Dr. Asten: Maybe he was returning the favor...
Liberals are pissed at Connecticut senator, Joe Lieberman, for having legitimate opposition to the expansion of Medicare as a replacement for the "public" option. The anti-purity-test liberals of the Democratic base have declared the senator "Public Enemy #1" and have called on Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to strip him of his committee chairmanship. Jane Hamsher, of Firedoglake, issues a "cease and desist" letter to celebrities calling on them to stop donating to Susan G. Komen's "Race for the Cure" organization where Lieberman's wife, Hadassah, is the spokeswoman (I wonder how many women will die of breast cancer if Hamsher's hair-brained scheme goes as planned...). These liberals act as if Lieberman had bamboozled Senate Democrats into thinking he supported their idea of "reform," and all of a sudden, had a change of heart. The problem is that Joe has made his positions known for quite sometime (It IS true that liberals believe history began this morning...).
This may be a stretch, but I find it amazing how liberals believe the US should ensure terrorist suspects are afforded every comfort known to man under the misguided belief that by doing so, they'll be nicer to us and leave us the hell alone, but are up in arms at their belief that Senator Lieberman will just not be satisfied. To me, the problem is not Joe Lieberman, it is the Democratic Congressional leadership who misread the results of the 2008 election. Senator Lieberman is the latest scapegoat for Obamessiah's agenda stalling in Congress. In a few weeks, there'll be another one. Democrats, as evidenced by their "gay rights" faction, can't seem to blame themselves for not being able to judge election results accurately...
Just a few days ago, between blaming Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Matthew Yglesias at the Toilet Paper factory, felt it was the "incoherent institutional set-up" in the US Senate that guarantees failure. Absent are Yglesia's posts about this faulty "set-up" during the Bush Years, when Democrats championed the filibuster privilege in an attempt to stymie the former president's judicial appointees and other items on his agenda. Oddly, this "incoherent" set-up didn't prohibit other presidents and previous congresses from passing laws. I wonder why the world's smartest legislators and president haven't figured out what their predecessors did a long time ago. It all goes back to a recurring theme, they misread the mandate...
Some Democrats in Congress are learning the lesson and have decided to call it quits, rather than suffer either a primary or general election defeat next year. I wonder if liberals will have the same feelings about congressional Democrats retiring four at a time, as they did about Republicans retiring before the 2006 elections. Liberals saw those retirements in 2006 as rats jumping from Bush's sinking ship, but something tells me that liberals won't believe that about themselves...it's 'cause they think they're smarter than you. Heck, if a so-called "public" option fails in the Senate, many Democrats will sit the election out anyway. From the looks of it, many Dems will be at home catching the six o'clock news then...so it's win-win.
It's nice to see confident Democrats now losing sleep at night worried about their congressional majorities. I say, shoulda worried about that while they were demonizing the Tea Party protesters and their constituents during the August townhall meetings...
Have a great day...
Showing posts with label liberal hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal hypocrisy. Show all posts
14 December 2009
20 August 2009
Democrats in 2001-2008: Namecalling against your opponents is a sign of your patriotic duty to dissent!
Democrats in 2009: Namecalling is un-Amurican!
I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.
I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.
Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).
It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational.Only now, are we seeing these liberal revisionists claiming they condemned the rhetoric of their ideological cohorts during the Bush years. They're still under this delusion that each and every protester who brings a gun to an Obama event is a GOP operative. In some cases, they attribute one of their own to the Right. If this behavior is being criticized by liberals now, then it should be criticized when a Republican is targeted. But liberals are counting on the electorate to believe their lies...
Have a great day...
I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.
I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.
Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).
It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational.
Have a great day...
18 August 2009
Digby: Replacing conservative Democrats in conservative districts is a win for Obama...
...and Republicans are stupid!
DKos/Research2K recently released a poll that is being used by some liberal blogs as evidence that it is only the Right who's lying in the ObamaCare debate. The numbers, to me at least, indicate that not very many people understand what is in the bills that make up ObamaCare. They aren't hearing the truth from their Democratic congressional delegation, and they're not hearing it from the Teleprompter-in-Chief. If it has only been the Right who's been lying about ObamaCare, then the Left should have been quick to explain why the Right's assertions were wrong. The only thing I've seen ObamaCare supporters do is demonize, marginalize, but offer no rebuttals.
