(no subject)

[coldblossom.livejournal.com]

 Who knew Liberals were so dedicated to peaceful resolutions? I mean, with all of this talk about reliving the 1968 Democratic National Convention (http://recreate68.org/), their dedication is absolutely inspiring. 

Sarcasm aside, it always slays me when I see Liberals screaming "MAKE LOVE NOT WAR!" and having sit-ins and drum-circles and orgies in the name of peace. Then, when people ignore them, they throw rocks, Molotov Cocktails, set stuff on fire, and people get hurt.

Now they want Obamessiah. If Hillary gets her way and Florida and Michigan are seated, they're going to riot. Now, I feel they'd be justified in their anger, but in their actions? Heck no. I can't believe they're even considering this, and the most frightening thing is how easy it will be. They're young. They have cellphones, free time, and disposable income. This could be very ugly and I hope it won't happen. On the flip side, if it does happen, it would guarantee McCain in the White House. 

In other related news, I just heard a blurb from Florida indicating that if they have a "do-over," the DNC must pay for it or neither party will be on the ballot in November. Maybe I misheard, or maybe the announcer misspoke, but neither party? What does the GOP have to do with this? This is entirely self-inflicted by the Democrats. so why threaten to penalize the Republican voters whose representatives are obviously sane enough to realize back when that something like this is absolutely f*cktarded and will only end in tears? Someone please tell me I heard incorrectly!

(no subject)

[coldblossom.livejournal.com]

This just shows how activist some of these liberal judges are: because a judge doesn't agree with the Iraq war, she is denying a foster child permission to elist in the Marines at age 17. Of course, its not stopping him as he plans to enlist in June when he turns 18, but its total horse-puckey. Not supporting the Iraq war is a personal opinion, a bias which should not be influencing the judge's decisions from the bench.  What if, say, a terrorist were tried in her court room? It could happen, if Pelosi & Co get their way (terrorist being tried in civilian courts, that is). If that happened, would she let her anti-war bias determine her judgement? Would she let the terrorist off the hook, or give him the lightest sentence possible because she agrees with Cindy Sheehan that the terrorists are "freedom fighters?" 

Because she personally doesn't support the war, she therefore will deny this person his right to serve because she "doesn't want him to fight in it." 

Story: 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336008,00.html 

(no subject)

[coldblossom.livejournal.com]

Last one, I swear. I thought this was interesting, as this is something the MSM will not report on at all, because a terrorist attack that didn't happen isn't newsworthy. 

( List of known thwarted terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001. )

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html 

Note the number of Americans whose names appear on this list. Very troubling.