Your Moral And Intellectual Superiors

Related:

Greta (Fox news) interviewed Paul Ryan:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1836546463001/paul-ryan-we-should-stand-up-for-our-values/?playlist_id=87485

Contrast his statements with the wimpy response from Obama.

I don't think the media on either side of the 49th really cares any more whether people can smell the stench of their leftward sycophancy. The cause has become too important and they know better than most just how much trouble their whole "movement" is in. They know that unless they go full out to re-elect their guy, Obama will lose and they will have conservatives in power in both Canada and the US. It will be Mulroney/Reagan all over again! (What a wonderful prospect!) I fully expect to see even worse media malfeasance here in Canuckistan when the next federal writ drops.

The following is interesting in that it comes from a writer not known for her criticism of media bias;

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316652/insane-msm-questions-romney-faced-presser-katrina-trinko

And another warning of things to come from Andrew McCarthy;

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316681/apology-egypts-muslim-brotherhood-government-no-veiled-threat-andrew-c-mccarthy

If you could quantify it, I wonder what the MSM attack mob would be worth to a campaign in dollars. Obama essentially has surrogates sitting there challenging everything Romney says, should he not have to have them on his payroll?

The J-List is caught out again! The News Media is a competitive Business that was, during the greatest generation, subject to Anti-Competitive Laws...

It would seem that the Republicans could make News Conferences simpler by having the J-List pool send only one Journalist to ask the Pool Question

These Journalists are just one step away from the OWS group that expressed themselves by shitting on Police cars..Worthless Whores

I see the journo club has reunited to help Bambam again, media collusion should be a criminal offense.

Oh my god!!! The media is coordinating its questioning to try and get him to give a clear explanation of his buffonery after he A) wrongly blamed the WH for allegedly sympathizing with the views of those who carried out the attack when they very clearly did not. And B) for attempting to score political points on this tragedy.

Sorry guys, it's called serving the public interest. I know you guys have drunk soooo much rightwing koolaid that you can no longer see it, but these people are in fact your intellectual betters.

(Will this comment make it? Who can say. It seems like this blog now can't abide opinions that aren't hard right. No surprise there I guess)

Romney is nothing but a snivelling, opportunistic, cowardly politician. Where was this a-hole during the Vietnam war? On some freaky Mormon brainwashing mission? I'm sorry, but any politician that I wouldn't be able to sit down and have a beer with, I don't trust; left or right. And don't get me started on how all the rightwing nutbags out there with their "Obama is muslim" paranoia without a shred of proof seem to conveniently overlook the cult which is Mormonism. You retards seriously want to elect a man who believes that some schizophrenic named Joseph Smith had visions about talking to God in the U.S. in the 1800's, that Eden was somewhere in Missouri and when you die you are ruler of a planet??!! This seems rational to you?! Romney completely lied about the timing of events during which the ambassador and others in Libya tragically died as he has been lying during his whole political and business career. All of which isn't surprising considering the fiction his 'religion' has been spreading and which he believes.

John "B) for attempting to score political points on this tragedy."

John - The stupidest person ever to run for Prime Minister of Canada, maybe the stupidest creature to ever breath, said that election campaigns weren't the time to discuss policy. You're in fine company.

It seems two turds showed up to spout pro-Al Quaeda propaganda. Interesting, this disease of progressive thinking. These are the sorts of buttwads who would try to show tht bombs falling on Pearl Harbour were actually the fault of the United States.

It also seems that they're embarrassed about the current state of security by US institutions. Why else would they want to avoid a discussion of it? Of course they're oblivious to the fact that Obama raised precisely the same issues in 2008 over Iraq, and no one called them out over making security a political issue.

Scar: Is that Red-Green Mulroney or Citoyen Liberal Kyoto Dionky?

Third choice is Count Harvard Ignatieff.

Kim

Scar, that would be Kim Campbell.

@ John & Steve
"Will this comment make it? Who can say. It seems like this blog now can't abide opinions that aren't hard right. No surprise there I guess)

Of course your opinions are welcome. To appreciate rational opinions we need people like you who reside in the shallow end of the gene pool. Like a nice lady working in retail once told me : "we look for a real ass*hole in about every tenth customer, we need them to appreciate the nice people." You two are both ten. Come back often.

Kim Campbell

Biggest mistake she made was not to join the LIBRANOs.....that's where her heart (mind?)was.

Like WTF did the tories ever think?

Yeah because an election is a terrible time to be critical of the other candidate. What's with the left's sudden concern for the pomp and circumstance and respect of the office of the presidency? These people were calling Afghanistan a quagmire on day three of hostilities and were talking down the troops and the strategy every day after that. Do they really think people forget?

hannity is covering this tonight on his show and the lefty journalist is deny, deny, deny!
Disgusting!

But only while there is a D in the Whitehouse. It will take putting an R back in there to get them to do their damn jobs.”

