It seems the boys at VoteVets have their panties in a wad because Fox rejected their latest ad as “confusing” advocating the Clean Energy Act. Here’s their ad;
There’s nothing confusing about the link between oil and terrorist funding, and even the most dyed-in-the-wool neocons agree on that point. The only confusing thing here is why FOX News would reject an ad that calls on Congress to defund our enemies by finding new sources of energy.
Maybe Fox thinks the ad is confusing because there’s absolutely nothing in the bill that would support VoteVets making the claim that it would cut our energy dependence in half. The whole ad is a giant load of crap. What magical energy source is so available that we could even cut our dependence to 99%?
The only thing that would cut our energy dependence in the next decade is to draw from our own resources and VoteVets, MoveOn and anyone else who thinks otherwise is only hoping the Clean Energy Bill will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by raising the price of energy beyond the reach of average Americans. In other words, they want to grind America to a halt.
As usual, dicksmith misses the entire point that the Taliban accepted responsibility for the failed Times Square bombing in an attempt to credit the Obama Administration for declawing the Taliban. He writes;
My question is, how diminished must the capacity of the Taliban be that they feel a failed plot that could be arranged by anyone with $100 and access to a convenience store deserves their brand?
Diminished? Really? A band of former goat ropers who have only been able to influence the portion of the world that they can see from their manger sleeping accomodations for the first time in their history reach halfway around the globe to the world’s financial center and throw that city into chaos for two days? And that’s a diminished capacity?
Yeah, luckily the bomb failed, but the NYPD admits that the device was seconds from detonation. The Taliban’s victories lies in the fact that they actually planted a bomb in the most secure city in the world.
Dicksmith should stick to subjects like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – subjects for which he has some measure of experience and credibility.
In Washington Irving’s book “The Life of George Washington”, the president was quoted as saying “When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.”
The Washington Times reports this morning that, in the spirit of that quote, more veterans are choosing to run for political office this season than they have in the past. The Times highlights the campaign of Bill Russell’s run at the seat vacated by the late John Murtha’s ample ass;
Mr. Russell’s battle with the party establishment is one that many veterans face when looking to make the jump into politics, said D. Patrick Mahoney, an Iraq veteran and president of the Veterans for Congress political action committee.
Mr. Mahoney has been sharply critical of the Pennsylvania Republican leadership’s decision to pass over Mr. Russell, saying the move had less to do with qualifications than with the Republican establishment’s obsession with Mr. Burns’ wealth.
“That’s why you don’t see more veterans running for Congress. It’s so expensive,” he said. “It’s tough for veterans who have been fighting a war, stationed around the world. Veterans who come back and want to seek office — especially the recent vets — generally are not going to be the rich guys.”
Some organizations have tried to overcome that cash shortfall. VoteVets, for an example, has run such stellar candidates as party perv, Eric Massa and the unbalanced Joe Sestak. Of course, with VoteVets, they require their candidates to adhere to the agenda of MoveOn.org and embrace issues that have nothing to do with veterans.
Our buddy, Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets For Freedom, tells the Times why so many veterans are stepping up;
Mr. Hegseth said veterans are getting into the 2010 races for many of the same reasons as other reform-minded candidates.
“Veterans are driven by the same frustrations that the public has with what is happening in Washington … the fiscal irresponsibility and the financial crisis that our country is facing,” the 29-year-old Iraq veteran told The Washington Times.
I’ve been asked why so many in the military are conservative, and it’s really quite simple; No one knows how incompetent the government is than the military – we’ve seen how absolutely worthless politicians and bureaucrats are at completing simple tasks. Veterans have a history of being competent despite the government that works against them at every turn. If you want your government reformed, veterans are the folks who can do it.
A diarist at VetVoices who calls himself HalDonahue is on a tear about Walter Reed’s upcoming move to two new facilities at Bethesda, MD and Fort Belvoir, VA. HalDonahue claims that the move denies world class care to the troops at a crucial timein the war against terror;
The Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) is now causing DoD planners to deprive wounded military personal and indeed the entire military family of the very best medical care. The above quote confirms that the Department of Defense (DoD) directed that wounded soldiers be routed away from Walter Reed, the only world-class institution of its kind in the world. By DoD admission, the the New Walter Reed National Military Medical Center will not be world class.
I happen to agree with Ol’ Hal that this is a mistimed move. But unlike Hal, I remember that the Army tried to speed up construction at Bethesda over two years ago and the Democrat Congress, namely Chris VanHollen, Maryland Democrat Congressman, blocked them over concerns that the SUV-driving yuppies on Wisconsin Avenue would find the traffic disconcerting. I wrote about it then.
