35 responses so far ↓

• 1 indy // Nov 7, 2008 at 10:40 am   

  I think you’re talking about when Bush was in charge. That’s when the president had no power, because he was too dumb to know what was going on around him.

  This president actually has intelligence. We are on the road to recovery bro.

• 2 David Yeagley // Nov 7, 2008 at 11:15 am   

  Actually, I’m not sure that’s possible. Not any time soon, anyway.

• 3 Jay // Nov 7, 2008 at 11:28 am   

  Aside from never quite getting your absolute fascination with occasionally including Pam Anderson in your editorials, I will say that, her irrelevancy not withstanding, Pam may in fact know that Africa is a continent, unlike Sarah Palin.

  Things will be fine in this country. People like Greetings My Son will continue to act tough and slap his wife around. I like McCain but was horrified at the pathological stupidity of Sarah Palin that I could not in good conscience vote for him. Would you have really been comfortable with the diva with an IQ of a booger talking to Russia, Iran, or North Korea in the event McCain passed away? She also didn’t know the job of a VP either. She’s probably a nice human being but keep her away from anything to do with the presidency. She reminded me of Dan Quayle in drag in the smarts department.

  Deep in your heart, you know she was not intelligent enough for the job of VP. Then again, far-right people have often times shown a religious devotion to all things conservative that they usually wind up committing idolatry, confusing their religion with themselves and opinions. And, I am no fan of Obama but at least he didn’t pick someone that is less with it than Murphy after his lobotomy in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

  People need to stop crying like little girls. Eight years of an espoused conservative Christian “tough guy” that will go down as the worst president in our history wasn’t enough for you? It was funny, the other day, while getting coffee at at local Kwik Shop, there was truck driver type hassling everyone that came as to who they voted for. He was arrogantly bemoaning the end of our country because of Obama. He was a sissified loser that was too weak and womanly to take this election like a man and move on. I suggest you do the same dude.

• 4 Terry Morris // Nov 7, 2008 at 11:55 am   

  What a ridiculously stupid comment to make! The very concept of “recovery” means that the body, the entity, whatever, has incurred a destructive change in composition which change is in the process of being reversed. How in God’s name anyone could believe that Hussein Obama is going to author or preside over such a reversal, which would mean a return to balanced Constitutional government, Christian self-government and independency, American exceptionalism, etc., is beyond the ability of the non-liberal human mind to even conceive.

  My apologies, but whenever people obliterate the meaning of words in the English language like that, I don’t think it should go unanswered. But I’d be extremely interested to read exactly how indy thinks we’re “on the road to recovery” with Hussein Obama change, his level of intelligence notwithstanding.

• 5 indy // Nov 7, 2008 at 12:02 pm   

  Separation of church and state jack. Remember that.
  Also you and I live in a two different America’s. I don’t require our president impose his religon upon us, that’s how government’s become problematic, when religon gets mixed in. Any intelligent person knows that.

  Look at the last 8 years dude. Tell me that we are not a wreck as a country. Man, you right wingers just don’t get it do you.

  It’s really simple Terry. The American public has wised up and thrown out the trash. Some of us knew all along.

• 6 David Yeagley // Nov 7, 2008 at 12:07 pm   

  Well, you have to see Bush from the right distance. Sorry to say, “global” distance. I think he will be ultimately considered one of the greatest presidents in our time.

  No more attacks after 9-11. That’s pretty astounding.

  But, in other ways, he seemed to neglect many fundamentals, indeed.

  How Obama works out will have very little to do with him. He’s a monkey, I mean, a puppet. This was a planned pacifier for liberals. “The American people” got hysterical–over nothing, as we shall see. Obama won’t come through on a single promise- except maybe higher taxes. He can’t. That campaign was just all psychological. It was a collective psychological rape of the stupid country.

  No, he won’t be that bad of a president–because the system won’t let him be. The country’s already doped beyond cognition. The bad he does won’t seem so bad at all. (Of course, I use the Constitution as my measuring stick. More than half of American did not, and do not. This is the achievement of 50 years of propaganda from the Left.)

  Anyway, I just hope two things:

  that there is no new terrorist attack

  that Obama’s personal life is kept safe.

  I fear these two things.

• 7 Terry Morris // Nov 7, 2008 at 12:08 pm   

  Where in the U.S. constitution are the words “separation of church and state” to be found?

  Yes, you’re right, it became problematic in the old Soviet Union, so they DID include these words in their constitution.

  You’re passionate, I’ll give you that. It’s a must for leftists — passionate and irrationally irreligious.

