We're really not Partisan, I swear.

In this previous post, I highlighted the stealth liberal agenda of the website Paperback Swap. As promised, here is a discussion concerning their response to the proposed blog entry. 

To put this into context, it must be understood that the blog entry here, Liberal Lies: Born Gay, was made in exactly that wording on the message board. 

The response of the Paperback Swap site was to ban the user who posted it, for the post because it was deemed attacking. 

You agreed not to insult others in the forums. You apparently think widening

your "insult target" to large groups is okay. That "discussion" = "rant".

Perhaps this is your way of getting someone to insult you, so you can tattle

on them?

Whatever your agenda here, we will not argue this with you. We have gotten a

tidal wave of angry feedback - HALF of it from members who are outspoken

about being political conservatives. We do not have time to deal with this

foolishness, which is unnecessary and has nothing to do with swapping books.

You are not contributing to productive discussion; you are clearly intending

just to make other people angry, and we don't have the time to waste to

indulge your project.

Your account is closed.

PaperBackSwap Librarian

Obviously, I asked the site who I attacked, and what group was attacked. I pointed out that the post was intended to question the argument from one very flawed study that the behavioral trait known as homosexuality was genetic.

There was no response, so I wrote them from the email address associated with this blog, informing them of the intended post highlighting them as a stealth liberal site. 

Their response, well it was original. 

Thanks for allowing us to comment.  This claim is nonsense: what we do not tolerate on our forums is rudeness, obscenity or inflammatory-for-the-sake-of-being-inflammatory postings.  We have many active, longstanding members who self-identify as politically conservative - we can't give actual ratios since we don't track this.  We are not the slightest bit interested in the political beliefs of our members.  All members are welcome to express themselves in our Discussion Forums as long as they are courteous and rational.  Inflammatory posts without substance, designed only to "rile up" the Forums, are considered discourteous.

We have no political agenda when administering our Forums, although members (on both right and left) who are chastised for poor Forum behavior sometimes resort to that accusation.  What the members who make these accusations have in common is not any particular political leaning, but rather a dazzling lack of insight.  

Extremists on both sides seem eager (especially lately, with the upcoming election) to find a bias in the forum administration that simply isn't there.  We are accused from BOTH sides of not intervening enough - of being too tolerant of conservative postings, too tolerant of liberal postings - by members who seem to want us to help them polarize the membership.  We don't play that way - we intervene (on those occasions when we do intervene) only to preserve a decent level of rational, courteous discourse.

We don't share the details of reprimands with the membership or identify who has been reprimanded, for member privacy reasons; members who are chastised will thus sometimes believe they are being singled out, and draw paranoid conclusions from this assumption.  We think they would be comforted by seeing the big picture, if they could - but they can't, so the paranoia continues.  Perhaps paranoia/victimhood gives them a measure of comfort too, who knows?

Thanks again for asking about this,

The PaperBackSwap Team

Shortly after that arrived, I received a message to my original request for clarification. 

"Liberals" = a group.

We also responded to your blog request for comment.  We hope you find that information helpful.    

If after mid-November you want to use your account to request a book, contact us again and we'll consider it.  Until then, your account remains closed.  We are just not putting more of our time into this; we can't have members we need to babysit.  Paying so much attention to you, and to the response to you, takes our attention away from other members and their needs, and from all the other tasks we have to do to keep the site running.

The PaperBackSwap Team

So the group I attacked, was Liberals, and that isn’t permitted. 

Now, they claim they can’t for privacy reasons, discuss the status of a users account.

Yet, the discussions clearly showed that the members were informed before I was.  

People who understood the post was intended to discuss the flawed science and the implications of it should the science be correct despite the Gattaca like world it promised us wrote Paperback Swap and questioned my being kicked off the boards.

Paperback Swap replied in the thread. The response, well it was problematic on it’s face. They are reduced to the Mommy Answer for children, Because I said so.