HalDonahue asks “Where are the Veterans Service Organizations?” Where was VoteVets when VanHollen was more worried about his rich yuppie constituents’ drive time than the troops? Where was HalDonahue? And what the F are they doing about it now, besides paying lip service?
Dicksmith is such a ritard. Yesterday he starts out a blog post on VetsVoice making up some shit about Fox News and liberal stereotypes, virtually admitting that he’s never watched a minute of that channel;
There are many stereotypes that exist for progressives. Just watch Fox News for ten minutes and you’ll hear a couple of them. We’re all athiest[sic], latte drinking, Prius driving, tree huggers who want to take away everyone’s guns. As if progressivism is some monolithic institution that requires a purity test for membership. Of course, this these stereotypes are ridiculous.
Aside from the fact that Liberals are really “all atheist, latte drinking, Prius driving, tree huggers who want to take away everyone’s guns”, I think it’s funny that he used his own stereotype of Fox News Channel to make a very blunt point. And he doesn’t stop there. He goes on to tell us he’s a gun owner and he got excited about a rally in a Virginia park wherein rally participants would be carrying guns yesterday. He was excited until he happened to check on the date (April 19th);
April 19 is the anniversary of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 and the government’s final confrontation in 1993 with the Branch Davidian cult members in Waco, Tex.
Although rally organizers claim the date of their rally is to commemorate Lexington and Concord, which happened a few centuries before Oklahoma and Waco, dicksmith would rather go with his first instinct – which is right wing hooligans with guns outside the Capitol threatening the perfect freedom that Obama has brought us.
Honestly, after the first paragraph of this article, the event appears to be nothing but a thinly veiled threat of armed insurrection, not a rally for Second Amendment rights.
Yeah, how’d that threat of insurrection work out yesterday, gumball?
Not to mention, what does open carry have to do with health care, climate change and bank bailouts?
What do clean energy campaigns and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell rants have to do with Veterans? It’s as if dicksmith is impervious to irony.
A reader who expresses his gratitude for our tenacious criticism of that MoveOn shill VoteVets writes to ask us why an expired campaign is considered a “Hot Topic” at Vote Vets. The front page of the Vote Vets website has a “Hot Topics” category, the first two are related to that intellectually vacuous ad VoteVets threw money at about “Clean Energy” will end all wars. The third is related to a “Vote Vets candidate” who was killed in Afghanistan by the name of Bill Cahir. It seems the only “hot topics” are those not related to veterans. Here’s a screen shot of the Bill Cahir donation page.
Our reader writes;
Bill Cahir (a Sgt. in the USMCR) was killed in Afghanistan in August of last year and sounds like he was a true warrior. The sad part is, when one clicks to support a blank page come up that says “Campaign Expired”. Their website has done this since late November.
I guess now that Cahir is dead, he’s not of much use to the Vote Vets folks.
Rachel Maddow has succeeded in re-animating the rotting corpse of Timothy McVeigh and she’ll present an hour-long special of interviews from 45 hours of jail house interviews. To what purpose?
Rachel Maddow, who has been having 1990s flashbacks with the anti-government vitriol that most recently accompanied the health-care reform debate.
“Nine years after his execution, we are left worrying that Timothy McVeigh’s voice from the grave echoes in the new rising tide of American anti-government extremism,” Maddow says at the outset of her MSNBC special Monday night called “The McVeigh Tapes: Confessions of an American Terrorist.”
She’s talking, of course, about the latest news about militias, weapons stockpiling, “tea party” anger and the perception of rising unrest in those who seek to reclaim an America supposedly lost to federal control: “On this date, which holds great meaning for the anti-government movement,” Maddow says, “the McVeigh tapes are a can’t-turn-away, riveting reminder.”
Yes, it’s to scare the straights into thinking that millions of self-identified Tea Party activists are on a hair-trigger. That any moment, one of us could go off the deep end and bomb some building with a fertilizer bomb. How easy is it to create another McVeigh? Simple;
“The McVeigh Tapes” is especially interested in McVeigh’s victimization by bullies in school; his love of firearms (without calling him a gun nut); and his disillusionment with the government after his Army service in the Persian Gulf War. Things really fell apart on April 19, 1993, when McVeigh watched on television as the David Koresh compound in Waco, Tex., burned to the ground after a long standoff with feds. “I’m watching flames lick out windows, and I’m watching tanks ram walls. My eyes just welled up in tears,” McVeigh said.
