Posts Tagged ‘wine’

Vile Leftwing Professor Pours Hypocritical Hate On Congressman Paul Ryan For Drinking Glass Of Wine

July 11, 2011

It was just last week that I was able to look at Democrats’ personal behavior toward others and show that they as a species were really quite indistinguishable from cockroaches.

And here we are again, with cockroaches I mean Democrats being cockroaches I mean Democrats.

Rep. Ryan was at a restaurant with a dinner party when out of the blue this vile professor comes over and goes ballistic at his table, creating a giant scene until she was thrown out on her ear for being so rude and hateful.

It would probably be better if the management simply asked people at the door what party they belonged to and blocked Democrats as haters BEFORE they barged in and started scenes, in my view.

The following article asks some pretty wonderful questions of this leftwing self-righteous hypocrite.  I then have more piling on to do when Byron York gets done with this liberal turd:

Paul Ryan accuser won’t talk
By:Byron York | Chief Political Correspondent Follow Him @ByronYork | 07/11/11 8:47 AM.

Susan Feinberg, an associate professor of management and global business at  Rutgers University, caused a stir in the left-wing blogosphere over the weekend  with her account of witnessing House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan  drinking a glass of $350-a-bottle wine at an upscale restaurant near the  Capitol.  (Feinberg, who was at the restaurant, Bistro Bis, with her  husband to celebrate her birthday, knew the wine was pricey because she could  make out the name on the label and checked it on the wine list.)  Feinberg  confronted Ryan, accusing him of hypocrisy for drinking an expensive wine while  advocating reduced spending for Medicare and Medicaid.  But she didn’t stop  there.  Feinberg also suggested Ryan might be guilty of ethics violations,  secretly snapped a photo of him and two dinner companions, and then took the  “story” to Talking Points Memo, the lefty site which ran a high-profile  piece suggesting Ryan might be guilty of some sort of wrongdoing.

Ryan told TPM that his two dinner-mates had ordered the wine, and that he,  Ryan, didn’t know what it cost and drank only one glass.  Ryan’s  explanation was supported by TPM’s account, presumably based on Feinberg’s  recollection, which said that when Feinberg confronted Ryan about the cost of  his wine, “Ryan said only: ‘Is that how much it was?'”

Nevertheless, Feinberg and TPM hinted that Ryan might have violated House  ethics rules by accepting an expensive meal from lobbyists.  But it turned  out that the two men with whom Ryan was dining were, as he said, economists and  not lobbyists.  Feinberg and TPM also suggested that Ryan might have  violated House rules against accepting gifts in general.  But it turned out  that Ryan had paid for his meal and wine — Ryan even showed TPM his copy of the  receipt, which TPM then posted on the web.

Having failed to catch Ryan in an act of wrongdoing, Feinberg and TPM accused  him of hypocrisy. Ryan’s dining companions, one of whom was a wealthy hedge-fund  manager, ordered two bottles of the $350 wine.  Ryan, by his own account,  drank one glass but nevertheless paid for one of the bottles.  But the $700  wine bill outraged Feinberg and her husband, who were at the restaurant to  celebrate her birthday.  “We were just stunned,” she told TPM. “I was an  economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out  that those two bottles of wine was more [sic] than two-income working family  making minimum wage earned in a week.” When she had finished her own meal,  Feinberg confronted Ryan and angrily asked him “how he could live with himself”  for drinking expensive wine while advocating cuts in Medicare and  Medicaid.  Feinberg left the restaurant after management intervened.

In one brief and unpleasant moment, Ryan got a taste of 2012-style political  combat in which everyone, everywhere is a potential opposition campaign tracker  and there are plenty of press outlets ready to publish a tracker’s  accusations.

On Saturday, I sent Feinberg an email asking a few questions about the  incident and about her unhappiness with Ryan.  First, the photo she snapped  of Ryan and two men sitting a few tables away appeared to be taken from her own  table, and on that table was a bottle of wine.  (Feinberg told TPM that she  and her husband had shared a “bottle of great wine.”)  A check of the  Bistro Bis wine list — in much the way that Feinberg did at the restaurant —  shows that the wine was a Thierry et Pascale Matrot 2005 Meursault, which is $80  per bottle at Bistro Bis. Was that, in fact, Feinberg’s bottle of wine?

