Since I started blogging and founded my own blog “Conversations Over Dinner with a Brainless Liberal “ Or Progressive if that be the case.. !. I have tried to listen to the other sides points of view that were different from my own. I must admit that I am guilty of more than stirring up a bit of controversy. And I had the audacity to question their Liar in Chief.. Because of their attitude and their willingness to attack anyone who dares to point out the truth about their agenda, I have been called just about every slang word in the books. However I have had an attitude change of my own, and refuse to lie down and play dead..Having said that, let me get to the topic of today’s blog.“Was Benghazi a "Spontaneous Attack," or Planned Terrorist Attack”I have been reading all the convoluted explanations for Benghazi and laughing over some of them for two days now. Most on the left seem to say it was a spontaneous attack based on a video while at the same time saying "it was an act of terror."The best is a Progressive blog that agrees with the Times and says that there is no doubt that it was because of that famous Video. I also have no doubt that the Obama administration told the NY Slimes to say the attack was the result of a YouTube Video. And even called for an apology from the Right.They knew in advance an attack was planned and did NOTHING to prevent it or secure embassy staff. The they have the audacity to claim it was a spontaneous attack due to a video? This is treason, Everyone involved deserves to be in prisonWell folks...if it was an act of terror it was by definition a planned and coordinated terror attack. So which is it? A response to the Video and spontaneous uprising, or a planned terrorist attack by al-Qaida? It is time to take a stand. Which is it? And why did both Obama and Hillary Clinton claim that when they spoke to the reporters in the White House Rose Garden Obama they admitted it was a terrorist attack by al-Qaida but now they are trying to weasel and that doesn’t cut it. Either it was planned and coordinated or it was not. So which is it? And if you think that it wasn’t, Man do I have a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!
Mention conservative and what do you get, .Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.It is intensely sad.
Even sadder is Americans dying in a foreign land because their 'leaders' didn't give a shit about them.
sadder even yet is vets getting back and getting treated so badly at VA Hospitals across the land..NOT ALL of them, some are doing fine, but others? THAT is sad.
Talking up Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi and talking about how to insult liberals is going to help us deal with the failures of the VA?
Thanks, Ducky...ya, he's stuck on Benghazi. Hadn't read all the way down that comment. But, he does have a point!:-)
All lives matter.Except diplomats in Benghazi.At this point, what difference does it make? ;)
Say Hi! to LaRouche, Beamish.
LaRouche is a Democrat, Ducky. Thanks for playing.Remember to take the Rice A Roni out of the box before boiling.
What's truly 'intensely sad' is how liberals will do anything to divert from the information in a post.Ducky...."Benghazi, Benghazi?" Really? Have any of the blogs even mentioned it lately? :-) With all ELSE that's going wrong? AOW, I started listening to this amazing monologue and thought "What? Condell reads AOW's blog?" He absolutely nails the 'progressive' attitudes... divert, throw in a red herring, just do ANYTHING to get the conversation off the points, the truth, anything that disagrees with far left thinking.Love Condell....what a treasure.
Look at the post I was responding to.
See above....I hadn't read the whole comment.Most people have moved on, sadly. Benghazi's over only because of the media's disinterest. I wish we could all be open to the fact that even liberals are evil. Not just Christian Republicans, like you so often infer.
AOW: I'm linking to your blog...people need to hear Condell. thanks
Condell is a God-hating atheist, and I love him. I especially how he reveals so-called 'liberals' for the very illiberal, leftwing, squealing proglodytes they really are.Or as Condell puts it, "rancid, anti-semitic leftwing fascists" itching to ban, censor and punish all and everybody who offends their rigid orthodoxy. Progressivism is the new religion, and that is why Condell comes out swinging against it. God bless him.
Come on, Silver, this guy is nothing but a weenie who is frightened by the scary Muslims and turned from Fascism to crypto Zionism, well not so crypto.If you are going to use him as a model for insulting us I suggest you wait till we finish laughing.
I wonder why duck hasn't said anything about the video? I suspect that progressives simply didn't understand a word of it.Now come on libtards, give us your reaction to the video, and not just Insults of Condell. LOL.I can see the smoke rising now.
Kid, see my comment above....it's amazing how libs can ignore posts and spout all kinds of things to divert folks from the truth. :-)
I refuse to answer till you admit you're from the Kentucky side of the Ohio.
