...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...
Showing posts with label Democratic thuggery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic thuggery. Show all posts
13 August 2009
Democrats: Either you're with us, or you're against us...
...which is a policy change from 2001...
For a group of people who complain about conservatives seeing the world in black and white, liberals seem to form their arguments about healthcare insurance healthcare reform in the same frame of mind. Either you agree with the so-called "public option" and everything in the House bill, or you don't want reform at all. There is no time to discuss compromise, in the views of Democrats. The people who are asking the hard questions of their congressional representatives are maligned as "astroturfers," "political terrorists," "mobsters," and "racists." David Broder believes these protesters are going to end up hurting the GOP, which I find troubling since according to a USA Today poll, more independents sympathize with the protesters over Obama/Pelosi spin. It also doesn't occur to Broder to note the frustration Democratic constituents have with their representatives ignoring them, perhaps he's not seen the video of Sheila Jackson-Lee. It seems silly that Democrats expect to get away with griping about Republicans not wanting to compromise, when they [Dems] have already poisoned the well, as they've done many times before.
In their pursuit to prove that Republicans don't want to compromise, Obama absolutists point to placards which depict President Obama as another reincarnation of Hitler, whose name is off-limits, lest the target be Republican (Wonkette believes that Lyndon LaRouche, a Democrat, is now a fringe Republican...or something), use singular episodes of a protester destroying a poster depicting Rosa Parks (more on that here), or make shit up out of whole cloth. The strategy is obvious, if liberals can get away with portraying concerned Amuricans as members of a fringe "I Hate Everything Obama" group, then they can silence other critics of this plan. In addition to all the other questions that remain unanswered by liberals in regards to ObamaCare, why are they so insistent on not holding debate? Was it ok to have our representatives vote on the bill without reading it? I wish the PATRIOT Act received the same consideration from them...
Ann Coulter mentioned on last night's Hannity that Republicans were ready to deal on ObamaCare. It was the Blue Dog Democrats on Henry Waxman's committee that prevented a bill from reaching the House floor before the August recess. That's important, because if Republicans would have given Obama what he wanted, despite the costs, Republicans couldn't adequately oppose Obama's agenda in the future, they'd be a party to it. Coulter suggested that there needed to be some housecleaning on both sides. Thanks to the Blue Dogs and the much maligned "teabaggers," this bill is receiving the sunshine it needs, and liberals don't like it one bit. Their actions throughout this debate makes El Rushbo's statement, about Democrats having to lie to convince voters to vote for them, all the more true.
As I said in the Porkulus debate, if Obamessiah wanted Republican support for his agenda, he wouldn't have excluded them from debate. He called on the Pelosi-Reid cabal to stuff Porkulus down our throats and whined that Republicans had nothing to offer. Though Democrats and their liberals allies would like everyone to believe it's only crazy-assed "reich-wingers" who take issue with ObamaCare, one particular liberal in the Obamedia has some concerns about the so-called "death panel" section, 1233. It'd be wise for liberals to note the concerns Amuricans have about the bill instead of parroting whatever comes from the White House, after all, as Ed Morrissey reminds us, Obama's never been to accomodating to dissent...
Have a great day...
For a group of people who complain about conservatives seeing the world in black and white, liberals seem to form their arguments about health
In their pursuit to prove that Republicans don't want to compromise, Obama absolutists point to placards which depict President Obama as another reincarnation of Hitler, whose name is off-limits, lest the target be Republican (Wonkette believes that Lyndon LaRouche, a Democrat, is now a fringe Republican...or something), use singular episodes of a protester destroying a poster depicting Rosa Parks (more on that here), or make shit up out of whole cloth. The strategy is obvious, if liberals can get away with portraying concerned Amuricans as members of a fringe "I Hate Everything Obama" group, then they can silence other critics of this plan. In addition to all the other questions that remain unanswered by liberals in regards to ObamaCare, why are they so insistent on not holding debate? Was it ok to have our representatives vote on the bill without reading it? I wish the PATRIOT Act received the same consideration from them...
Ann Coulter mentioned on last night's Hannity that Republicans were ready to deal on ObamaCare. It was the Blue Dog Democrats on Henry Waxman's committee that prevented a bill from reaching the House floor before the August recess. That's important, because if Republicans would have given Obama what he wanted, despite the costs, Republicans couldn't adequately oppose Obama's agenda in the future, they'd be a party to it. Coulter suggested that there needed to be some housecleaning on both sides. Thanks to the Blue Dogs and the much maligned "teabaggers," this bill is receiving the sunshine it needs, and liberals don't like it one bit. Their actions throughout this debate makes El Rushbo's statement, about Democrats having to lie to convince voters to vote for them, all the more true.
As I said in the Porkulus debate, if Obamessiah wanted Republican support for his agenda, he wouldn't have excluded them from debate. He called on the Pelosi-Reid cabal to stuff Porkulus down our throats and whined that Republicans had nothing to offer. Though Democrats and their liberals allies would like everyone to believe it's only crazy-assed "reich-wingers" who take issue with ObamaCare, one particular liberal in the Obamedia has some concerns about the so-called "death panel" section, 1233. It'd be wise for liberals to note the concerns Amuricans have about the bill instead of parroting whatever comes from the White House, after all, as Ed Morrissey reminds us, Obama's never been to accomodating to dissent...
Have a great day...
11 August 2009
John Dingell: These protesters are not only un-American, they remind me of the KKK!