Obviously, they aren’t liberal, really they aren’t. Why just like Mommy, they said so.

If you’re a conservative, and you’re looking for a place to discuss politics, I would suggest a number of sites for you, however Paperback Swap is not one of those sites. 

In the thread I started, with it’s post that was so terrible, so hate filled, that it caused me to be suspended. 

The obvious question, if the post was so terrible, why wasn’t it deleted? I don’t know their reason, I do know that it has served to silence the Conservatives on the message boards, so perhaps it is intended to serve as a warning like a dead body left hanging in a tree. Beware, or this could be you.

In my opinion, there is no doubt. 

Sarah Palin, a lightning rod for Liberal Hatred

Friends, I thought I had dealt with the Sarah Palin issues previously, and so I assumed I wouldn't need to be blogging about it again. I guess that would be classified as Wishful Thinking. The Nutroots have accused her of nearly everything under the sun in the last week. So far, about the only thing she hasn't been accused of is being a Liberal Vegan who hates Bush. The link above shows at current count, 43 rumors that are either absolutely untrue, or are taken out of context and or mis stated.

Now, guys, let's be real for a moment. Executive Experience means you're the person in charge. The Buck Stops here made famous by Harry Truman? Perhaps you've heard of it? It means that there isn't anyone you can go to with the problem, you have to make the decision, and face the consequences of that decision, good or bad.

Let's take a look at bad decision making. Governor Blanco didn't call out the National Guard, and put them in charge of New Orleans, not because there weren't any around, but because she was afraid it would increase the state's liability. That is Management. Where you decide things in committee and get consensus. It takes time, and as shown during Katrina, is a bad way to do business. The mess finally started to get sorted out, and we later learned it was never as bad as we were led to believe, when the National Guard, and General Honre' arrived and took charge. The Patton and John Wayne comparisons were thick in the press, and I saw a Leader, a Commander, take charge of the situation.

Management means you reach consensus, and everyone agrees, or at least a majority agree. The Senate would be a good example of management. They debate, deliberate, and no one person makes the decision, which is why it's called the Legislative Branch in the Constitution.

By comparison, the Constitution lists the President under the Executive Branch, because he or she is the one who makes the decision. He or she is the one who is most responsible for this decision. Executive is where you don't have other to blame inaction on, you have only yourself.

Senator Obama hasn't held Executive Experience, and running a campaign is not similar to being President. Now, I've just said that being a Senator isn't experience for being a President, and I've told the truth. That goes for John McCain too.

Liberals, here's a secret. You don't understand how a Conservative's mind works, so stop trying to pretend you're just asking the questions we would be asking. We would be asking why Obama is friends with William Ayers. We would be asking about his relationship with Rezco. We have been asking, but you didn't seem to care about what we would ask then. Now that a Woman who is Conservative is running for Vice President, now all of a sudden, you're claiming to ask question we would be asking.

No, you're carrying the water of the Nutroots. You're pretending that Sarah Palin is the wrong woman to represent American Woman. Another woman would be preferred you claim, you quickly name Senator Hutchinson, or Senator Snowe.

Would this be the same Senator Snowe who votes with the Democrats, especially on many issues favored by John McCain? The same Senator Snowe who voted to provide amnesty to the Illegal's? The one who spoke against the war in Iraq? Oh sure, that woman is qualified, she loves Liberal policies, and thus is extremely qualified.

As for Kay Baily Hutchinson. She rates an 84 from the ACU which I'm sure the Liberals know is what John McCain got in the first years after the election in 2000. It's interesting that Liberal Women are always qualified, which is the same we hear about Liberal Men.

I have a question Libs, why is it you assume we only look at the surface of things? Do you think that everyone is as shallow as you are? Do you really think that everyone is as self centered as you apparently are?

Hillary Clinton had never held elected office before running for the Senate, and was considered qualified by the press. Why is it that Sarah Palin who has held elected offices for many years, is unqualfied? The answer is obvious. Hillary believed in things that the reporters who have empowered themselves to decide these things also believed in.

