how come you posted a picture of Al Sharpton next to a white guy in a dress ?
On Jan 21, 11:21 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > *More Boos Than Balls* by Ann Coulter > Posted 01/21/2009 ET > Updated 01/21/2009 ET > > It will not be easy for President B. Hussein Obama. More than half the > country voted for him, and yet our newspapers are brimming with snippy > remarks at every little aspect of his inauguration. > > Here's a small sampling of the churlishness in just The New York *Times*: > > *-- The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza > surrounding Barack Obama's inauguration today. > > -- There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But > one felt discomfited all the same. > > -- This is an inauguration, not a coronation. > > -- Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama's jewel-toned outfit and somebody > else's glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank's mare? > > -- It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout "Whoopee!" or > "Shame!" about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.* > > Boy, talk about raining on somebody's parade! These were not, of course, > comments about the inauguration of the angel Obama; they are (slightly > edited) comments about the inauguration of another historic president, > Ronald Reagan, in January 1981. > > Obama's inaugural address tracked much of Reagan's first inaugural address > -- minus the substance -- the main difference being that Obama did not > invoke God as stoutly or frequently, restricting his heavenly references to > a few liberal focus-grouped phrases, such as "God-given" and "God's grace." > > Obama was also not as fulsome in his praise of his predecessor as Reagan > was. To appreciate how remarkable this is, recall that Reagan's predecessor > was Jimmy Carter. > > Under Carter, more than 50 Americans were held hostage by a two-bit > terrorist Iranian regime for 444 days -- released the day of Reagan's > inauguration. Under Bush, there has not been another terrorist attack since > Sept. 11, 2001. > > But I gather that if Obama had uttered anything more than the briefest > allusion to Bush, that would have provoked yet more booing from the > Hope-and-Change crowd, which moments earlier had showered Bush with boos > when he walked onto the stage. That must be the new tone we've been hearing > so much about. > > So maybe liberals can stop acting as if the entire nation could at last come > together in a "unity of purpose" if only conservatives would stop fomenting > "conflict and discord" -- as Obama suggested in his inaugural address. We're > not the ones who booed a departing president. > > It is a liberal trope to insult conservatives by asking them meaningless > questions, such as the one repeatedly asked of Bush throughout his > presidency about whether he had made any mistakes. All humans make mistakes > -- what is the point of that question other than to give insult? > > When will the first reporter ask President Obama to admit that he has made > mistakes? Try: Never. > > No, that question will disappear for the next four years. It will be > replaced by the new question for conservatives on every liberal's lips these > days: Do you want Obama to succeed as president? > > Answer: Of course we do. We live here, too. > > But merely to ask the question is to imply that the 60 million Americans who > did not vote for Obama are being unpatriotic if they do not wholeheartedly > endorse his liberal agenda. > > I guess it depends on the meaning of "succeed." If Obama "succeeds" in > pushing through big-government, terrorist-appeasing policies, he will not > have "succeeded" at being a good president. If we didn't think conservative > principles of small government and strong national defense weren't better > for the country, we wouldn't be conservatives. > > And why was that question never asked of liberals producing assassination > books and movies about President Bush for the last eight years? > > Say, did liberals want Pastor Rick Warren to succeed delivering a meaningful > invocation at the inaugural? > > The way I remember it, the Hope-and-Change crowd viciously denounced the > Christian pastor, stamped their feet and demanded that Obama withdraw the > invitation -- all because Rick Warren agrees with Obama's stated position on > gay marriage, which also happens to be the position of a vast majority of > Americans every time they have been allowed to vote on the matter. > > Liberals always have to play the victim, acting as if they merely want to > bring the nation together in hope and unity in the face of petulant, > stick-in-the-mud conservatives. Meanwhile, they are the ones booing, > heckling and publicly fantasizing about the assassination of those who > disagree with them on policy matters. > > Hope and unity, apparently, can only be achieved if conservatives would just > go away -- and perhaps have the decency to kill themselves. > > Republicans are not the ones who need to be told that "the time has come to > set aside childish things" -- as Obama said of his own assumption of the > presidency. Remember? We're the ones who managed to gaze upon Carter at the > conclusion of his abomination of a presidency without booing. > > Ann And Da Rev. Al.jpg > 47KViewDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