You said it, Kid. By not responding, any Progressives in the house are either (a) didn't watch the video, (b) watch it but have nothing to add, (c) know Condell is speaking the truth but prefer their ideology to facts, or (d) are actually internet shills.
How do you insult a progressive?- Praise a religion (Christianity)- Criticize a religion (islam)That in itself is illustrative. Progressives will shriek in terror at three bubbas running around in the woods with Bibles and scary 'assault' rifles, but insist all the Islamic violence is not really Islamic, despite the bearded perpetrators waving korans and telling us they are doing this because their prophet commands it. This video stops proglodytes in their tracks because they are rendered speechless and naked when confronted by a real liberal.
I'll criticize Islam all day long.I'll also criticize fundamentalism of all forms.I'll criticize the Church's asinine position on birth control.I'll also point out that you don't seem to grasp the role of: 1. Disbanding the Sunni armed forces in Iraq2. Supporting a government in Iraq that actively killed an oppressed Sunnis.You don't insult the fringe right. You simply point out that they can't handle ambiguous, complex ideas. It's hard, I know but the tragedy is that you listen to a schmuck like Condell and don't even try.
Love that guy Pat. He's a hero. Don't know how safe he is in Britain though. Thanks for that AOW...good stuff.
I used to try to stretch my imagination to picture a world where leftists have more than 80 IQ points, but decided that standard was way way too high.
Ducky,The truth is neither ambiguous nor complex. No amount of freeing your mind with LSD will change that.
@ Ducky:Wow! That was a Canardo with a stink bomb tied to it!It's scary hearing a real liberal defend free speech isn't it? Especially without any trigger warnings...
Hmmm...Right Blogistanis admired Christopher Hitchens' intellect, read and quote Orwell (a man of the left), and enjoy listening to stubborn atheist Pat CondellMeanwhile...You can't get a leftwing prog to come out of their hidey-hive for even five seconds to consider another point of view.Diversity and Tolerance, anyone? I'd say we have plenty here on the right...
SF, you really nailed it here. I was an enormous fan of Hitchens' , I admire Cornell West (yes, I do, for many reasons), I liked Moynihan and several Dem senators of the day, and there are others I listen to and admire today. Fewer these days, but I do.I think that's such an important and stunning distinction versus leftwingers. I KNOW I'm not alone in watching not only FOX but CNN and MSNBC from time to time (altho I have to admit, darn it, that I get a little push back for that every time I mention something at my blog I saw on CNN, etc.)....I think we watch FOX because they give two sides of most issues. Yet, that's the most maligned channel by the Left.I think that's telling, too.
Last night around 8pm, I watched CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. CNN was trashing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger 5 years late over commuting some sxhmuck's sentence.MSNBC was glossing over all the legal hurdles the South Carolina state legislature must repeal that were emplaced by segregationist Democrats 58 years ago to get the Confederate flag off of state property.And Fox was covering live events of strikes upon ISIS in Syria.I don't want to say left-leaning people keep themselves overwhelming uninformed about current events, but there it is.
I don't think that's accurate, Silverfiddle.Christian author's I read:C. S. Lewis, Flannery O'Connor,Thomas MertonOne of my favorite directors, Robert Bresson, is distinctly Jansenist. I've read Adam Smith, Kenneth Arrow and other conservative economists and I largely accept Hayek's position on free market pricing.I'm not sure Garry Wills is still fully accepted in the conservative fold but I read his books and find them instructive. I especially enjoyed his book on Henry Adams.Do I have any time for cheap shills like Thomas Sowell or Caudill who have the depth of a teaspoon? NoDo I have much patience with the children in the Libertarian sandbox and all their lack of depth? No.But that's the issue isn't it. Intelligent conservatism as eradicated a while back just the way democratic socialism was marginalized.The freaks are momentarily in charge and their pissing themselves thinking they have the definitive tract on how to insult progressives.Freaking pathetic.
Ducky, why do you have to get so witheringly insulting? You started out making some sense, although listing O'Connor as a CHRISTIAN AUTHOR is a stretch. Yes, she's an (amazing) author and yes, she IS CHristian, but her story themes aren't often Christian....(Her gardenia in the pot in the old apartment is one of my fave stories ever by anyone)I'm surprised you read CS Lewis and can be so dismissive of Christianity...amazing.But then 'cheap shills' and 'sandbox' and 'freaks?' WHY?You could have actually had a sensible dialogue, but....no, you insult, expect your thoughts to be accepted as fact and that's that.
