Me, not quite so much. So John Edwards admitted he had an affair. Who cares? Are there any Democrats who haven’t? I always thought it was like, a prerequisite to join the Democrat Party. “Oh, you aren’t an adulterer? Sorry, not interested. Try the prudish side of the aisle.” Honestly, I’d be more interested to get the number of Democrats who haven’t cheated. When the news of this broke, I didn’t blog about it for a couple of reasons. One of them is the reason I mentioned above. Another is because I quite frankly don’t give a damn about John Edwards. He’s tried twice to get into the White House, once as a veep and then as President, and failed twice. He’s a softie pansy boy with nothing going for him except for his ambulance chasing. He’s a lightweight in the political world. So why should I care that he had an affair? Does it make him a scumbag? Yep. Does it make me respect him less? If I had any respect for him to begin with, the answer’d be yes, but there wasn’t, so oh well.
To me, the entire thing is a non-story. But if you’re so interested, here’s the scoop.
In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 42-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.
Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter’s baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.
Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby’s birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father…
Edwards said his wife, Elizabeth, and others in his family became aware of the affair in 2006.
Edwards made a point of telling Woodruff that his wife’s cancer was in remission when he began the affair with Hunter…
Edwards today admitted the National Enquirer was correct when it reported he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.
The former Senator said his wife had not known about the meeting.
Couldn’t have happened to more deserving people:
The Topeka Fire Department is investigating a small fire today outside of a church whose members protest at soldier’s funerals.
The Topeka Capital-Journal reports on its Web site that a fence and garage at Westboro Baptist Church became engulfed in flames early today.
Topeka Fire Marshal Greg Bailey said the cause of the fire has not been determined.
However, a spokeswoman for the church, Shirley Phelps-Roper, believes it was deliberately set.
Members of the church frequently picket military funerals, arguing that the deaths of U.S. troops overseas are part of God’s punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality.
Bailey said damage is estimated at $10,000.
Now, I don’t wish this kind of thing on anybody. But now that it’s happened, what can I say? What goes around comes around.
The WBC idiots think the fire was deliberately set (surprise, surprise). My thoughts are, maybe God got a little pissed off at the Phelps wackos for doing such vile things in his name and decided to take some action. Who knows?
Hat Tip: Rachel Lucas
So, the truth finally emerges on why Obama snubbed the troops: media wasn’t allowed. Get it? No photo op, no visit to the troops.
One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama’s representatives were told, “he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” In addition, “Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit.”
The official said “We didn’t know why” the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. “He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him.”
So it wasn’t worth his time if he wasn’t able to make it into another fawning media spectacle, which is basically what his entire overseas trip has been. Classy, Obama. Real classy. Way to show your priorities: going shopping in Berlin is more important to you than visiting severely wounded troops in Landstuhl and Ramstein. Another example of how liberals “support” the troops: on the surface, they’ll support them all day long, but any king of support with substance and meaning behind it is out of the question. And when the guy who wants to be Commander in Chief finds going shopping a better use of his time then spending time with men and women who put their lives on the line for our freedoms, it should be a pretty big effin’ red flag.
Someone please explain to me again why it is that Obama is so appealing. And I don’t want to hear the words “hope”, “change”, or “Bush” mentioned once. I want to find a substantive argument for why Barack Obama would make a worthwhile leader for this country. John McCain may not be the best pick, but he’s miles better than this clown.
Apparently, Vanity Fair hasn’t. All the furor over the New Yorker’s Obama “satire” cover led them to conclude that… they needed to do exactly the same thing! This time, of course, the target had to be McCain, and it had to be just as offensive. Because, you know, the most mature way to handle the offensive Obama cover — even though just about every conservative and Republican anywhere derided it — is to do the exact same thing to McCain!
Here’s the cover:
Yes, that’s McCain with bandages on his head, presumably mocking his injuries as a POW in Vietnam. Yes, he’s got a walker — making fun of his age, how original! Yes, Cindy’s got an armful of prescription pills. Yes, that’s President Bush above the fireplace. And yes, it is what you think it is burning in the fireplace.
So original. And real mature, too.