No. Don't think so - the occupy bowl movement will morph back into the vapid hate {Bush}Romney by the union backed anarchists. Be throngs of mobbing street protesters that they were before. The Orwellian goof-speakers of LSM will be only too happy to support anything that's against anyone on the right.
Getting hard to figure out which one hates the right more, these leftists, LSM goof speaks or the inbred demented radial islamists.

Posted by: Fay at September 12, 2012 9:42 PM

Hannity's information as to the timeline on when the Cairo embassy released its apology was incorrect and he tore into his gal guest (I'm assuming that's the lefty journalist you're needlessly slamming).

It was released as the crowd was gathering, well before the mob stormed the embassy.

What is correct is that Romney struck the right tone in his response and it did take the White House more than nine hours to contradict the embassy statement.

Sometimes Hannity trips over his own rhetoric. We'll see if he's man enough to admit his mistake tomorrow once his producers set him straight.

The Five, which was on four hours earlier, and O'Reilly all knew the embassy statement was released before the mob stormed the embassy and the US flag replaced was by the terrorist flag.

Steve: All, and I mean ALL, religions are a matter of belief and faith. You single out Mormons but you could have substituted Catholics, Baptists, Moslems, etc, etc. for Mormons and your comment would have read the same. Consequently, your comment/criticism is meaningless.

And do you know where Romney was during the Vietnam war.... I do not. So tell me, where was he from 1964 to 1973 and make whatever point you have to make.

Personally, I don't want to drink beer with the President. The man has better things to do than to sit around with me chewing the fat. At least I hope so. And I don't think the current President would want to drink a beer with you either.

As a disclaimer, I'm not the biggest Romney fan but as the choice between him and the current President is stark, I will be voting for him.

Maybe Romney should apologise the way the Chosen One has. Everyone knows a simple apology fixes everything in the very volatile Middle East.

What is correct is that Romney struck the right tone in his response and it did take the White House more than nine hours to contradict the embassy statement.

Why did they have to "contradict" the embassy statement? They only had to comment on it at all because the entire rightwing of the US collectively shat its pants over taking the comment out of context. In a normal universe, it's perfectly fine to be critical of somebody's ignorant intolerance.

And this comment:

"It seems two turds showed up to spout pro-Al Quaeda propaganda."

I triple dog dare cgh to dig into that brain of his/hers and explain how what I said was pro-Al Quaeda. I'm mystified.

Maybe, john. But more to the point, you're mystifying.

mhb23re

"In a normal universe, it's perfectly fine to be critical of somebody's ignorant intolerance."

You obviously don't know the meaning of IRONY.

John, the apology was on the US embassy website. Obama has been very weak-willed and supportive of Islamists.

What is it that the "right wing" have overlooked?

I certainly want to hear what a presidential candidate, two months before an election, has to say about an explosive foreign affairs situation.

Any suggestion that Only The Great One, Obama, is allowed to speak is pure nonsense. Obama is up for election just as much as is Romney. I want to hear what both of them say.

Romney's comment about the outrageous apology issued by the Cairo embassy before the attacks, was perfect. The US government ought to protect the right of free speech and that includes obnoxious and 'hurtful' speech. It should not apologize but remind people without freedom that freedom includes the rights to debate issues and not riot against those whom we consider 'insult' us.

His later comments were equally correct. Meanwhile, Obama has said absolutely nothing about Cairo, has made empty statements about Libya, while campaigning in Vegas rather than staying in the WH to actually work and deal with the situation. He tried to distance Himself from the Cairo apologies but Hillary Clinton sided with the apologies!

Obama ought to have confronted both Egypt and Libya, laid down the rules that they must control their radicals or all aid will stop. He's done nothing but has tried to divert the anger to 'Romney offended the White House'.

Romney's comments were presidential; Obama's were those of an endless campaigner without resolve. He leaves all decisions to others.

Obama is now reacting, as usual, to public opinion. That's how he operates; he wants to control you, so he tells you what you want to hear. He himself has no principles. Other than power for himself.

He's snubbing Netanyahu because an Israeli-Iran war will get Obama's reelection plans in trouble. So he doesn't want to talk about it.

He's now telling us that 'Egypt is not an ally'; he's just now saying this because of the noise from the public about his silence over the Cairo riots. But as soon as he's reelected, he'll forget that statement, and ignore what Egypt does in the ME.

He's tried to divert his lack of response and his refusal to confront both Libya and Egypt to the red herring with Romney. That obviously hasn't worked, so he's now released the weak statement that Egypt is not an ally. So? Does that mean he'll stop sending them the billions in aid money?

Question for the US Government...

Re Egypt, Syria, Lybia etal .... Just WTF did you expect?