I asked Feinberg, an economist, what price constituted outrageous in her  mind.  Would she have been as upset if Ryan’s wine were $150 a  bottle?  Or $100 a bottle?  Or perhaps $80 a bottle, like her own —  which is, after all, more than a day’s labor for a worker making the minimum  wage.

If the problem was not just the wine’s cost, then what other factors were  involved in Feinberg’s anger? Was it because she thought Rep. Ryan was a  hypocrite for drinking expensive wine while recommending reduced spending on  Medicare and Medicaid?  Was it because she believed Rep. Ryan was corrupt  for drinking with two men she suspected were lobbyists?  And finally, did  Feinberg believe she behaved appropriately in the matter?  Would it be  appropriate for a conservative who felt strongly about, say, Rep. Nancy Pelosi,  or Rep. Barney Frank, to do something similar to them under similar  circumstances?

Feinberg’s response was brief: “I’m sorry.  I have no comment on  this.”

After the TPM story was published, a number of left-leaning websites picked  up the tale.  New York magazine wrote that Ryan has “$350, fiscally  imprudent, fancypants” taste in wine.  The Atlantic wrote that Ryan “is in  the habit of drinking $350-a-bottle wine,” although the publication presented no  evidence to support that contention. The Atlantic also expressed hope that the  wine story would become as much of a political burden on Ryan as the $400  haircut was on former presidential candidate John Edwards.

Ryan himself is downplaying, but not avoiding, the matter.  He answered  questions from TPM, producing the receipt, but has said little else.  When  asked whether incidents like this might happen again in the future, with  Democrats and Republicans engaged in mortal combat over federal spending, a  person close to Ryan said only: “I would hope that it was just one woman who had  a little too much to drink and had a little too much fire in her belly and just  decided to cross a line.  Paul is more than happy to have a debate and  understands that people disagree with him, but there’s a right way and a wrong  way to do that.”

It turns out that this Professor Susan Feinberg worked on John Kerry’s campaign.  The relevant facts about Senator John Kerry and his rich liberal activist wife occur near the end of this very recently written piece (again, Democrats are just hypocrites ALL the time; there’s literally ALWAYS something to prove it constantly going on):

 Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These are the hypocrite vermin who constantly lecture us about how “the rich should pay their fair share.”  And these slime certainly should.  But of course, while they screech the Marxist screed of class warfare, they know that they’ve written the tax laws to benefit themselves and their supporters – to the extent they even bother to follow those tax laws that they demand everybody else follow to begin with.

“The audacity of indifference.”

You think these people don’t know their way around $350 bottles of wine the way you know the way to the bathroom in your own home?

Let’s get back to Susan Feinberg and the guy she thought deserved to be president.  John Kerry’s wife is a filthy rich heiress who inhereited the Heinz fortune.  But guess how much taxes she pays?  She’s structured it so she actually pays less than the median American family.  Did she HAVE to do that?  Oh, no.  She just wanted to screw you, the typical taxpayer, by using every possible gimmick to lessen her tax burden even while she self-righteously lectures everybody else about their “duty to pay more.”  SHE could pay more, but she is a liberal, and ergo sum a hypocrite.

How about John Kerry himself?  Well, John Kerry splurged on himself to buy a $7 million yacht.  Not feeling any need to give American workers jobs, Kerry opted to buy his yacht in New Zealand.  And then, not feeling any need to pay taxes, Kerry opted to moor his yacht in Rhode Island rather than in his own state of Massachusetts, so he could save $1/2 a million in tax.  But that doesn’t stop him from lecturing everybody else.

And, according to garden variety self-righteous liberal hypocrite Susan Feinberg, THIS behavior is just fine.  It’s that Ryan guy who was actually himself rather surprised at how much it costs to have dinner with rich friends (I’ve experienced that myself when I looked at a tab from a restaurant a date or a friend have suggested in the past) who is evil.

A small government free market guy who believes people should be free to keep and spend their own money having a $350 bottle of wine is not hypocritical; a liberal who says the rich should pay more in taxes while welching on his or her own taxes is, by contrast, a quintessential hypocrite.

