Bring Em On

Faux News recently gave the President some flak for saying "we can absorb another terrorist attack" claiming that he was inviting more terrorist attacks, that he wanted us to be attacked. This, from a network that claims to be "fair and balanced."



This has got to be one of the stupidest things someone on Fox has said. I think it was pretty clear what Obama was saying and that his comment was in no way an invitation for another terror attack. What he said was, in a nutshell, if we get attacked, we will survive and recover, and we will be stronger because of it. Please tell me, how this invites an attack. If an attack makes us stronger, why would the terrorists want to attack us? If we're going to survive and recover, why would the terrorists want to attack us? All he is saying is that the US can absorb an attack and recover perfectly healthy and be stronger because of it.

Look at 9-11. For a little while, we were stronger. We were united and we rallied together in support of this country and its president after the attacks. Everyone was ready and willing to do what was necessary to destroy Al-Qaeda so such a thing could never happen to us again.

The conservative outrage over this comment makes me wonder if they're afraid that the next terror attack (god forbid there is one) could destroy us. I wonder what makes them so frightened. A terrorist attack is terrible thing, don't get me wrong, and no one wants one, but are they seriously frightened that if one happened, we wouldn't survive?

That's all Obama is saying. If an attack happens, we will survive and recover. It is a statement of our strength, not an invitation for attack.

But it was okay for George Bush to challenge the terrorists directly and say "Bring 'em on?" Not only is that an invitation, but a challenge for them to accept. It was a cowboy attitude that lead to both middle east wars and claimed the lives of millions. Bush actively invited them to attack us, Obama simply stated we were strong enough to survive and recover from one.

J Kuhl Signing Off

So I Took a Gander at Conservapedia . . .

For anyone who doesn't know, Conservatives have claimed that Wikipedia has a well known liberal bias (Conservapedia) and in response, rather than making an objective and unbiased wiki, made Conservapedia.

This leads to the creation of the most ridiculous, and biased wiki on the net.

Just look at some of this:

On Liberals: "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing" (Conservapedia)

Because we all know that biblical standards lead to logical standards right? Heck no. Biblical standards lead to idiots like Fred Phelps spreading hate, or creationists spreading lies. Biblical standards do not lead to logic, but science and logic does. And what do they always claim goes against the bible? Science, with its liberal logic and liberal facts.

On Obama: "Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro, allegedly born in Honolulu August 4, 1961 . . ."

I chuckled at the word "allegedly." Allegedly, this entry was written by a frothing Birther tea party activist.

"As President, Obama approved offshore oil drilling including the Gulf of Mexico"

Sure, before the oil spill, the Conservatives were like "DRILL DRILL DRILL" and now that its over, they act like they never supported it and that Obama was an evil guy who hates the environment and allowed the BP spill to happen.

Whaaaat? O.o

"Obama depends completely on reading from teleprompters when he talks, even in an elementary school"

As did most other presidents, including the Most Holy Republican Messiah, Ronald Reagan.





Woops, the one below is George H. Bush, but that's alright.



And I'll throw in George Bush for giggles:



"However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an evolutionist. Barack Obama told the York Daily Record that "I believe in evolution..."."

I freaking hope so

On Evolution:"The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution."

What? Oh you mean all those transitional fossils we have? These facts must have a liberal bias.

"There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”"

As opposed to the Creationist lies that are used to try to wedge intelligent design into a biology class?

And one more thing about Evolution. On their page on Barack Obama, I guess they think he's a social darwinist since they have a little paragraph on that. And next to that paragraph, a picture of Charles Darwin, who never ever argued for social darwinism . . .

I don't want to turn this post into another Evolution vs Deluded Fantasyland Beliefs Creationism post however, so I'll move on.

I just don't get why, if Wikipedia has such a liberal bias, they make a wiki with such a conservative bias? How about making a wiki with no bias?

What a bunch of garbage anyways

J Kuhl Signing Off