No one praised The New Yorker for the Obama cover. They got slammed for it. So why on Earth would the editors at Vanity Fair feel like attacking McCain on their cover was a good idea? Again, ever heard of “two wrongs don’t make a right”? Of course, we have to remember there’s a difference here. The media is not going to slam Vanity Fair for having an offensive cover attacking John McCain. There will be silence about this. They won’t have to deal with massive outrage as The New Yorker did, because the mainstream media will be secretly applauding the cover, even though they won’t say so in public. It’s ridiculous how openly the media is in the bucket for Obama. What’s even more sickening is how smug and condescending Vanity Fair was about this. I’m just trying to figure out what exactly they’re trying to accomplish with this. Are they trying to show off that they have the maturity of a fifth grader?
You know what, that actually makes sense, now that I think about it, because that’s probably the best way to endear other liberals to them.
UCSB College Republican Chairman Ross Nolan recently attended a left-wing protest and videotaped the entire thing. Of course, there was much America-loving going on there, right alongside the wonderful displays of intelligence, logic, reason, respect for differing opinions, and gratitude for our military. Because, you know, liberals are just so patriotic. They love their country, and as they constantly remind us, dissent and protest is patriotism.
Somehow, though, most Americans who don’t hate their country just don’t believe it.
But we aren’t allowed to question their patriotism, not ever. Not when they fly American flags upside down, an obvious symbol of disrespect. Not when they say that our President should be hung, is worse than Saddam Hussein, and deserves the same fate as the murderous dictator. Not when they call our military murderers and rapists. Not when they spit on soldiers and war veterans. Not when they call our generals traitors and war criminals. Not when they say our country is in “the Dark Ages”. Not. Ever.
It’s funny though, because as patriotic as they claim to be, I just didn’t see a lot of love and appreciation for America in this video:
The best part about that video is that it is so incredibly mock-worthy. These liberals are like walking punchlines! A good number of them are dirty and unkempt. You’ve got the angry protestors, the dreamy protestors off somewhere in La-La Land (like the Close Gitmo chick in the beginning), the military protestors, the dance-to-the-beat-of-your-own-drum protestors… the very stereotype that most Americans have of clueless hippie liberals. And no matter how inflammatory, insulting, and offensive they may be, no matter how radical and disturbing their views are, they still angrily claim that you aren’t allowed to question their patriotism.
Well, too bad. I’m questioning, baby. I’m a patriotism-questioning machine.
Also interesting is how often these morons like to throw out the word FASCISM!!! and pretend we’re actually living in a fascist state (as if they could even spell the word fascism, much less understand the meaning of it). Of course, if we actually were living in a fascist state, they wouldn’t be having their cute little protests and calling for the President to be hanged. If we actually lived in a fascist state, they’d have been taken out back and shot by now at worst, and at best thrown into a gulag. If they want to see what a fascist state really looks like, maybe they should take a long trip to Cuba or North Korea. Maybe then they’ll appreciate their country more.
But don’t count on it.
Hat Tip: Wolking’s World
What happens if you don’t agree with the homosexual agenda? They’ll do everything they can to defame you, shut down your business, and make sure you are never heard from in public again. People aren’t allowed to have a difference of opinion when it comes to “gay rights”, see. If you disagree with the gays, then they’re coming after you.
The latest offender is Doug Manchester, owner of the Manchester Hyatt Hotel, is going to be the victim of a gay rights protest. His “crime”? He doesn’t support gay marriage! Therefore, these “gay rights” advocates think he should be boycotted and his business shut down. How open-minded and tolerant of them!
Gay rights supporters and their union allies plan to launch a boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt because its owner, Doug Manchester, contributed $125,000 to Proposition 8, an amendment to ban same-sex marriage on the November ballot.
…
Fred Karger, who is helping to organize the boycott and is running an organization opposed to Proposition 8, said he is also urging the public to boycott Manchester’s other hotel, the Grand Del Mar.
“This is someone who is giving an exorbitant amount of money to write discrimination into the constitution for the very first time,” he said.
Karger said he hopes the boycott will send a message to other potential contributors to the Proposition 8 campaign.
“Our goal is to create a business loss for people who contribute,” he said. “We want to make it a little uncomfortable.”
See, if you don’t support gay marriage, then you don’t deserve to make money. You don’t deserve to have a successful business. From these people’s perspective, you aren’t allowed to have a different opinion than the one they hold.
And yet somehow, we’re the ones painted as intolerant and close-minded.