I’d say I was amazed at the chutzpah of a liberal who goes to dine at a high-end restaurant and then is appalled that a Republican would actually go to the same restautant.  But I have long come to understand that the essential ingredient to liberalism is blatant abject hypocrisy.  To put it in the context of her own story, “When she had finished her own pricey meal, she got up and rudely gave Paul Ryan a facefull of the hell her husband tragically has to live with every night of his life for daring to have a pricey meal.”

Advertisements

Glenn Beck’s Wife And Daughter Heckled And Assaulted By Vile Mob Of Liberal Cowards

June 30, 2011

This is what liberals being liberals looks like.  It’s ugly, because liberals are ugly people:

Glenn Beck Harrassed In Bryant Park (VIDEO, PHOTOS) Hate-Fueled Assault
by Jim Brogan

Right-wing Fox host Glenn Beck decided it was finally time that he took his daughter and wife to see a showing of Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘The 39 Steps’ at Bryant, a trip he’d wanted to do for years. He did on Monday night – but was unfortunately met by a bunch of people acting like animals.

Beck has wanted to take his daughter to Bryant Park for a very long time, and when his wife said to him, “You wanna go?” because of the whispering, pointing and texting and other behavior from the people there, he turned and said to her, “Not on your life.”

“It was a hostile situation,” Beck recounted of the trip. The host’s WIFE – yes, his wife, had a bottle of alcohol “accidentally” kicked on to her back, leaving her and the blanket “completely wet.” The crowd behind them laughed about it.

It unfortunately didn’t get any better as the night went on. His wife and daughter were getting up to go to the bathroom when a man pointed his fingers and yelled, “We hate conservatives here!” His daughter had tears in her eyes when she and her mother returned to their blanket.

Another woman stood up behind the family, pointed her finger at them and said, “We’re in New York, and we HATE Republicans!”

Beck and his family were treated like garbage by ignorant, rude liberals at the movie showing. He said Tuesday, “If I had suggested — and I almost did — wow, does anybody have a rope? Because there’s a tree here. You could just lynch me. And I think there would’ve been a couple in the crowd that would’ve!”

But the host somehow maintained his sympathy for others at the showing: “I apologize to anybody who had their movie experience wrecked because of the people that found it so necessary to spew hatred,” Beck said, “but there’s nothing I can do about it.”

Beck was also bothered by the fact that no one jumped to his defense at the park. He said he was “…a little surprised that nobody — nobody — in the crowd said ‘knock it off. Just, stop. Just be cool. I don’t agree with the guy, but just be cool.’ ”

The host said his experience was so horrible, he wouldn’t wish it on his worst enemies: “All through the evening, I wanted to say to you today, please, please, please don’t ever treat anybody like that. If Van Jones comes and sits right next to you, please don’t treat anybody like that.”

Video below. Where’s the outrage?

By the way, this isn’t uncommon at all.  It’s not dissimilar to the way that Andrew Breitbart was treated when he showed up in the public common area at a Netroots Nation convention.  He was immediately accosted, surrounded and heckled and treated like dirt by people who actually called themselves “journalists.”

Garden variety liberals are much more classless vermin, of course.  Here’s video of an elderly woman who was assaulted for bringing a cross to a “No on Prop 8” event in Palm Springs.  Liberals came unglued, because they are godless, wicked people and coming unglued is what they do best.

I have met a fair number of “celebrities” in my life.  As someone who lives in the Palm Springs area, it’s not all that unusual – especially if one is involved at all in the community.  If I genuinely admired a celebrity, I offered my congratulations to him or to her; if I didn’t, I have left them alone and ignored them.

I don’t understand how liberals can think that Nazis have a right to march through a town largely populated by Jewish death camp survivors, but conservatives don’t have a right to anything.  It’s just an exhibit of what vile, vile hypocrites liberals are.  Liberals would probably sneer and say something stupid like, “That’s because conservatives are worse than Nazis,” but what it really proves is that liberals are tolerant of Nazi fascists, but utterly intolerant of anyone with whom they disagree.

I would NEVER have treated a liberal celebrity like this.  And as despicable as these people acted, it was even MORE despicable for these cockroach liberals to treat Glenn Beck’s family this way.

