BTW: any chance you can now actually comment on the topic of the thread? LOL!
Stop avoiding and answer the questions, TC! You haven’t answered on of them.
Question A: “How is it that you believe that Conservatives should praise Obama for doing something right, because that will allegedly encourage him to do more good things, while citing an example where you claim that “reaction” had the effect of “forcing” Obama to act and citing no example where praise and encouragement has forced Obama to act?”
Question B:“Why did you choose to present information regarding only illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration under the legal definition of “deportation” instead of addressing the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the country by the Obama administration?”
Question C: “Can you provide proof of the allegation that I have “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?”
You haven’t answered one of these questions. Come on, get on the stick! No avoidance! No more feeble excuses. Answer the questions, TC!
Think deliberately, answer the questions presented!
You see, this is why people don’t trust you.
Directly below a spot-on answer to your question you post the lie that I have not answered it. I have no interest in playing this game with you any longer.
No matter how many times I answer your questions, you pretend not see them, and then whine that I don’t respond.
It’s not just that you’re a cyber-stalker, it’s that now you bore me, and my point has been proven rather well.
When you have something to post on-topic, that is an informed, deliberative comment, I’ll be here …
Well where is your answer to this question, TC?
What proof do you have to support your allegation that I “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?
You see, TC, this is why people don’t trust you. You say that you’ve answered questions which you haven’t. You claim that the answer is in another thread… somewhere, LOL!
But we don’t expect much from radical liberal leftists attempting to pass themselves of as “Conservatives”.
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Liberal!
Well, I certainly hope that you’ll be here, TC. I would sorely miss our chats.
And have no concerns about being “on topic”. You are and always shall be the topic!
CA wrote to TC: “And have no concerns about being “on topic”. You are and always shall be the topic! ”
Before I called your behavior creepy.
I apologize for that.
It was an unfair comment against all the creeps out there. They are not nearly as pathetic and weird as you are, CA.
Hey, TC, that’s the sort of brilliant and enlightening comment which has made you famous, LOL!
While I have you here. why don’t you answer this question?
What proof do you have to support your allegation that I “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?
I just want you to feel a sense of assurance, TC, that you won’t be ignored. When you post a comment, I’ll be there and you will be the topic. That will hold true forever and a day. See now, doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Can you feel the love?
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Liberal!:-)
Above I’ve pointed out some of the classic liberal tactics which TC uses to avoid answering questions.
For example, I asked her this question:
“Can you provide proof of the allegation that I have “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans?”
Earlier, she avoided answering it this way:
“3) I’ve already answered this question in other threads.” Really TC? Point us to those threads, LOL!
This time she’s avoiding answering it this way:
“Asked and answered. I will not reward your creepiness by refighting old battles, especially ones that I have already won.”
ROFL! Ain’t it amazing? She comes up with the most bizarre excuses for refusing to answer the question!
Have a nice day, Miss Liberal!
Come on, TC, you’re dragging. Pick up the pace, Honey! Move it, move it, move it!
Come on, TC, don’t you crump on me now! This is just starting to be fun! Let’s dance, Honey!
Let me make this clear to you, TC. You see Obama as a reasonable person. That is because you are a “progressive” Democratic liberal. As a Conservative, I see Obama as a political enemy who, along with those in his administration, is actively seeking to destroy America.
As such I will offer Obama no praise, nor will I offer him any aid or comfort. The only instance in which I would praise B. Hussein Obama would be if he were to step down from office.
Now if you don’t see that as Conservative, to hell with you. I really don’t give a rat’s patootie what a liberal like you thinks is Conservative.
Stick your praise for B. Hussein Obama where the sun don’t shine.
“As a Conservative, I see Obama as a political enemy who, along with those in his administration, is actively seeking to destroy America.”
That’s not because you are a conservative, ConAm. You see him that way because you’re an idiot. And there is a difference.
I’m really not too concerned about the evaluation of my Conservativism by someone who donated $394 to Obama in 2008 and who made four donations to Act Blue in 2011, LOL!
Wow, you really do care about what I think, if you’re checking me out on Fundrace (gasp! through the Huffington Post! – thankfully you’ll also get exposed to opinions outside of the wingnut biased media).
What’s not listed is I also gave about $120 to OFA in 2011, and donated about $100 to Sea Shepherd (amongst other charities).
And it wasn’t a comment on your conservativism – it was a comment on your mental health/acumen.
So you really DO care if I care about what you think! That’s very touching, Klute!
I don’t care if you donated to the Girl Scouts of America, Klute. The fact remains that you contributed $394 to Obama in 2008 and that you made four donations to Act Blue in 2011, not that you hide the fact that you are a liberal.