Organizers of the campaign, which is expected to be announced at a news conference Thursday, say they believe it is the first time that gay rights supporters have boycotted a business whose owner seeks to ban same-sex marriage.
Leaders will urge the public to avoid the downtown hotel because they say that support for Proposition 8 amounts to unfair treatment of gays and lesbians.
“Manchester’s contribution to this anti-marriage initiative is discrimination plain and simple,” said Brigette Browning, president of Unite Here Local 30, which represents 4,500 hotel and restaurant workers.
The Manchester Grand Hyatt is not unionized.
Manchester and campaign officials from Proposition 8 did not return phone calls seeking comment.
In an interview earlier this year, Manchester said that he decided to donate to Proposition 8 because he had heard that schools that teach that marriage is between a man and a woman could be sued for discriminating against gays.
In addition, he said, he was motivated by his strong Catholic faith to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But, he said that he welcomes gays and lesbians to his hotels and restaurants.
President Bush invoked the memory of Thomas Jefferson Friday in welcoming new U.S. citizens at a naturalization ceremony at Monticello, saying “I’ll be proud to call you a fellow American.”
On his final U.S. Independence Day as president, Bush told an audience Friday at the home of the Declaration of Independence’s author that he was honored to be present for the naturalization. Shouts from protesters were heard during Bush’s remarks, and the president responded by saying he agrees that “we believe in free speech in the United States of America.”
Check out the video:
President Bush, although not able to be seen in the video, didn’t seem to be all that flustered and just kept on talking. The crowd, though, booed the Code Pinkos and you can hear them yelling things like, “SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN!”
It just amazes me. Is there no low that the Code Pinkos won’t sink to?
Especially interesting is who was involved in this disruption. There was Desiree Farooz, who once assaulted Condoleeza Rice and Code Pink photographer S. Johnson, among your other Code Pink wackjobs. But the most disturbing player was the person who planned this: David Swanson. That would be the same David Swanson who was Dennis Kucinich’s press secretary. Nice to know just who it is the Democrats like the cater to.
Also scary? Farooz is able to run right past the front row up to the stage, and as was pointed out on Free Republic, could’ve easily assassinated President Bush if she had chosen to smuggle explosives underneath her clothing. If she keeps doing this kind of crap, then she is going to get herself killed by the Secret Service one day. It’s only a matter of time.
What’s sad and pathetic is not that the Code Pink wackjobs are protesting. It is the manner in which they choose to, which is immature and elementary. You can express your thoughts about the President, whatever they may be, in a mature, responsible, controlled manner. Breaking into a naturalization ceremony and wreaking havoc for the crowd there is now mature, responsible, or logical. It’s pitiful and disgusting. As I said, is there a low that Code Pink won’t stoop to?
Hat Tips: Michelle Malkin and Gateway Pundit
Here’s some real classiness from the classiest of liberal blogs, the Huffington Post (emphasis mine):
When John McCain says government is too big, what do these people think he means?
Who are we kidding?
John McCain was in the navy and then he was in the U.S. Senate. He has never cashed a check a bureaucrat didn’t write. I’m not trying to be glib, and I realize he was doing a solemn and dangerous job, killing people from the sky. But it was still government work.
Wait, except for those years as a POW. A sick but undeniable fact about John McCain: The only period in his life when he wasn’t living off the American taxpayer, he was living off the Vietnamese taxpayer.
John McCain’s father was in the navy and his father was in the navy. The last McCain who didn’t live in government housing owned a plantation in Mississippi when the state still had slaves.
Which is why John McCain always sounds so emotional when he gets to this line in his stump speech:
“I am absolutely committed to reducing the size of government.”
What he’s promising is eventually he’ll die.
–
Oh, by the way, John Glenn’s fine.
So, basically, all in one post this idiot is: smearing and devaluing John McCain’s service as a pilot as “killing people from the sky”; insulting John McCain’s heroic service as a POW, who turned down the opportunity to get released as the son of an admiral, choosing to stay and be tortured for five years, as mooching off the Vietnamese taxpayers as if it was some kind of luxury vacation; smearing McCain and his family as racists who once owned slaves (Is this even true? I guess because’s he’s white, this smear is OK, because then it must be true, because all white American’s ancestors owned slaves, right?) and likewise smearing his family’s military service as mooching off of the government; and then finally, making jokes about McCain dying.
Real classy.