I love Ann Coulter’s take on this vile example of the fact that liberals are genuinely vile people:

Glenn Beck Vs. The Mob
by  Ann Coulter
06/29/2011

Of all the details surrounding the liberal mob attack on Glenn Beck and  his family in New York’s Bryant Park last Monday night, one element  stands out. “No, it won’t be like that, Dad,” his daughter said when  Beck questioned the wisdom of attending a free, outdoor movie showing in  a New York park.

People who have never been set upon by a mob of liberals have  absolutely no idea what it’s like to be a publicly recognizable  conservative. Even your friends will constantly be telling you: “Oh, it  will be fine. Don’t worry. Nothing will happen. This place isn’t like  that.”

Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest  pussies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn’t play a sport and have  never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses  for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising  them during toilet training.

I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck’s tormentors, and I wasn’t there.

Beck and his family would have been fine at an outdoor rap  concert. They would have been fine at a sporting event. They would have  been fine at any paid event, mostly because people who work for the  government and live in rent-controlled apartments would be too cheap to  attend.

Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with  self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.

A liberal’s idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to  a conservative public figure who can’t afford to strike back. Getting  in a stranger’s face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he  has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a  wall.

They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people’s manners. I know I’ll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.

These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with.  They assault a conservative only when it’s a sucker-punch, they  outnumber him, or he can’t fight back for reasons of law or decorum.

Liberals don’t get that when you’re outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you’re not brave.

But they’re not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn’t I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c**t. Wasn’t I awesome?

This is a liberal’s idea of raw physical courage.

When someone does fight back, liberals transform from aggressor  to victim in an instant, collapsing on the ground and screaming bloody  murder. I’ve seen it happen in a nearly empty auditorium when there was  quite obviously no other human within 5 feet of the gutless  invertebrate.

People incapable of conforming to the demands of civilized  society are frightening precisely because you never know what else such  individuals are capable of. Sometimes — a lot more often than you’ve  heard about — liberals do engage in physical violence against  conservatives … and then bravely run away.

That’s why not one person stepped up to aid Beck and his family  as they were being catcalled and having wine dumped on them at a nice  outdoor gathering.

No one ever steps in. Never, not once, not ever. (Except at the  University of Arizona, where college Republicans chased my assailant  and broke his collarbone, God bless them.)

Most people are shocked into paralysis at the sight of  sociopathic liberal behavior. The only ones who aren’t are the  conservative’s bodyguards — and they can’t do anything without risking a  lawsuit or an arrest.

My hero Tim Profitt is now facing charges for stopping a  physical assault on Senate candidate Rand Paul by a crazed woman  disguised in a wig.

But the disturbed liberal whose assault Profitt stopped faces  no charges — she instigated the entire confrontation and then instantly  claimed victim status. In a better America, the cop would say, “Well,  you provoked him.”

Kentucky prosecutors must be very proud of how they so  dutifully hew to the letter of the law (except in the case of Paul’s  assailant).

Maybe they wouldn’t be such good little rules-followers if they  ever, just once, had to face the liberal mob themselves. But if Beck’s  own daughter can’t imagine the liberal mob, I suppose prosecutors can’t  be expected to, either.

Michael Moore and James Carville can stroll anywhere in America  without risking the sort of behavior the Beck family experienced. But  all recognizable conservatives are eternally trapped in David Dinkins’  New York: Simply by virtue of leaving their homes, they assume a 20  percent chance of being assaulted.

Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America — and not just  because Obama decided to address it. It’s because no one hits back. The  message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON’T  FIGHT!

There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.

Maybe it’s time for Beck to pony up some of those millions of  dollars he’s earned and hire people to rough up the liberal mob, or, at a  minimum, to provide a legal defense to those like Profitt who do.

These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A  sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it  would do wonders.

They need to have their behavior corrected. It’s a shame this  job wasn’t done by their parents. It won’t be done by the police.

As long as liberals can’t be normal and prosecutors can’t be  reasonable, how about a one-punch rule against anyone bothering a  stranger in public? Then we’ll see how brave these lactose-intolerant  mama’s boys are.

Believe me, liberal mobbings will stop very quickly after the first toilet-training champion takes his inaugural punch.

One day liberals will get their comeuppance.  God created hell for Satan and his demons and their legion of demonic bureaucrats that are also known as “Democrats.”  And it is that belief that there IS a divine justice – and that vengeance is God’s – that separates conservatives from liberals.

