Patterico's Pontifications

3/29/2010

Choosing Sides

Filed under: Obama,Politics — DRJ @ 9:22 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Zombie compares photos from the March 20th anti-war rally in Los Angeles, California, and the March 27th Tea Party rally in Searchlight, Nevada:

“Two rallies, not very far apart in time or location — and yet they couldn’t be more different.

I consider myself neither left-wing nor right-wing, and I disagree with one side or the other on various issues — but after viewing these images, I don’t think there’s any question where I’d feel more at ease.

Below is a sampling of images from each rally. (Click on the links above for the full reports.) Scan them and tell me: At which rally would you feel more comfortable?

Show this essay to people you know who are liberals, or conservatives, or middle-of-the-roaders, and ask them: In all honesty, if you had to choose to be associated with the protesters at either rally, which would make you least embarrassed?

It’s a revealing comparison. What bothers me is I have no doubt which rally Barack Obama would feel more comfortable attending.

— DRJ

134 Responses to “Choosing Sides”

  1. I think it would be better for the Republicans to face their violent follower problem head on instead of trying to hide it behind a cloud of phony moral relativism.

    snips (6a0094)

  2. i can’t see Ear Leader actually mingling with the peasants…. but he would have been in LA.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  3. would that be the “angry follower” that shot her fellow professors, the one that flew his plane into the IRS, building, the one that threatened Cantor, the one that drove cross country to attack the Pentagon, Bill Ayers or any other one of the multitudes we can document?

    lying scumbag, heal thyself.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  4. snips:

    I think it would be better for the Republicans to face their violent follower problem head on instead of trying to hide it behind a cloud of phony moral relativism.

    What exactly is “a cloud of phony moral relativism”?

    DRJ (daa62a)

  5. Whole lotta 9/11 Truther stuff at that anti-war rally. And a whole lot of anti-Semitic posters. I hope that’s not indicative of the movement as a whole.

    At some level, I can respect people who are honestly opposed to the war, even if I disagree with them. But if the Tea Party people are responsible for the actions of a few who spout off racist statements, then by the same measure, the anti-war movement is responsible for its racists and loons.

    Some chump (c2555f)

  6. “What exactly is “a cloud of phony moral relativism”?”

    The low grade propaganda you linked to is a good start, DRJ.

    Here’s a more realistic set of photos:

    http://tinyurl.com/ygu8565

    snips (6a0094)

  7. snips hates Jews. I don’t know why, but he hates Jews.

    Maybe he’s from Illinois.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  8. DRJ, you have to admit that Andrew/snips is the veritable poster child of a person living in a cloud of phony moral relativism.

    And I am delighted that he himself used that overheated phrase. Because it is yet another case of projection.

    Besides, he has nice hair.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  9. I didn’t realize those eight people were at the Searchlight rally, snips.

    Some chump (c2555f)

  10. DRJ, its the best snips can do at copying out his talking points, given his poor computer skills and mediocre command of the english language.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  11. Oh, and I think that our local hair stylist par excellance should be cautious about posting images of how dastardly the Right is. Because there is a long, long history of this:

    http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

    Kind of hard to explain away. Because they sure aren’t teapartiers.

    So…before those awful rightwing violent people clean up their act, maybe Andrew can clean up his own side first.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  12. What’s maddening, at least to me, is that you can show libs this dichotomy and they’ll deny it. They’ll accuse you of making it up or brush it off as “the fringe” while painting the right with a broad brush. There’s no reasoning with people who won’t be reasoned with. (The troll has pretty much made my point.)

    And it’s sad that this is what our country has come to.

    wherestherum (d413fd)

  13. #4 DRJ:

    What exactly is “a cloud of phony moral relativism?”

    That would be whatever it is calling itself “snips” these days.

    So bizarre that the irony and projection is so lost on them.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  14. “What exactly is “a cloud of phony moral relativism”?”

    Is it similar to that multiculturalism baloney they try to foist on our kids in school these days?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  15. At least Zombie spared us the “boobs not bombs” hags this time around from the anti-war rally.

    Thanks Zombie!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  16. _______________________________________

    It’s a revealing comparison.

    Things like this pretty much nailed it shut for me several years ago…

    New York Times, Nicholas D. Kristof, December 2008:

    Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

    Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

    “When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

    According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

    Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the U.S. blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

    ^ Further verified and illustrated after reading about the tax returns of Obama, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Biden — and, going back even more years, not to mention Franklin D Roosevelt — and those records revealing a level of charitable giving that pretty much fits the profile of the cheapskate liberal.

    Limousine liberals — and one doesn’t have to be wealthy to be one — aren’t worth a damn.

    Mark (411533)

  17. “ind of hard to explain away. Because they sure aren’t teapartiers.”

    Eric,

    I can’t tell you how pleased to see that the same lousy propagandists who have cost the Republicans the White House and both Houses of Congress are still leading the Republican’s agitprop campaign.

    snips (6a0094)

  18. nipping at the heels-

    The Repubs and conservatives are not facing “their violent follower problem” because they don’t have one.

    The Dems and MSM are doing a “when did you stop beating your wife?” and the repubs/conservs aren’t stepping up to play.

    Show me some serious and specific evidence that the Repubs/conservs/tea party advocate violence and then I will listen.

    Until then, you have Obama instructing his followers to “get in their faces” and “take guns to a knife fight” and Bill Ayers and other buddies of the one who have performed and advocate political violence, and withdraw support only when it is not effective , otherwise they “wish they did more”.

    Comparing the rhetoric on the two sides is not moral relativism, it’s looking at the obvious and being willing to acknowledge it.

    The left is like a spoiled two year old, it wants what it wants, it’s right because they say so, and no honest rational thought is allowed to intervene.

