- WARNING TIGHT-ASSED LIBS: IF YOU CAN'T TAKE A JOKE, DON'T READ THIS BLOG!
- JOHN F. KERRY'S COMMENTS REFLECT WHAT THE DEMOCRATS TRULY THINK ABOUT OUR TROOPS
- WE ARE "pro-America" "pro-Wal-Mart" & "pro-Israel" BLOGGERS
- HOW MANY DAYS UNTIL THE LIBERAL MEDIA REPORTS ON LIBERAL SENATOR "DINGY" HARRY REID AND HIS LAND SCANDAL AND ILLEGAL USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS?
Monday, October 23, 2006
Al-UH Daily Cougar Columnist David Salinas 'Bipartisanship best for US' (But it only works when Republicans agree with democrats)
As for liberals, bipartisan is Republicans agreeing with democrats, and that's it. Republicans have been fooled by the word -- bipartisan -- for the longest time now, especially when the Republicans controlled the Senate and still liberal Tom Daschle was the defacto head of that body thanks to GOP bipartisanship.
So today, we find al-UH Daily Cougar columnist and resident cotton picker David Mohammed Salinas might actually be thinking in the back of his mind what I believe most Americans will be thinking now that early voting has begun. "Which political party will best protect my family from the threat of terrorism?" Honest to God who cannot be fooled, it will be the Republicans that people will have to choose.
In his tripe today "Bipartisan policies best for U.S.," Salinas feeds us his code-word "bipartisan" which sets the democrats up for still another loss this November. Mohammed writes that "the Republican Party will not lose this mid-term election," but he makes up for it to his lib friends on UH by stating that "Republicans may lose control of the House of Representatives and maybe even the Senate," but America stoop to that level of stupidity. We'll soon find out.
I certainly don't believe that if the "democrats win this election cycle, it is not a death knell for Republican and conservative ideals, but it would mark the end of the Karl Rove-George Bush-Rush Limbaugh style of politics." Please. My God, the liberals are still trying to destroy the President, who cannot run for office anymore, and by 2008 will not have any ammunition for his GOP successor. Rush Limbaugh has never based his success on who wins elections, and even with the GOP in power, he is still No. 1.
Liberals have been setting themselves up for defeat for a couple of months now. Little stories hear and there about election machine faults and other things have been popping up all over the place. CNN had a stupid show about Broken Government this weekend and gave the impression that the US elections could not held fairly. Poppycock.
I'm of the impression that democrats actually want to lose this year and stake everything on 2008. They've purposely not paid any attention to their Black base, yet we hear stories of how Barrack Obama will be the democrats savior in 2008. Even Oprah is backing Obama instead of Hillary because of all the baggage Clinton maintains. Hell, looking at the democrat record of following Black dem leaders, Obama will be the next fall guy.
Mohammed speaks of another code-word -- common good -- which again means that Republicans have to yield to democrat ideals in order for the country to advance. Ex-President Clinton used all those code words in a recent speech. If the democrats were confident about the election, we wouldn't be hearing any of the code-words, but only strong words such as "winning back power."
I haven't seen one enthusiastic liberal about the election, and certainly Mohammed isn't enthusiatic or he wouldn't be talking bipartisanship today in his tripe.
Rush Limbaugh gave his listeners a great analogy about the liberal media spin on the elections and how they will perform. "They're thinking they are going to win, but they've spike the ball on the 10 yard line." They prematurely ejaculated their October Surprise, Foley, and the GOP electorate has become all to aware of their dirty tricks. Not to mention that the polls they conduct are outweighed with democrats, sometimes by as much as 24%. It's really a deliberate effort to suppress GOP voters, and quitely simply, I don't think its working.
I'm glad that Salinas brought up the Second Tier President Ronald Reagan, and how he worked with democrats. But that was then. The democrats are a whole new ballgame nowadays. They literally cannot be reasoned with. Just like the terrorists, when the terrorists start off negotiations by demanding your Jewish and American deaths, where else do you go from that?
Bush initially had comparisons to Reagan because he worked well with democrats as Texas Governor, and he did real good as Texas Governor, and he is still doing good, but I still have my disagreements with Bush in certain areas like illegal immigration and what have you. But I still support the President.
Back in the days of Tip O'Neill, the democrats had a "plan" to counter the Republicans plan. Now they don't. Back in the days of Tip O'Neill, the democrats weren't held hostage as they are today by the extreme left wing of the party.
Fourth Tier President Clinton had to play with the Republicans to stay in office, and he got none of the major reforms he wanted such as national healthcare, etc. But unfortunately we had to still be forced to endure the Monica Lewinsky ordeal.
Salinas chides Bush for spending and record deficits, but he in no way accounts for September 11th and the war in his blame. In fact, unemployment is now even less than it was under Reagan and Clinton, and recent government revenues thanks to the Bush Tax Cuts have put more money into government cofers than ever before, and still the democrats complain.
Mohammed even attacks Rush Limbaugh for calling "democrats and liberals 'anti-American.'" Well they are. He even criticizes Rush for dropping "out of college his freshman year and avoided Vietnam because of a cyst, he did have a distinct talent to talk." Yet Salinas probably praises Al Franken and Air America for the ability to talk, and don't forget they just went broke. Being a war veteran myself, I have no problem with people who did not serve the military. The real question is -- did they support the military. Rush Limbaugh has never turned his back on the military, unlike the likes of Salinas and Franken.
