A Moonbat in my Belfry - YAAAYY!!  

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Ever since I put Haloscan on here, the trolls have been minimized, but the moonbats have gone away, too. Or so it seemed. As the Supreme President of the RWRepublic, I have always enjoyed a good Cluebatting of these morons when they have come around.

I'm quite sure the Honorable Soldiers of the RWRmy and our friends will welcome this opportunity to break out the ClueBat that's been sitting in the closet since Bobby Lindsey took leave a few months ago. Perhaps a few new inductions are in order.

Anyway, my recent post, Weird Howard's At It Again, drew a hate-filled comment from what seems to be the next incarnation of either Adolf Hitler or Friedrich Engels, or perhaps yet of Shrillary Clinton. Notice all the "unbiased" links he provides. Sheesh! I haven't fired off a good Fisk in a good while!

That there is a huge percentage of nominations that have been confirmed without intereference from the Donks.

That statement is...um...true. The American Association of University Women points out that 95% of Dubya's judicial appointments have been confirmed, and the judicial vacancy rate is at the lowest it has been in 14 years.


Ok, I read that site. It's an advertisement for a socialist organization trying to promote judicial activism. In case you haven't bothered to read the constitution, judicial activism is ILLEGAL. Here is the first sentence of that article:

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) believes that in the United States, people deserve federal judges who are committed to upholding the hard-fought constitutional rights secured through U.S. Supreme Court precedents such as Roe v. Wade and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education.

If that's not a page with a clear Left-wing bias, I don't know what is. Since when are constitutional rights secured through Supreme Court precedents? If you want to compare apples and oranges, go right ahead. The key appointments in question are CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES. Here's a Right-wing page on the same subject. I'll paste you the actual confirmation rates back to Truman:

President - Confirmation Percentage
Truman - 81.8%
Eisenhower - 90.2%
Kennedy/Johnson - 89.7%
Nixon/Ford - 89.1%
Carter - 91.8%
Reagan - 81.3%
G.H.W. Bush - 77.8%
Clinton - 61.3%
G.W. Bush - 53.0%

Those are only the overall numbers. Any way you slice the cake, Bush comes in around 50%. Of course, if you go through the comments you find other data that places things on a much lower plane.

That he actually believes that it's better when political parties share power, and that it's better when people whose candidates did not win get to have a say.

I believe that too. So did the founding fathers. So does anyone else who supports democracy.

A say, Don. A say. Not turn the whole show over to them and let them run things like Mr. Dean would have. The trouble with Dean's comment is that he does NOT believe that it's better when political parties share power. It's pretty obvious, at least to me, that this guy wants his party in control so that his party can do whatever with no interference from the opposition. This is precisely what the Donks did until 1994, when the Republicans won the House. All we've heard from them since is a bunch of whining and bitching with no viable, nonsocialist alternatives provided. And they've gotten louder and louder until now all we hear is Weird Howard going AAAAAAARRRRRGGHHHH!

Oh, and the Founding Fathers, having known the evils of socialism, would have never approved of the socialist policies and programs that have been such a blight on our country for the last century. Sorry, that's just how it is.

That the President actually blocks people who disagree with him from attending his town meetings.

That's another statement that is 100% true:


Nice try, Don. You even presented two articles with conflicting accounts of the story. Of course, the Secret Service, like the Central Intelligence Agency, operates as a SECRET organization, and the accounts you provide are signature Secret Service. Republican staffer? NOT! The President was likely nowhere in the chain of command on these incidents. He doesn't have any say in what the Secret Service does to keep would-be assassins away. Zip. Zero. Nada. These "victims" were likely much more dangerous than these articles made them out to be, and since the sources aren't exactly biasless, I'd take anything they had to say with a grain of salt, especially in a situation where the Secret Service was involved.

Accuses the Administration of paying journalists to write positive articles about unpopular policies and allowing lobbyists to sell access, with no facts to back up his dribble.

Once again, you point out two of Dr. Dean's statements that are verifably true:


As if Ol' Howie never got involved in this sort of thing. Fact is, it's routine in Washington and in politics in general. Not to say it's right, but if Dean is going to throw shit into the system and accuse the President of wrongdoing when it comes to this, he had better take a long look into the mirror.

So here's my question to you---Are you lying on purpose, or are you lying because you're too dumb to know any better?

Don Myers 05.31.05 - 2:19 pm

Lying? HA! I point out no less than twenty-six loony things this guy says, and all you can do is come after three of them, with a flimsy case. And then not even the things that really had to do with SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES, such as the guy asserting that privatization of the American retirement system, one of the best ideas to come down the line in a long time (even your buddy Clinton suggested it might be a good idea), was somehow a bad thing. Why in the world would anyone complain about Americans taking control of their own destiny, independent of the nanny state? Try making a case as to how THAT would be a bad thing ...

I'll let the RWRmy have atcha at this point. Hopefully my Fisk job hasn't taken the fire out of the Immortal ClueBat.