« New York Times Blames Homeschooling for Child-Killer | Main | Robin Page Cleared of "Hate Speech" »
January 17, 2008
Tweety's Conception of "Thatcherite"
Hillary Clinton recently denounced the President as "pathetic" for politely asking Saudi Arabia to lower the price of oil. We could lower the price ourselves, except that Democrats severely curtail our ability to drill in our own country or off its shores. MSNBC's Chris Matthews offered this brilliant analysis (via NewsBusters):
Pathetic? It just struck me as very Thatcher-ite right there.
True, Shrillary is an irresponsible and obnoxious fool, whereas Margaret Thatcher was a great leader. But both are women, which is enough for Tweety.

On a tip from Conan.
Posted by Van Helsing at January 17, 2008 10:26 AM
Comments
The Hildebeast was right this time; it was pathetic. What is our leader doing on TV begging a desert nomad for lower oil prices outside his tent? It was sad, on many levels, one of which is a so-called "conservative" president who believes that words can determine commodity pricing. Most of all, though, it's the leader of the US and the free world supplicating before a violent tribal chief in the vain hope of getting a bit of a price break. We've rarely looked smaller and weaker than we did at that moment. We should either build nuke plants in every state immediately, or suck it up and pay the $3-4 per gallon. The mighty US should not beg for discounts like a newlywed couple who needs another $100 off to afford a Camry, and certainly not in public, and double-plus-certainly if the answer might be "no". It was, as the aging hippie destroyer-of-health-care-systems, shrill nanny-in-chief said, "pathetic".
Posted by: mega at January 17, 2008 11:20 AM
Margaret Thatcher was an exception to the rule that women generally do not make great leaders. In today's PC dominated world, it is forgotten that people are different and that the genders are different and have different aptitudes and abilities. Politics, State, and military affairs were always a man's world and should've stayed that way. Women's temperment and emotional make-up do not lend themselves very well to these areas. The Founders understood that granting everyone the right to vote would lead to ruin. Everyone should not be allowed to vote; only competent people who use thier vote wisely should be allowed to vote. None of this is to disparage women, who have thier own virtues and aptitudes. When women were not given the right to vote, they
weren't "suppressed" or unhappy, because they knew they were women and enjoyed doing what they considered meaningful. Besides, there really is no "right" to vote and voting doesn't really matter very much and it can lead to tyranny just as surely as democracy can. Our country was founded as a limited republic, not a democracy. When women were granted the right to vote, government began growing without cessation. Women were behind most of the "progressive" movements, not men. The nation went along under the assumption that anything labelled democracy was good-but it isn't. Democracy has proven to be the god that failed.
Posted by: Chris at January 17, 2008 1:22 PM
Mega, i agree with just about everything you wrote there. Well said and honest.
what Chris has to say is probably THE single most idiotic thing I have read in a very very long time. Every last word. Do you really believe the country would be better off with women denied the right to vote? Is that what you are sincerely advocating? What drugs are you on? I gotta try that stuff. Wow.
Posted by: hashfanaticFAN at January 17, 2008 2:20 PM
As long as us women pay taxes, then we have a right to VOTE on how their taxes are being spent.
Posted by: Kristy at January 17, 2008 3:00 PM
Isn't he the guy who wrote Jimmy's " malaise "
speech?
Ted
Posted by: Ted at January 17, 2008 3:22 PM
You see HashfanaticFAN, you are a liberal citizen of the West, just like a NeoCon.
The fact that you are an extreme liberal and NeoCon's are moderate liberals (in the American sense of the word liberal) is lost on you.
Compare the values of NeoCon to someone in the third world and you will find that you are a lot closer in values to them (but of course not in foreign policy).
So thanks for pitching in to straighten out the woman-hating troll.
Posted by: Freedom Now at January 17, 2008 4:59 PM
Jeez... Matthews broke my Idiot meter with that statement.
Posted by: IOpian at January 17, 2008 5:06 PM
I agree with MEGA and can't add anything to that.
"Kristy at January 17, 2008 3:00 PM"
I have pointed that out before.
And a tip of the hat to hashfanaticFAN.
Posted by: KHarn at January 17, 2008 5:16 PM
If the Bush Crime Family weren't so indebted to the Saudi royal family through his personal business dealings, not to mention Pappy's Carlyle Group shenanigans, he wouldn't be in the position to be the Wahaabists for a break!