Salinas wrote, "in 1988, [Rush's] radio program became nationally syndicated and took off. Because of his popularity, some Republicans [thankfully] made the mistake of following him" and they won back the Congress in the second year of [Fourth Tiered] President Clinton's first term. See what I noted about bipartisanship earlier. Democrats will never act bipartisan towards Republicans, it's alway Republicans acting bipartisan towards liberals.
And get this. I love when Salinas wrote, "in 1994, after calling liberal women 'feminazis' and referring to then 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton as 'the family dog,' Republicans named him 'an honorary member of Congress.' And Mohammed goes on to blame Rush's partisan rhetoric on how the exteme left operates today. It's completely crazy folks, and you UH weak minded students, don't you fall for it one bit.
The democrats themselves let themselves be taken over by partisan hacks such as the MoveOn.orgers, Howard Dean, George Soros, and his group of malcontents. They won't give us their plan, because if they were honest and gave us their plans, the people would think the libs were as extreme as Stalin.
Near the end of Mohammed's dragging tripe he noted liberal radio show host Ed Shultz, and of a liberal blogger who "'outed' a supposed gay Republican senator. Salinas wrote, "thankfully, the 'liberal media' didn't cover this issue or name him, mainly because Conservative bloggers have alot of ammunition on liberal Senator Harry Reid, whose Shady Land Deals and Illegal Use of Campaign Funds have recently come to light, and are much worse than outing someone.
For you liberals who want to be "Shultz Shafted," Ed is on AM 740 at night when nobody is listening, because if 740 ran his tripe during the day, they would go the way of Air America. Broke.
Mohammed lastly appeals to his fellow liberals, that "in two weeks, people won’t be voting to make some partisan squeal with delight as if their football team won. They are voting for change, for progress (code word for liberalism), and this can only be achieved by adults who believe in bipartisanship (means Republicans voting with liberals or stayiing home).
Don't let Salinas fool you folks with his liberal code-words, or your dreams will go up in smoke as the United States works in bipartisanship with North Korea and Iran. After that, it won't matter.
Screw the Godless libs and the dem-leaning Mods!
Who you calling weak-minded? If most UH students are "weak-minded" what does that make you, "independent-minded? BAH! You sound like most the talk radio/cable news groupies I've talked to. Only difference is you spend hours typing your "opinions" for this amateur-hour blog here (man, blogspot sucks!)
If you're trying to sound intelligent, at least use spell-check ya lazy Lucy, your grammar makes you sound like you're a friggin teenager. IT ONLY TAKES 2 MINUTES!
And what's with calling the guy a "resident cotton picker?" Is that supposed to be a racial slur? Must be hard not to bust them out on campus.
Lemme help you out: Picking cotton is what black people used to do. Salinas is a Hispanic name. Maybe you meant to call him a "bean-picker" or "beaner" as Carlos Mencia says.
Man, do you not even know how to be racist right, or are you just too puss to say what you want to say to people's faces? Either way, what a douche! You smell like discharge.
Now go pick me some cotton, boy. Then make me a sandwich.
Your obviously a white guy. Your parents have some money, or maybe had some money, seeing as you are not at UT or A&M.
It's hard to tell if you are like a big brother giving out orders to your younger siblings, or if you are to emulating your father as he barks out orders to his illegal alien and Black employees.
Evidently you are new to this blog or you would know that weak minded UH students are those students that routinely follow the blind directions of their liberal professors.
I would consider you a weak-minded student since you can only spew hate and disgust without logically forming a credible counter argument to mine.
I don't really respond to articles posted, long unhinged responses, or mindless blahs.
I do have a timetable in my day. Sometimes I post as early as I can. Sometimes I post late. Sometimes I don't post at all.
I don't have enough time to spend hours on this thing. I do it during my breaks. I read, digest the tripe, and formulate a response to the tripe.
I've always said this blog maintains my sanity. This blog saves lives. The lives of liberal UH students.
I'm glad I sound like the Conservative talk radio fans you talk. I might be one of them.
I don't use spellchecker because its a waste of time. I'll usually go back and check for grammar and speling on a different break, or correct something if someone sends an e-mail or posts a comment.
Calling David a "resident cotton picker" is not meant as a racial slur. Your the first to even bring that up. I try and label each writer something just for the fun of it. I saw David as being in line and row with all the other liberals on campus, and I thought cotton fields, hence cotton picker.
I labeled long ago columnist and friend Maria "Guigi" Carminati as the "Arch-Bitch-up of the Church of UH Liberalism." I have a lot of respect for the Hispanic people. Shh!!! They're even in my family. Blacks and Vietnamese too!! At least the hot ones.
And you are most definitely wrong that Blacks were not the only ones that used to pick cotton. Hispanic sharecroppers picked cotton. My brother-in-law, picked cotton as a young boy, and he's most definitely a white boy.
I have a lot of fun with Salinas. I respect him for continuing to write after each shellacking I give him on this blog, when other weaker writers would have quit. And believe me, I've forced my fair share out.
Your statement that "Picking cotton is what black people used to do" in an insult to the proud Hispanics and Whites that were right there beside the Blacks in picking that cotton.
Anyway, you can keep blasting me UH Slavedriver. It makes me no difference.
Links to this post: