YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE CRAZY TO BE A DEMOCRAT, BUT IT HELPS
October 27, 2010

Ann Coulter


With the media sneering about the Tea Party candidates being a bunch of nuts, how about we take a look at some of the Democrats running this year?

We've got Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who personally presided over the housing crash after getting that gay prostitution business behind him. Of course, Frank's actions are nothing compared to Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul's alleged participation in a college prank. Now, THERE'S a scandal!

California Sen. Barbara Boxer refuses to say whether a newborn baby is a human life. When Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., asked her on the Senate floor a few years ago whether she believed a baby born alive has a constitutionally protected right to live, Boxer was stuck for an answer. Her nonresponsive replies included these:

"I support the Roe v. Wade decision. ...

"I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born -- and the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights. ...

"Define 'separation' ...

"You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother's arms? ...

"The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question. ...

"I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions!"

(Also, I think she said: "Please call me 'senator.'")

That's not Patty Murray-stupid, but it's still pretty stupid. How many late-term abortions are you planning to get, Californians, that it's worth being represented by such a cretinous woman?

Even if you are under the misimpression that Boxer's Republican opponent, Carly Fiorina, is somehow going to outlaw abortion in California, Carly will cut your taxes so much that you'd be able to fly to Sweden for all your abortions and still come out ahead!

Liberals are indignant that Sarah Palin writes speech notes to herself on her hand. This week, Alex Sink, the Democratic candidate for governor in Florida, was slipped a debating point by her makeup artist, texted by a campaign aide in violation of the rules during a debate with her Republican opponent, Rick Scott.

Oh, those thick Tea Party candidates!

Last weekend, Illinois governor Pat Quinn -- Rod Blagojevich's running mate -- stood silently as his supporter, state Sen. Rickey Hendon, blasted Quinn's Republican opponent, Bill Brady, as "idiotic, racist, sexist, homophobic."

Hendon has repeatedly made headlines over the past few years for his inappropriate behavior toward female colleagues. Once -- during a Senate debate -- he asked Sen. Cheryl Axley if her hair was naturally blond and then publicly propositioned her.

Another time, Hendon tackled Rep. Robin L. Kelly, knocking her to the ground after a House-Senate softball game she had come to watch in office attire.

Of the impeccable Brady, Hendon wailed: "If you think that women have no rights whatsoever, except to have his children, vote for Bill Brady. If you think gay and lesbian people need to be locked up and shot in the head, vote for Bill Brady."

Even the Chicago press was shocked by this, calling on Quinn to apologize. Quinn has "renounced" Hendon's remarks, but refused to apologize.

But watch out for the Tea Party candidates! There are some real loose cannons in that bunch.

Also last week, Rep. Ron Klein, Democrat of Florida, hysterically claimed he had been "threatened" by one of the Vietnam Veteran bikers supporting his Republican opponent, Allen West.

The man who had allegedly "threatened" Klein is 60 years old and goes by the terrifying name of ... "Miami Mike." Mike told the Miami Herald that he had simply e-mailed Klein, saying that he deserved to be voted out of office and, in addition, he needed "a good ass-kicking, which I'd be more than happy to do even though I'm a lot older than you."

As Miami Mike said: "A threat? Give me a break. He cannot be scared of what I wrote. If he is, he is just a real baby."

Apparently so. Klein turned Mike's e-mail over to the Capitol police, where they promptly burst out laughing and then ordered framed copies of the e-mail.

Speaking of little girls in pink party dresses, Keith Olbermann has repeatedly claimed that Allen West "disgraced his uniform." Weirdly, he never gives details of how he thinks West did that. (Maybe Olbermann could check on war-zone protocol with fake-Vietnam War veteran Dick Blumenthal, who's running for the Senate from Connecticut by lying about having served in Vietnam.)

As a colonel in Iraq, West was interrogating an Iraqi terrorist who knew about a planned ambush. Unable to get him to talk, West shot a gun near the terrorist's head, whereupon the frightened but unharmed detainee spilled the beans.

Because of that, West's men were able to capture a potential attacker and identify future ambush sites. There were no further attacks on West's men.

As West later told The New York Times, "There are rules and regulations, and there's protecting your soldiers." He said, "I just felt I'd never have to write a letter of condolence home to a 'rule and regulation.'"

When the Army considered court-martialing West, thousands of letters poured in defending West and thanking him for what he had done. Ninety-five members of Congress signed a letter to the secretary of the Army in support of West. No court-martial was ever convened.

Liberals won't say that John Phillip Walker Lindh disgraced his country. Washington Sen. Patty Murray thinks Osama bin Laden is a swell guy for building "day care centers" in Afghanistan. But they say a hero like Allen West "disgraced his uniform" by saving the lives of American soldiers.

Yeah, the Tea Party candidates are a real embarrassment.

[redacted]

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Related New York Times article:
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/the-simpsons-explains-its-button-pushing-banksy-opening/

The New York Times has an interesting piece on this artist.

There's an interesting piece in the New York Times about Islam that might shed some light on this issue. Wright argues that members of each religion need to pick and choose which parts of their texts to follow and the need for interpretation. For example he points out that the Bible and Torah also have passages that explicitly call for violence:

"So too with people who see in the Bible a loving and infinitely good God. They can maintain that view only by ignoring or downplaying parts of their scripture.

For example, there are those passages where God hands out the death sentence to infidels. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites are told to commit genocide — to destroy nearby peoples who worship the wrong Gods, and to make sure to kill all men, women and children. (“You must not let anything that breathes remain alive.”)"

It seems she has been indentified and people are actually protesting her house.

"Thanks to the powers of viral video, a British woman who unceremoniously dumped a cat in a garbage can has been caught. Mary Bale became an Internet villain after the cat’s owners posted security video of her first petting Lola, then dropping her into the trash can for no apparent reason. Lola was recovered—alive—15 hours later, and police identified Bale, who is being investigated by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the New York Times reports.

Angry people have gathered outside Bale’s house, police say, but Bale doesn’t know “what the fuss is about,” she tells the Daily Mail. “It’s just a cat.” Her mother insists Bale “loves animals” and that “she can’t explain why she did it,” but Bale herself had no trouble giving the Mail an explanation: “I did it as a joke because I thought it would be funny. I never thought it would be trapped, I expected it to wriggle out.”"

Read more: http://www.newser.com/story/98888/woman-who-threw-cat-in-trash-can-caught.html#ixzz0xf4mbhDj

Ahh, Netrunner you have clarified that it does indeed seem that my knowledge is quite an antiquatedly incorrect thought process. Well the statistics from the New York Times definitely seems to make more sense of it all, and no I don't think we should abandon paved roads.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aimpoint:
There is something that deeply disturbs me about this
There are 2 issues that have been brought up, Social Security and Extending the Bush Tax Cuts
This video implies a guilt by association by associating the Social Security problems with the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts is an easy stab at the Republicans, but the video is tying it together with Social Security to imply something more sinister like a "Rich stealing from the poor" scenario.
Umm, it's not guilt by association. If the topic you want to discuss is the deficit, the right says "cut Social Security and Medicare" while the left says "let the Bush tax cuts expire" to which the right says "taxes can't be raised, even if the tax cuts we passed exploded the deficit, not Social Security!"
That literally is a sinister plot to steal from the poor and give it to the rich. Cut taxes on the rich, and create a huge budget deficit, and then propose fixing the budget problems by cutting benefits to the lower and middle classes.
>> ^aimpoint:
The problem with Social Security is that people live longer, not something that was taken into account when it was first passed.
Wrong and wrong.

>> ^aimpoint:
Putting more money into it creates a situation where a larger share of money per paycheck will be required keep another program at status quo. Essentially its an added tax with No Benefit, say for if its not payed then money will be needed from other programs so if you don't pay up someone is gonna lose something.
The price of asphalt has doubled in recent years. Taxes will likely have to go up to continue maintaining roads. That's not an added tax with "no benefit", that's the cost of something that people depend on going up.
Perhaps you're in the camp that thinks we should abandon paved roads?
>> ^aimpoint:
The other situation involves Taking more money from Elsewhere and putting it into social security,
Like marinara said, not until 2037 would this be required. The social security trust fund has plenty of money in it, and social security is still running a net surplus, without changing anything.
Eliminating the cap on the payroll tax essentially fixes the entire projected budget shortfall -- the trust fund might run out just short of the end of the 21st century, assuming our projections about the economy 80+ years in the future are anywhere near correct (and that's a huge assumption).
>> ^aimpoint:
But the effectiveness of working 70 year-olds is unknown to me.