Expressing frustration over conservative Democrats' objections about the bill, blue blogger, Digby, calls on Democrats to oust the Blue Dogs from Congress because he believes they will never side with the president (then why are they Democrats?). Does Digby's finger-wagging indignation lie in his ignorance of the districts these Blue Dog Democrats represent? If Blue Dogs fail to represent their conservative constituents, then a reversal of Rahm Emanuel's 2006 and 2008 strategy will occur. Instead of siding with conservatism-lite, they'll go for the full monty and vote Republican. If Democrats decide to pursue Digby's strategy and campaign against say, my congressman John Barrow (D-GA), by placing an outright liberal in the primary, and he wins, the voters here will go Republican. Digby will have to kiss Obamessiah's "successful" legislation goodbye.
Roger Ebert weighs in on the questionable Section 1233, which mandates "end-of-life" counseling. One can draw similarities between this and the illegal immigration debates during 2006 and 2007. Opposition to government mandated "end-of-life" counseling is conflated to mean the opponents oppose all forms of "end-of-life" counseling, just as opposition to illegal immigration means opponents are "racists," that oppose immigration...oh, and "they hate Obama." No one takes issue with "end-of-life" counseling, when the government gets involved, by mandating it every five years, or sooner if a person is mentally ill, it gets people worried. No one who's railing against "death panels," save a few, have anything to say about that.
Seniors are worried, and are falling away from supporting ObamaCare, and the organizations who are hellbent on supporting it. Obama has proposed a cut to Medicare Advantage, which allows people under MediCare to pay premiums for coverage not available under their traditional MediCare plan (I bet liberals aren't going to call Obama out on that lie...). The only thing liberals seem to be focused on is making sure legitimate concerns are marginalized like kooks who bring guns to Obama greenhouse events. I stress that a majority of people are in support of healthcare reform, despite Obama and his acolytes' insistence of the contrary, they want ObamaCare to make our system more self-sustaining. How he intends to flood the system with his number, 47 million, and keep it "deficit neutral," is beyond me...and everyone else.
But it's only the Right who's lying...remember that!
Have a great day...
DKos/Research2K recently released a poll that is being used by some liberal blogs as evidence that it is only the Right who's lying in the ObamaCare debate. The numbers, to me at least, indicate that not very many people understand what is in the bills that make up ObamaCare. They aren't hearing the truth from their Democratic congressional delegation, and they're not hearing it from the Teleprompter-in-Chief. If it has only been the Right who's been lying about ObamaCare, then the Left should have been quick to explain why the Right's assertions were wrong. The only thing I've seen ObamaCare supporters do is demonize, marginalize, but offer no rebuttals.
Expressing frustration over conservative Democrats' objections about the bill, blue blogger, Digby, calls on Democrats to oust the Blue Dogs from Congress because he believes they will never side with the president (then why are they Democrats?). Does Digby's finger-wagging indignation lie in his ignorance of the districts these Blue Dog Democrats represent? If Blue Dogs fail to represent their conservative constituents, then a reversal of Rahm Emanuel's 2006 and 2008 strategy will occur. Instead of siding with conservatism-lite, they'll go for the full monty and vote Republican. If Democrats decide to pursue Digby's strategy and campaign against say, my congressman John Barrow (D-GA), by placing an outright liberal in the primary, and he wins, the voters here will go Republican. Digby will have to kiss Obamessiah's "successful" legislation goodbye.
Roger Ebert weighs in on the questionable Section 1233, which mandates "end-of-life" counseling. One can draw similarities between this and the illegal immigration debates during 2006 and 2007. Opposition to government mandated "end-of-life" counseling is conflated to mean the opponents oppose all forms of "end-of-life" counseling, just as opposition to illegal immigration means opponents are "racists," that oppose immigration...oh, and "they hate Obama." No one takes issue with "end-of-life" counseling, when the government gets involved, by mandating it every five years, or sooner if a person is mentally ill, it gets people worried. No one who's railing against "death panels," save a few, have anything to say about that.
Seniors are worried, and are falling away from supporting ObamaCare, and the organizations who are hellbent on supporting it. Obama has proposed a cut to Medicare Advantage, which allows people under MediCare to pay premiums for coverage not available under their traditional MediCare plan (I bet liberals aren't going to call Obama out on that lie...). The only thing liberals seem to be focused on is making sure legitimate concerns are marginalized like kooks who bring guns to Obama greenhouse events. I stress that a majority of people are in support of healthcare reform, despite Obama and his acolytes' insistence of the contrary, they want ObamaCare to make our system more self-sustaining. How he intends to flood the system with his number, 47 million, and keep it "deficit neutral," is beyond me...and everyone else.
But it's only the Right who's lying...remember that!
Have a great day...
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)