Right, Z, and that's why I long ago stopped trying to engage people of this ilk in serious dialogue about political issues. It's a complete waste of time and energy to try to persuade people of the Left OR the Right that it might be advisable for them to emend or reevaluate their views, so I no longer try.Why act like Don Quixote famous for "tilting at windmills" while mistaking them for an enemy?Instead of ARGUING, I believe it might have some value just to clarify and explicate our own, admittedly limited, understanding of Reality, publish it, then let others make of it what they will.People accuse me of being against Free Speech, because I constantly eradicate posts I believe to be insincere, idiotic, mean-spirited, deliberately misleading, inflammatory, pointlessly vulgar, abusive and disrespectful. I won't permit bullying at my place, and I discourage commenters from trying to cross examine me or other contributors, as though we were on trial in a court of law. Self-appointed prosecutors are persona non grata at my place. We ought never to be permitted to BADGER one another. Persistent insolence is also unacceptable.I may not always correct in my evaluations, but I will stick to exercising my right to pass judgment on the merits of anything posted at my blog.Etiquette, as you and i were taught it, is virtually unknown today. We are much the poorer for its loss. I think it's high time we took a stand in favor of reviving respect, and consideration for others. This business of charging into a website like a bull in a china shop with the full intent of disrupting, disturbing and derailing legitimate dialogue with rude, aggressive irrelevancies should NOT be tolerated. Neither should personal insults and typical "wise guy" routines.All that is covered perfectly under The Golden Rule. I wonder how many know what that is these days?
I don't think Ducky's reply to me was particularly insulting. I did call him and his ideological confreres out. And despite the snark and sneering, I do consider him a cut above the average lib dim drone.Still, it is telling that a true liberal like Pat Condell would set him off. He sips Shiraz with one enlightened Iranian family, and he extrapolates out from there, reflexively heaping scorn on anyone who would say a foul word about the religion of pieces. This reveals a progressive mindset, as opposed to a liberal one.
I'm not dismissive of Christianity, Z. I'm dismissive of fundamentalism and using Christianity to mask bigotry.Much as I am not dismissive of conservatism but reject Libertarianism.I don't think there is an conceivable way to deny O'Connor's Catholicism. Religion deeply informs a lot of her work.If Silverfiddle feels that my sin is not believing that all Muslims want me did or even wish me harm then so be it. I am sure he is not going to question his own extremism. If you enjoy the wallow with Caudill, so be it. Point remains that ever since Reagan, conservatism has been on the road to perdition. You only have to look at the support for a carnival barker like Trump.Sorry, Silver, get your nose out of Hayek once in a while. Try Galbraith or Schumacher for a change of pace.
Ducky,Can you provide an example of my so-called extremism?
Simple, your retreat into yakking about "statists" every time you argue.I submit that hard core Libertarianism is extreme by definition.Your attitude towards Muslims is absolutely extreme though that puts you in league with the right wing blogosphere.
Ducky,Thank you for the reply, but you are wrong on all three counts.I understand how facts and statistics can pop the grand overinflated schemes of progressivism, but the employment of facts and statistics can hardly be characterized as 'extreme.'I am not a hard core libertarian. I am no more libertarian than the Founding Fathers, probably a little less so than Hayek, and trust me on this, he is not a hard core libertarian. The true believers hate him, as they to the 'Kochtopus.' I frequent Reason Magazine, but much of it is too libertarian for me, and I can't stand Lew Rockwell and his crap, although Mises.org is a valuable intellectual font.Finally, I am not extreme toward Muslims at all. Muslim citizens must be treated the same as any other citizens and left alone to lawfully practice their religion and culture. I also see no reason with their following the administrative parts of Sharia, or even the other parts, so long as they do not conflict with our laws.I believe that Islam is a religion, even though I conflicts with my beliefs, and forbidding its practice here would be unconstitutional.I take a very dim view of Islam based upon the evidence before us. It has not been a positive influence anywhere in over 1000 years. Islam is involved in the vast majority of conflicts and societal agitation in the world.I also believe that Islam as practiced by the majority of adherents who live in Islam-created hellscapes is incompatible with western liberal democracy. For that reason, we should not be importing them into the United States.I don't understand what part of that you consider extreme.