This is really the key issue with raising retirement ages into the 70's. Talking with people I work with, most of them find that headhunters and recruiters stop approaching them the second they hit 50. I kinda can't imagine what kinds of hoops someone would have to jump through to get a new job at 68 or so.
Back when people kept the same job for their entire working lifetime, maybe raising the retirement age made sense, especially with real honest to god company pensions still being around. Nowadays, companies treat their employees as disposable, and it's simply expected that people will change jobs every couple of years or so.
I'm kinda afraid of what the job market will look like when I hit 50, I can't even imagine having to compete against 30 year-olds for jobs when I'm nearly 70.

People are comparing this directly to the Pentagon Papers. I was thinking they're not up to that groundbreaking simply because we've already had the Pentagon Papers...so we have something to compare this to. Never the less it's still important that this was leaked and is being reported on (Despite an editorial I read in the New York Times).

Hopefully this will give Obama the push he needs to get out sooner and end this very illegal War of Aggression. Which by the way a War of Aggression is considered by the Nuremburg tribunal as the supreme international crime because it includes within it all the atrocities that come after.

Ha, we posted the same response to Sagemind, only one minute apart:

http://videosift.com/video/Girls-Suck-at-Video-Games?loadcomm=1#comment-1023225

Welcome to the uphill battle.

In reply to this comment by Tagichatn:
>> ^Sagemind:

I can't agree with this.
Either you are a career person or you are a stay at home parent.
A dedication to the job at hand lets you succeed. No one can be expected to do both and be expected to excel at the same rate as the person who just chooses one. (male or female).
In Canada, yes, Men can get paternity, though most women would never give up their maternity to let them. (Only one parent can claim.) My wife took the maternity rights.
Yes, I was a stay at home dad (for a time) - and it was socially accepted - in fact I was commended!
NO! Woman are not expected to do the most - where do you get that from???
If the spouse isn't pulling their weight, it's a communication/relationship issue - talk to the spouse, don't blame "society" for something you let happen. (male or female)
Most of the (domestic)work falls to who ever is home with the kids, that's the way it is. Someone has to be there at some point. And when the other spouse gets home, they chip in, in equal portions. If they don't, then that says more about the relationship than society. By the way, while one spouse is at home working for the home, the other is out working to pay for it - It's not like they are away from the home avoiding responsibility).
This whole dad goes to work and brings home the bacon while mom stays home with the kids just DOESN'T exist in the real world for the average family. If you believe that, you're kidding yourself. No one can exist on a single income any more. If they can, then it's a privilege for the spouse who gets to spend the time at home with the kids and should thank the other spouse every day for their good fortune. (male or female) !!!
>> ^Tagichatn:
Men have children too, so why do women get picked on? Apparently it's "false logic" according to westy that women can have a full family and a full professional career but it's pretty easy for men. That's because even today, in 2010, women are generally expected to do most, if not all, of the care for the children. Men don't get paternity leave, being a stay at home dad isn't really socially accepted so it falls to the mother to do most of the work. It's not the 50's anymore so women at least have the option of maintaining a career but there's still that belief that the mom does the housework while the dad brings home the money.



It's great that in your relationship things were shared and done equally but how many times do I have to say this? Anecdotes don't matter! My mom was a stay at home mom so therefore 1950's housewives are clearly widespread! Anyway, that's not even my argument. I readily admit that 2 income households have come to dominate but my point is that the 1950's style of thinking still dominates. Even in 2 income households where both parents work and should therefore split the load of housework and childcare, women still are expected
to do the majority of the housework.

You said you've never seen women working for less. I can't speak for Canada but this is from the US Census: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm
From a related study based on the census, "Even accounting for factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure, reports the GAO, working women today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts."

Too bad not every women works with you, otherwise they would totally be equal and it wouldn't be a problem!

2 income homes are not equal either. Women do more work and men have more leisure time on average. Here's a survey done by the New York times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/15labor.html

You can post about your personal experiences all day but your experiences are not everyone elses. This is a societal problem, anecdotes don't tell the full story.