    That is why things are so polarized. There are few people on the left willing to discuss policy in a responsible way they all sound like cranky chihuahuas nipping at heels.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  19. snips, do try to limit yourself to only one logical fallacy per comment. You’ve used up your quota of non sequitur for the year already.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  20. So, what kind of shampoo is best, Andrew?

    And I SO look forward to you continuing to talk about lousy propagandists costing political parties elections. It will be delicious, you hack troll.

    By the way, do you know the genesis of the word “agitprop”? Just asking. I doubt it was covered in beauty school.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  21. Those pictures have obviously been photo-shopped. There are people in the Tea Party pictures that are not white skinned, and I don’t mean red from sunburn, that can’t be because the voices from my television told me so. 😉

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  22. It’s really interesting how mad this thread is making Snipe! He’s really getting worked up, kinda like those Nazi democrats at the Anti-war rally.

    Democrats get mad a lot, and sometimes they lynch thousands of republicans, sometimes they beat some protester up in St Louis, and sometimes they just start screaming in a thread.

    All I know is that the jerks who show up at TEA parties are ostracized and rare. Everyone suspects they are closet liberals or insane, and they usually don’t even show up. But a nice polite and reasonable person is ostracized and hated at an anti-war rally.

    Moral relativism doesn’t always work, but here’s it’s very telling how the TEA parties are so peaceful and full of normal nice people, while the left’s protests are full of psychos. It’s really gotten snipe worked up, but he seems like someone who is always on a hair trigger.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  23. “That is why things are so polarized.”

    It has nothing to do with Sarah Palin (Who 71% of Americans think is unfit to be president) screeching about “Real” America, right?

    You guys couldn’t have picked a worse spokes model to try to appeal to an increasingly colorful America.

    snips (6a0094)

  24. Hmm. I guess you are expert on polls right about now, snipperdoodle? Do you really want to talk about polls right now?

    Like I said, you are just a troll.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  25. I mean, if you want to change the subject, I would love to discuss how more people identify as Conservative than Progressive. And Obama’s falling poll numbers. And how unpopular other things besides Sarah Palin might be.

    But that’s what you do: you are just hear to pick fights, which is why I am laughing at you. I sure hope you are an undergraduate, because if you are a grown up you are deeply sad.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  26. It has nothing to do with Sarah Palin

    No kidding. It has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. She just talking to a crowd, and sure seems a lot more appealing than the psychos at the other rally.

    And she’s one of the most idolized women in America. That a lot of people don’t think she’s ready to be the most powerful person in the world is not exactly damning. No one is really qualified for that.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  27. “And Obama’s falling poll numbers.”

    Yeah, Obama’s poll number have been at about 50% approval for the past eight months.

    I’d love to talk about his rock solid support as long as we get to talk about the Congressional Republican’s plummeting poll numbers, too.

    snips (6a0094)

  28. No, it doesn’t have anything to do with Sarah Palin. She is simply “Mrs. Smith goes to Washington” personified, who actually has more executive experience in her little finger than Obama no matter what the public (that showed such good taste in electing Joe Biden VP) thinks.

    It’s very, very, simple. A person who runs a business, a city, or a state knows that spending more money than you have is not a good idea. Many people in the US for some reason feel the same way. And they don’t like being called names and written off when the try to talk to their elected officials.

    But that is too obvious and boring to actually be believed, so something else must be the real issue.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  29. “You guys couldn’t have picked a worse spokes model to try to appeal to an increasingly colorful America.”

    snipster – If you prefer your women to be the dormitory feminazis popular on your side, god bless you.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  30. Why dustin! Didn’t you hear snips? 71% of Americans think Sarah Palin is unfit to be President! How can you doubt him??!!

    Of course, he isn’t interested in other polls that don’t agree with that cloud of partisan hypocrisy that follows him around like pot smoke. But he knows those polls, and he grinds his teeth about it.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  31. Oh, I don’t know, daley. The folks at tea party seemed to dress pretty colorfully.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  32. __________________________________

    What bothers me is I have no doubt which rally Barack Obama would feel more comfortable attending.

    Considering he sat for almost 20 years listening to Jeremiah Wright raving and ranting like a lunatic, I have no doubt too.

    New York Times, March 26, 2008

    Senator Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, sharply increased their charitable donations as Mr. Obama began to run for president and the family’s income increased from book sales, according to tax returns that the couple released on Tuesday.

    Some of the largest donations went to the Trinity United Church of Christ, whose pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., has been in the news for inflammatory messages in his sermons, causing Mr. Obama to distance himself from Mr. Wright, his former spiritual mentor.

    The Obamas’ returns are striking on a number of levels. They show that the couple made very few charitable contributions, sometimes less than 1 percent of taxable income, until Mr. Obama began his run for the White House.

    “Their charitable giving only went up when it looked like he was campaigning for the presidential office,” said Paul L. Caron, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and editor of the TaxProf Blog, which examines tax questions and has posted the returns.

    The [Obama’s] 2006 [tax] return also show a charitable deduction for a $13,000 donation to the Congressional Black Caucus. It is illegal to deduct political contributions as charitable contributions. The campaign said Mr. Obama had filed an amended return to eliminate that item as a reduction.

    __________________________________

    Mark (411533)

  33. Eric, you’re obviously right that Snipe is grinding his teeth a lot about a great many things.

    Oh well. I wish Snipe could take off the partisan blinders and see that our nation is in deep trouble from over spending, thanks to idiots in both parties, and the time for partisan loyalty is even more over than ever. But I know this is the internet, and it’s full of people who just want to see how many threads they can burn. I tried to ignore the trolls, but it seems like there are somehow more trolls when they are ignored.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  34. snipster – Two words. Amanda Marcotte.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  35. “…Obama’s rock solid support as long as we get to talk about the Congressional Republican’s plummeting poll numbers, too….”

    Somebody’s cranky!