• 8 Terry Morris // Nov 7, 2008 at 12:20 pm   

  I actually think a few leftist things WILL be accomplished under an Hussein Obama presidency (coupled with a leftist Congress, of course). Don’t forget that president Bush and the Republican Congress allowed the so-called “assault weapons ban” to lapse. That will be reinstated under Hussein Obama and the leftist Congress. Also, I predict that Congress, with a Senate structure that is now virtually filibuster proof (given the RINOs in that body, including McCain) will enact their much beloved “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” package, effectively killing all state and local legislation on the issue, including H.B. 1804.

  A leftist president can inflict a great deal of harm in a short span of time with a leftist Congress to back him.

• 9 David Yeagley // Nov 7, 2008 at 12:21 pm   

  This presidency has nothing to do with Obama. I’m convinced. It has to do with the manipulations of them who created him-

  the Oedipal White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, intent on destroying their “father,” America.

  The trees will remain. The buildings, even the flag. But, the INTENT of liberalism is to “change” the American country, the American government, into an entirely different system. They think Communism will actually work here, having failed everywhere else.

  Why, it won’t even be recognized as Communist. It will be a grand mix, just like Obama himself.

• 10 Terry Morris // Nov 7, 2008 at 12:33 pm   

  I guess for some it’s easy to see the good in communism until they’ve actually experienced it in its full benumbing fury. Maybe white America will simply have to relearn the lessons of our pilgrim forefathers who tried the communist experiment when they first landed here, but had to quit it before it literally destroyed them.

• 11 ecology // Nov 7, 2008 at 12:54 pm   

  Doc,
  The greatest problem we and my child will face is the population bomb. There is no room for “morals and values” in overpopulation and the feeding frenzy of allocation of resources. “Morals and values” depend 100% on room to move and grade A resources. When you are just surviving it is all good. Bush faild to make one stinking hard decision. Only a few globalistsm and corporations and party line towers and those that want to be part of the big boy popular club will consider Bush great. Doc you have to stop this Bush love fest. He is so over and out. But that is your perogative. Bush and Roves actions ushered in the Obamanator.

• 12 Terry Morris // Nov 7, 2008 at 1:45 pm   

  Ecology, if there is no room for morals and values, then why do you bring yours into the discussion? It’s because as a moral being you cannot, no matter how hard you try, separate yourself from your morals. Neither can politicians. That’s just a fact of life for moral beings. And that’s why all of our laws are, and forever will be, founded on a moral perspective, someone’s moral perspective. Indeed, you can’t not legislate morality. That’s impossible with moral creatures.

  I agree with you that Dr. Yeagley is way off base saying that president Bush will go down as one of the greatest American presidents. I think he even once compared him to Washington. I personally don’t see that comparison at all, but anyway, I don’t hold it against Yeagley. We just disagree on Bush’s significance and his “conservative” influence, that’s all. At least he exudes a fair degree of humility, which I repect, and which is a lot more than I can say for some of his commenters.

  I will say this about Bush, however (and this applies to any American president, including our new savior Hussein Obama), the American public tends to believe it is in the neighborhood of the complete “know” when it comes to matters that the president is relegated to dealing with on a daily basis. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. Average Joe-American has such a limited base of information to work with when it comes to the presidency and what the job entails, that it is virtually impossible for him to come to any conclusion about a given president and his policies that is not almost altogether misconceived and inaccurate. If he happens upon the right one, it amounts to nothing more or less than sheer luck. That’s one reason it is vitally important to elect a president that is a good and decent and a moral person.

• 13 Mike from California // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:07 pm   

  Well, most of us can agree on one simple little fact, we don’t think that Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Bush was an ordinary man placed in extraordinary circumstances. At the very least we can credit Bush with preventing numerous other terrorist attacks on the U.S. God knows it was not because of a lack of effort on the part of Al Qaeda. Now I would like to address the little matter of placing all of the countries problems upon the person of George W. Bush. First off, It may come as a surprise to some of you who post here but I would like to point out that the president of the United States does not rule America with sole authority. The Federal government is divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Essentially speaking, each of these three branches has some authority to act on it’s own, some authority to regulate to the other two branches, and in turn can be regulated by the other two branches. This system of checks and balances was put into place by the founders in order to ensure that know one branch could rise to supremacy over the other.Bush pushed for war in Iraq and the majority in both houses of the congress were behind him. The war in Iraq is not the major source of our trouble in my opinion but that is a discussion for another time. Congress makes the laws. Look at some of the bills that have been passed through over the past eight years, fifteen years, thirty years by both parties. Laying the blame entirely on the shoulders of Bush seems absurd. The man on top always takes the credit for the good or the bad I suppose. Now we have Obama, an avowed Socialist in his own writing who is gonna “Change it and rearrange it.” Make it more fair for all. Spread the wealth around to the more deserving. He will attempt to reinterpret the Constitution into something it was never meant to be, a Socialist form of government. That is why so many conservatives are frightened by this guy. Those of us who are older remember similar progressive reformers. History clearly shows us it is the progressives who shake things up, bring down established institutions, and end up killing the opposition. The man already has an established cult of personality around the world. I’m not saying that Obama advocates these things however, the similarities are eerie.