>> ^Sagemind:

I can't agree with this.
Either you are a career person or you are a stay at home parent.
A dedication to the job at hand lets you succeed. No one can be expected to do both and be expected to excel at the same rate as the person who just chooses one. (male or female).
In Canada, yes, Men can get paternity, though most women would never give up their maternity to let them. (Only one parent can claim.) My wife took the maternity rights.
Yes, I was a stay at home dad (for a time) - and it was socially accepted - in fact I was commended!
NO! Woman are not expected to do the most - where do you get that from???
If the spouse isn't pulling their weight, it's a communication/relationship issue - talk to the spouse, don't blame "society" for something you let happen. (male or female)
Most of the (domestic)work falls to who ever is home with the kids, that's the way it is. Someone has to be there at some point. And when the other spouse gets home, they chip in, in equal portions. If they don't, then that says more about the relationship than society. By the way, while one spouse is at home working for the home, the other is out working to pay for it - It's not like they are away from the home avoiding responsibility).
This whole dad goes to work and brings home the bacon while mom stays home with the kids just DOESN'T exist in the real world for the average family. If you believe that, you're kidding yourself. No one can exist on a single income any more. If they can, then it's a privilege for the spouse who gets to spend the time at home with the kids and should thank the other spouse every day for their good fortune. (male or female) !!!
>> ^Tagichatn:
Men have children too, so why do women get picked on? Apparently it's "false logic" according to westy that women can have a full family and a full professional career but it's pretty easy for men. That's because even today, in 2010, women are generally expected to do most, if not all, of the care for the children. Men don't get paternity leave, being a stay at home dad isn't really socially accepted so it falls to the mother to do most of the work. It's not the 50's anymore so women at least have the option of maintaining a career but there's still that belief that the mom does the housework while the dad brings home the money.



It's great that in your relationship things were shared and done equally but how many times do I have to say this? Anecdotes don't matter! My mom was a stay at home mom so therefore 1950's housewives are clearly widespread! Anyway, that's not even my argument. I readily admit that 2 income households have come to dominate but my point is that the 1950's style of thinking still dominates. Even in 2 income households where both parents work and should therefore split the load of housework and childcare, women still are expected
to do the majority of the housework.

You said you've never seen women working for less. I can't speak for Canada but this is from the US Census: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm
From a related study based on the census, "Even accounting for factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure, reports the GAO, working women today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts."

Too bad not every women works with you, otherwise they would totally be equal and it wouldn't be a problem!

2 income homes are not equal either. Women do more work and men have more leisure time on average. Here's a survey done by the New York times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/15labor.html

You can post about your personal experiences all day but your experiences are not everyone elses. This is a societal problem, anecdotes don't tell the full story.

>> ^shuac:

There's a New York Times article about the video and Wikileaks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/07wikileaks.html?partn
er=rss&emc=rss
I don't know how "mainstream" a newspaper is but...hey, it's the NYT, the paper of record.

Glad to see proof to the contrary, I should probably make the title a little more accurate

There's a New York Times article about the video and Wikileaks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/07wikileaks.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

I don't know how "mainstream" a newspaper is but...hey, it's the NYT, the paper of record.

If they can rewrite science textbooks, we can rewrite the bible.

"On the 4th day, God slept in, drank some coffee, read the Globe and Mail and the New York Times, walked his 2 dogs, watched some Oprah, then had a nap..."

Ok fanboys and girls aside, highdileeho's post got me to thinking that perhaps we should all take a bit of time like our pal eric827364982374, and go through the sift and do a bit of house-cleaning-

For some of you, who tend to post in a linear fashion from some of the major news organizations, and lack the spark of creativity that sets us apart from the beasts and foul, and who have a particular world view that is parroted by most of those who have been spoon-fed the sheit from television for so long that your limbic system is so much Rupert Maddock's bitch.....

(by the way, we should boycott the following top 20 list of Infotainment Fucks)
1. Time Warner Inc.
2. Walt Disney Company
3. Viacom Inc.
4. News Corporation
5. CBS Corporation
6. Cox Enterprises
7. NBC Universal
8. Gannett Company, Inc.
9. Clear Channel Communications Inc.
10. Advance Publications, Inc.
11. Tribune Company
12. McGraw-Hill Companies
13. Hearst Corporation
14. Washington Post Company
15. The New York Times Company
16. E.W. Scripps Co.
17. McClatchy Company
18. Thomson Corporation
19. Freedom Communications, Inc.
20. A&E Television Networks

....you who fancy Kieth Overmanned'S deaditorials might want to check your viddies.....I got tired of "deading" after 3 pages of THIRTY-THREE FUCKING PAGES OF FUCKING KIETH FUCKING OLBERMANN VIDDIES!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!

Yeah dag, poncy fanvid crapola, is clogging up your site!!

>> ^dag:
An interesting article on Steve Jobs- and possibly his thinking on the iPad- in today's New York Times.


Badass