    Anyway, those are some rocks you think you have, to write that.

    Birds are nesting at the end of your long wooden nose, trollish one. Obama’s taking a nose dive. And you honestly want to talk about Congressional Democrats right now?

    Now? Really?

    Like I wrote, if you are a grown up, you are really, really sad. Laughable.

    Go play on the freeway, kid, as W.C. Fields used to say.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  36. “Obama’s taking a nose dive. ”

    I’ll help you out Eric because you just seem to be flailing in this debate.

    Here’s Right-wing Rasmussen’s Obama approval numbers:

    http://tinyurl.com/5krqjz

    See the column that lists his “Total Approve?”

    Rasmussen has him at 47% today.

    Look down that column all the way back on August 13th of last year…see what Obama’s approval was on that day?

    Yep, 47%.

    And it hasn’t changed much over the past 7+ months.

    Rock solid.

    snips (6a0094)

  37. Rock solid support! And it hasn’t changed “much” over the past seven months?

    Um.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

    Have a look at the graphic. Start in October of 2009. But I think further back is even more amusing.

    Oh my.

    Hope and Change!

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  38. snips, you are as incompetent as I’d expect. You don’t even notice that the point of the Rasmussan poll you link is the approval index, which is the difference between strongly approve and the strongly disapprove.

    And that index looks worse today than your chosen date of August 13 2009.

    Clueless, snips, clueless.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  39. And I am sorry, but that “rock solid” support line is just hysterical.

    You really are worried about the midterms, aren’t you? In both senses of the term.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  40. snipe, those seem like really strange points to pick for poll dates.

    You claim they prove Obama’s “rock solid” in the polls. And yet, it’s kinda obvious you cherry picked. Let’s look at the polls a week ago, and it’s clear Obama has fallen. Or look at the polls on inauguration, and it’s clear he’s trending down, though it picks up and down over time.

    Fact is, you’re also cherry picking other aspects. His disapproval has much higher than it was 7 months ago. His index is really awful. He’s lost popularity far faster than W did (and W lost tons).

    This is funny, though. You are repeatedly ignoring any request for a topical exchange, going to more irrelevant attacks.

    Which group of people would you be more comfortable with? The Tea partiers in the pics, such as Palin, or the Anti-war protestors? It’s a simple question.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  41. Gee, a troll who links things he does not understand … never seen that before, now have we?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  42. C’mon guys, you don’t think that this troll actually understands any of this, do you? He is just trying to be…a troll.

    I think he is funny, because he is so self-assured in his nonsense. “Rock solid” support. Oh, my.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  43. In fact, I think that is a great name for this troll: Rocky. It’s a keeper.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  44. Eric,

    Obama’s approval has been about the same for the past 8 montrhs while the right-wing shrills have been saying his number are plummeting.

    Is it any wonder you guys keep losing elections?

    Luckily there’s always some huckster like Palin around to tell you guys you’re gonna win the next one, by golly, for only $100,00 grand a pop.

    I’m almost starting to feel sorry for you.

    snips (6a0094)

  45. snipe, I asked you a question.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  46. “Is it any wonder you guys keep losing elections?”

    Like Virgina, New Jersey and Massachusetts?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  47. Say goodnight, Gracie.

    And read some polls. You can start with the RCP aggregate link I posted.

    1 October: 52.2% approval / 40.8% disapproval.

    30 March: 48.1% approval / 46.1% disapproval.

    And it is much worse the farther back you start.

    The only thing that is rock solid is your mindless partisanship.

    Like I wrote, not even an entertaining troll.

    And you are getting so irritated your spelling and grammar is off. Or you are drinking.

    So why not grab some Zs. You have embarrassed yourself enough for one evening.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  48. snips – You are really not very good at this at all.

    If it were not for “no game,” you would not have any game at all.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  49. But daley! Losing 4.1 percentage points over eight months in approval, and gaining 5.3 percentage points in disapproval is…rock…solid..support!

    Rocky said so!

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  50. “At which rally would you feel more comfortable?”–Zombie

    With my long hair, tattered jeans and tie-dye, I could walk into a lefty demonstration and be welcomed like a long lost brother.

    But, once I started talking…the honeymoon would be over in a big hurry.

    Dave Surls (27f0ed)

  51. whereas if you were at a TEA Party, someone like me would ask you where you got the tie-dye….. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  52. Eric,

    You do know your numbers only show a 4% change in Obama’s approval since Oct 1 of last year, don’t you?

    Is that what you guys are calling “Obama’s taking a nose dive?”

    I understand after the beatings you’ve taken in the last two election you need some level of self-delusion to make it through the day but there is a limit.

    snips (6a0094)

  53. snips, you do realize that you are so full of scheisse that you make Ear Leader look like an honest man, right?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  54. Oh, red, the guy is funny. He got skooled and can’t handle it. He didn’t even look at the polls, but he sure knew that “rock…solid…support” was not exactly what has been happening.

    He is not just a troll, I think. I think he is pretty darned scared about the upcoming elections. Look at how he huffs and puffs about the polls. And he clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    Let him rage and try to fight. It’s kind of cute, really, since he is clearly so clueless.

    And as for that minor little 4 percentage points? I seem to remember that “minor” difference was enough to get a President elected.

    Like I said: sad little troll. Trying to pick fights while drinking.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  55. Aaah, Eric,

    You can stamp your little feet and hurl your juvenile insults but you still have to accept basic math.

    Obama’s approval has changed little over the past 8 months despite all the smears your side has hurled at him.

    Even 47% would have been good enough to beat Palin and McCain and it will be good enough to beat the Bob Dole you guys prop up to take the fall in 2012.

    snips (6a0094)

  56. You know, Andrew/snips, you really are funny. Speaking of stamping your feet. What is it with you folks and projection?

    Look at the polls. And feel ashamed of how you let your ego paint you into a corner.