Having donated to both Hillary Clinton's campaign, and to Barack Obama's campaign, and not donated to the Republicans, or to McCain, because of my extreme distaste for him, I'll repeat something I said on Hot Air at the time. McCain won the election by picking Palin. Not because she's a woman, I don't care about that. Not because she's a hunter, but because she's an outsider. She's an outsider who can really understand the problems, the trials and trevails of the average citizens life, because she's one of us. I assumed that McCain would pick Lieberman, or someone else who is an old and trusted friend. Instead he went for a new friend, and I believe that McCain has a certain esteem and respect for Sarah Palin, who is the Governor of Alaska. That brings up another question Libs, what is this sudden willingness to demean the woman by forgetting her current job? Why do you insist on calling her the Mayor when she's the Governor? She has been Governor as long as Obama has been Senator right?

Libs, you don't understand Conservatives, because you don't want to. We really do see the person instead of the subgroup. We don't see her as a boon because we think she'll pick up the mothers who hunt moose demographic. That is a small demographic, which doesn't really have a lot of power. We like her because she's genuine, and unlike the scripted presentations from the Democrats, she's believable.

Will I vote for McCain? I doubt it, I still don't like him. Perhaps I could vote for Palin, but I'd have to have something to block his name so I didn't see it.

McCain Hypocracy on Obama's oil flip

The most recent flip of Presidential Candidate Obama is that we should allow limited offshore drilling for oil. Hot Air has a write up from the Cheerleader in Chief Captain Ed. For Ed, there is little that McCain can do wrong. For an honest Conservative, there is little McCain has ever done right. 

So the claim is that Obama flipped, and that means he's untrustworthy on the issue. Guys, you have some bad news coming. McCain has flipped on this issue so often you would think he was an acrobat on a trampoline. I'm serious. The Democratic Party of North Carolina has the quotes, and I'll go ahead and link to them. I tried to search for a Conservative list of McCain's flip flops on the issue of domestic drilling, but I can't seem to find one. Apparently the Conservatives are performing the Pull and Pray technique regarding McCain and his Conservative ideals. 

Pull and pray isn't a good means of birth control, and it's not a good means of electing a President. 

McCain has held every position imaginable on Oil Company drilling over the last twenty years. He's gone from one extreme to another. He's made promises, and then broken them constantly. John McCain, the hypocritical choice for Conservatives. 

Mexican Government denounces American Incursion

In another Hypocritical and asinine claim, the Mexican Government denounced incursions by the Americans into Mexico. The Mexican Government claims that the Americans who are building a wall to defend America crossed the border a full 10 meters into Mexico.

Now, Mexico is the same nation who demands we ignore the millions of their citizens who have crossed not only 10 meters, but ten years across the border. We have 10 million illegal aliens a vast majority of whom are Mexican Citizens. I would happily welcome those people, if they had immigrated legally, to the United States. However, I have a hard time swallowing the idea of forgiving them for breaking the law to come here, using identity theft to work here, use false documents to live here.

While this would have a hard time competing with the Democrats as the most hypocritical event of the month, it is certainly in the top three.

I saw the news story on Drudge Report, and then saw it on Hot Air as well.

Perhaps the Mexican Government would appreciate the arrival of 10 Million Illegal Americans breaking the law down in Mexico, on the other hand, would they notice 10 million more lawbreakers?

Hypocritical expectations of Senator (Presidential Candidate) McCain

Senator McCain, half of the famous driving force behind the 1st Amendment violating McCain Feingold legislation demonstrates his hypocrisy, yes again, in financing his Presidential Aspirations. It seems that the Senator wants to have huge donations from the very Rich Republicans whom he usually is beating on as corrupting politics. I guess McCain considers himself above corruption right?

