Durbin: hell for attacking families
Dick Durbin’s prophecy upon the DailyKos democrats:
O’DONNELL: Can I ask you, too, about what Maureen Dowd wrote in today’s New York Times about the Republicans targeting Michelle Obama. She wrote: “It’s good news for Obama that Hillary’s out of the race. But it’s also bad news. Now Republicans can turn their full attention to demonizing Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama is the new, unwilling contestant in Round Two of the sulfurous national game of ‘Kill the witch.’” What’s your reaction to that?
DURBIN: Well, I know Michelle. She has been my friend and a friend of my wife for many, many years. She can take it. She can handle herself. She is a very accomplished person. But I will tell you this: the hottest ring in Hell is reserved for those in politics who attack their opponents’ families. And if there are some Republican strategists that think that’s the way to win the election, I think they are wrong.
O’DONNELL: Wow, well, there you have it. That’s a line. Senator Durbin, very interesting, thanks for joining us. We appreciate it. ~huffingtonpost.com
Shoved into the internet 'tubes' on September 4, 2008, by Hegemonic Pundit, under the following categories: hegemony
Leave a Comment | Trackback URL for this post
Obama-Biden plan purge
Did they get the idea from Ayers or some other communist afficianado?
When asked during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, whether he would “pursue the violations that have been made against our Constitution by the present administration”, Biden answered in the affirmative.
“We will not be stopped from pursuing any criminal offence that’s occurred,” he continued, going on to praise congressional committees for the deliberate pace of their inquiries into alleged Bush administration misdeeds.
Members of Congress are “doing the right thing, they’re not making false accusations about anything … they’re collecting data, subpoenaing records, they’re building a file”, Biden said.
“If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued – not out of vengeance, not out of retribution, out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president — no one is above the law.”
Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible “genuine crimes” and “really bad policies”.
“[I]f crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” Obama told the Philadelphia Daily News. “You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.” ~guardian.co.uk
Wow.
Shoved into the internet 'tubes' on September 4, 2008, by Hegemonic Pundit, under the following categories: hegemony
Leave a Comment | Trackback URL for this post
Direct democracy
Left-wing lunacy is in fact the definition of ‘direct democracy’.
Near the start of the march, two women and a young man secured themselves with chains to a car that obstructed traffic.
“I would like a world of direct democracy,” said one man, who gave his name only as Alex, as he was led away by officers.
A larger group of about 200 protesters dressed in black roamed through the streets of downtown St. Paul, shouting and chanting and throwing street signs and concrete planters into the roads. Many of them wore black bandanas across their faces and some wore black balaclavas.
At one point, a police officer grabbed one of the youths. Others wrested him away, then appeared to knock the officer to the ground. On one knee, the officer released an arc of pepper spray that gushed into the air in a thick cloud.
The crowd backed off. A young man scattered bundles of nails secured with duct tape in the street. Over the next 40 minutes or so, the crowd weaved through streets, sometimes pursued or approached by police, but often eluding groups of police officers or sheriffs deputies.
Some members of the group smashed windows while others objected.
“Is this really protesting?” a young woman shouted, apparently in anger. ~http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com
Direct democracy = disruption and destruction. This is what Obama wants to bring us. Social upheaval is in fact ‘change’. Revolutions are in fact ‘change’. This does not mean the changes would be good are beneficial. All evidence points to the contrary. The left’s idea of change will not benefit society at all and is certainly meant to begin dismantling American capitalism.
Delegates and passersby hurried out of the way as they saw the group approaching. Projectiles bounced off the windows of the U.S. Bank Center, but a young man used a hammer with a yellow handle to smash a window of the First National Bank.
Others in the crowd pried up red paving stones and used them as weapons, and some protesters smashed windows at Macy’s and a police car window.
The crowd soon dispersed, but apparently with the intent of coming back later in the day. It was not immediately clear whether there were injuries or arrests. ~http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com
Shoved into the internet 'tubes' on September 2, 2008, by Hegemonic Pundit, under the following categories: 2008 election, 21st century socialism, anti-capitalism, anti-intellectuals, democrats, higher taxes, idiotarians, left-wing lie machine, leftists, liberal agenda, liberals, the left
Leave a Comment | Trackback URL for this post
Liberals will retreat
This is why all debate with the left about Iraq and the war on terror is useless. They say that it’s only Iraq that we must retreat from, and yet they began by protesting the war in Afghanistan and once they achieve strategic defeat in Iraq they will immediately begin fomenting retreat from Afghanistan as well.
Katrina Vander Heuval:
Last month, the bipartisan Rand Corporation concluded in an important report that the very notion of a “war on terror” is counterproductive, and that intelligence and police cooperation should be the centerpiece of our strategy. More recently, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman — no milquetoast when it comes to using military force — criticized the Dems’ position on Afghanistan as ill-conceived “bumper sticker politics.” Friedman quoted a valuable Time article by Afghan expert Rory Stewart. Reporting from Kabul, Stewart explains: “A troop increase is likely to inflame Afghan nationalism because Afghans are more anti-foreign than we acknowledge, and the support for our presence in the insurgency areas is declining … The more responsibility we take in Afghanistan, the more we undermine the credibility and responsibility of the Afghan government and encourage it to act irresponsibly.”
Stewart, a longtime observer of Afghan politics, makes clear that the temptation to throw more military forces at the problem may do more harm — to our security, to the Afghan people who are already angry about mounting civilian casualties, and to the stability of a region whose underlying conflicts require political resolution not more US or NATO troops. ~alternet.org
Shoved into the internet 'tubes' on August 29, 2008, by Hegemonic Pundit, under the following categories: 21st century socialism, afghanistan, democrats, idiotarians, iraq, leftists, liberal agenda, liberals, terror war, the left, war for oil, war on terror
Leave a Comment | Trackback URL for this post
More posts »
What is Hegemony?
Hegemony is more or less a marxist term for the, "processes by which dominant culture maintains its dominant position: for example, the use of institutions to formalize power..." >>Read More