    On the other hand, you may not have had a lot of political history. You might try reading a book or two.

    As for now? You are really, really embarrassing yourself.

    And it’s not just my opinion, you know.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  57. figures lie and liars figure.

    keep trying snips: i lurve mocking fools. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  58. I did like this one using the expression “stamping one’s little feet,” when that is what he was doing regarding his obstinacy over polls.

    Kind of sad, really.

    Red, I hope to heck this is just some sophomore with a Howard Zinn brain. If this was a grown up? Jeez.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  59. If this was a grown up?

    then the Dx is “early onset senile dementia”….

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  60. “Obama’s approval has changed little over the past 8 months…”

    Since his election, the New Messiah’s approval rating has fallen from 69% to 48% (Latest Gallup).

    George Bush was at 79% approval at the same point in his presidency (March 2002). The average president (going back to FDR) had an approval rating of 59% in the fifth quarter of their presidencies.

    Considering that he was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, according to the lapdog media, and considering that the Dems are promising everybody under the sun free government handouts…he ain’t in such hot shape. With the handouts flowing like water, and a fawning media on his side, his poll numbers ought to be up where JFK’s or LBJ’s were…only they aren’t.

    Don’t know what all this has to do with the thread topic, but Obama and the Dems are staring to look like they’re in a world of trouble.

    And, that’s a good thing for America.

    Dave Surls (27f0ed)

  61. Being a TRUE moderate – unlike zombie – I wouldn’t feel comfortable at either rally. I find it hard to believe the president would feel comfortable at either one as well. Left or right, extremists are extremists.

    JEA (322ac3)

  62. “Left or right, extremists are extremists.”
    True; and it is these extremists, on both sides that are tipping us away from a better place.

    I doubt the photos are truly representative of each event. However, when you look at the broader photos, it certainly makes me feel the LA event was far more radical. JEA, wouldn’t you agree?

    Barack wouldn’t feel comfortable at either. But I think he would prefer the LA one; just would not want to be associated, at least not openly, with it.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  63. except for 9/11 denialist one, almost all are sentiments he agrees with, they are his base

    ian cormac (349188)

  64. JEA is as delusional and as rigid a leftist as snips.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  65. I saw a similar photo essay comparing a bar in Sweden (full of attractive, fit youths of both sexes, although admittedly I was eyeing the females) with a bar in England (full of sweaty, bruised, flabby, pale drunken brawlers…and I generally couldn’t tell which were the females).

    That’s probably why the lefties hate comparisons like these. They’re so darned superficial. I mean, the pub was full of the ugliest collection of dentistry I’d ever seen in one place, but everyone knows they’ve got the better beer, so surely that’s the correct choice, isn’t it? (Corollary: Care to guess which rally had the “better” drugs being passed around?)

    rtrski (b47753)

  66. I wouldn’t feel comfortable at either rally. I find it hard to believe the president would feel comfortable at either one as well

    Of course not – he’s adamantly opposed to fire – breathing nutbags (Wright), and is mightily annoyed with expressions or exhortations to violence (“get in their faces”), and would never, never hang out with confessed bombers of civilians (Ayres).

    Dmac (21311c)

  67. Dmac, did you catch snips’ “nuh-huh” style argumentation? “Rock solid” should be his nickname. I don’t think he is just a lazy troll. He seems *invested* in his politics.

    Eric Blair (8f45a7)

  68. The Jawa Report takes a look at the same pictures and finds something funny (that I then swiped)

    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201795.php

    Xmas (f41f48)

  69. Eric, that thing is no different from the Bobo Doll – style that we’ve come to know from so many others of recent vintage. Reflexive is all they have – no thinking necessary.

    Dmac (21311c)

  70. I think they want things to be true. So do I. But when reality slaps me in the face, I deal with it.

    Seriously, it didn’t seem like the usual nonsense.

    It must really be upsetting to believe in a politician and find out it is just more of the same. We’ve all been there, though.

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  71. Really? I haven’t seen William Ayers at the WH lately. You have, of course.

    I find both sides’ signs extremist. Obviously people here only find the left’s extremist.

    JEA (322ac3)

  72. So we are adopting “Rock solid snips” ?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  73. JEA, lately? Really? You think just throwing out the word “lately” rebuts the correct observation that Barack Obama has a long and close relationship to two Weather Underground terrorists?

    You are beclowning yourself.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  74. […] The Camp of The Saints: Near And Recording In Las Vegas Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria and Shuster vs. Jackson on Tea Party Violence (Updated) Moe […]

    Priceless: Harry Reid Supporters Caught on Video Throwing Eggs at Tea Party Bus in Searchlight… Democrats Not So Law-Abiding and Classy As Media Paints Them (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  75. Well, SPQR, watching Rocky make his claims last night was disturbing. Clearly he wasn’t “playing troll” anymore, but feeling very worried.

    That doesn’t mean I want to adopt that particular stray. Who, again, I think used to post here under another name.

    I also think that JEA’s post is interesting. It has the usual seeming “relativism” approach to things. But I would bet serious money that JEA would be very, very unhappy with a Republican President who had ties to anti-abortion activists in his past. And if one of those anti-abortion activists had been an advisor to the President in the early days?

    Because that is different, of course.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  76. Really? I haven’t seen William Ayers at the WH lately. You have, of course.

    I saw him at a number of Obama’s fundraisers, back in Hyde Park when he first began his rise in the Chicago Political Machine. Of course, being a reflexively partisan Lefty, you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you?

    Tell us all something – if John McCain had consorted with a known radical fundamentalist who admitted bombing abortion clinics, would he have achieved the GOP nomination? Or better yet, would he have even been elected to dog catcher of Phoenix, AZ?

    We’ll sit back and wait for your insightful opinion on that one.

    Dmac (21311c)

  77. Ah Eric – you bet me to it.

    Dmac (21311c)

  78. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the U.S. blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

    As an aside: my husband donated more than a gallon of blood before he decided that he was no longer willing to lie in order to donate blood.

    aphrael (73ebe9)

  79. Aphrael, I am very conflicted by the rules about blood donation from gay men. It presumes so many unpleasant things.

    I just wanted to say that it means a lot to me—even if the blood bank people were rude, or if your partner felt like a liar—that he gave blood for so long. Blood donations have saved a couple of members of my family.

    Thank you.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  80. To repeat what someone else said – if your car breaks down next to either one of those rallys – which one would you more likely have offers to help and which one would most likely have an individual with the skill set necessary to be of any help.

    To take it a step further – which rally do you think would find individuals who have the intellectual capacity to examine the empirical evidence to determine the extent of global warming.

    Joe (dd01fd)

  81. I am pretty sure Obama doesn’t find his present poll situation to be ‘rock solid’. That’s why Axelrod and Obama call this their low point, and admit they’ve lost a lot of popularity recently. They promise they know how to get it back.

    One problem is that the anti-war protests… all that energy… it was devoted to hating Bush. And it’s a tiny slice of society. How far can it go? Not very.

    The TEA protests are full of normal people, and that is going to keep growing and growing. That’s where Obama has to make inroads to get back to ‘rock solid’.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  82. “But I would bet serious money that JEA would be very, very unhappy with a Republican President who had ties to anti-abortion activists in his past.”

    No, I wouldn’t. But since you know everything about me, feel free to tell everybody what I believe and don’t believe.

    Or you could just shut up.

    “I saw him at a number of Obama’s fundraisers, back in Hyde Park when he first began his rise in the Chicago Political Machine.”

    Interesting how that comes back even though it was years ago. I saw Nixon with Mao.

    JEA (322ac3)

  83. OK, JEA, maybe he wasn’t specific enough. Wouldn’t you be unhappy if the President, GOP or not, was great friends with a proud and unrepentant abortionist bomber?

    Like, the bomber writes a book and Mitt Huckapalin endorses it on the dust cover.

    And I really don’t get the ‘years ago’ claims about Obama’s love for a terrorist. His career isn’t exactly going back very far.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  84. The pictures were in the local press, you asshat. It was featured in the Chicago Defender, a well – known paper for the Black political community on the south side.

    What a lefty hackey – sack.

    Dmac (21311c)

  85. Or you could just shut up.

    Awesome debating technique – “shut up,” he explained. Mark the witness’s remarks as non – responsive, your Honor. Buh – byeee.

    Dmac (21311c)

  86. This is keeping on topic with the thread about who Jews are “aligned” with. Nice totalist view of the world yo.

    imdw (842182)

  87. This is keeping on topic with the thread about who Jews are “aligned” with. Nice totalist view of the world yo.

    Comment by imdw

    I would insert random gibberish to mock this, but I keep getting moderated when I do that [justifiably, I realize].

    If you don’t realize that there really is a side to take here, you’re probably with the smelly left instead of the gorgeous TEA party center.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  88. “…Or you could just shut up….”

    Go thou forth, and do likewise, as the saying goes.

    I haven’t been rude to you. Nice to see your true colors.

    Hey, folks, how long has JEA been posting? If it has been a few years, what do you want to bet we’ll see some evidence that he is not quite so relativist as he would try to appear.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  89. Oh, and was Mao raising money for Nixon?

    What was the name of the fellow who was raising money for Gore? “No controlling authority”?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

    Oh, that’s right.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  90. As an aside: my husband donated more than a gallon of blood before he decided that he was no longer willing to lie in order to donate blood.

    With all due respect, aphrael, I’ve given almost 6 gallons of blood in my life, and I am outraged that anyone would lie in order to give blood.

    The donation program isn’t there so that donors can feel good about themselves.

    The donation rules are what they are, and whether or not we agree with them, we should follow them. The point is to protect the blood supply. There is a great deal of risk to the recipients of blood if the donors lie.

    Now, you seem to be a stand-up guy, and I’m sure your husband is a good guy, too. But, I’m glad he’s no longer donating.

    Some chump (c2555f)

  91. Lying to donate blood is a terrible thing to do.

    Good lord. Those restrictions are in place for a reason, and assumptions are made based on honesty. I recall a psycho professor in college who was angry that gays were not allowed to donate, despite my pointing out that they have 19 times as frequent an occurrence of HIV. He didn’t care… it was some principle that was more important to him than human life.

    I do stupid things to, especially when trying to do something helpful, like Aphrael’s husband. But man, that’s annoying.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  92. While I understand why Aphrael’s partner could be offended, I can’t give blood anymore because of my previous bout with cancer. I suppose I could lie in order to do so again, but that would put recipients at serious risk if I did. It’s not the same analogy by any means, but I understand the restrictions.

    Dmac (21311c)

  93. “I saw Nixon with Mao.”

    Nixon raised funds for Mao? Do tell.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  94. “I saw Nixon with Mao.”

    They went to the same barber.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  95. Some chump – I brought it up mostly because I’m irritated by comments like “conservatives give blood more often” which, in context, was used to imply that the fact that conservatives donate blood more than liberals is indicative that they are just generally better people. Since the overwhelming majority of gay people are liberals, and gay men aren’t allowed to donate blood even if they want to, the inference is unfair.

    Those restrictions are in place for a reason

    The restriction probably made sense when it was adopted. But it doesn’t now; and, at the time he’d been donating, he and his partner of the time had both had no other partners, so with particular respect to them, the restriction was pointless; there was no serious risk associated with violating it.

    Now, it’s a fair point that a regime in which everyone gets to decide for themselves which restrictions to follow and which not to follow is problematic, and that’s part of why he stopped donating.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  96. ugh.

    for some reason the paragraphization got lost.

    lets try this again.

