Quotes of Note that reflect what conservatives think. Or are up against.
on "Enemies"
From various and sundry. Some plainly true, some unclear, some make no sense at all.
|
'You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.' - Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983) 'Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.' - John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963) 'The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on.' 'Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.' - 'Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.' - 'Use your enemy's hand to catch a snake.' - Persian Proverb |
More Wal-Mart Hatred
The tobacco companies got their head handed to them. Some of it rightly deserved. Yet the states who received all that lawsuit money do not easily provide smokers a way to quit smoking.
Do you think they just wanted the money? Nah.
Now the lawyers have McDonalds and the like on their radar. Because they are "worried" about the children. Soon enough the lawsuits will fly, the fast food outlets will pay and the politicos will collect their money that they may be re-elected.
As for Wal-Mart, well it too is a successful enterprise. Therefore it should pay more money, it should be forced to pay its employees a wage not foisted on any other business, it should be forced to pay full health benefits for its mostly part-time employees, again a restriction not placed on any other business.
Hey, it's the success! Success is a bad thing. You get successful you must be punished, you must pay more taxes, you must be sued and your profits plundered for the success you've had.
Please don't whisper about shopping somewhere else to the haters of business success. We are dumb Americans out here in la-la land and we don't eat what's good for us, we smoke despite all the evidence and we continue to shop at Wal-Mart despite the fact that the store's cheap prices often mean lower wages for the workers.
Punishing success is a Moonbat's job. Taking the money from successful enterprises is only right and fair. The American people are too stupid to know on what silliness they spend their money.
 Spread the word 
 Article Author: PatfishPat Fish is a pop culture and political pundit. When she’s not working on her own blog she contributes regularly right here on Blogcritics.
Recent Politics Featuresblogcritics lists for Nov 27, 2009fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide
fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide
most comments Most comments in 24hrs
top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October
top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs
Politics Highlights
|
Article comments
1 - RogerMDillon
I absolutely love the lack of context you provide. What was going on around August when Dean made those statements? Do you know? Obviously, it doesn't support your claims or you would have provided it. And did he not say that it could change?
You watched a program months after his statement in which he accounted for the fact that progress could be made, so how was his statement wrong? Maybe if you watched a program of Iraqi women that same day or week, your claims would reasonable, but once again you show a complete lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.
Why should anyone ever believe a word you write? You damage this site's credibilty.
2 - Pat Fish
Mr. Dillon
I did provide a quote about the provisions of the new constitution in Iraq.
Go with me a minute. The new constitution does provide, specifically:
==========
Iraq's new constitution mandates that women hold one-quarter of the seats in Iraq's parliament and protects them against gender discrimination,
==========
Go with me again because I must defend against your silly accusation that I somehow damage this site's credibility. I do understand. Trying to defend Howard Dean is a difficult task.
But at the time Howie made that statement that provision between the railroad tracks above WAS in place. The program I refer to was PROOF that it was working.
If you can honestly say, without wrecking this site's credibility, that the new Iraqi constitution's provision that allowed for 1/4 of the seats and prevented gender discrimination, which Howard knew about when he made the statement, is WORSE than what Saddam had, well you'll have to explain to me how.
And yet, amazingly, Howard said what was quoted. I provided proof that AT THAT TIME, it was not true. Saddam did not have any such provisions anywhere much less in a constitution.
My documentation of the program I submit is proof that the words are not just idle with no meaning.
It's okay. It ain't easy defending Howie. Hardly anybody even tries.
3 - RogerMDillon
Yes, you provided a quote about the Iraqi constitution, but you fail to make the connection that that is what Dean was talking about.
You only provide one excerpted sentence. If he was talking about the Iraqi constitution, why not include those words in your "picture"? If that was all he said on the matter, surely the host asked him a question that elicted the response which could have been used.
Was Dean not referring to Islam being a part of the Iraqi constitution? Women don't have it so good in that faith and are treated as lessers than men. While women were savagely brutalized under Saddam, men were as well, so there was an equality in the mistreatment potential from Saddam. Under Islam, women start out as being less than men.
Besides, you don't even take into account the entire sentence. The key phrase you seem to ignore is "and this could change". If he admits that things could get better, how is he wrong? Are things better for Iraqi women? According to those on Nightline, yes? Did Dean say they could get better, yes? What's the issue? Do you want a pat on the back for having 20-20 hindsight four months down the line. Congrats. Are you now going to pick apart the Bush administration's statements about WMDs in Iraq?
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but the Iraqi constitution wasn't approved until 10/15/2005, so at the time of Dean's statement, while the mandate was in place that did not guarantee it would remain there. The potentiality of the document on 8/14/05 was no guarantee of what its actuality would be two months later. Sorry, but I don't have the time to explain Aristotle or the workings of a democracy. C-span might help.
I'm not defending Dean or his statements. What I'm opposed to is sloppy partisan hackery from either side. And in regards to the quote you used, let's ask James Phillips, the writer of it who you failed to credit, what he thinks of your credibilty.