Obama Ambassador Cynthia Stroum A Self-Aggrandizing Tyrant (In Other Words The Perfect Liberal)

February 8, 2011

One might argue that every president plays political games.  But Barack Obama ran with such a dogmatic self-righteousness that he would be “The One” to transcend this crap that his total pathetic failure to do so amounts to a major scandal.

Big Obama donor quits envoy job amid criticism
Posted: Feb 04, 2011 1:10 AM PST
Updated: Feb 05, 2011 1:10 AM PST
By MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) – As a supporter of presidential candidate Barack Obama, Cynthia Stroum was a superstar whose financial backing of the campaign landed her a plum diplomatic posting in Europe.

As America’s ambassador to Luxembourg, the wealthy Seattle-based businesswoman was a disaster.

According to an internal State Department report released Thursday, less than a week after she quit, Stroum’s management of the U.S. Embassy in the tiny country was abysmal. The report says her tenure of about one year was fraught with personality conflicts, verbal abuse and questionable expenditures on travel, wine and liquor.

Stroum’s case illustrates the pitfalls that presidents can face when they appoint non-career diplomats to ambassadorships as a reward for their political support.

The Luxembourg embassy “has underperformed for the entirety of the current ambassador’s tenure,” said the report, which was prepared last fall before she resigned abruptly. “At present, due to internal problems, it plays no significant role in policy advocacy or reporting, though developments in Luxembourg are certainly of interest to Washington clients and other U.S. missions in the NATO and EU communities.”

Stroum resigned effective Jan. 31, just days before the scathing report from the State Department’s inspector general was made public. A message left with a person who answered the phone at her Seattle home said she was unavailable for comment. The call was not returned.

In a farewell message published in the Luxembourg press, Stroum said she was leaving the job because she wanted to return to private life. “The reality is that I now need to focus on my family and personal business,” she said.

At the State Department, her departure was not announced. Spokesman Mark Toner gave no hint of problems when asked about the situation. “We are grateful for her service to the United States and wish her all the best in her new endeavors,” he said.

But the report paints a picture of a corrosive atmosphere at the small embassy, with the ambassador running roughshod over staff, threatening to read their e-mails, largely concerned about job-related perks and involved in improper purchases.

The situation was so bad that the inspector general recommended that the State Department dispatch medical personnel to Luxembourg to test the stress levels of embassy employees. It said at least four staffers quit or sought transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan during her tenure, unusual steps for diplomats assigned to a modern, Western European capital.

“The bulk of the mission’s internal problems are linked to her leadership deficiencies, the most damaging of which is an abusive management style,” the report said. “She has followed a pattern of public criticism of colleagues, including (deputies), who have not performed to her satisfaction.”

“Those who have questioned or challenged some of the ambassador’s actions state that they have paid a heavy price in the form of verbal abuse and been threatened with dismissal,” it said.

The report said the State Department was aware of the situation and that a perceived lack of action in dealing with it could be harmful. “It is unfortunate that an impression is being created among officers and local employees at this mission that this kind of behavior may be routinely tolerated by Department of State leadership, particularly for non-career ambassadors.”

Stroum began her short diplomatic career in 2009 when Obama nominated her to the cushy position of U.S. ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a tiny nation of 500,000 people about the size of Rhode Island and surrounded by France, Belgium and Germany.

Aside from her business experience as an investor, entertainment producer and philanthropist active in numerous charities, Stroum’s major qualification for the post appeared to be her generous contributions to Democratic politicians and causes, particularly Obama’s campaign.

Financial reports say Stroum donated the maximum personal amount to Obama’s campaign. She also donated $2,300 to the failed presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards.

As a fundraiser, the records show she was responsible for ginning up at least $500,000 for Obama, putting her near the top of the campaign’s money generators.

The inspector general said it had learned in interviews with embassy staffers that Stroum, shortly after her arrival in Luxembourg, discussed with them “the importance she attaches to the perquisites of” being an ambassador. As such, she was particularly concerned about the state of the ambassador’s residence, which was being renovated, it said.

Because of the renovation, Stroum sought temporary housing. An embassy official spent six weeks searching for an appropriate property and, using contacts in Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and France along with two officials from the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, screened 200 properties and visited 30 to 40.