    Some chump – I brought it up mostly because I’m irritated by comments like “conservatives give blood more often” which, in context, was used to imply that the fact that conservatives donate blood more than liberals is indicative that they are just generally better people. Since the overwhelming majority of gay people are liberals, and gay men aren’t allowed to donate blood even if they want to, the inference is unfair.

    Those restrictions are in place for a reason

    The restriction probably made sense when it was adopted. But it doesn’t now; and, at the time he’d been donating, he and his partner of the time had both had no other partners, so with particular respect to them, the restriction was pointless; there was no serious risk associated with violating it.

    Now, it’s a fair point that a regime in which everyone gets to decide for themselves which restrictions to follow and which not to follow is problematic, and that’s part of why he stopped donating.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  97. Sorry, aphrael, now you’re just trying to rationalize bad behavior.

    Since the overwhelming majority of gay people are liberals, and gay men aren’t allowed to donate blood even if they want to, the inference is unfair.

    It may be true that the overwhelming majority of gay people are liberals, but the converse is not true. Gays probably represent no more than 5% of liberals. So, even if the restriction were lifted, the donation rate wouldn’t change very much.

    The restriction probably made sense when it was adopted. But it doesn’t now; and, at the time he’d been donating, he and his partner of the time had both had no other partners, so with particular respect to them, the restriction was pointless; there was no serious risk associated with violating it.

    See, that’s what’s wrong with what your husband did. It wasn’t up to him to decide the restrictions on donating blood. And it shouldn’t be up to him whether he’s going to follow the rules when other peoples’ lives are at stake. But he wanted to feel good about himself, so he lied in order to do so.

    There are plenty of other restrictions on blood donation that have nothing to do with sexuality. Maybe they make sense, maybe they don’t. But the point to the restrictions is to ensure the safety of the blood supply. It’s as simple as that, and the very least we can do is respect that even if we disagree with them, the rules are well-intended and should be followed.

    Some chump (c2555f)

  98. It wasn’t up to him to decide the restrictions on donating blood.

    I believe I acknowledged that in part of my comment which you elided:

    it’s a fair point that a regime in which everyone gets to decide for themselves which restrictions to follow and which not to follow is problematic, and that’s part of why he stopped donating.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  99. Here’s a video with one of Reid’s astroturf with an egg in his hand. http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/03/30/video-the-egg-man-of-seachlight-nevada/

    Now, all liberals who denied this can either appologize or accept the consequences of being a Democrat liar.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  100. “If you don’t realize that there really is a side to take here, you’re probably with the smelly left instead of the gorgeous TEA party center.”

    I mean, it’s not like there’s something else to do besides go to wingnut burning man or some LA protest. Like have an ice cream cone.

    imdw (241c75)

  101. The rules for blood donation are constantly changing and are not always well chosen. For a couple of years I gave blood, and then for decades I couldn’t (due to the drugs I took for seizure control), then for I while I could, then I couldn’t (because of sexual behavior with opposite sex foreign nationals in the past) and now I can again (that medical and sexual history hasn’t changed, just the questions about it.) I get pointed to a new interviewer if there is one, just so they can deal with the collection of nearly-disqualifying answers I give. They even ask if I have time to do this! The difference in reported giving is far larger than homosexuality could account for; perhaps conservatives lie, claiming they give more, and liberals lie, claiming not to do so.

    In any case, if you can and are acceptable, please give. The vampire is always hungry.

    At which rally, if your car broke down and needed fixing that didn’t call for parts, which would have people who’d help?

    It struck me long ago that conservatives were the people who got their hands dirty helping people, while liberals were the people who used dirty mouths to scream that people needed help. There are exceptions in both groups, and some who do both.

    htom (412a17)

  102. There were paragraph breaks in that in the preview.

    thisis a test

    (paragraph html mark between this and is above, shows as new paragraph in preview; above the test, a blank line, also showing as a paragraph break.

    htom (412a17)

  103. imdw sees the images of the TEA parties, knowing that it’s full of democrats and independents and repesents a 20 point drop in Obama’s initial popularity, and says it’s wingnut burning man.

    Now, that wouldn’t be a troll attempt, would it? If you are one of the insane people shown in the anti-war collection, the TEA protesters probably do look like wing nuts.

    Why just look at all those pretty women, with makeup and smiles and *KIDS*. And people talking about living happy lives with less government intrusion! Insane! They should all get a live and a softserve from imdw at McDonalds.

    ===

    Aphrael, I apologize that I came down hard on your husband for trying to help people. I realize it’s a personal thing. I still think it’s a serious mistake.

    “he and his partner of the time had both had no other partners” I thought the restriction was on people who had homosexual sex within the past X years (or maybe ever). Not whether someone considered themselves to be gay. That’s a great provision that should remain. Perhaps the statistics are different than I think, but if people who have had gay sex are more likely to have HIV, there’s good reason to exclude that few percent.

    No hate or disrespect intended.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  104. Ok, that’s just wrong.

    htom (412a17)

  105. Oh, and the line breaks go away for everyone’s reloaded+new comment in preview (what aphrael noted). They are still there when you reload the page.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  106. I thought the restriction was on people who had homosexual sex within the past X years (or maybe ever).

    Right: any male who has had sex with another male since 1979 cannot give blood in the US.

    No hate or disrespect intended.