• 14 ecology // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:07 pm   

  I am with you Terry. Do you notice that us more “conservative” types are the more accepting of others ideas and opinions? The far leftists are authoritarian and have no room for others. I never go onto this site.

• 15 ecology // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:08 pm   

  I meant to say go onto this site and lambast others opinions. I just want facts told.

• 16 ecology // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:13 pm   

  Really the only thing I am upset about is that we had a good thing going after ww2. We were getting educated having less children and we were on a path to correcting wrongs and mistakes. Now the masses are unleashed and will grow. It will go up and crash. and whatever is left has to pick themsleves up out of the ashes. I just do not feel we will ever get that what was being created back unfortunatley.

• 17 indy // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:17 pm   

  It’s called the first amendment Terry, read up on it.

  Do you want me to impose Native American Church on you? Do you want me to tell you who to pray to? Do you want me to force my beliefs on you? I’m a liberarian. Keep it out of government.

  Not everyone is a white anglo saxon protestant christian in this country. The Native people were here before you anyway, tell them their country was established on Christian principles. Tell them who to pray to. Good luck with that.

  You social conservatives cannot keep it fiscal. We’ve had a social conservative who was not fiscal in the white house over the past 8 years. Look where that’s gotten us?

  Bush is the worst, we will reflect on his presidency as one of the most incompetent administrations in recent and not so recent memory.

• 18 indy // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:17 pm   

  Make that Libertarian, not librerrian haha.

• 19 Mike from California // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:21 pm   

  Good points Ecology and Terry, your posts are succinct and very articulate. The scary thing is both the congress and the senate are controlled by radical liberals. Now, at long last one of them has been elected to the presidency. There’s a great deal of damage that could be done. I’m afraid to think of what this “New Deal” will be.

• 20 David Yeagley // Nov 7, 2008 at 3:16 pm   

  Indy, Indians are the EXCEPTION. On all sides. Our legal rights here are not to be made an open door to all the anti-American thugs that can make it across our borders.

  I don’t want to see Indians used to justify anti-Americanism. That’s how the Left and used us for 40 years now. This has done us NO GOOD.

  I understand the existence of American Indian nations, under the Constitution, as the potential for the foundation of a new American Patriotism. Indeed, I have a vision of an entirely new Indian image–one that will actually benefit us, as well as the United States.

  I don’t want to see Indians associated with any foreign group or foreign ideology. We owe them nothing. They have no right of association with us. We are foolish to invite them or allow ourselves to be associated with them. They are unworthy, both both us and America.

  That’s my opinion.

• 21 indy // Nov 7, 2008 at 3:39 pm   

  Yeagley, I’d like you to explain how you get from Indian people to anti-American thugs crossing borders. What thugs are you speaking of specifically and how do you see Native rights as being the origin of this?

  I thoroughly disagree with your sentiment that the left has used Indian people. I think you feel that the left uses minority group to attain it’s goals, in relation to your conservative identity. The conservatives would rather do away with Native people altogether. It appears you would rather appease them by creating a new, pan Indian identity based on a new patriotism, which thereby washes all Native integrity away and replaces it with something wholly generic and false.

  Native people are beholden to their tribes, and in large part, are fighting their own battles to keep language and culture alive. This is something the right has always disapproved of and wants eagerly to take away. They see this as a threat, always have, always will. They scoff at it, like they scoff at anything foreign.

  The left has always respected our culture. How can you honestly say that, given the choice, we should align with the right, a people who want to strip away our rights as Indian people?

  Are you that brainwashed?

  Your bigger picture is all in your head. I’m beholden to no anglo political side, but I know at least the one not to align myself with.