You’ll forgive me if I’m not concerned about your opinion regarding my “mental health/acumen” as I don’t consider liberals to be of sound mind.
Cheers, Klute!
BTW, Klute, I do have to admit to having a chuckle over the fact that you managed to bring Colin Powell’s attorneys out of the woodwork! That CAN be seen as legitimate national “recognition” of your work.
There have been many tyrants over the course of history who have done some good things. Nevertheless, they remained tyrants.
Simply because B.Hussein Obama may do some good things or because he may do some things of which Conservatives approve, does not change what B. Hussein Obama is.
Obama IS the left. The thrust of his policies are destructive of America. I will not give someone like that one iota of political quarter. I shall oppose him and his policies at every turn. I will do all that I can do to see to it that he does not remain in the White House. I shall criticize him ceaselessly, relentlessly and without pity or mercy because he is a tyrant bent on destroying America.
If you don’t want to join in that then get out of the way and stand on the sidelines because it’s going to happen whether you approve of it or not.
Based on what I am reading here, shame on me, the guy posting as “Conservative American” is neither conservative nor American.
I don’t believe he’s effective, either, in his opposition to Obama on this blog. Preaching to the choir.
That’s okay, Alex, my opinion of you is equally as low.
Sorry for all the drawn out posts, it was an ugly process, but the end justifies the means in this instance.
At long last, we finally have CA admitting that he is no patriot, that answers and actions do not matter, and any libel is justified if you oppose his political ideology.
He’s admitted that he would rather see America fail than see Obama succeed – at any level.
No matter what his “political enemies” do, he slobberingly admits will always twist that into a negative.
He actually thinks Obama is deliberately trying to destroy America. You and I might think his policies have a deleterious effect on America, but we can respect that this is due to his being a liberal, not his being a secret agent of evil.
These are his own admissions.
As an individual, CA doesn’t matter – neither do I – but he is the perfect exemplar of a wingnut, and as such informs us all that wingnuts are not conservatives, are not patriots, and should NOT be allowed to speak as if they are either.
Moving forward I hope we can resume having respectful adult discussions – all while ignoring CA’s lunatic fringe comments.
NOTICE: The above poster, “TruConserv”, is a paid propagandist for the liberal left posing as a “Conservaitve” for the express purpose of discrediting real Conservatives. For example, she wrote this:
“TruConserv says:
February 11, 2012 at 5:11 pm”
“Seriously, if you don’t understand the good that comes from praising Obama when he gets it right, and instead think we should always attack him, then surely you must understand why you have absolutely no credibility when you offer criticism.”
“If all you ever respond with is a negative, even when someone has done good, how can we ever know when you are just faking outrage and when you actually have a legitimate point to make?”
So TC urges Conservatives to praise Obama and cautions us about the hazards of being “negative.” Yet once again, she has proven herself to be an Obama supporter and an instrument of the radical liberal left.
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Libera!
Now “True Consevative”, who is really a “True Liberal”, seeks to convince Conservatives readers at SA that B. Hussein Obama is a reasonable and patriotic American and that as such we should praise him when he does good lest we be considered “negative”. Let’s debunk TC’s Pinko propaganda, shall we?
TC wants us to address what B. Hussein Obama does, on a case by case basis, and praise him when he does good. This is like praising Pontius Pilate for washing his hands. The issue is not just what Obama DOES but it is also what Obama IS. Obama may change what he does but he can’t change what he IS. What is B. Hussein Obama? He is a radical, liberal, left wing “progressive” Democrat who is dedicated to the destruction of America.
So, TC, you go ahead and praise your hero, B. Hussein Obama. That having been taken care of by you, Conservatives will take care of countering Obama’s destructive efforts and calling to the attention of the American people precisely what Obama is up to and precisely what radical, left wing liberal propagandists like you are attempting to do by feigning to be “Conservative”.
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Liberal!
TC wrote this about me: “He actually thinks Obama is deliberately trying to destroy America.”
So then is it your belief, TC, that B. Hussein Obama is NOT deliberately trying to destroy America?
TC wrote: ” You and I might think his policies have a deleterious effect on America, but we can respect that this is due to his being a liberal, not his being a secret agent of evil.”
So your point is that while you “MIGHT” think that the policies of B. Hussein Obama have a “deleterious” effect on America, Obama should not be seen as a “secret agent of evil”. Instead, we need to “respsect” that his “deleterious” policies are simply due to his being a liberal. Is that right, TC?
You’ll forgive me, TC, but I really don’t care if B. Hussein Obama’s “deleterious” polices spring from his being a liberal or not and I most assuredly do not “respect” that his deleterious policies may spring from his liberalism. I have no respect whatsoever for liberals or liberalism. You have a problem with that, TC?
Since TC has chosen to use the word “deleterious”, let’s look at the definition of that word:
“deleterious”
“harmful: having a harmful or damaging effect on somebody or something”
“Synonyms: damaging, harmful, injurious, destructive, adverse, detrimental, negative”
One of the synonyms for deleterious is “destructive”. So policies which are “deleterious” are policies which are destructive. TC would have us believe that the deleterious, desrtructive policies of Obama are not deliberate. If Obama’s deleterious, destructive policies are not deliberate, TC, then what are they instead of being deliberate?
Here are antonyms of “deliberate”:
“Antonyms: chance, indeterminate, unintentional, unmethodical, unsystematic, unwitting”
Would you have us believe, TC, that B. Hussein Obama’s deleterious, destructive policies are by chance, unintentional, unmetheodical, unsystematic and unwitting? If that is the case, then how is it that they are “policies”? The definition of a political policy is as follows:
“1. A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters”
So a policy is a “plan”. If the “policies” of B. Hussein Obama are deleterious and destructive, they have been planned to be so.
TC’s statement is a classic, textbook example of how propagandists for the liberal left seek to obfuscate and to baffle readers with BS. When we cut through all of the hype and verbiage we come to the realization that if it walks like a liberal, quacks liberal and looks like a liberal, it’s a liberal!
Don’t be fooled. Notice that the entire thrust of TC’s post was to defend B. Hussein Obama and to attempt to discredit me. What does that tell you?
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Liberal!
TC wrote this about me: “He’s admitted that he would rather see America fail than see Obama succeed…”
Aside from TC’s other virtues, she is also a plagiarist! The material itself is not nearly as important as the source from which it came. Who said that before TC wrote it?
The statement came from none other than Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking House DEMOCRAT!
“The leader in the Senate said his principal objective is to defeat Barack Obama, and therefore — and this is important — what follows is that America needs to fail over the next 14 months.” – Steny Hoyer
Well ain’t that something! Our “True Conservative” is attacking me by quoting the second-ranking House DEMOCRAT, Steny Hoyer!
Thank you for that, TC!
That is my point.
When wingnuts like you speak, the left gets ammunition.
This is not a chicken versus egg argument.
You nut jobs give the liberals ammunition to attack conservatives through your outrageous, unpatriotic behavior.
You are the egg, you are the alpha. You create the crap the conservatives have to clean up. That has been my consistent argument on these pages – when conservatives let wingnuts speak as if they are part of the conservative movement, the movement is harmed.
You’re just the poster-child that keeps on giving.
TC wrote: “When wingnuts like you speak, the left gets ammunition.”
ROFL! Like the liberal genius that you are, you just shot yourself in the foot!
And who is using the “ammunition” of the liberal left against ME? YOU are! That makes YOU a liberal!
And who was Steny Hoyer responding to when he made his statement? He was responding to remarks by Republican U. S. Senator Mitch McConnell. So, according to you, that would make Senator McConnell a “wingnut”.
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Liberal!
You have no idea how dumb you sound.
Everything comes down to black helicopters for you, feverishly examining each word seeking some secret and undisclosed truth that only you can devise.
You’d be better served chasing after the Free Masons’ treasure than engaging in political debate.
This is just another example of how you’re a wingnut and not a conservative.
LOL! Rinse and repeat!
TC wrote: “When wingnuts like you speak, the left gets ammunition.”
ROFL! Like the liberal genius that you are, you just shot yourself in the foot!
And who is using the “ammunition” of the liberal left against ME? YOU are! That makes YOU a liberal!
And who was Steny Hoyer responding to when he made his statement? He was responding to remarks by Republican U. S. Senator Mitch McConnell. So, according to you, that would make Senator McConnell a “wingnut”.
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Liberal!
TC wrote: “You nut jobs give the liberals ammunition to attack conservatives through your outrageous, unpatriotic behavior.”
Really? And how would you characterize the behavior of B. Hussein Obama? Is it your view that B. Hussein Obama’s behavior is “patriotic” while my behavior is not?
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
You are no patriot. As you admit, you would rather Obama do poorly than to do well.
For example, you refused to admit that his killing Bin Laden was a good.
Neither do I think Obama is a true patriot. A patriot is one who vigorously defends the country. Obama has failed us in that regard. He has done some things well, but ultimately he has left the work half-done (no pun intended.) That is why I advocate we need a true conservative in the office who will complete the work.