    None taken or inferred. 🙂

    but if people who have had gay sex are more likely to have HIV

    there’s a cost-benefit question here. promiscuous gay men are more likely to have HIV, but it’s not clear that long-term monogamous gay men are. so: is the added screening cost of differentiating between these two groups justified by the increase in the blood supply which could be obtained by that differentiation?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  107. I apologize that I came down hard on your husband for trying to help people. I realize it’s a personal thing. I still think it’s a serious mistake.

    also: thank you, and apology accepted. 🙂

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  108. LOL

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    dustin (b54cdc)

  109. […] Ridicule The Camp of The Saints: Near And Recording In Las Vegas Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria and Shuster vs. Jackson on Tea Party Violence (Updated) Moe […]

    “Get on the Bus!” – Union Leaders Try to Shuffle Crazed Reid Supporters from Breitbart & Video Camera… Bogus Race Card Whipped Out, Of Course (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  110. The “wrong” was about the paragraphing; less-than p greater-than shows in the preview as a paragraph break, and disappears with no break eventually. Computers.

    Aphrael, I’m sorry your partner was so treated. I suspect the ban continues (although it may go away in the next couple of years) because of the French government’s HIV contaminated blood disaster. The rumors about it were devastating to donations here; there seemed to be no explanation that would calm people’s fears of getting AIDs from donating blood. Totally irrational.

    htom (412a17)

  111. A comment on blood contributing.

    A number of years ago there was a study done at an STD clinic in Baltimore by folks at Hopkins. They found that people who “always used condoms” had the same rate of returning with a new infection as those who “never used condoms”, while those who “sometimes used condoms” had fewer revisits. It was felt that the most reasonable explanation was that many of those who said “they always used condoms” were saying what they thought the questioners wanted to hear.

    We all know that people often lie, some more than others, especially about behaviors that they may wish not to divulge. from the Red Cross’ point of view, maybe it isn’t even the donor who is lying, but the donors’ partner and the donor knows nothing about it. This does not assume that gays lie more than others, it acknowledges that the prevalance of HIV in the gay community as a whole is higher than that in the straight community, assuming that IDU’s are excluded from both groups.

    Now, it is commendable that your husband wanted to help others by donating blood. He may have been 100% sure there was no chance of having HIV, but knowing what a doctor or nurse knows, they could never take his word- not because they didn’t think they could trust him, but because they knew they had a lousy track record of making that decision.

    When I was in medical school there was a person in town who contracted malaria from a contaminated blood transfusion. The blood was donated by someone who had been giving for years, and the familiarity made them bypass some of the protocol, including noting the fact he had recently been overseas to an area where malaria was endemic.

    I can understand the angst of being unfairly lumped in with a bunch of others. As a conservative white male I’m judged to be uncaring about those less fortunate whether or not I’ve spent years working for far less than the going rate because of working in underserved areas (with underpaying patients and govt. insurance).

    I think all of us here realize that conservatives and liberals can each be jerks or wonderful people (I hope we can, anyway). I do not take those statistics as saying that every liberal is a worse person than every conservative. What I do take those statistics to mean is that when a Biden or Obama talks about how stingy and uncaring conservatives are as a whole they are spouting nonsense and I wish more people would realize that instead of assuming it is true.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  112. There’s a reason that one generation of hemophiliacs has disappearead from America.

    nk (db4a41)

  113. MD has a great point. These rules are applying widely.

    It’s easy for Aphrael’s husband to just get a damn HIV test, and a full battery of tests, and show an example where he’s a safe donor. Or even pose that there is a group of people within the ‘gay community’ that are safe enough to benefit from.

    But when the groups are listed on a piece of paper, it’s easy to lie or fudge, and the consequences are too severe. Being overprotective against another outbreak, and oversimplifying things to minimize dishonesty, is a rational approach.

    It’s working. That’s worth pointing out too. nk listed one example. Maybe a more PC system could work too, but what we have works and screwing it up would be hard to fix.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  114. there’s a cost-benefit question here. promiscuous gay men are more likely to have HIV, but it’s not clear that long-term monogamous gay men are. so: is the added screening cost of differentiating between these two groups justified by the increase in the blood supply which could be obtained by that differentiation?

    That was posted while I was composing my note above.

    It is true that a mutually monogamous male couple of many years that are HIV negative will remain HIV negative, and if the Red Cross could know for sure this was the case then accepting blood might* be reasonable. But as said above, from the medical side of the chair we know people are not always honest and that we don’t do a good job of knowing who’s who.

    It is “interesting” to note that the concept of long term mutual monogamy is not felt to be very reliable among public health folk who one would expect to be “considerate”, for at times it has been widely suggested that people should get checked regularly and always use condoms, because they don’t know their partners as well as they think they do. I always thought that was a pretty crappy general assumption to make- suggesting that every monogamous couple, gay or straight, should always use condoms because they don’t know for sure where their partner was last week.

    *might- the reality is that both HIV and HepC were being widely disseminated through segments of the poulation, including through blood transfusions, before they were recognized. There is no guarantee that there is not yet another epidemic waiting to appear that is even now being spread through the population by similar risk behaviors. We knew about syphilis so we could test for that and keep it under control. Then we could test for gonorrhea and try to keep it controlled, then chlamydia could be tested for, but not well controlled, but wasn’t fatal, then HPV and herpes, both a bit overshadowed by HIV. History suggests that as long as people continue to have intimate interactions with multiple partners we should expect new pathogens on the horizon.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  115. I’m sorry your partner was so treated.

    Please let me be clear: he was never mistreated. He just isn’t allowed to donate blood under the rules – and, knowing that, has never gone in to make an issue of it in a way which would invite mistreatment by the staff.

    they could never take his word

    Right, and this opens up a whole realm of questions about how we can choose to trust or not trust strangers who have no reputation.

    even now being spread through the population by similar risk behaviors

    on some level my objection is that having a same-sex partner is being treated as a proxy for the actual risk behavior of promiscuity. it’s not clear to me that this is a legitimate proxy.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  116. AIDS would have been a disease that could have burned itself out, along with its carriers — promiscuous homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and prostitutes — if not for the relentless efforts of those carriers to transmit it to unwilling recipients through blood donations, and to willing recipients through irresponsible conduct.

    nk (db4a41)

  117. I’ve said it many times before and will say it again – more Aphrael, much less imaduh.

    Dmac (21311c)

  118. This discussion is just an example of why this comment section is such a great read. There really are a lot of smart, principled people here.

