Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Friday, October 3, 2014
How Herman Cain was treated shows another example of just how low we've sunk.
The hypocracy, arrogance and double-standard of these guys is just amazing. To say nothing of their sneering (to put it politely) at the "concept" of "innocent until proven guilty.
Any naïve liberals out there who think liberals and Democrats have the country's best interests and minorities' best interests - meaning the growth of America, liberty and prosperity with minorities having just as much a chance as anyone else - better pay attention to how Cain was treated. The old leftist slander and smear machine is just as in gear against conservatives who also happen to be minorities today as it was against minorities back in the days of the KKK. Look at how they've treated Supreme Court Clarence Thomas, former-congressman JC Watts, former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and now presidential candidate Herman Cain. All were articulate and damned smart and accomplished individuals, all professed Conservatives who also happened to be black Americans.
I'm sorry to say it, but unfortunately today, "liberal" is apparently a synonym for" hypocrite." Would anyone want to bet that - now that Cain's out of the way - no one ever hears any more about any of these media tramps and their (so far seemingly) false allegations against Cain? For all I can prove or disprove, Herman may have had more ho's than Tiger Woods, but for God's sakes, how about we give the man a chance and presume him innocent until there's proof positive that he's guilty?
I'm sorry to say it, but unfortunately today, "liberal" is apparently a synonym for" hypocrite." Would anyone want to bet that - now that Cain's out of the way - no one ever hears any more about any of these media tramps and their (so far seemingly) false allegations against Cain? For all I can prove or disprove, Herman may have had more ho's than Tiger Woods, but for God's sakes, how about we give the man a chance and presume him innocent until there's proof positive that he's guilty?
Yet, when it was the liberal candidates' womanizing that was not just allegated, but well-documented (Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Slick Willie the intern-molesting Clinton) then we're told to look the other way because, "character doesn't matter." Barak Hussein Obama's only experience before getting elected president of the United States was "community activist" and a less-than-one-term US senator who only voted "present" the few times he cast a vote at all. Yet to question his qualifications for office was to be labeled a "racist" by liberals. Yet, they lined up to rail at the female Republican vice presidential candidate - Sarah Palin - who'd been a City Council Person and mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission before becoming Governor of Alaska, a position she held from December 2006 until her resignation in July 2009. They called her inexperienced - inexperienced to be the VP, yet they thought a community activist was qualified to be the P! Yep, these liberals are all about advancing qualified women in the world!
And, of course, as soon anyone even begins to question Barak Hussein Obama's unsound, destructive and un-American policies and behaviors since being elected President, well! They tell us that's only cause the questioners are racist. It surely couldn't be because he runs roughshod over the Constitution, shows absolutely no respect for America, her industrial might, her military might nor her seeming to having been the 911 emergency call to the rest of the world as soon as they've ever needed help.
So, there you have it; that's "the side of the aisle" that claims to represent women and minorities against those evil, cold-hearted, racist and chauvinistic Conservatives and Republicans. Joseph Goebbels' Nazi Propaganda Ministry would've been very proud of the liberal media smear machine's accomplishments against a black man like Herman Cain these past few months. Not only did they absolutely ruin a guy's name, reputation and family without a shred of credible proof having been offered to prove the charges beyond an accusation, they managed to vilify the victim while escaping any accountability for their despicable tactics or loss of their own or that of their side's name, reputation or family.
It's disgusting enough to make one vomit.
And, of course, as soon anyone even begins to question Barak Hussein Obama's unsound, destructive and un-American policies and behaviors since being elected President, well! They tell us that's only cause the questioners are racist. It surely couldn't be because he runs roughshod over the Constitution, shows absolutely no respect for America, her industrial might, her military might nor her seeming to having been the 911 emergency call to the rest of the world as soon as they've ever needed help.
So, there you have it; that's "the side of the aisle" that claims to represent women and minorities against those evil, cold-hearted, racist and chauvinistic Conservatives and Republicans. Joseph Goebbels' Nazi Propaganda Ministry would've been very proud of the liberal media smear machine's accomplishments against a black man like Herman Cain these past few months. Not only did they absolutely ruin a guy's name, reputation and family without a shred of credible proof having been offered to prove the charges beyond an accusation, they managed to vilify the victim while escaping any accountability for their despicable tactics or loss of their own or that of their side's name, reputation or family.
It's disgusting enough to make one vomit.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Whatever happened to the rules about "polite mixed company?"
