Sunday, June 11, 2006

Hughes for America a progressive site with no logic.

Hughes for America, a website that appears to be as far left as you can go without falling off the plane into the abyss of Anarchy, has popped up on my Radar. By claiming that Republicans and Conservatives only argue in the gutter, he avoids the necessity to argue beyond the normal and usual denunciation of Conservatives as stupid, mean, homophobic, and of course racist.

In each of his missives, Hughes launches into diatribes of brilliance which of course, prove the very case that Ann Coulter is making, that the Democrats use spokesperson with "unassailable" qualifications. For example, in the case of the death of Terrorist Leader Al Zaqwari, an event that led to dancing in the streets in Iraq, where many of his victims once lived, and died under his hand and orders, Mr. Hughes proves the point of Coulter brilliantly.
Michael Berg on al-Zarqawi's death
Notice how Michael Berg, whose son was personally beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, deftly
discusses today's news and shames not only Soledad O'Brien, but also the president:

By pointing out the personal loss of Mr. Berg, he places Michael on a platform in which only the most heartless and cruel people would dare to disagree with his obviously enlightened opinion. The left constantly does that, refuse to acknowledge reality instead pointing to the spokesperson and demand you adhere to that persons ideals because the spokesperson is the only one who really knows and anyone who disagrees is dirt or scum.

Hughes is off the ranch, the reservation, and the planet on so many topics it would take months to list them all. He lionizes each of the people mentioned in Godless as perfect examples of this trend, previously mentioned in my post reminding everyone of the situation with Max Cleland former Senator from Georgia. The left loves Cindy Sheehan, and in an absolute proof of what Coulter says the left is doing, puts out a how dare they rant on people who disagree with dear Mother Sheehan. Of course, the fact that the people who disagree with Mother Sheehan include the Sheehan family.

As you know, Cindy Sheehan whose son Casey died in Iraq � is gathering peacefully near President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch. She's been there for a few days and wants simply to meet with the president to tell him to stop using people like her son as fodder and to ask him why her son died in Iraq � and for what noble cause.

You know Hughes, if you are going to denounce the message of Ann Coulter, you really shouldn't demonstrate her point.

I will give Hughes credit for being half right on immigration, enforcement on the employer of the illegals is also important, but not as a substitute to securing the boarders. If Hughes for America wanted to meet me halfway, I would agree to seriously stiff penalties (I already suggested $100,000 per day per illegalial employee in letters to both Senators and my Representative) for employers if he would agree to walls, fences, and stricter enforcement of immigration related crimes.

It would almost be Bi-Partisan, he would agree with me, and that is my definition of bi-partisan.

Since we know Hughes would never agree to stricter enforcement on Illegalals, after all someone on his side might think him a racist elitist, I am going to assume that compromiseise is impossible.

UPDATE: Joseph commented on Hughes in the following manner:
It would help if while you are denouncing Ann's assertions, if you didn't prove her point with many of your posts.
Posted by:
Max Conservative 06/11/2006 at 03:33 PM
Oh, please, from the guy whose blog includes such gems as:
"Hot Air and Byron York are busy this weekend doing what I wouldn't have the stomach for, enduring the close (and normally pungent) interaction of liberal left wing loonies at Yearly Kos.
According to reports, the hygene and dress are up to normal Western Standards, and instruction seems centered on how to appear normal"

And her point is what? That those with a stake in things shouldn't be able to comment? You've got NOTHING, my friend. All your side does is fume that you can't attack them personally WHILE you're attacking them personally. You're forgetting that you can disagree with someone without calling them "harpies" or "whores".
Have I let myself fall prey to name calling and insults? Sure, who among us hasn't? But am I Ann Coulter? Am I given as much prominence as she is? This is where your logic fails.
I find it quite telling that the right can't stomach what some are saying and feel it personally necessary to whine to whomever would listen about how you can't criticise them? No one has ever said you couldn't criticise them. But there's a difference between honest criticism and sniping at someone from the gutter. That's what you've been doing. Criticize them on the merits of their argument and you won't see any outrage. Disagreement, sure, but disagreement is American.

I do love it when the Liberals demonstrate something again and again. As you have no doubt noticed, above I offered to agree with the obviously Liberal site Hughes for America in regards to Immigration and employment enforcement, if he would agree with me on Walls and Fences. Absolutely ignoring all the points made above, Joseph jumped down five posts, and used my comments on the reported dress and behavior of the Liberals at YearlyKos as proof of my hatred. I added a link to his comments to the proper post for those who might be interested.

I guess I can declare victory over this site anyway.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Hit Counter