If Egypt is not an ally why in Hell did that joke of a President send them 1.5 billion dollars in foriegn aid that he borrowed from China.Would you borrow money to give away to someone else who despised you when your own finances were in the worst shape in your countrys history.This guy is an empty suit,he has zero experience and has learned nothing in the last four years.Bye Bye Barry!

Indeed, ET.

Obama will spike the proverbial football when triumphing over bin Laden but doesn't care about offending the Church and won't say anything to rock the Islamist boat.

Really- what is wrong about strongly condemning the murder of a US national- an ambassador, no less- whose body was dragged out for all to see in some sort of ape-like display of power (so his poor family can see it on TV)?

Yep, quite the leader Obama is.

Indeed, ET.

Obama will spike the proverbial football when triumphing over bin Laden but doesn't care about offending the Church and won't say anything to rock the Islamist boat.

Really- what is wrong about strongly condemning the murder of a US national- an ambassador, no less- whose body was dragged out for all to see in some sort of ape-like display of power (so his poor family can see it on TV)?

Yep, quite the leader Obama is.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.

Winston Churchill

-

Now I know why he removed the Churchill image.

Obama will soon find out what his own ass taste like.

The WH press is no different than our Parliamentary Press… a giant Super Pac for progressives. Ditto government unions. It's hard to win against these endless free resources.

From the links there was a good comment about CORE VALUES.

If you don't have ANY, it is difficult to come up with an immediate visceral response to the Libyan barbarians. Leaves plenty of time to strategise (9 hours+/-), and figure out how much mileage you can get from this event.

Pure politics- "must....get.....re....elected, big shout out and all that".

How long before the MSM actually blames these embassy attacks on Romney? i.e., "everything was going swimmingly until the possibility of a Republican president became apparent last week." No matter, it's NOT the MSM - it's our half-asleep populace who lap it up without an ounce of doubt who are to blame.

We ned a good laugh.

Where eeze Stephane Dion when you need 'im?

How about calling this |questiongate".

It truly is amazing. I recall the vetting of the president in 2008 asked him hard ball questions like "what is your favourite colour?" Or "if you were an elephant, what colour would you be?" Don't think those questions were asked but you get the difference. MSM is dead in most peoples eyes already but this just puts the final nail in the coffin.

Truenorthist @ 6:17;
While the jury might be still out on Romney's conservative credentials the same cannot be said about Brian Mulroney and his successor Kim Campbell. Both an incredible embarassment to the definition of conservativism. I admit he fooled me but I was actively working for Reform in less than 2 years after his election.

Today's politicans are pretty polished at sayin the right things at the right times. The proof is in their actions. Obama has failed the test the same way that Mulroney did. If successful Romney will be faced with taking some pretty brutal action to change the direction of government in the USA. No one should assume he is up to that task, we can only hope so.

Conversely as many credit PM Harper for stearing Canada along a conservative path a closer look does not always support that conclusion. Excuses are made that he has to 'take time' to change the left wing mindset. I could agree with that if there was a 'straw dog' that expoused true conservative thought and if Harper spoke to the people more about conservative thinking. The people are not being educated at a time when it is most needed.

ct, I have two problems with your very thoughtful comment.

The first is that, as you know, Harper could do very little to change the policies of the federal government, entrenched as they are within the Liberal mantra, during his time as a minority government. Since achieving a majority, he has done quite a bit, in the 'bit by bit' tactic which doesn't alarm a population raised within the Liberal ideology.

He's gotten us out of Kyoto, sidelined the hold of the far left environmentalists on economic development. He's shut down the Wheat Board, opened up the Maritimes to an economic focus on shipbuilding, and set up numerous foreign trade agreements all over the world for Canadian products.

He's reduced the power of the Human Rights gang by repealing that vicious section 13, and has revamped immigration, citizenship and refugee rules to end the Liberal set up of Canada as a hotel.

He's ending the hold over Canada of Quebec by giving more parliamentary seats to the West.

He's spoken out openly against Islamic fascism and acted on this, by closing the Iranian Embassy; he's aligned Canada with Israel in this fight against intolerance.

Economically, he's kept the Canadian economy not only stable but productive.

You may want more conservative activities, and you haven't listed them, but not everyone in the country wants those same things - and a government is for all the people not just some.

It is not up to Harper to educate the students; it's up to us to demand, as parents, less of the leftist propaganda in our schools and insist on more openness in our universities.

ET @ 11:18, Thank you!

ET;
As per usual a well thought out rebuttal. My devil's advocate role has been exposed.

The MSMers accused Romney of LYING because he pointed out that the idiot in the White House allowed the foreign affairs office to apologize for something that has nothing to do with the US government.

Either Obama or his staff or BOTH had no clue what was going on and from all appearances did not care ... until it became apparent that it was something they were going to be held accountable for.

Just WHEN exactly is the Obama administration going to take responsibility ... for anything?

OMMAG "nothing to do with the US government." But it does have to do with the US govt. The US govt. allows free speech and free speech is the target.