.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
EIB Bumpersticker

Monday, November 28, 2005

 

UH Daily Cougar Columnist David Salinas 'Harps on so-called GOP faults' (Continues liberal investment in a US loss in Iraq)

GOP ethics. What about liberal ethics? Everyone turns a blind eye to liberals and more than easy proven faults. Plus on top of that, we don't know who killed Vince Foster.

The liberals (or democrats), those people who are invested in a US defeat in Iraq, are happy to provide verbal ammunition to America's enemies without even thinking a second, all for the simple reason of hatred for George W. Bush and the Conservative movement.

In another piece that adds to the growing pile of crap that the liberals are doling out in order for the public to lose confidence in the Conservative Movement, today, UH Daily Cougar columnist David Salinas does his best to piggyback on what the liberals started this past Sunday when they harped on the question of GOP ethics. Of course, the Sunday shows never questioned democratic ethics, and of course like most of his classes -- Salinas fails again.

In his tripe today "GOP suffers at Abramoff's hands," Salinas waste trees on a worthless column trying to elevate some Republican guy named Jack Abramoff to the level of Ronald Reagan, while knowing that the UH weak minded will knowingly not read his tripe because Abramoff is just another guy they would have to learn about in addition to the multitudes of people and facts that they have to learn in their various classes. So why bother.

Salinas attempt at giving the history of who knows Jack is completely aimless and tries to tie it in with all things Republican as well as Tom DeLay. I ask the question -- who cares?

The only reason that David Salinas cares about writing about Jack Abramoff is because Salinas hates Republicans and loathes them being in charge in government at all levels. Salinas doesn't even try to admit that liberals have their faults, as did the Sunday shows with their only focus on the GOP.

Hell, if an alien just landed on Earth he would conclude that Republicans are in charge of government and liberals are the ones who think they are in charge but are not. Salinas can go on all day with his accusations, and he did. But again I ask the question -- who cares about Jack?

I think Salinas takes the offense against the Republicans to mask the liberals inability to present anything positive in regards to many issues. Where are the liberals when it comes to coming up with solutions for Social Security, the war on terror, or the border issue?

Why are liberals so negative? David please tell us. I know you must wake up each morning and dread going to school for the good news that might come out that makes Republicans look good.

Liberals have to be perpetually negative in order to remain in power. Black leaders must always preach 'racism' to remain in power. White liberals must pander to the various wacko liberal groups to remain in power.

We hardly ever hear of liberal indiscretions. What about Howard Dean speaking to some minorities, "you think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?," Dean asked to laughter. "Only if they had the hotel staff in here." Where is the respect in that.

The liberals knows they own the Blacks, though a growing number of Blacks are moving away from the white liberal plantation.

What is really sad is Salinas belief that any wrongdoings by Abramoff will suddenly assist the liberals to "regain power in the coming years." The American people know they have been fooled by the Clinton Administration, and now they know they are being fooled by the liberals and the the liberal media -- hence the vast drops in liberal circulations and drops in the liberal media ratings.

"Unfortunately for" Salinas, "the actions he has taken and the people with whom he has been involved will more than likely help" "the right" to maintain their offices in an effort to better the country and stave off future al-Qaeda attacks.

Screw the libs!

Comments:
How about the ethics of Ted Kennedy?

How about the ethics of Slick Willie?

How about the ethics of LBJ?

How about the ethics of our great socialist president FDR who gave us the initiative destroying welfare state, crushing the concept of personal responsibility for so many millions of people?

Some liberals try to put Jimmy Carter out there as a model of ethics, but where is the ethical basis in being so damn naive and incompetent towards foreign policy that Afghanistan gets invaded by the Soviet Union in 1979, ultimately spawning the problems we have today with Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban?

If Carter would have had a pair the Afghan War, the Taliban, the A.Q. Khan nuclear weapons proliferation regime that gave North Korea a nuclear option, and a whole lot of other unpleasantness that the world has to deal with in the 21st century never would have happened.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?