Sen. Harkin: a history of military service can be "dangerous"

Everyone knows about John McCain's brave and honorable military service in Vietnam. A lot of people know that he comes from a long line of military officers.

According to Senator Harkin, (D-IA), this is a bad thing. Not just bad, but potentially dangerous:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, “and he has a hard time thinking beyond that,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

“I think he’s trapped in that,” Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. “Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

Harkin said that “it’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up.”

A McCain spokesman said Harkin’s remarks were offensive and showed that Democrats are out of touch with Americans’ values.

“Senator Harkin’s comments are an affront to the many thousands of Iowans who have served our country so valiantly for generations,” said spokesman Jeff Sadosky. “This sort of attack shows just how out of touch Democratic leadership has become with the values that have made our country so great.”

So serving in the military at all is bad as is, but you get a pass if you've been drafted. Only an uneducated idiot or a cruel, violent warmonger would volunteer to serve in the military, right?

And gosh, what a horrible way to be raised, in a military family! Imagine -- being raised with values like courage, integrity, honor, valor, selflessness, and sacrifice. How awful!

Of course, Senator Harkin is a liberal, so he probably doesn't understand those kinds of things.

Personally, having a Marine for a father and two grandfathers who served in the Navy (one as a career), I think growing up in a military family is pretty great. The military can instill values that you won't find anywhere else. You learn things and form bonds from military service that you won't find in anything else you will do. I can't convey the respect and admiration I have for those that serve enough. It's just unfortunate that libtards like Harkin can't understand it.

I'll let Ed have the last word:

This comes, of course, from the same party whose Senate Intelligence chair suggested that military pilots have little human feeling. It precedes an effort by the New York Times tomorrow, along with some of McCain’s oh-so-courageous unnamed Senate colleagues, to suggest that McCain didn’t really experience Vietnam because his five-plus years as a POW kept him from learning all of the lessons John Kerry experienced in his three months in a Swift Boat. This also comes from the same party that celebrated Kerry’s military experience while denigrating George Bush’s National Guard service. According to Harkin today, Bush would be a better candidate — right?

If the Democrats want to party like it’s 1968, that’s their choice. The rest of America grew up. People stopped drinking the New Left Kool-aid a long time ago and quit treating veterans like baby-killers and Dr. Strangelove. Tom Harkin, Jay Rockefeller, the New York Times, and a good portion of the Left apparently never stopped.

Seattle Times: Hitler's demands were not unreasonable

Un-freakin'-believable. There are no words for the sheer lunacy of what you are about to read.

Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state. His claim was that the German-speaking areas of Europe--and ones that thought of themselves as German --be under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. We have learned the hazards of it. But 1938 was only 19 years since Germany's borders had been redrawn, and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following the historical lesson they had learned 1914-1918: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.

Yeah... it wasn't unreasonable to turn over first all of the German-speaking states to Hitler. Or all of Europe. Or eventually the world. And it wasn't unreasonable to let Hitler exterminate millions of people, mostly Jews, because he thought they were inferior and unclean.

That's certainly no reason to start a war, right? I mean, Germany got screwed, so Europe deserved what that got and should've given in to Hitler's reasonable requests, and let him go on murdering millions. That would've been the reasonable course of action, I guess, since all of this was our fault, thanks to WWI, according to this douchebag. And this was to defend Barack Obama!

Idiot.

Hat Tip: Ace

Barack Obama, fairy tale king!

How do you know the left has gone too far with with their idolatry of the Obamamessiah?

When this picture accompanies an endorsement of him for President.


Rising from the sea like a mythical merman, with his loyal white steed behind him, the Left presents Barack Obama, fairy tale king!!

Christ Almighty. Do lefties really not see how ridiculous they have become with the Obama-mania? Seriously.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades

Arianna Huffington: Iraq is McCain's viagra

Un-freakin-believable.

Here's the Head Huffpo herself being a REAL class act on the Colbert Report:

I don't know where she gets that McCain is some ulta-right wing conservative now all of a sudden, because honey, he's not. It's interesting, though, that Arianna Huffington, of all people, would criticize someone for switching sides. Isn't she, like, the queen of that?

And apparently, McCain is no longer an American hero, simply because he's adopted a few more conservative values in her book.

Attention soldiers, veterans, and former POWs: you're only considered an American hero if your politics are strictly aligned with the left. Otherwise, your heroic service means nil.

What a freakin' fruitcake.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Why don't you lose some weight, fatty?

So I was told by a couple of liberal tolls, indignant over my re-posting of Mary Katharine Ham's debunking of the media manipulation of Obama's newest rally.

Hmm... well, what my weight has to do with media manipulation of the attendance at Obama's rally in North Carolina is beyond me. But that's how liberalism works, right? You have no facts and no valid argument to make, so just make childish personal attacks and smears!

Here are the comments, straight from the trolls themselves:

Akeitay:
Wow, talk about a bitter far-right blogger.

...

Get over it, fatty.

Akeitay:
God, you're a whale. ROFL. Hate to break it to you, hunny, but liberals don't WANT to date you. You look like a red-faced, freckled elephant, and that isn't particularly attractive.

I guess us crazy liberals put more emphasis on excercise than conservatives. LOL.

Grebrook:
Dude, she's fat. LOL. And she goes and gives this pathetically condescending interview about how she doesn't date liberal men, as if liberal men really care? It's kind of like a black guy telling the KKK "nah, you're not good enough for me to be a member". They're not exactly inviting him in.

Cassy, you're fat, seriously. Until you lose weight, I think it's safe to say that you don't have much room to talk about "liberal idiots" if you're not intelligent enough to stay healthy.

Grebrook:
Rofl, do you actually read this blog? This girl is a walking cliche. A fat, white angry Republican ...

Fat? A whale? Come on guys, couldn't you come up with anything better than that? I mean, really. That's like, the most boring, unoriginal insult in the book. Try a little harder next time. Please.

The funny thing is... I'm not fat. Unless, of course, something like this is your standard for "healthy" and "attractive":


Um, yeah. Compared to that, I guess I am a whale. Heaven forbid I eat three meals a day, get moderate exercize, and wear a size 8. And I can't help the fact that God gave me really, really big breasts. They started growing when I hit puberty and kind of never stopped -- and they don't get smaller, no matter how much I work out (believe me, I've tried). So, it's a little bit beyond my control.

But hey, let's compare fat l'il me to the "healthy" model above. Here's the most recent picture of me I have, taken this Sunday at a minor league baseball game.

Now, which one of those two pictures do you think depicts a healthy woman? I would venture a guess that it's me. The funny thing is that I used to be much, much more athletic than I am now. At my peak as a rower, I was in better shape than some football players were. My crew team had practices six days a week, three hours a day. We rowed, we ran, we did calisthenics, we lifted weights -- and, may I point out, the exact same weight circuit the guys were expected to do. Every girl on that crew, me included, had six packs, strong shoulders and backs, and rock-solid legs. And honestly, while being in such good physical shape was nice, I prefer my body now. I like being curvy. I like having a softer, more feminine body. I didn't think it was particularly appealing to have a body that was hard with all sharp edges. I like having a curvy figure that yes, is maybe less athletic than it used to be, but is much more feminine -- and not really unhealthy at all. So I'm not a size two. So a few stupid libtards think I'm a whale. Who gives a shit? They're probably pimply-faced, overweight nerds hacking away at a computer insulting bloggers because they have nothing better to do in their sad, miserable lives.

I really considered not writing this post. But I figured, what the hell. The thing is, there are plenty of these little asshole men running around criticizing women left and right over their weight. Celebrities get called fat for even the smallest amount of cellulite or the slightest weight gain -- usually by men. Men's magazines regularly prominently feature very skinny women in very skimpy clothing, usually complete with protruding rib cages and fake breasts. Women's magazines seem to use the same models. Magazines like Cosmo and Glamour constantly decry the media's use of too-thin models, but continually feature them in their fashion spreads and stories.

Yet somehow, men never get quite as criticized for their weight. Overweight or obese celebrities are never told by celebrity gossip pundits how fat they are or how disgusting they find them. That kind of vitriol seems to be reserved for women only -- why is that??

The worrisome part is that this kind of extreme criticism of women for their weight, and the high standards being put forth in our society, is having a very unhealthy effect on women today. Anorexia is on the rise for women of varying ages -- and women are 3 times more likely to get the disease than men are. In the year 2000, the number of women with eating disorders had doubled in less than three decades. Women struggle with negative body image every day -- barbs like the ones thrown at me usually leave deep wounds -- and what is it that these assholes think they are accomplishing? Does it make them feel big to put women down, to try to make them ashamed of their bodies? Why do so many [liberal] men seem to feel the need to make such personal attacks on women, and especially attacks concerning appearance? Michelle Malkin could probably write a damn dissertation on this subject.

Of course, as I said earlier, this is common practice. Whenever a libtard like these two can't come up with an intelligent response, they resort to personal attacks because they know they have nothing to add.

Also, why is the entertainment industry promoting such an unhealthy ideal? It's bad enough that there are people who look at Kate Moss and think "normal" and look at me and think "fat", but are they completely unconcerned about the effect this has on their audience? Does it not matter to them that they are forcing such an unhealthy lifestyle down people's throats?

There's nothing wrong with women having a little meat on their bones, and they shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of it by a cutthroat entertainment industry, insecure, immature, asshole libtard bloggers, or anyone else. What puts these two in a position to criticize mine or anyone else's weight, or their perception thereof? These are small, unintelligent people indeed. It's one thing to disagree with me, and express a different opinion like an adult. But attacking me and/or my personal appearance is arguing like a five-year-old.

But that really sums up how liberalism works, doesn't it?