If any conservative said anything even remotely similar to this about the Obamamessiah, they’d be tarred and feathered by the mainstream media. Really, that’s irrelevant. This piece is disgusting filth. If I ran the Huffington Post, the idiot who wrote that would be fired on the spot. (Yes, there is such thing as freedom of speech. But that doesn’t mean everyone else has to agree with your freedom of speech, and as a privately owned blog, Arianna Huffington can censor as much as she wants on the HuffPo, just like I can censor whatever I want on my blog.)
Anyways, I find it especially rich that a lefty is complaining about someone living off of the government. Even if that is what they consider military service to be, living off of the government (a stupid concept if I’ve ever heard one), why would that bother them? Isn’t that the ultimate liberal goal, to get everyone completely dependent on the government?
Finally, to really show just how depraved not only the author of this post is, but also the entire Huffington Post, be sure to check out the response to this piece. I didn’t read all of the comments, but I didn’t see one that decried this smearing of McCain. It’s interesting that they aren’t willing to attack McCain on policy differences or on the issues. They have to resort to crap like this, usually because they have no other platform to stand on. I may not agree with everything that McCain stands for, but at least the American people know what he stands for, something that they can’t usually say about the Obamamessiah.
This kind of filth is what the left stands for. It’s not particularly the kind of filth I want representing my country.
Hat Tip: Ace
Not sure who Rupert Everett is? He’s best known for voicing Prince Charming in the Shrek movies, but also played as Julia Roberts’ gay best friend in “My Best Friend’s Wedding” and Christopher Marlowe in “Shakespeare in Love”.
I guess lately he’s bitter about being a washed-up actor, or something, because he’s been spouting some pretty vile stuff left and right.
First, he takes aim at Americans:
I’m totally off the States now. … The reaction to 9/11 and then George Bush - really, they’ve got very blobby as a nation. … Now they (the Americans) are whiny victims whose language is entirely taken from two tv shows - Friends and Sex and the City - and there’s nothing sexy about them any more. And that kind of semi-blindness about the rest of the world, which was attractive when America was exciting, is really unattractive now.
The part about our reaction to 9/11 really riles me up. How is a country supposed to react to such a devastating tragedy? And as far as Americans being “whiny victims”, well… there actually are Americans who fit that bill (they’re called liberals), but by and large most Americans possess a very strong sense of independence, self-reliance, and pioneering.
Anyways, if that annoyed you, just wait until you read this. According to Everett, British soldiers are “dumb wimps”!
English idiot Rupert Everett just bashed British soldiers by saying, “They are always whining about the dangers of being killed. Oh my God, they are such whimps now!”
Unfortunately, he continued on. “The whole point of being the Army is wanting to get killed, wanting to test yourself to the limits,” he told the Telegraph. “Now you have to fly 15,000 ft. above the war zone to avoid getting hit. I don’t think there is any point in having wars if that’s how you’re going to behave. It’s pathetic. All this whining!”
Because it’s real tough being an actor.
That’s the most insulting, ridiculous thing I may have ever read.
If Everett thinks that it’s so easy to be a soldier, then maybe he should try it on for size. Maybe then he’ll get some appreciation for the kind of sacrifice these soldiers are making. Until then, he can keep his mouth shut and focus on being a flaming homosexual actor.
So I was told by a couple of liberal tolls, indignant over my re-posting of Mary Katharine Ham’s debunking of the media manipulation of Obama’s newest rally.
Hmm… well, what my weight has to do with media manipulation of the attendance at Obama’s rally in North Carolina is beyond me. But that’s how liberalism works, right? You have no facts and no valid argument to make, so just make childish personal attacks and smears!
Here are the comments, straight from the trolls themselves:
Akeitay:
Wow, talk about a bitter far-right blogger.…
Get over it, fatty.
Akeitay:
God, you’re a whale. ROFL. Hate to break it to you, hunny, but liberals don’t WANT to date you. You look like a red-faced, freckled elephant, and that isn’t particularly attractive.I guess us crazy liberals put more emphasis on excercise than conservatives. LOL.
Grebrook:
Dude, she’s fat. LOL. And she goes and gives this pathetically condescending interview about how she doesn’t date liberal men, as if liberal men really care? It’s kind of like a black guy telling the KKK “nah, you’re not good enough for me to be a member”. They’re not exactly inviting him in.Cassy, you’re fat, seriously. Until you lose weight, I think it’s safe to say that you don’t have much room to talk about “liberal idiots” if you’re not intelligent enough to stay healthy.