    And a few with loose screws, which adds a touch of spice.

    Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab)

  119. […] Ridicule The Camp of The Saints: Near And Recording In Las Vegas Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria and Shuster vs. Jackson on Tea Party Violence (Updated) Moe […]

    I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar: New Poll Shows Majority in Tea Party Movement Are Women — Libs & Obama’s Media Need to Attack Women More (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  120. #101 htom:

    It struck me long ago that conservatives were the people who got their hands dirty helping people, while liberals were the people who used dirty mouths to scream that people needed help. There are exceptions in both groups, and some who do both.

    I would go even a bit further, and say that conservatives seem to be the group that genuinely likes people, with all their warts and lumps; while liberals talk about how important it is to like people.

    And, as you say, there are exceptions in both groups. aphrael would certainly appear to be someone who genuinely likes people, while imadouche and rocky clearly are not. And me, of course, representing the exception on the other side of teh fence, ’cause I just hate everybody.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  121. I find it hard to believe the president would feel comfortable at either one as well.

    Huh?! You’re kidding, right? You’re talking about a guy who sat in the pews of a church for almost 20 years listening to a loud-mouth fanatic like Jeremiah Wright? Not only listening to him, not only tuning in instead of going “bleech,” but even embracing him and making him a major advisor until the very last minute, when controversy forced the hand of the guy now in the White House.

    Mark (411533)

  122. […] Ridicule The Camp of The Saints: Near And Recording In Las Vegas Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria and Shuster vs. Jackson on Tea Party Violence (Updated) […]

    Find My Tiny Violin to Play a Tiny Sob Song for CNN’s Lost Viewership & Left-wing Media Bias « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  123. […] Ridicule The Camp of The Saints: Near And Recording In Las Vegas Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria and Shuster vs. Jackson on Tea Party Violence (Updated) […]

    Find My Tiny Violin to Play a Tiny Sob Song for CNN’s Lost Viewership & Left-wing Media Bias « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  124. […] Ridicule The Camp of The Saints: Near And Recording In Las Vegas Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria and Shuster vs. Jackson on Tea Party Violence (Updated) […]

    Find My Tiny Violin to Play a Tiny Sob Song for CNN’s Lost Viewership & Left-wing Media Bias « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  125. […] Hollywood: Stand Ups for America: Fight the Power With Ridicule Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria Legal Insurrection: Saturday Night Card Game (Tea Parties […]

    Whoa, Harry Reid’s Got a Gun! How Many “Grand Openings” Have There Been for $61-Million Nevada Gun Park & How Many Has Reid Attended? « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  126. […] Hollywood: Stand Ups for America: Fight the Power With Ridicule Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria Legal Insurrection: Saturday Night Card Game (Tea Parties […]

    Whoa, Harry Reid’s Got a Gun! How Many “Grand Openings” Have There Been for $61-Million Nevada Gun Park & How Many Has Reid Attended? « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  127. aphrael would certainly appear to be someone who genuinely likes people

    thank you! 🙂

    there are times when people piss me off. i think everyone goes through that. but, by and large, I like people, and I often find that their warts and flaws are the very thing which makes them interesting and beautiful. but, man, some of those warts can be ugly to look at. 🙂

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  128. “..’cause I just hate everybody.”
    Comment by EW1(SG) — 3/30/2010 @ 7:47 pm.

    Our own, very special, “Dirty Harry“.

    AD - RtR/OS! (6f84de)

  129. […] Hollywood: Stand Ups for America: Fight the Power With Ridicule Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria Legal Insurrection: Saturday Night Card Game (Tea Parties […]

    Best Music Video of the Week: Tea Partiers, Conservatives, Patriots… Check Out “See You in November” (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  130. […] Hollywood: Stand Ups for America: Fight the Power With Ridicule Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria Legal Insurrection: Saturday Night Card Game (Tea Parties […]

    Horrors, Patriotic Protesters Cheering! Maxine Waters, Idiot Democrat Hate-Monger, SHOCKED That Tea Partiers Would Wave American Flags (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  131. […] Hollywood: Stand Ups for America: Fight the Power With Ridicule Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria Legal Insurrection: Saturday Night Card Game (Tea Parties […]

    MSNBC’s Chris Matthews & Yes, More Left-Wing Media Lies: The Word “Regime” & the 6,769 Examples of It Used Against Pres. Bush by Leftist MSM « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  132. […] Hollywood: Stand Ups for America: Fight the Power With Ridicule Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria Legal Insurrection: Saturday Night Card Game (Tea Parties […]

    At Least 100 Nevadans Don’t Hate Sen. Harry Reid… Dingy Harry’s Campaign Bus Tour Fizzling, Despite Mysterious 10-Cent Coffee Offer at Searchlight Tea Party « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  133. […] Hollywood: Stand Ups for America: Fight the Power With Ridicule Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria Legal Insurrection: Saturday Night Card Game (Tea Parties […]

    Heated Tea Party “Racism” Debate on Larry King: Leftists Pull Out Lies, Rumors… Dana Loesch & Ben Stein Hit Them Square Between the Eyes with the Truth (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  134. […] John Nolte, Big Hollywood: When David Letterman Met a Tea Partier Patterico’s Pontifications: Choosing Sides and The Tea Party and Liberal Hysteria Legal Insurrection: Saturday Night Card Game (Tea Parties […]

    Heated Tea Party “Racism” Debate on Larry King: Leftists Pull Out Lies, Rumors… Dana Loesch & Ben Stein Hit Them Square Between the Eyes with the Truth (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1263 secs.