Written by Melanie Morgan
|
Tuesday, 31 July 2007 |
"[t]he Michael Vick dogfighting case made its way to the floor of the U.S. Senate Thursday when its most senior member publicly declared his outrage, saying he's witnessed one execution but wouldn't mind seeing another 'if it involves this cruel, sadistic, cannibalistic business of training innocent, vulnerable creatures to kill.'
"The strong words from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV, widely known for his devotion to animals, come as dogfighting controversy swirls around the Atlanta Falcons star quarterback. Vick and three others were indicted earlier this week on felony charges of competitive dogfighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting, and conducting the enterprise across state lines
Don't you like the way the liberals think? Death penalty for Vick for misusing dogs. Shame on me for proposing the death penalty for someone who gave America's secrets to our enemy. I think I like Byrd's language, i.e. "The New York Times, by revealing America's secrets, had empowered against our troops an enemy that is cruel, sadistic, cannibalistic ... for training innocent, vulnerable creatures [Muslims] to kill. My sentiments exactly!
Same sort of thinking that gets liberals to agree that it is ok to use taxpayer money to fund art that includes a crucifix in urine, but it is a felony to toss a Quran in the toilet. Many of these people had to get a postgraduate degree to figure all of this out.
|
|
Written by Melanie Morgan
|
Tuesday, 31 July 2007 |
Blog: Winter's Soldier Story
Bush, Biden Turn Tables on Iraq War Lies; Gathering of Eagles
Move America Forward Building Momentum
|
|
Written by Melanie Morgan
|
Monday, 30 July 2007 |
I'll be appearing at 6:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.
Subject: Pace University student charged with TWO hate crimes for allegedly flushing a Koran down the toilet.
|
|
Written by Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack
|
Monday, 30 July 2007 |
It's shocking, but in today's NY Times, An Op Ed by two liberal war
critics from the Brookings Institution have been to Iraq -- and are
suitably impressed with progress!
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Melanie Morgan
|
Sunday, 29 July 2007 |
Word from inside- the- beltway is that GOP presidential candidates are
extremely dubious about whether to participate in the YouTube GOP
debates coming up soon.
My sources say that CNN is calling prominent grassroots Republicans and
begging for them to submit YouTube questions, and not a lot of folks
are responding.
Ian Schwartz, who practically invented video on the Internet,
has a compelling arguement about why we need to be involved with
YouTube. I don't know if I agree --yet.
The ONLY way it works is if the Republicans distinguish themselves
from the Democrats by pointing out when a question is absurd or biased
and not be dragged down to the level of Freak Show elements by
legitimizing stoned-out people asking about reparations for slavery,
snowmen asking about saving the snowpeople from Global Warming, and
having little children ask questions their adult parents asked them to
parrot into the camera. I
don't know how much confidence I have in the GOP candidates to do that,
and yet do it in a way where they don't look snide and condescending. The
problem with the You Tube/CNN debates wasn't the concept - it's quite
OK with me to have REAL AMERICANS asking questions via video.
The problem as I see it is that the producers of this stunt were
producing entertainment - and from their own typical liberal bias - and
not trying to provoke thoughtful debate among the participants.
But I could be convinced. So, what do you think?
First, read Ian's comments"Save the Debate" at www.ianschwartz.com
Mouse over to the poll that's up now.
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next > End >>
|
Results 1 - 9 of 70 |