Actually, McVeigh, a Bradley gunner in the Persian Gulf War, saw Bradley Fighting Vehicles ramming walls – not tanks. Funny how he’d forget that small point, isn’t it? Unless of course, he never saw the videos and he was just making excuses for his sociopathic behavior, garnering sympathy from the interviewer.
Funny, how in the decade since MSNBC made these tapes that they’d wait until now to broadcast them, isn’t it? Luckily, even on a good night, the only people watching Maddow are her immediate family. And Jon Soltz.
OK, let’s start with their new video, much like their video before that, and the video before that…
OK, IED’s are bad, Check.
Purple Hearts, bad, Check.
EFP’s, REAL BAD, Check.
Made in Iran, Check.
Oil goes up $1, Iran gets $1.5 Billion. I don’t know, but am willing to accept as fact, so Check.
Oil and Enemy, Check.
Break that connection by breaking addiction (to FOREIGN oil) Check.
Answer: Clean energy bill. (WHAT????) Will cut our dependence in half. (Where you getting that?)
You know what would cut our dependence all the way down? Using Chariots.
JON SOLTZ, VOTEVETS.ORG: Absolutely, it‘s accurate, Ed. We wouldn‘t put anything out that isn‘t. The United States is the largest oil consumption country in the world. We buy oil through—basically what happens when we buy the oil is it‘s driving the price up. If we cut our production in oil, which the House legislation did, then we lower the price of oil across the board. And then that hurts countries like Iran.
Try to noodle that one through. If we drop supply, the cost will go down. Someone show me that on a supply and demand curve. Go ahead Macro-economists, show me the logic of that statement. If we dump our supply, how the F does the amount of gross funds spent on international oil go down? This can’t possibly be accurate. The only way to lower the cost (and gross proceeds) would be to either a) lower DEMAND, or b) use our own oil to offset the loss of oil imported.
If your family eats 15 bushels of apples every year, and you have 5 trees, how the Fug does chopping down your trees help lower the cost of apples?
Every day VoteVets puts up another poll about Gays in the Military. To them on this issue, the proof is in the polls. OK, fine, reconcile your position with this poll:
Voters support offshore oil drilling more than ever, and most don’t agree with President Obama’s decision to limit where that drilling can be done.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 72% of U.S. voters believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed. Just 12% disagree and oppose such drilling, with another 16% who aren’t sure. This is the highest level of support for drilling found in nearly three years of surveying.
Wind power, solar power, electricity….all good ideas, but none of them is a panacea. And this bill you are pushing will only result in increased costs for oil, which will drive up the cost of every single commodity in the country. And the disparity between the wealthy and the poor will grow. But of course, that is what nanny state supporters VoteVets want, on behalf of their overlords. Mind you, none of this shit helps John Q. Public. Your Ikea furniture, your snuggies, your shake weights, they don’t magically appear on the shelves. And few people ride a big wheel to the store. All those costs go up Jon. And you know who takes it in the shorts for that? Everyone. From the part time employees who will no longer be needed, to the producers of those products on down.
The answer is simple, look at the supply and demand curves, and the sources of the supply. If you want to lower the amount of funds exported to foreign nations, you need to raise the supply produced domestically.
Power plants make electricity out of other forms of energy. Most electricity in the U.S. today comes from converting the heat energy released from burning fossil fuels–coal, natural gas and oil.
So, let’s engage in some VoteVetsian Logic. VoteVets supports Electricity, Electricity is made from Coal, some veterans are miners, Miners die in Coal Mine cave-ins and explosions, VoteVets supports killing Veterans.
Classless and baseless allegation? Your damn right it is, just like every other posting of yours about how the right wants to kill people.
UPDATE: BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Right after I posted this, VoteVets dicksmith put up a poll that they did with lefty pollster Celinda Lake. I hurt my back pretty bad this weekend, so am going home to rest, but I will entirely fisk this piece of shit poll in the near future. If you get a chance, go read the sample and look at the poll questions. It is essentially a push poll, even leading the answers with statements in the question like: Now let me read you some things that some people believe will happen if comprehensive clean energy and climate reform is passed.
Absolutely ridiculous. And check this out:
Telephone numbers for the sample were generated randomly from a military sample and a radius sample drawn from military bases in the United States.
Pray tell how that “military sample” was generated….wasn’t from VoteVets members by any chance was it?