• 22 Mike from California // Nov 7, 2008 at 4:57 pm   

  Ask any high school kid in many parts of America and they wouldn’t be able to tell you who Sitting Bull was. For a matter of fact, they wouldn’t be able to name even one Indian tribe. California and most of the Southwestern states have sizable populations of illegal immigrants and as such, the emphasis has been placed on teaching Aztec and Mexican history. The histories of the various nations who claim that part of American as their ancestral homelands are barely glanced over at best. Hence the “Back to Aztlan” movement that has become very popular in these states. The children of these immigrants, and all of our children, are taught that the all of the American Southwest and beyond is the traditional homeland of the Aztecs. Therefore, they have no need to assimilate into American culture. Doesn’t anybody think that it’s odd to see Mexican Amnesty marchers all the way out in NYC holding signs reading “This is my Homeland”? I do not wish to cause an argument or intrude upon your discussion here for I am not an Indian. I’m just making a impartial, third party observation here. It’s really up to Indians to settle who owns what amongst themselves. I don’t see the Democrats championing the rights of the indigenous tribes in this case but, neither have the republicans for that matter.

• 23 David Yeagley // Nov 7, 2008 at 5:11 pm   

  Indy, I have to assume you are Indian, since you haven’t identified yourself. That’s a big assumption in my book. And perhaps you just haven’t read much on this site. My positions are quite different from your negative conclusions, which I don’t think you would otherwise have concluded.

  American Indians are independent nations, at least theoretically. There is no ethnic relationship between say, the Iroquois and the Pueblo. They share a common plight–the American invasion. But that’s it. That’s all. Surely you agree with that.

  Now, the trend here is multiculturalism. Everyone’s supposed to blend in. That’s the Conservative take. I agree whole heartedly–EXCEPT for INDIANS. True, the existence of Indian sovereignty concerns the Right. It looks like “balkanism,” like Eastern Europe, where no one ever unites for long, and thus progress is perpetually impeded. They see the Indian situation as a contributing factor in the refusal of say, Mexicans assimilating, or Arab Muslims assimilating. If Indians don’t assimilate, no one else should have to.

  Liberals, of course, who are anxious to destroy any semblence of American identity, and who want to bring the Turd World here, and pack it down, see Indians as a grand opportunity to justify all foreign religion, all foreign people, etc., and that’s why liberals TALK like they believe in Indians. They don’t. Ask any Sioux living in the Dakotas on the reservations all their lives.

  Conservatives don’t want to do away with Indian people That is totally false. Some of the far right wingers, however, and even some moderates, don’t see the advantage of reservations. They see this as harmful to Indian people. Liberals, however, love dependency and misery. This justifies their political existence.

  Neither party understands Indians at all, though the Dems, back in the 50’s and early ’60’s had an idea. THat’s all gone now, though. Indians are simply the justification of having foreigners here who refuse to assimilate, and push their ethnicity and customs off on everyone else.

  And don’t think the Sharia Muslims won’t push it off in Indians! PLEASE don’t think that!

  We’ve got the best deal any people would have ever given us. We have to improve on our situation as is. I say educating the Republican party about Indians, and Indians adopting certain conservative principles of living, is the best solution.

  You have misunderstood me completely, because you don’t know what the full scope of my plans are. You’ve been listening to other people who are not informed of what I say, and who are happy to misrepresent me, because they are liberals. Many Indians have learned the liberal lingo–and don’t realize what it is and where it came from, and what it will eventually lead to.

  What’s best for America is what is best for Indians. My notion is that Indian nations can set a fine example of what it means to be a nation. America has clearly forgotten that. Indians must take a lead position in guiding the white man back to his own strength. He’s lost it.

  If he loses, INDIANS WILL LOSE. That’s what Indians don’t understand, yet.

• 24 David Yeagley // Nov 7, 2008 at 5:15 pm   

  Apache, follow Indy’s example. He disagrees with me, but he is respectful, and is willing to discuss things.

  I have a wondrous regard for Apache, but, first of all, I have no evidence that you are Apache, and secondly, you’re not putting yourself in a position that contributes to communication.

  We don’t do profanity here. At least not the way you go about it. I don’t like foul language, or Street talk, bar room talk. It is non communicative. I’m sure you have things to say. Please just be more careful how you say what you want to say.

• 25 ecology // Nov 7, 2008 at 6:45 pm   

  Thanks for the compliment Mike.

• 26 Terry Morris // Nov 7, 2008 at 8:36 pm   

  It’s called the first amendment Terry, read up on it.

  Uh oh! All of a sudden the constitution is again important.

  Indy, that statement and the one about “separation of church and state” tells me all I need to know about how much you’ve read up on the first amendment, which, in a word, may be summed up as zilch.

  I still want to know how it is that Indy thinks Hussein Obama — Mr. Constitution his own self — is going to lead America’s “recovery.”

• 27 Terry Morris // Nov 7, 2008 at 8:50 pm   

  Ecology wrote:

  Do you notice that us more “conservative” types are the more accepting of others ideas and opinions? The far leftists are authoritarian and have no room for others.

