check it out.
http://kansasliberty.com/liberty-update-archive/2009/01jun/conservative-teacher-fired

Maher is a libertine, not a libertarian.

atheling on June 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM

yep, so is Allah though on some issues though.

Calling something “Freedom” and actual Freedom are often two very different things.

How the Uighurs got to Bermuda
Kucinich tells Ken Lewis how to run a bank
The O as the Great Leveler. So why would anybody work hard?
Anarchy in Rotterdam
Imagine if these were Repubs. Also, the Walpin story at Powerline and more at Wash …

His clarion call for socialized medicine means this prick doesn’t have to pay for his staffs health care bill from his production budget and he gets to keep the change. (Did I just type the word change and it meant something?)

So no, sorry man, can’t watch it much further than that. I just ate lunch and it was making me nauseous.

* spit *

Is it too soon to have Obama Fatigue?

(My guess is if enough people pick up the tone Maher, Rosanne and Maddow have already tried to set on TV, radio and in Bill’s L.A. Times op-ed piece, you’ll be seeing a roundtable on one of the Sunday shows by next week on “Is the media not holding Obama to his promises?”, as if, with the polls showing falling support for what he’s done already, the public is clammoring for him to move even further left on foreign and domestic policies).

A day later, it seems clear that the election was fraudulent. U.S. officials have said as much off-the-record. They find it “not credible” that Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote.

So Obama has praised an election that appears to have been a travesty.

Why wouldn’t he praise it? He knows all about it, having already benefited from one of those here in America. All that was missing in Iran was ACORN and a few black panthers threatening “whitey”.

Why don’t you take your assclown class act to Venezuela then, where you can bask in the glory of socialism at it’s absolute zenith.

And that is not being stated in a kind way.

On Friday, President Obama had this to say about the election in Iran:

We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways.

This was an extremely foolish comment for at least two reasons. First, the debate in Iran was circumscribed. The candidates were screened by the mullahs. Four were permitted to run; hundreds were deemed insufficiently in tune with the “Revolution.” And there appars to have little or no debate on the issue of primary concern to the U.S. — Iran’s nuclear program. Ahmadinejad’s main rival, Mir-Hossein Moussavi, was in full agreement with the regime on this matter.

Second, there was always a strong possibility of election fraud. Robust debate, even had it existed, would be meaningless in the face of a fraudulent election. Thus, Obama should not have lauded the election, much less characterized it as advancing our ability to engage Iran in new ways, until he was satisfied that the election was honest. A fraudulent election in which the existing, intransigent regime claims a landslide victory will not advance our ability to engage in Iran in new ways.

A day later, it seems clear that the election was fraudulent. U.S. officials have said as much off-the-record. They find it “not credible” that Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote.

So Obama has praised an election that appears to have been a travesty. It’s difficult to see how either Iran’s rulers or its dissidents can view him as other than a fool — usefully so in the case of the rulers; criminally so in the case of the dissidents.

A dangerously naive empty suit indeed…

What makes you think he will ever get OFF the “campaign trail”? It’s all this empty suit knows.

Former White House adviser Karl Rove went on the attack against New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, calling her a “nasty, snarky person.”

“I think Maureen Dowd is a bitter, twisted, deranged columnist for the New York Times who misses no opportunity to show her disdain for the conservative side of the aisle,” Rove said on Fox News Channel on Wednesday.

“This is a dour, downbeat liberal.”

Rove’s remarks came in response to a column Dowd wrote about President Barack Obama’s leisure activities since entering the White House, including his recent trip to New York with his wife Michelle.

“Some respite from the pressure is clearly a healthy thing,” Dowd wrote.

“Not as much respite as [President George W. Bush] took, bicycling and vacationing through all the disasters that President Obama is now stuck fixing — spending a total of 490 days in the tumbleweed isolation of Crawford and rarely deigning to sightsee as he traveled the world.”

Rove called the shot at Bush “typical of Maureen Dowd’s twisted, bitter little heart. I admire her writing, but she is a very nasty, snarky person.”