...and 4 out of 5 people would agree with me about the use of statistics ;-)
oops. You said "Statists," not "statistics." My bad. Makes more sense now.I use the term "statists" because it cuts across all ideological lines. Conservatives and pseudo-conservatives in the GOP are just as prone to statism as those on the left.I do not hate the government,and I have never denigrated the concept of a government. I am not an anarchist. What I criticize is the overbearing nature of our government and the increasing over-reliance on it and it's increasingly shabby, half-baked 'solutions.'I'm sure you're acquainted with the concept of subsidiarity? We need to swing back that way.
Ducky, I'm a "hardcore Libertarian"....and speaking for my people....we roundly rebuke Statists and 'Progressives' [especially those who claim Libertarians 'yak' about them, when it's matched by Statists and 'Progressives' 'yakking' about Libertarians].But I will agree with you.....liberty is an extreme position, given our unsustainable paradigm of entitlement, reliance and regulation. A position that I'm proud of. After all.....my 'sandbox' is more free than yours.
o'Connor is NOT known as a Christian writer, and I'd like to see more than 2 of her pieces which are 'deeply informed' (more than most of us are informed by our faith, unconsciously) by her faith.
Ducky, So what you're saying is you're not dismissive of Christianity if it's something you agree with? The fundamentals of the faith turn you off, right? If I followed a Book (and only that Book informs Christianity, none other), I thought was bigoted, I'd stop following it tomorrow.Let's see where Christianity is bigoted, where hate is involved.ANd, please don't list every Christian who's done something horrible and tell us they represent all Christians unless you're finally going to tell us that all muslims are bigots, too, because they BEHEAD those who don't agree with them.Thanks.
I'd say the need for religion in a constantly failing secular world is a common theme for O'Connor.Faith? Wise Blood Original Sin The Misfit “I feel that if I were not a Catholic, I would have no reason to write, no reason to see, no reason ever to feel horrified or even to enjoy anything.”--- Flannery O'Connor
I think this argument is illustrative of why I reject fundamentalism, Z.For me when a religion becomes too focused on being an absolute truth it takes on the form of a cult.That's just my take. I'm much more comfortable with the searchers and much less comfortable with those who think they've found it.
CI, why do you say you are more free?More free?What would most limit your freedom? To read you it would be loss of your firearms.To me it would be loss of my camera.Clearly two very different world views. Why is one more free?I also see the political world as a moving scale with extreme individualism on one end and complete collectivism on the other.Libertarianism is so far to the individual end that it damages community and cooperation and that's why I call it extreme.
You really have to ask why? Why is it Libertarians who stand up in defense of raw milk vendors at farmers markets....who stand up against the pervasive militarization of law enforcement and of the intrusive surveillance state....why is it Libertarians who have fought more forcefully to protect the rights of the citizen to record the actions of law enforcement....why is it Libertarians who demand that the State actually follow the Constitution and the legislation of this nation?It's not 'progressives'. Libertarianism does't damage community or cooperation in the least...both must be consensual to be defined as such. It sounds as if you confuse Libertarianism with Anarchism. Libertarianism generally, isn't even Minarchism. Perhaps your scale is broken.
Ducky,I appreciate how civilly you've expressed yourself here, but you did traffic in a false comparison that inadvertently bolsters the case for libertarianism.Which is more important? The right to own a camera? Or the right to own a gun?To a libertarian, the answer is neither. And lets throw in the right to grow marijuana, marry whoever you want, or not get married and just fornicate all day. Freedom is in the eye of beholder when it comes to living ones own life.Governments around the world have banned both guns and cameras.You and your fellow leftwing progs would stand up and cheer yourself hoarse if Obama banned guns tomorrow. If that same government took your camera away, CI and I would stand with you in anger and righteous indignation.Meanwhile, your 'liberal' friends would tell you to get over it, it's to save the environment, it's for the children, to protect us... Whatever the government lie of the day is...Who respects freedom more?
Amen. Oh. Was that too fundamentalist?