Grebrook:
Rofl, do you actually read this blog? This girl is a walking cliche. A fat, white angry Republican …
Fat? A whale? Come on guys, couldn’t you come up with anything better than that? I mean, really. That’s like, the most boring, unoriginal insult in the book. Try a little harder next time. Please.
The funny thing is… I’m not fat. Unless, of course, something like this is your standard for “healthy” and “attractive”:
Um, yeah. Compared to that, I guess I am a whale. Heaven forbid I eat three meals a day, get moderate exercize, and wear a size 8. And I can’t help the fact that God gave me really, really big breasts. They started growing when I hit puberty and kind of never stopped — and they don’t get smaller, no matter how much I work out (believe me, I’ve tried). So, it’s a little bit beyond my control.
But hey, let’s compare fat l’il me to the “healthy” model above. Here’s the most recent picture of me I have, taken this Sunday at a minor league baseball game.
Now, which one of those two pictures do you think depicts a healthy woman? I would venture a guess that it’s me. The funny thing is that I used to be much, much more athletic than I am now. At my peak as a rower, I was in better shape than some football players were. My crew team had practices six days a week, three hours a day. We rowed, we ran, we did calisthenics, we lifted weights — and, may I point out, the exact same weight circuit the guys were expected to do. Every girl on that crew, me included, had six packs, strong shoulders and backs, and rock-solid legs. And honestly, while being in such good physical shape was nice, I prefer my body now. I like being curvy. I like having a softer, more feminine body. I didn’t think it was particularly appealing to have a body that was hard with all sharp edges. I like having a curvy figure that yes, is maybe less athletic than it used to be, but is much more feminine — and not really unhealthy at all. So I’m not a size two. So a few stupid libtards think I’m a whale. Who gives a shit? They’re probably pimply-faced, overweight nerds hacking away at a computer insulting bloggers because they have nothing better to do in their sad, miserable lives.
I really considered not writing this post. But I figured, what the hell. The thing is, there are plenty of these little asshole men running around criticizing women left and right over their weight. Celebrities get called fat for even the smallest amount of cellulite or the slightest weight gain — usually by men. Men’s magazines regularly prominently feature very skinny women in very skimpy clothing, usually complete with protruding rib cages and fake breasts. Women’s magazines seem to use the same models. Magazines like Cosmo and Glamour constantly decry the media’s use of too-thin models, but continually feature them in their fashion spreads and stories.
Yet somehow, men never get quite as criticized for their weight. Overweight or obese celebrities are never told by celebrity gossip pundits how fat they are or how disgusting they find them. That kind of vitriol seems to be reserved for women only — why is that??
The worrisome part is that this kind of extreme criticism of women for their weight, and the high standards being put forth in our society, is having a very unhealthy effect on women today. Anorexia is on the rise for women of varying ages — and women are 3 times more likely to get the disease than men are. In the year 2000, the number of women with eating disorders had doubled in less than three decades. Women struggle with negative body image every day — barbs like the ones thrown at me usually leave deep wounds — and what is it that these assholes think they are accomplishing? Does it make them feel big to put women down, to try to make them ashamed of their bodies? Why do so many [liberal] men seem to feel the need to make such personal attacks on women, and especially attacks concerning appearance? Michelle Malkin could probably write a damn dissertation on this subject.
Of course, as I said earlier, this is common practice. Whenever a libtard like these two can’t come up with an intelligent response, they resort to personal attacks because they know they have nothing to add.
Also, why is the entertainment industry promoting such an unhealthy ideal? It’s bad enough that there are people who look at Kate Moss and think “normal” and look at me and think “fat”, but are they completely unconcerned about the effect this has on their audience? Does it not matter to them that they are forcing such an unhealthy lifestyle down people’s throats?
There’s nothing wrong with women having a little meat on their bones, and they shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed of it by a cutthroat entertainment industry, insecure, immature, asshole libtard bloggers, or anyone else. What puts these two in a position to criticize mine or anyone else’s weight, or their perception thereof? These are small, unintelligent people indeed. It’s one thing to disagree with me, and express a different opinion like an adult. But attacking me and/or my personal appearance is arguing like a five-year-old.
But that really sums up how liberalism works, doesn’t it?