To those of you that believe that 9/11 was a terror attack carried out by the "Islamofascists"...how many of these "Islamofascists" called Saudi Arabia their home?
No sitting president should have to have placed themselves in the position for begging for ANYTHING, and he would never have done so if it weren't for his own business interests and the fact that they could destroy his "legacy" in one press conference...
Margaret Thatcher was a scourge upon Europe and her own nation's people, and the disasterous effects of her poor leadership and ass-backwards policies led directly to the decline of British society and the mess we see manifested on our television screens today, not to mention her butchery toward the Irish freedom fighters.
You people are absolutely idiotic for worshipping such a false idol.
Hillary is awful, AWFUL, but Chris Mathews is a fool who slobbers over the likes of the cadaverous Fred Thompson for his LOOKS, so it might be prudent to consider the source, although I have no problem with you raking him over the coals.
Chris, I usually don't castigate anyone for their deeply held views, but you really should be ashamed of yourself for your comments on women's suffrage.
You were born of woman and you should be mindful of the fact that your mother raised you up from an infant and gave you the best shot in life you'd ever know (my apologies if, for whatever reason, this is untrue in your case).
It is not the prospect of a woman in the White House I am opposed to.
It is THIS woman, right here, right now.
Posted by: hashfanatic at January 17, 2008 11:18 PM
Well done, hashfan!
Posted by: hashfanaticFAN at January 18, 2008 1:17 AM
Despite the silly BDS outburst, its encouraging to see Hash stick it to Chris this time around instead of sucking up to Chris' bigoted comments.
Good for you!
Posted by: Freedom Now at January 18, 2008 3:15 AM
Again, Freedom, you are confused about who you are responding to. It was hashfantic who seemed to agree with Chris's earlier post about multi-culuralism in America, not me hashfanaticFAN. I have put the three letters FAN in caps to help you more clearly see the difference. But you still don't see it apparently.
After so adamantly insisting that we are the same person, and being proven wrong, don't you owe the two of us an apology? I realize you apologized to Van helsing, but he wasn't the guy you insulted.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 18, 2008 3:22 AM
I apologized to you three times. Thats enough.
And you are confused Anonymous, whoever you are. I never apologized to VH, I thanked him for clearing up the confusion you guys made.
Honestly, I dont know who you are anymore. HashFanatic, HashFanaticFAN or Anonymous.
Perhaps you can name yourselves #1, #2 and #3. That would work better than what you have right now.
Posted by: Freedom Now at January 18, 2008 4:11 AM
It still amazes me that people think just because the 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudi means the government itself is to blame for it. Thats like saying the US is a terrorist nation because Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols blew up the FBI building in Oklahoma City. The Saudi leaders know that if they dont deal with the terrorists in the right way, there will be a civil war and the terrorists will be running the country. And how would that be in our best interest? It wouldnt. Likewise its the same thing with Pakistan. Pakistan however is worse - they have dozens of nukes. If things arent done in secret and done right both countries will go up in flames and the entire Muslim world shortly thereafter. Leaving the US only 1 alternative - nuke the whole place and kill over 1 billion people. That would make todays situation look like a Sunday at Disneyland.
And as for asking Saudis to increase production - Bill Clinton, using then secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, was the one who encouraged the Saudis to CUT production to RAISE prices in 1999 - price rises which have continued to this day. Where was all the outrage back then from the lefties? Dont remember much if any. And the oil thing wasnt the worst of it.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/20/190717.shtml
Posted by: Anonymous at January 18, 2008 6:48 AM
There is one and only one thing HRC has in commom with Lady Thatcher.
Posted by: Bandit at January 18, 2008 12:24 PM
Anon, you're trying to use equivalence between the US/McVeigh and Saudis/terrorists. There is one miiiiiiiiinor difference however - the US government doesn't pay guys like McVeigh to go blow up Saudi assets, only to have them turn on the US. Hint.
Posted by: BUUUUURRRRNING HOT at January 18, 2008 9:10 PM
Btw, Helsing can easily clear up who #1, #2 and #3 really are by comparing their IP adds.
Posted by: BUUUUURRRRNING HOT at January 18, 2008 9:11 PM
Already done, burning.
It's the regulars who can't get with the program.
Read the names S-L-O-W-L-Y......
Posted by: hashfanatic at January 18, 2008 9:21 PM
Dear Freedomnow,
I will be happy to help the Hash family through its identity crisis.
Posted by: Freedom Now at January 20, 2008 12:04 PM