Who respects freedom more?It's probably a matter of your right from your side, I'm right from mine.I do not support taking your firearms. Myself, I once owned a .50 Barrett with a few friends and stored it down Maine. Fun to shoot but the ammo was damn expensive.My friends want to take your guns? Believe me, you don't know my posse.But e do oppose a lot of the myths and lies that have grown around guns. And the paranoid resistance to reasonable control.Shut down the gun show loophole, limit bulk buys.I don't see firearms as a means of self expression but I'm open to the idea. Meanwhile, the proliferation f firearms is a genuine danger which is not equivalent to the proliferation of selfies which is a different sort of danger. At least t us who still want to believe that art can be transformative.
I thought we had covered this before. There is no "gun show loophole". Licensed dealers are required to run purchasers through NICS at a gun show...just as in their store. Private sellers are not, just as outside of a gun show. For some not-terribly-apparent reason, you seem to favor the regulation [and taxation] of a non-commercial transaction between citizens...for one lawful item, and only dependent upon the venue. Why? Why do you buy into the myths and lies from the gun control camp?Further...what is a "bulk buy". And bulk buy of what?
I don't see photography as a form of self-expression. Public photography violates people's privacy, and can be used for criminal purposes.See where this leads?Libertarians say follow your own happiness however you see fit. We will leave you alone so long as you do not harm others.You don't solve a 1% problem by taking rights away from the other 99%. You solve it by punishing the 1% who use their rights to commit crimes and harm others.
It seems to me that leftards on this board are really getting their asses kicked up around their shoulders lately. Seems that all their liberal utopia bull shit is coming home to roost, and it ain't none of it good, and they have NOTHING worth while to say to defend it.Trump is capitalizing on it too. He knows the country has been pushed so far, so fast to the left that people are sick to tears of government, liberals and being RAIL ROADED AGAINST THEIR WILL. The man has touched home with America, and America is responding. The left is going DOWN, and they're PISSED, and I LOVE IT.
Not sure anyone actually needs an instructional video to insult progressives, but it is entertaining, nonetheless.
My existence and yours is an insult to progressives.
I insult libs every day by just "being" and I LOVE it!
Darn Odie. I took too long to hit enter and you beat me to it.Great minds....
I don't think they even know that they are being insulted!
Sal -Too dumb to liveToo young to die.Pretty pathetic state.
I have such a hatred against liberals/progressives that it isn't funny.Quite a hero those asshats have with Hillary, isn't it! They'll throw in anyone that's against free speech as long as they are liberals, even those who mock their religion.
Exhibit A:This is your mind on Caudill
And you fit right in that category as well.
SF typed in:I also believe that Islam as practiced by the majority of adherents who live in Islam-created hellscapes is incompatible with western liberal democracy. And at least some Muslims in the West are like adherents in Islamic countries. See French Muslim Runs Around Restaurant Throwing Over Tables Shouting “It’s Ramadan, No One Can Eat Here”.
Vanity Fair headline:The Troubling Question in the French Jewish Community: Is It Time to Leave?The question sensible people all over Western Civilization should be asking is, how fast can we deport such rabble and unceremoniously dump their asses back where they (or their parents) came from?
Ducky's here, said;Mention conservative and what do you get, .Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.It is intensely sadWell mention liberal's And all you get is Bush, Bush, Bush!
This Government has money to watch and record each and every law-abiding motorists all day long but not a dime for a camera in the projects to catch the mutants who shoot one another.
Sal, good point. I often point out to people that if the government really didn't want stuff to be happening - drugs, illegals, welfare gangbanger neighborhoods, It WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING.
Just as I guessed. None of the usual suspect libtards even Tried to counter the content of this video. duck made an A* of himself as usual, but where are the other little progressive geniuses ? Maybe they'll bring excuse notes from their mommy to the next post.
Political debate etiquette question. When a left-wing drone is going on and on about how the right "historically backs their agenda with violence," is it wrong to mention leftists like Maximillien Robespierre? Or is it too old skool to start with the very first leftist leader in history and his guillotine? How about mentioning the ACLU defending the Ku Klux Klan when right-wingers are blamed for supporting hate speech? Is comparing Dylann Storm Roof to the priest-executing Che Guevara over the top?
Che Guevara was a romanticized KGB political construct/operative and a puzzle piece for the "liberation theology" movement used by the KGB to destabilize S. America. So yes, there is no comparison between Dylann and Che.The Last English Prince
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:1. Any use of profanity or abusive language2. Off topic comments and spam3. Use of personal invective