Dr. Asten: Except these protesters are Amurican, and they're not intimidating people to not exercise their right to vote...
It seems easy for liberals to play fast and loose with words, but that doesn't seem to faze some, who are upset that people are calling ObamaCare protesters "un-American." The only narrative we've heard from liberals about these town halls is how the protesters are united in opposing a black man, even when their congressman is a white male. Even an anchor on Mess-NBC tried to find a racist angle in the word, "socialism." Liberals can't seem to bend their head around the idea that people have legitimate policy disagreements, that do not translate into personal attacks. When I criticize Obama, Democrats, and Republicans, it's not because of their skin color, it's because I believe their train of thought is in the wrong direction. h/t: GayPatriotWest
John Dingell, the longest serving member in the US House of Representatives, recently stated in an interview on Mess-NBC that the protesters at these town halls remind him of the Ku Klux Klan. This is apparently the narrative we're going to hear from ObamAid drinkers for the next 3.5 years, that all our opposition will be solely based on the fact that Obama's black. For me, and I imagine a few other conservatives, we already knew Obama is black, we don't need liberals to continue to remind us of that. Conservatives don't care about labels, that's a liberal hangup. We oppose what Obama and Congressional Democrats have planned for this nation. I would like to remind liberals of their opposition to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas, and a host of other minority conservatives and they flat out rejected the notion that their opposition was based on their race. Democrats have a history of fighting against equality for blacks and minorities, not Republicans.
Dr. Zero, at HotAir's Green Room, offers an interesting take on the narrative coming from Democrats. He recalls during the 2004 Presidential campaign, how Democrats tried to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth by calling them "discredited." They didn't note the ease in getting 14 people out of over 300, to sign on to the claim that Kerry earned his medals free and clear, without embellishing his military record. The other group, comprised of over 200, said the opposite. They expressed frustration at the inability to make the allegations from the SBVT disappear, and the mounting pressure to get Dan Rather to eventually recant his "Bush went AWOL 'scoop.'" He goes on to say that if you marginalize your opponent, as Obama and his acolytes have tried to do, Obama will enjoy significant support.
I am glad to see that people are undeterred by liberal fantasies about reliving the Jim Crow Era. I am glad that people are actually looking at their financial circumstances and seeing through the smokescreen being used by Obama and his acolytes. I'm surprised that liberals have not been convinced that calling protesters names like "teabagger" or "mob," is counter-intuitive, but then again, these people are always focused on how the kooks on the right will further alienate the rest of Amurica from the GOP, when liberals need to worry about mainstream liberals' continued alienation from the electorate. Joseph Palermo calls on Obama, and other Democratic pols, to hire MORE union thugs to issue beatdowns on an unruly electorate, that's asking too many damned hard questions (I'm sure that'll win them over...).
Have a great day...
It seems easy for liberals to play fast and loose with words, but that doesn't seem to faze some, who are upset that people are calling ObamaCare protesters "un-American." The only narrative we've heard from liberals about these town halls is how the protesters are united in opposing a black man, even when their congressman is a white male. Even an anchor on Mess-NBC tried to find a racist angle in the word, "socialism." Liberals can't seem to bend their head around the idea that people have legitimate policy disagreements, that do not translate into personal attacks. When I criticize Obama, Democrats, and Republicans, it's not because of their skin color, it's because I believe their train of thought is in the wrong direction. h/t: GayPatriotWest
John Dingell, the longest serving member in the US House of Representatives, recently stated in an interview on Mess-NBC that the protesters at these town halls remind him of the Ku Klux Klan. This is apparently the narrative we're going to hear from ObamAid drinkers for the next 3.5 years, that all our opposition will be solely based on the fact that Obama's black. For me, and I imagine a few other conservatives, we already knew Obama is black, we don't need liberals to continue to remind us of that. Conservatives don't care about labels, that's a liberal hangup. We oppose what Obama and Congressional Democrats have planned for this nation. I would like to remind liberals of their opposition to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas, and a host of other minority conservatives and they flat out rejected the notion that their opposition was based on their race. Democrats have a history of fighting against equality for blacks and minorities, not Republicans.
Dr. Zero, at HotAir's Green Room, offers an interesting take on the narrative coming from Democrats. He recalls during the 2004 Presidential campaign, how Democrats tried to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth by calling them "discredited." They didn't note the ease in getting 14 people out of over 300, to sign on to the claim that Kerry earned his medals free and clear, without embellishing his military record. The other group, comprised of over 200, said the opposite. They expressed frustration at the inability to make the allegations from the SBVT disappear, and the mounting pressure to get Dan Rather to eventually recant his "Bush went AWOL 'scoop.'" He goes on to say that if you marginalize your opponent, as Obama and his acolytes have tried to do, Obama will enjoy significant support.
I am glad to see that people are undeterred by liberal fantasies about reliving the Jim Crow Era. I am glad that people are actually looking at their financial circumstances and seeing through the smokescreen being used by Obama and his acolytes. I'm surprised that liberals have not been convinced that calling protesters names like "teabagger" or "mob," is counter-intuitive, but then again, these people are always focused on how the kooks on the right will further alienate the rest of Amurica from the GOP, when liberals need to worry about mainstream liberals' continued alienation from the electorate. Joseph Palermo calls on Obama, and other Democratic pols, to hire MORE union thugs to issue beatdowns on an unruly electorate, that's asking too many damned hard questions (I'm sure that'll win them over...).
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)