Liberals: Hey, let's boycott something, just for the hell of it...

...because we have nothing else better to do...

Liberals proclaim to the unsuspecting masses how much they care for the little guy. Minorities don't need to stand up for themselves, for the liberal will fight their battles for them. I'm reminded of a very funny episode of All in the Family, where the Bunkers are robbed by two black men, played by Cleavon Little and Demond Wilson. When the Bunkers arrive back home, they find out they've been robbed and become hostages of the robbers. In a discussion that breaks out, the robbers discuss their upbringing and soon discover that Archie is a "dyed in the wool bigot," and that his son-in-law, Mike, is a liberal, who called on Archie to understand the underlying social causes. The robbers chided Mike for talking about a subject he didn't understand.

GayPatriotWest talks about liberals who refuse to understand the fact that people have sincere concerns about their policies. Since liberal groups and protests are funded by the Wizard, they believe everyone else does it. There is always an ulterior motive to the "Tea Party" movement, the "Birthers," the town hall protesters, and the "Deathers." It's like the positions held by conservatives since dirt was new are now deemed "racist," because heaven forbid, there's a black man occupying the Oval Office. Under the guise of making corporate CEOs aware of the programs on which their companies advertise, liberals use what they, and no one else, find offensive to portray a television personality they don't like in a bad light. It's kinda funny when Rudy Giuliani, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin protested "Piss Christ," and Verizon's sponsorship of Akon after his Trinidad incident, respectively, liberals claimed a "chill" was felt over their right to free speech...

Liberals are gleefully talking about companies jumping ship from Glenn Beck's Fox News program, in light of his assertion of calling President Obama a "racist." Usually, when someone's called a "racist," it is liberals who are demanding someone's head on a platter. It was a marked policy shift for liberals to come out against alleged false charges of racism, after parroting that very belief since the Civil Rights Era ended. I would like to ask those liberals who are excited about sponsors pulling away from Beck, "what type of boycott moves their ads to another show on the same network?" and "since liberals are so adamant against 'hate-speech,' when are they going to start going after Keith Olbermann?" Their answers will reveal more than what they'd be trying to hide. One liberal responded to a comment I made on The Reaction that my blindness is preventing me from calling on a boycott of Keith Olbermann, thereby tacitly admitting that this boycott, and his support of it, is because he doesn't like the fact that Beck is conservative (I never knew liberals could be hypocritical...I definitely gotta get out more!).

Gateway Pundit has a post concerning Kenneth Gladney, the black man who suffered a beatdown from SEIU thugs for straying off the plantation, and a protest in front of the St. Louis branch of the NAACP over their silence surrounding the incident. The branch responded that no one contacted them to investigate, which is kinda silly, since they didn't need anyone to contact them on alleged disenfranchisement, or calling on the Cambridge PD to change its policies after Skip-gate, or deeming ObamaCare protesters as "racists." They just turn a blind eye to actual charges of racism, in the hopes of preserving the Democratic Party and its ideals. For if the US truly became a nation that has moved past its racial divide, it'd mark the end of the Democratic Party.

Something tells me that liberals are always looking for someone to replace Emmanuel Goldstein...

Don't you dare tell them thar liburls they're not smart!

Have a great day...

James Carville: Hey, let's blame everything on Republicans and hope it works...

...that strategy helped us in '06 and '08, why wouldn't it work in '10 and '12?

James Carville was an integral part of the Clinton White House, so his latest claim, that forcing the GOP to filibuster ObamaCare would hurt them politically, is absurd. As I noted in a previous post, the 103rd Congress, that was debating HillaryCare, had more than enough votes to pass any and everything the liberal base wanted. No matter how many times Democrats tried to blame their failures on Republicans, the electorate refused to buy the spin. The major problem for HillaryCare lie in the former First Lady's refusal to listen to ideas that would make the bill better, the same is apparently true for Obama. His reliance on San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid to craft a "bipartisan" bill, knowing they're probably the most partisan people on the Hill, shows that he did not intend to compromise at all.

There is a brouhaha over former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey's assertion that the Soros-funded MoveOn.org ran two "Bush=Hitler" commercials in 2004. I would like to note that while MoveOn.org did not run the ads during Bushie's 2004 State of the Union address, they did condone them implicitly, since they did not condemn the comparison. With that said, I would like to focus on the ad that DID win the "Bush in 30 seconds" contest, which showed children who'd be stuck paying for the alleged $1Trillion deficit, created by the Bush Administration. As I type this, there is an "Obama in 30 seconds" contest (though I would like to assume that no "Obama=Hitler" connections will occur in the fuzzy minds of liberals). I am willing to bet that none of the winning ads will tie Obama to the skyrocketing deficit, if anything, they'll remind us how much in lockstep liberals are with Obama's wrongheaded agenda.

In fact, there are some liberals who are still excusing Obama for voting "present," when he should be out in the trenches, and blaming Republicans. Donny Shaw notes that the White House hasn't really put their full weight behind the "public option," and the president's reticence on it would make it that much more difficult to garner votes in the US Senate. The reason ObamaCare will fail will be the blame of Obama and Democrats, not Republicans and the Right. Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's The Daily Show pretty much sums up left-wing talking points thusly.

I don't think that Glenn Beck, nor any other prominent conservative, believes our healthcare system is not in need of reform, contrary to Jon Stewart's assertion. I believe our healthcare system is the best in the world, BUT it should not be subjected to the type of revolution Obama and his acolytes wish to foist upon it. Liberals believe everything about the United States is eeevil and corrupt, and must fall in line with European dictates. There is no proof given by ObamaCare proponents that this bill will tweak our system, it will only degrade it, as many opponents fear. As I've always said, if the system being detailed in HR 3200 is the best thing since the iPod, members of Congress and the White House should subject themselves to it...but none of the ObamaCare proponents are talking about that. Instead, ObamaCare proponents rely on demagoguery to silence the bill's critics.

It seems that while liberals are demonizing the GOP for going back to 1994, they need to save even more vitriol for Democrats who are taking the debate there...

Have a great day...