They found only four that met the ambassador’s requirements and she rejected all of them, according to the report, before an acceptable residence finally was found.

Apart from those difficulties and management problems, the report identified several improprieties while Stroum was in charge in Luxembourg. Among them:

Stroum spent $2,400 to fly with an aide to a Swiss “professional school” whose graduates have gone on to work for Buckingham Palace and similar places to interview candidates to replace a retired property caretaker and a fired chef. The purpose of the trip was listed as “management meetings.” Although no one from the school was hired, such recruitment is allowed only if there are no qualified local employees. In addition, they did not get proper authorization for the trip.

The embassy purchased $3,400 in wine and liquor a day before the 2010 budget year ended in an effort spend as much of its annual entertainment funds as possible. The booze did not arrive until the next fiscal year and State Department rules say embassies are not allowed “to use excess year-end funds” to buy items unless they are used in that year.

Stroum was reimbursed for the purchase of a new bed because she “preferred a queen bed to the king-size bed already provided.” The embassy twice asked Washington to reimburse the amount but was denied because it was a personal choice. Despite the refusals, the No. 2 at the embassy signed off on a voucher “reimbursing the ambassador for the cost of the mattress out of program funds.” The report said the voucher needs to be repaid.

Liberalism = Abuse of Other People’s Money.

Cynthia Stroum ought to be held up as a quintessential liberal, as she is a total hypocrite who talks about how much she cares for the little people while running roughshod over them.  And her selection for an ambassadorship ought to be held up as a quintessential Obama appointment.  It is the paradigm of liberal hypocrisy.

John Edwards, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and every single Democrat in Bell, California are other recent examples of the complete disgustingness of liberalism.  And let’s not forget the pork emperor Barack Obama AND his empress wife Michelle, either.  These and many other Democrats personify the type of people who claim that private citizens aren’t entitled to keep their own money.

Liberals endlessly lecture Republicans as being “hypocrites” when they preach good moral values and then fail to live up to those good values with immoral personal conduct.  And, of course, that IS hypocrisy, no question about it.

But Democrats don’t just preach garbage that they themseleves don’t bother to live up to; they seize other people’s money and routinely hypocritically betray their own stated values using other people’s money to do it.

Just keep in mind that Republicans can’t steal your morality and spend it on their mistresses the way Democrats routinely do in their hypocrisy.

She shouldn’t resign; Obama should look for MORE self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing tyrants JUST LIKE HER so we can better see what Democrat rule is really like.

The Mecca Of Liberal Thought Blacklists Palin Syrah Wine

September 25, 2008

Liberals love to present themseves as “tolerant” and “intellectual,” providing a forum for different ideas and being open to new experiences.  The fact that it is a gigantic croc of something really putrid is completely irrelevant.

An organic wine from Chile has oenophiles in San Francisco turning up their noses. But there’s nothing wrong with the wine. It’s the name that bothers them:

Palin Syrah.

The wine from a boutique vineyard in Chile was once a strong seller, but now it’s an outcast in the City by the Bay because its name comes way too close to a certain governor from the state of Alaska, says Celine Guillou, co-owner of the Yield Wine Bar.

Palin Syrah — pronounced Pay-LEEN — takes its name from a ball used in a Chilean-style hockey game, and it has been on the bar’s wine list for a while. But sales have plummeted ever since John McCain named Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

The story goes on to say, “Before McCain made his announcement it was selling very well, because it’s an affordable wine and it’s from South America,” Guillou said. “Then he made his announcement and we hear people making comments constantly about the wine.”

And we learn that:

Now that the wine has been unofficially blacklisted by San Franciscans, its place on Yield Wine Bar’s list is threatened. “I think people try to see the humor in it, but we’re in San Francisco, so most of the people we have in I’m going to suspect are fairly liberal. People like to joke about it, but for some people it evokes quite a visceral reaction,” Guillou said.

I really have to hand it to San Fransisco liberals; their intolerance, their ingorance, their hostility, and their never-ending ability to put “visceral reactions” ahead of reality time and time again never ceases to amaze me.  I mean, you think, “They can’t all be completely crazy, can they?”  Oh, yes they can.

Hey, conservatives, think like liberals: don’t let your children play with blocks, because it sounds too much like ‘Barack.’