In his early efforts to secure the support of the Republican establishment he has frequently bucked, McCain has embraced some of the same political-money figures, forces and tactics he pilloried during a 15-year crusade to reduce the influence of big donors, fundraisers and lobbyists in elections. That includes enlisting the support of Washington lobbyists as well as key players in the fundraising machine that helped President Bush defeat McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries.

...McCain the reformer worked unsuccessfully through Congress and the courts to try to stop nonprofit political groups known as 527s from using unlimited donations to run political ads and fund other activities aimed at influencing voters in the run-up to elections. He reintroduced legislation last week to end 527 donations, but there appears to be little appetite in Congress to pass it.

Senator McCain, who would be King McCain wants those Conservative supporting 527's to support him in his bid to become President. Of course, his history of Hypocrisy in these matters is well known, which is why his biggest supporter across this nation is the Establishment News Media.

Additional areas of Hypocrisy is Immigration if you will recall my post here, covering among other things McCain's action on Immigration Reform, which probably wouldn't need more reform if he had fixed the problem 20 years ago while he was in the Senate. McCain has said on many occasions that he is willing to Negotiate Anything. That includes your free speech rights under McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Legislation. That willingness to negotiate your freedom of speech rights away is one of the reasons many Conservatives oppose him for the Presidency, and one of the reasons I will never support him.

Senator McCain isn't a Conservative at heart, his core beliefs are all negotiable, and that is something that shouldn't be for a leader. I have given credit to the Senator before regarding his extremely honorable service, and conduct as a Prisoner of War in Viet-Nam. However that service doesn't give him any more right to be President today than it does all the others who served with Honor. He is a perfect example of respect for one thing not affecting all the other areas of life. While I do respect his service, I don't respect his legislative history, and don't respect his beliefs.

The so called Straight Talk Express, which is easily as hypocritical as John Edwards Two America nonsense, is a bunch of Media Approved hype. The obvious reason he is so loved by the Media is that Senator McCain can always be counted on to denounce other Conservatives.

My posts which mention John McCain are found here.

Gov. Richardson says NO to boarder fence.

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico has declared that the Boarder Fence approved by Congress isn't needed, what is needed is more Boarder Patrol Agents. Well he is half right, we need both a good fence, more agents, and landmines on the Boarder. We saw what happened when we sent a brick to Congress, we saw what happened when we the people shouted at Washington to build a damn fence, the politicians started with a measly 700 mile fence, and a few National Guardsmen. They also informed us the people, the voters, the folks that want action, that we had to get used to Immigration Amnesty.

OK, now Governor Richardson is going to announce he is opposed to a boarder fence. The Yahoo News Story for those who can't click on Newsmax because of political beliefs. The newsmax story has a good background to keep the story in perspective though.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., has promised to "revisit" the fence issue as the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in the 110th Congress.
Thompson said that the high-technology Secure Border Initiative, or SBI Net with its monitors, cameras, and other integrated surveillance systems was an attractive alternative.
"We might do away with [the fence], or look at [integrating it into the] SBI Net," he said, "A virtual fence rather than a real one." Richardson may be against the fence for more boots on the ground and more black boxes, but the grim facts emanating from the Department of Homeland Security augur against his kinder, gentler stance.
Recently, the department reported that the U.S. had "effective control" over only 284 miles of its 1,992-mile Southern frontier as of March, up from a "whopping" 241 miles in October 2005.

We control about 10 percent of our own boarder, and we think a fence isn't the answer? Landmines and massive deployment of armed combat soldiers with orders to shoot to kill anything that moves is the RIGHT answer in that situation. A physical fence or wall is sad third choice in the meantime since killing those who are invading our country would be a major topic of outrage of the far left wing surrender now folks. They like to call on us to use Virtual Fences and techno solutions.