  Yes, this is a big giveaway with leftists. They’re also generally the more, much more, insulting and belligerent in any group conversation, though conservatives can be insulting too, we just can’t hold a candle to leftists in that department generally speaking … not that we’d want to. I gladly declare them the victors in that, as I’m sure you do as well.

  Thanks, ecology, and thanks to Mike.

• 28 David Adams // Nov 8, 2008 at 11:10 am   

  When all is said and done, this nation is worth fighting for.
  Obama and his handlers are nothing more than another test we have to overcome – and we will.
  No matter what the Europeans or any one else thinks about us, this world would not be a better place without America.
  Even with the help of the media and his blind followers Obama is not big enough to stop us.
  God Bless America – and Sarah Palin

• 29 Anglo Protestant American // Nov 8, 2008 at 2:41 pm   

  Hmm Sarah Palin didn’t know Africa was a Continent?

  I can believe that.

  Its probably better though that a VP candidate didn’t know if Africa was a continent than the fact that the so called president elect (usurper) Obama doesn’t know how many states are in the Union.

  Oh course the media doesn’t report this because it would be racist to point out Obama is dumb. Doesn’t further the revolution.

  Obama’s Bolshevik Booger IQ

• 30 Anglo Protestant American // Nov 8, 2008 at 2:43 pm   

  Obama’s Bolshevik Booger IQ

• 31 Terry Morris // Nov 8, 2008 at 5:08 pm   

  My friends,

  Always remember that there are two sides to every story. Those of you with children know this, and are reminded of this on a daily basis; and of how difficult it is to determine which story aligns most with the truth.

  Sarah Palin is refuting what is being said of her.

  Nonetheless it is absolutely ridiculous to surmise from these rumors that she is an idiot. Obviously Sarah Palin is not an idiot, notwithstanding the validity of the charges against her. If you’re a leftist I say to you that you’re believing about Palin what you want to believe about Palin. But here’s the deal, and you leftists take note:

  If Sarah Palin is, by your leftist estimation, an idiot, millions of other American women Palin’s equals or lesser-thans (and men) are equally, if not more so, idiots, including most likely your own mothers and sisters and aunts and daughters, and grandmothers, etc.

• 32 David Yeagley // Nov 8, 2008 at 5:58 pm   

  Most Americans don’t know what Africa is.

  Africa is not a language, not a race, not a religion, not a country, and not even a continent, really. The word (which many historians believe to be Arabic (afar) for dry, arid, or desert, original referred to the northern regions of what to day is in fact called continent.

  If it is in any way to be considered cultural-specific, it is the region of animism, the Negro race, and non-IndoEuropean languages–with legion in number. The place of “a mountain of languages” it has been called.

  Sarah said her remarks were taken out of context, and made to look ignorant. Something very easily done. Nothing special. Just daily media practice. Mal-practice, I should say.

• 33 an NDN // Nov 8, 2008 at 8:45 pm   

  “If Sarah Palin is, by your leftist estimation, an idiot, millions of other American women Palin’s equals or lesser-thans (and men) are equally, if not more so, idiots, including most likely your own mothers and sisters and aunts and daughters, and grandmothers, etc.”

  One correction and one addition:

  Add “white” to “millions of other -white- American women”

  And you forgot to add yourself to the “mothers and sisters and aunts and daughters, and grandmothers” list, Ms. Morris.

• 34 David Yeagley // Nov 8, 2008 at 9:08 pm   

  Terry, “qualification” these days, to a true conservative, means simply to know what it means to be American, by a studied Constitutional definition, and to love America. Sarah Palin is eminently qualified.

  Obama is in no conceivable way qualified by these definitions. Worse, his is totally disqualified. He condemns and disdains the Constitution. He has no understanding of what America is, and therefore no love, no patriotism, and no desire for any. He is the perfect puppet for the oedipal white liberals who created him, and bought the white house for him, for $600 million.

• 35 Terry Morris // Nov 9, 2008 at 3:34 am   

  Terry, “qualification” these days, to a true conservative, means simply to know what it means to be American, by a studied Constitutional definition, and to love America.

  I’m sorry Dr. Yeagley, I respect you and your opinion, but I cannot get onboard with what you’ve written above, which to my way of thinking is simply a lowering of standards for the sole purpose of making people like Governor Palin fit into some kind of 21st century (or something) definition of the term “qualified.”

  What you’re describing in your definition is patriotism. Patriotism does not a qualified V.P. candidate make, albeit it is important that a V.P. candidate be a patriot, which, as you say, disqualifies Hussein Obama.

You must log in to post a comment.