Unlike you, however, I do think that Obama would choose the success of the country over the success of his political ideology. His failure to choose the correct ideology is not a manifestation of malice, just one of a poor understanding of political science and human nature.
In contrast, you would rather see the nation harmed if that meant your brand of extremism could take root.
At long last, neither of you meets my definition of a patriot.
TC wrote: “As you admit, you would rather Obama do poorly than to do well.”
OF COURSE I would rather see Obama do poorly than do well and it is precisely that which makes me a patriot, LOL! How is that? As I have already conclusively proven, Obama seeks to actively destroy the U. S. and I seek to prevent him from doing that! ROFL!
Apparently you missed the conclusive proof so here it is for you yet one more time:
TC wrote this about me: “He actually thinks Obama is deliberately trying to destroy America.”
So then is it your belief, TC, that B. Hussein Obama is NOT deliberately trying to destroy America?
TC wrote: ” You and I might think his policies have a deleterious effect on America, but we can respect that this is due to his being a liberal, not his being a secret agent of evil.”
So your point is that while you “MIGHT” think that the policies of B. Hussein Obama have a “deleterious” effect on America, Obama should not be seen as a “secret agent of evil”. Instead, we need to “respsect” that his “deleterious” policies are simply due to his being a liberal. Is that right, TC?
You’ll forgive me, TC, but I really don’t care if B. Hussein Obama’s “deleterious” polices spring from his being a liberal or not and I most assuredly do not “respect” that his deleterious policies may spring from his liberalism. I have no respect whatsoever for liberals or liberalism. You have a problem with that, TC?
Since TC has chosen to use the word “deleterious”, let’s look at the definition of that word:
“deleterious”
“harmful: having a harmful or damaging effect on somebody or something”
“Synonyms: damaging, harmful, injurious, destructive, adverse, detrimental, negative”
One of the synonyms for deleterious is “destructive”. So policies which are “deleterious” are policies which are destructive. TC would have us believe that the deleterious, desrtructive policies of Obama are not deliberate. If Obama’s deleterious, destructive policies are not deliberate, TC, then what are they instead of being deliberate?
Here are antonyms of “deliberate”:
“Antonyms: chance, indeterminate, unintentional, unmethodical, unsystematic, unwitting”
Would you have us believe, TC, that B. Hussein Obama’s deleterious, destructive policies are by chance, unintentional, unmetheodical, unsystematic and unwitting? If that is the case, then how is it that they are “policies”? The definition of a political policy is as follows:
“1. A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters”
So a policy is a “plan”. If the “policies” of B. Hussein Obama are deleterious and destructive, they have been planned to be so.
Each time that you and I have a debate, TC, you lose. Have you ever stopped to think about why that is? Probably not. Let me explain to you why that is.
When I argue a point all I have to do is to state the truth. Before you can even begin to argue a point, you have to figure out how to twist, bend and distort the truth to make it fit with your lefit wing, liberal ideology. THAT is why you always lose and that is the difference between a Conservative like me and a radical, left wing, liberal propagandist like you. And that is why, ultimately, liberals like you will lose and Conservatives will win the Battle for America! Conservatives are rooted in truth while liberals like you are rooted in untruth.
I only lose in your little imaginary world.
You have no idea how abysmally you perform in these little discussions. Your bizarre cyberstalking, black-and-white thinking, obsessive posting, childlike whining and repeated lapses in basic reading comprehension. You come of as exactly what you are: an unhinged fool, a compulsive liar and, most of all, a person who leads a rudderless life.
You admit to being a contrarian, you live life in response to others, afraid of making your own stand.
You are the perfect example of my core thesis: wingnuts are not conservatives. When conservatives allow them to speak as if they were, the conservative movement is harmed.
keep posting, keep lying, keep spinning. You make me look good.
You’re partally correct.
Liberals do live rooted in an “untruth,” but not for the reasons you believe. It is not that they are evil beings actively seeking to destroy America, for some unknown master. Rather, they genuinely have adopted a misguided and ultimately wrongful understanding of human nature and how the laws of personal accountability, economic incentive and individualism affect national well-being.
You fail to understand – I’m not offended when you take off on liberals. Rant against them all you want, just don’t do it in a way that (1) falsely claims you are a conservative and (2) makes the conservative movement seem like a bunch of conspiracy-theorist idiots. That is the province of the wingnut. That is where you live.
You’ve already admitted that you can not be trusted to do anything other than attack those you percieve as your political enemies. Because you and I differ on both the definition of conservative and on the proper way to win over the undecided voter (me speaking of being honest and you speaking of exclusively being a contrarian), you have labled me as your political enemy.
You claim I am a liberal, but I advocate Obama being voted out of office.
You claim I idolise Obama, but I find him vainglorious and often supercillious. I believe his policies are bad for America and that a conservative is needed in the White House.
You claim I am a paid liberal progagandist, but in truth I am a humble lawyer specializing in International Business consulting.
You claim I evade your question, even when I have answered your questions in the immediate prior post.
And on, and on, and on.
In other words, no matter what I might write or whom I might be, your creepy, cyber-stalking enraged mind will lie about me.
You have no credibility.
And yet, still you think you have won.
You’re a fool, but a useful one. You remind us all why we should never let the lunatic fringe speak for the conservative party.
No problem, TC, let me lay out for you, step by step, the “coup de grace” and then we can continue on as long as you like!
TC: “He’s admitted that he would rather see America fail than see Obama succeed – at any level.”
CA: “Aside from TC’s other virtues, she is also a plagiarist! The material itself is not nearly as important as the source from which it came. Who said that before TC wrote it?”
“The statement came from none other than Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking House DEMOCRAT!”
“The leader in the Senate said his principal objective is to defeat Barack Obama, and therefore — and this is important — what follows is that America needs to fail over the next 14 months.” – Steny Hoyer”
“Well ain’t that something! Our “True Conservative” is attacking me by quoting the second-ranking House DEMOCRAT, Steny Hoyer!”
TC: “That is my point.”
“When wingnuts like you speak, the left gets ammunition.”
CA: “ROFL! Like the liberal genius that you are, you just shot yourself in the foot!”
“And who is using the “ammunition” of the liberal left against ME? YOU are! That makes YOU a liberal!”
“And who was Steny Hoyer responding to when he made his statement? He was responding to remarks by Republican U. S. Senator Mitch McConnell. So, according to you, that would make Senator McConnell a “wingnut”.”
CHECKMATE! You lose!
Now if you choose to, you can run around like a chicken with it’s head cut off… but it will simply end in Checkmate again through a different series of moves. So by all means, TC, let’s debate on as I will enjoy executing yet another “coup de grace”. It cannot end in any other way because, as I have previously stated, I merely need to state the truth while you have to try to figure out how to bend, twist and distort the truth to fit with your left wing, liberal ideology.
Ready! Set! GO!
Whatever helps you sleep at night …
Thanks for the amusement.
Au contraire, TC, thank YOU for the amusement!
The best part is that we now have irrefutable proof that you are not a “True Conservative” but rather a “True Liberal”!
If there is any doubt in your mind, let me dispell it. Every time that you post a comment seeking to falsely portray yourself as a “Conservative”, I will present the absolute, irrefutable proof that you are a radical, left wing, liberal propagandist. Why am I going to do that? Very simple!
If you admitted that you are, in fact, a left wing B. Hussein Obama supporter, then we could have open, classic, liberal vs.Conservative debates. Instead, you have sought to deceive SA readers by posting under the user name “True Conservative” and feigning to be a Conservative.
Uniformed combatants are taken prisoner and treated under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Spies are executed. As you fall into the latter category, you will be verbally executed each and every time you seek to commit another act of deception. Count on it!
I love your “irrefutable proof” arguments.
Intelligent people see their folly, their transparent errors of both cogency and fundamental logic.
I feel no obligation to correct them, as anyone with a triple-digit IQ already sees them for what they are, and quite honestly I have no desire to help you improve your ability to spread lies.
The only dishonestly we see here is yours … but I love your posts, truly, because they make the point my humble skills could never adequately convey – wingnuts hurt the conservative movement and should never be permitted to speak as if they represent those of us who are, truly, conservative.
Post on, wingnut, post on.
ROFL! Ah yes, as usual, when TC loses a debate and is exposed as the liberal she is, she seeks to gain some satisfaction by having the last word, LOL!
Sorry TC!
“LAST WORD!”
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Libera!
TC has directed me to “post on”. Happy to oblige, TC!
TC wrote this as an “attack” on me:
“TruConserv says:
February 12, 2012 at 6:35 am”
“He’s admitted that he would rather see America fail than see Obama succeed – at any level.”
Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking House DEMOCRAT, wrote this as an attack on Republican U. S. Senator Mitch McConnell:
“The leader in the Senate said his principal objective is to defeat Barack Obama, and therefore — and this is important — what follows is that America needs to fail over the next 14 months.”
Now the question before us, my fellow Conservatives, is who is the bigger liberal, “TruConserv” or Steny Hoyer?
LOL – It was no attack.
It was a statement of fact.
McConnell is not a wingnut.
For a brief moment in time he said something wingnut-esque, and he paid the price for it. It was a dumb thing to say, but he learned and he continues to do the good work of the conservative movement.
You are no McConnell.
McConnell is unafraid of giving Obama his due and is willing to guide (D) when they want to come over and work on legislation consistent with conservative values. Not you.
McConnell praised Obama for having Bin Laden killed. You refused.
McConnell believes in neither the Truther nor Birther myths. You swear to each as gospel.
McConnell is credible when you offers criticism of Obama and the liberals, you are not.
Finally, your lapse into the logical fallicy of A not B and C not A means B is C reveals you as someone unable to engage in serious debate. If you require more explanation than that, then you r-e-a-l-l-y are not ready for this level of conversation.
Hint: just because a liberal calls you a wingnut does not mean a conservative can not call you one as well. Just because liberals oppose you does not mean any one who opposes you is a liberal. (I knew you were struggling … just wanted to help out.)
Seriously, that you would try to pull off such sophomoric rhetorical stunt was just downright funny!
To the learned, you sound like a fool. To the fool you sound learned. I have no doubt you think you sound learned.
TC wrote: “McConnell believes in neither the Truther nor Birther myths. You swear to each as gospel.”
Quote me where I said that I swear to each as gospel, TC.
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
ROFL! You really do crack me up, TC!
Here, try this:
Republican U. S. Senaor Mitch McConnell said this:
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking House DEMOCRAT, responded to Senator McConnell’s statement as follows:
“The leader in the Senate said his principal objective is to defeat Barack Obama, and therefore — and this is important — what follows is that America needs to fail over the next 14 months.”
In response to my comments, “TruConserv”, being the “progressive” Democrat that she is, plagiarized Hoyer’s comments saying this about me:
“TruConserv says:
February 12, 2012 at 6:35 am”
“He’s admitted that he would rather see America fail than see Obama succeed – at any level.”
If it looks like a Hoyer clone, walks like a Hoyer clone and quacks like a Hoyer clone, it’s a Hoyer clone!
Have a nice day, Hoyer Clone!
Let’s prove, once and or all, that the poster “True Conservative”, or “TruConserv”, is really a radical, left wing, “progressive” Democrat posing as a “Conservative”.
“Hoyer: Republicans would see country ‘fail’ to defeat Obama’s reelection bid
By Mike Lillis – 09/20/11 12:31 PM ET”
“Republicans would rather see the country collapse than President Obama succeed, the second-ranking House Democrat charged Tuesday.”
“Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the Democratic whip, said the GOP’s near-blanket opposition to Obama’s policy proposals is evidence that many Republicans have adopted the sentiment — articulated most clearly by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — that their top priority is making Obama a one-term president.”
“The leader in the Senate said his principal objective is to defeat Barack Obama, and therefore — and this is important — what follows is that America needs to fail over the next 14 months,” Hoyer told reporters at the Capitol.”
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” McConnell told National Journal.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/182637-hoyer-gop-would-see-country-fail-to-defeat-obama
Now “True Conservative”, or “TruConserv”, made this statement about me:
“TruConserv says:
February 12, 2012 at 6:35 am”
“He’s admitted that he would rather see America fail than see Obama succeed – at any level.”
Sound familiar, LOL!
So according to TC, I am a “wingnut”… and so is Republican U. S. Senator Mitch McConnell! I see that as infinitely preferable to being a Steny Hoyer clone like TC!
So when is your next Communist cell meeitng, Klute? LOL!
Yes, of course, he doesn’t agree with you, so he must be a communist. No room for measured disagreement in your scared little world. What, no accusation that he’s a paid communist aggitator?
What’s that CA? Too afraid to address the issue, to give a substantive response to the points he makes? Speak up, we can’t hear you.
Why don’t you post a link, as you have done so many times, that shows you’re not only wrong, but you have poor reading comprehension skills as well.
Sadly, all we will get from you is your latest cut-and-paste set of lies and distortions.
Now that’s LOL worthy!
NOTICE: The above poster, “TruConserv”, is a paid propagandist for the liberal left posing as a “Conservative” for the express purpose of attempting to discredit real Conservatives. Don’t take my word for it, read TC’s own words:
“When Obama gets it right, not only should all Americans say so, all patriots should say so loudly.”
But that’s not all, Folks!
“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”
“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”
“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”
So TC “understands” Obama and how he was forced, against his will, by “conservatives in Arizona”, to go after SB1070. And what does TC have to say about her supposedly fellow “conservatives in Arizona”? Why they are responsible for “nonsense”!
And to our great surprise, here is TC rising to the defense of Klute who takes issue with radical left wing liberal Associate Justice Ginsberg being called on the carpet by dleeper47 for telling the Egyptians: “I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”
All of which simply goes to prove that Pinkos of a feather flock together.
Have a nice day, Miss Pinko!
Again – you hide from intelligent discussion, do a bunch of cut-and-pasting, and then cower.
I stand by my statements. I have no problem supporting Obama when he is right. It encourages him to be a better president and it gives me credibility when I offer criticism. Conservatives understand my words, wingnuts do not.
You are the definition of a wingnut – and you remind us all why wingnuts are not welcome in the conservative movement.
Let me know if ever you’re up for dropping your wingnut behavior and engaging in something other than a cut-and-paste rehash of old battles you have lost.
I’ll be here.
ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!
You’re so pathetic, TC. By opening your big trap in defense of Klute taking issue with dleeper47 calling out radical liberal leftist Associate Justice Ginsberg for telling the Egyptians that, “I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012”, you put the final nail in your coffin of feigning to be a “Conservative”. You’re officially toast, TC. Anyone who didn’t have your number before has certainly got it now!
To that we can add this statement by you:
“When Obama gets it right, not only should all Americans say so, all patriots should say so loudly.” Well three cheers for B. Hussein Obama!
Last, but not least, we have your ultimate self-damning statement:
“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”
“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”
“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”
You claim to be a “conservative in Arizona” but you accuse “conservatives in Arizona” of being responsible for “nonsense”. At the same time, you “understand” how poor B. Hussein Obama was “forced”, against his will, to go after SB1070 by those terrible “conservatives in Arizona”! Well ain’t that something!
Have a nice day, True Obama Liberal!
You are so pathetic.
I wasn’t siding with Knute.
I was identifying that you were, yet again, refusing to engage in intelligent discussion.
You disagreed with Knute, but you lacked the ability to explain why, or to provide any intelligent rebuttal.
Instead, you resorted to calling him a communist.
You’re a wingnut, that’s all you know how to do – which is fine if it weren’t for the left routinely confusing your lunatic fringe nuttery with true conservative ideology.
FWIW, I’ll share with you yet again, I don’t blame the conservatives for SB1070, I blame wingnuts like you. Real conservatives would have passed intelligent legislation that effectuated a more secure border without giving the left the ammunition it needed to feign outrage. But, you know all this. I’ve told you before, but because your posts here reveal you to be a person unfamiliar with the truth, you keep continue your creepy, cut-and-paste lies.
As I said before, whenever you’re ready to post intelligently, I’ll be here.
The hallmark of your posts, TC, is that they contain no documented facts. They consist of your liberal intellectual propaganda verbiage. Let’s look at some documented, irrefutable FACTS, shall we?
It is a FACT that you wrote this:
“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”
“When Obama gets it right, not only should all Americans say so, all patriots should say so loudly.”
It is a FACT that you wrote this:
“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”
“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”
“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”
You see, TC? That is not conjecture or speculation. Those are FACTS. It is a FACT that you wrote those things.
Now let’s have a look at what you, in FACT, wrote.
You “understand” why Obama came afer SB1070. It was because he was “forced” to respond. My goodness, who “forced” the POTUS to “respond”? Why it was a reaction from the liberal left! And what caused that reaction? Why it was “conservatives in Arizona” who are responsible. They caused “this nonsense”. Ain’t that something!
TC claims to be a “True Consevative”, an Arizona “Conservative”, yet she blames “conservatives in Arizona” for “forcing” Obama to go after SB1070 AND for causing much of “this nonsense”. Is that right, Miss Liberal?
So when we look at the FACTS, it becomes crystal clear that TC is not a “True Conservative” but rather a true, B. Hussein Obama-supporting liberal!
Have FACTS, TC, LOL!
Have a nice day, True Obama Liberal!
BTW, TC, you wrote this to me:
“Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans…”
I have challenged you numerous times to prove that I have “demonized” Hispanics, particulary Mexicans. I challenge you again here and now. Prove your allegation! Where is the proof, TC?
Well, TC has no proof, that is why she can’t provide any. So what TC’s comment amounts to is a classic smear job.
Have a nice day, True Obama Liberal!
Oh, here’s a good one, LOL!
TC wrote this:
“TruConserv says:
February 10, 2012 at 8:56 pm”
“FWIW, I’ll share with you yet again, I don’t blame the conservatives for SB1070, I blame wingnuts like you.”
My goodness, TC, but didn’t you write this?
“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”
““If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”
Oh, despite what you say you DID blame “conservatives in Arizona”! You didn’t write “winguts” in Arizona, you wrote “conservatives in Arizona”, LOL!
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!”
Have a nice day, True Obama Liberal!
Thank you for the posts – they reveal your limited reading comprehension skills are only exceeded by your incessant need to be a contrarian.
You do get credit for this: your refusal to address the big issues demonstrates one certain thing – you know you’re out of your depth.
How’s that feel?
Man-up CA, participate in the actual thread topic. Drop the anti-social cut-and-paste routine. It only harms SA … and it certainly isn’t doing your rep any good.
Up to you, either way, I’ll still be here.
Why, you’re most welcome for the posts, TC!
And I appreciate yet more of you factless liberal propaganda verbiage! But let’s get back to the facts, shall we? You wrote this:
“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”
“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”
“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”
It’s so nice that you “uderstand” why Obama came after SB1070! Why the poor man was FORCED, against his will to do it. And who was responsible for all of that “nonsense”? Why it was “conservatives in Arizona”!
Well ain’t that something, Miss Obama Liberal, LOL!
Have a nice day, True Liberal!
No, not the conservatives. It was the wingnuts. You know, black-helicopter nutjobs like you.
I’m not sure whether your a liar or a fool, but it matters not – we know you can’t be trusted for meaningful discussion.
Further, we know that you’re an intellectual coward: man up, sometime, scared little man, and actually discuss the topic of the thread.
You wingnuts are all outrage, no intellect.
Here we have this great article, and your cyberstalking causes it to be lost in a barrage of cut-and-paste.
The author is a conservative – and you deliberately undercut him. Have to ask: why?
Excuse me, TC, but here is what you actually wrote verbatim:
“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”
“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”
“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”
You did NOT write “wingnuts”. You wrote “conservatives in Arizona”. It is futile to attempt to deny what you wrote as it is a matter of written record which any SA reader can view for themselves in the archives.
Again, reading comprehension fail, but this time with a side of logic fail, to boot.
Yes, if conservatives had written the law, this could have been avoided.
Instead, wingnuts wrote the law. Wingnuts are to blame.
Read what is written, not what you wish was written.
Again, a failure to address fact. You wrote this:
“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”
“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”
“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”
You wrote “conservatives in Arizona”. None of your liberal maneuvering or liberal verbiage is going to change that fact.
Now shall we rinse and repeat, LOL!
Have a nice day, Miss True Liberal!
You need to take Klute up on that dictionary offer.
Notice the words “if” and “had?”
TFFW
Ahhh, I just love reposting what you wrote, LOL!
“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”
“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”
“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”
The parts I like the best are where you “understand” and the part where B. Hussein Obama was “forced”, LOL!
Now, of course, we all know that B. Hussein Obama would never ever have gone after SB1070 had he not been “forced”. How do we know that? Because he didn’t go after the Legal Arizona Workers Act! Oh! Wait! He DID go after the Legal Arizona Workers Act!
What were the provisions of that legislation to which Obama objected because they mandated such terrible impositions on illegal aliens? Why it empowered Arizona to sanction employers and mandated the use of E-Verify! How awful!
Of course, Obama lost that one in U. S. District Court, the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals and before SCOTUS!
But all of that is not Obama’s fault at all. He was “forced”!
Have a nice day, Miss Liberal!
You’re right, Obama did go after e-verify, and he should not have.
It’s one of several reasons why I think Obama needs to go. We need a conservative in the White House in 2013.
In other words, his position on e-verify has absolutely nothing to do my position. I agree with you – does that mean that now you have to disagree with yourself.
I’m not here to be an apologist for Obama, I’m also not here to pretend that political life happens in a vacuum.
Just as I’m not afraid to state when I agree with you, or when I understand why you react the way you react, I am equally unafraid of agreeing with Obama when he is right and understanding why he reacts the way he does.
Here’s the bottom line on you: you don’t really understand how life works, so rather than work within the ordinary flow of life’s cause and effect, you live in a world of black-helicopters and fluoride in the drinking water. You believe that Bush was behind 9/11, that Clinton assassinated his political enemies and that Obama was born in Kenya.
I’m not responsible for your ignorance. Be a man, show some self-respect and exercise some personal responsibility for your life and quit trying to blame it all on others.
In other words, become a conservative, not a wingnut.
Well, TC, since you’re in such an “up” mood right now maybe you won’t mind providing the evidence for your allegation that I “demonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans.
You can do that, TC, can’t you?
Oh, and as regards the “black helicopters and flouride in the water”, are “foreign govenrments” stiill tracking your internet surfing and is “Big Brother” still intruding in your bedroom, peeping in the widows?
Just want to get updated on how your paranoid delusions are doing, LOL!
Have a nice day, Miss Obama Liberal!
Speak up, TC, I can’t hear your answers to my questions!