Virtual Fences. Anyone think the Governor is protected by Virtual Fences? We know the White House, and Congress are protected by REAL Fences and WALLS of giant Concrete Barriers. They closed Pennsylvania Ave. to protect the President, tossed up a WALL to protect the President, and announce WE little people don't need a wall or a fence. Hello Hypocrites, you might want to look out your window and see that the fences, walls, and lines of police keeping US back from you is part of your PROTECTION from US. Whenever there is a protest of the Washington Elite, Police are lined up shoulder to shoulder to keep the Protesters out of buildings where the elected and appointed work and live. Yet, when we are being overrun, murdered, slaughtered by the dozens each day by these illegal immigrants and we don't get any protection, and only minor enforcement of the existing laws.

My complete posts on immigration here.

Democrats decide Darfur needs help

My Friends, you have to wonder about Liberals, and if they realize how hypocritical they are every day and night.

Democrats.com, home of some of the weirdest liberals you can imagine, are busy with two calls for action.

1) They want you to pressure Congress to impeach President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and any other administration official who is a Republican, for the war in Iraq. A war where we ended two decades of murders, rapes, and abuses on a grand scale. A war authorized by the Congress, and by numerous UN Resolutions over 10 years. Yet, that war where we ended the reign of a madman who raped, murdered, and tortured his own people is an impeachable offense to Liberals, because Haliburton might make some money doing what they do anyway.

2) The Liberals want you to demand that President Bush take action to end the Rapes, Murders, and torture in Darfur. I wish I was kidding.

From a Democrats.com email.

Dear Max,
As you may have read in the news, the violence in Darfur is spreading into the neighboring countries of Chad and the Central African Republic.
I hope you'll take a moment to sign the petition to President Bush and the UN Secretary-General.
Bob Fertik

Wow, the audacity of some people. Demand impeachment in one breath, and demand the very same action you want to impeach him for in the next.

Perhaps we should try diplomacy, perhaps we should consult with Iran, after all they are one of the first nations named by Liberals when they demand Diplomacy in Iraq aren't they?

Perhaps we can consult with Syria, another of the nations that Liberals love to claim we should consult. How do Syria and Iraq feel about the Darfur situation. Are we certain the "Great Satan" will be welcomed in Darfur? I would really hate it if Darfur was turned into a Viet-Nam like quagmire for us wouldn't you?

I think that there is really no way for us to take action in Darfur, because if we did, it would be viewed as unilateral, and may upset our notional allies the French. Perhaps if the Liberals have some information about Osama bin Laden being in Darfur, but no, even then the Diplomatic Solution is probably best.

I have assurances from a friend that Sudan isn't starving the refugees, it seems that the individuals in question are fasting for world peace.

Lets get AIDS Funding back to where it was under Clinton

Previously posted information on AIDS here.

AIDS Funding has increased tenfold under Bush, I don't know what that is all about, we Conservatives are supposed to be cold, heartless, and happy that AIDS is destroying the world aren't we?

The ACLU says that Bush's policies are spreading AIDS, so we have to assume that the increase in funding for the treatment and cure of this disease is actually spreading it. Therefor I can only assume we want a President like President Clinton, who will fund very little, but say he cares deeply and often.

Bush and his Christian supporters seldom get the credit they deserve for their
role in the global fight against AIDS. U.S. spending on the disease overseas has
risen more than tenfold under Bush, while Christian groups have given
unselfishly to the cause. Churches, in fact, run health clinics in much of rural
Africa; without them, stemming AIDS would be all but impossible. So praise the
Lord and pass the antiretrovirals.

Bush and his supporters are constantly blamed for AIDS, for being compassion less, uncaring individuals.

BARCELONA, Spain (CNN) -- Protesters at the AIDS conference here Tuesday booed
United States Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson off the stage.
Thompson was scheduled to give a speech about the U.S. contribution to the
global fight against AIDS at the 14th international AIDS conference.

You see, it's not who is funding the fight, it's who get's credit for the fight. Conservatives are always blamed for AIDS, like we started it. Therefor I want to see a return of the spending that we saw under the balanced budgets of President Clinton, where AIDS funding got a smidgen of money, but a lot of compassion. We can't afford to rob our children's future for this level of funding, we can't afford it, it's too expensive. (Hard headed fiscal conservative ala Liberals on Iraq move there, you like it?)

Would a cure be welcome in all honesty? Yes, but until you have a cure, you should treat the disease like a disease.

Journalism Students caught cheating on Ethics Exam

Ethics, something that Journalists have been under fire for quite some time, isn't being taught in such a way that the students understand.

Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, and Suitably Flip have this story, and like the rest of us, are enjoying it.

In Short, the Journalism Students appear to have leaked the question on an exam in their ethics class. OK, obviously a test is intended to see if certain knowledge has been gained, and understood. If the lessons can be applied to a given situation properly. An ethics test would obviously be intended to see if the ethical lessons were learned and understood. I think we can safely say, the very definition of ethics was not understood.

Ethics as defined. A set of principles of right conduct.

In short, it is the ability to determine what is right, and what is wrong. Cheating would be considered wrong. It is at a minimum unethical to cheat, that is generally understood, and should have been second nature for Graduate Level Students.

Us old fashioned conservatives believe that people should stand, or fail, on their own, based upon their own merits, and their own skills. Apparently, Journalism is continuing to sink into the abyss of faked news, and tests.

Government Hypocracy on Global Warming

There are a few state Governments who are blaming the EPA for not regulating Carbon Dioxide emissions, that gas that is expelled when you breath, and it's effect on the notional Global Warming event. This blame is about to be decided by the Supreme Court. This is a lawsuit that precedes the famous California Suit against the Automakers. It also flies in the face of the recently announced discovery of a solution for Global Warming.

In short, WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court hears arguments this week in a case that could determine whether the Bush administration must change course in how it deals with the threat of global warming.
A dozen states as well as environmental groups and large cities are trying to convince the court that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate, as a matter of public health, the amount of carbon dioxide

You see, this is the Liberal tendency, if they don't get their way in legislature, in other words, Congress won't pass the laws they want, the Liberals run to the Courts and demand an order from the Court that things go their way.

Fine, I will help you Liberals out. First, each of you must stop flying all over the world to discuss Global Warming. Second, you State Governments who are suing claiming that automobiles are causing Global Warming, the plaintiffs for the case are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They were joined by cities such as Baltimore, New York and the District of Columbia; the Pacific island of America Samoa; the Sierra Club; the Union of Concerned Scientists; Greenpeace; and Friends of the Earth.

You all stop driving cars, or taking airplanes. I want you all to lead the way by walking or using Public Transportation. I don't want to see your hypocritical selves getting out of the usual Crown Victoria with it's V-8 engine while demanding that I and the rest of the citizenry drive a geo-metro. You don't do that though do you? No, you all are Gulfstream Environmentalists who dash about in chartered jets, private planes, and large limos while the rest of the citizenry are blamed for Global Warming.

Here is another idea, stop screaming that we need to do something about alternative energy, when the biggest and loudest voices are the ones blocking alternative energy plans which would jeopardize the Kennedy family's favorite yachting area.

Sen. Ted Kennedy has strongly opposed an environmentally friendly "wind farm” off the coast from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis. Now he supports building another wind farm – in somebody else’s "backyard.”
A Boston contractor has submitted plans to construct a $750 million offshore complex of 90 to 120 wind turbine towers near Naushon Island and the towns of Dartmouth and Fairhaven to supply electricity to about 240,000 homes.
While the Cape Wind project Kennedy opposed would have been "in view of some of the wealthiest communities in Massachusetts’ Cape Cod,” the new proposal is for a "project in view of more working-class areas,” according to CNN and Reuters.

Yes, it's fine for the "little people" to make sacrifices right Liberals? Just so long as YOU don't have to stop enjoying the good life as a reward for your progressive thought.