When I was growing up and getting worldly enough to be able to converse about such things, it was drummed into me that one didn't discuss sensitive subjects like politics, sex or religion in polite mixed company. This was to avoid any potential conflicts with those whose opinions might differ and therefore avoid any arguments and resulting hard feelings.
But recently, I've been noticing an interesting but disquieting behavioral trend. I've been noticing the differences in conversation "manners" and how they seem to differ between those of political conservatives compared to those of liberals. Before I get too far into this, perhaps I should mention that several liberal friends of mine have told me over the years that they think I'm more of a moderate. Perhaps that will allow me a little wiggleroom here in terms of what I'm about to say.
With all the political intensity of the past several years, I've been witness to many a conversation about politics and world affairs. Very few of these started out to be such or were held at events or venues that could be considered political. And very few of these conversations were amongst people who were known to have similar political leanings - in fact, either quite the opposite was true or the potential for such was high. Yet most of these conversations have shared a common characteristic; they were initiated by individuals of the liberal persuasion making a rather loud and often very out-of-context political statement.
What is interesting about this is that in all of these occasions, these potentially-inflammatory comments were made with no regard for the possibility that anyone in earshot could have a differing opinion or could feel outright offended by what was said.
So, my question is this; what ever happened to avoiding such sensitive topics in gatherings where there could be resulting tensions, hard feelings and whatnot? When did our society become so divided politically that we ceased focusing on the things that bind us to a common culture, or brought us together as friends in the first place, or our common interests in the activities of a club or group and so on? When instead did cramming one's political opinions down everyone else's throats in the vicinity become a more noble goal?
Whatever happened to keeping our opinions to ourselves unless we're asked for them first? And what's wrong with if we do have to oblige and actually give an opinion, doing so in more hushed tones and finish by saying, "but this really isn't the time or place to discuss politics, so why don't we change the subject?"
Perhaps in the interests of conflict resolution we should revisit the rules of polite society and avoid the conflict before it ever starts by just keeping our opinions on sensitive topics to ourselves unless we're in a venue where open political debate is truly welcome. Perhaps in this way, we all could instead focus on those things that bind us together.
But recently, I've been noticing an interesting but disquieting behavioral trend. I've been noticing the differences in conversation "manners" and how they seem to differ between those of political conservatives compared to those of liberals. Before I get too far into this, perhaps I should mention that several liberal friends of mine have told me over the years that they think I'm more of a moderate. Perhaps that will allow me a little wiggleroom here in terms of what I'm about to say.
With all the political intensity of the past several years, I've been witness to many a conversation about politics and world affairs. Very few of these started out to be such or were held at events or venues that could be considered political. And very few of these conversations were amongst people who were known to have similar political leanings - in fact, either quite the opposite was true or the potential for such was high. Yet most of these conversations have shared a common characteristic; they were initiated by individuals of the liberal persuasion making a rather loud and often very out-of-context political statement.
What is interesting about this is that in all of these occasions, these potentially-inflammatory comments were made with no regard for the possibility that anyone in earshot could have a differing opinion or could feel outright offended by what was said.
So, my question is this; what ever happened to avoiding such sensitive topics in gatherings where there could be resulting tensions, hard feelings and whatnot? When did our society become so divided politically that we ceased focusing on the things that bind us to a common culture, or brought us together as friends in the first place, or our common interests in the activities of a club or group and so on? When instead did cramming one's political opinions down everyone else's throats in the vicinity become a more noble goal?
Whatever happened to keeping our opinions to ourselves unless we're asked for them first? And what's wrong with if we do have to oblige and actually give an opinion, doing so in more hushed tones and finish by saying, "but this really isn't the time or place to discuss politics, so why don't we change the subject?"
Perhaps in the interests of conflict resolution we should revisit the rules of polite society and avoid the conflict before it ever starts by just keeping our opinions on sensitive topics to ourselves unless we're in a venue where open political debate is truly welcome. Perhaps in this way, we all could instead focus on those things that bind us together.
Scare tactics?
With all the protests against socialized medicine going on these days at the townhall meetings, we're hearing about those opposing Obamacare using "scare tactics." Scare tactics? Since when is using common sense, asking for fiscal responsibility, respect for the will of the people and so on considered a scare tactic? Have we sunk that far in our national intellect as to link the request for prudent, efficient government to fearmongering?
Govt run healthcare has no success story anywhere in the world. Rather it has histories of rationing, increased taxation and poor quality. Wanting to avoid that is a scare tactic?
The govt screws up darn near every program it tries to run. Look at Medicare, the IRS and "Cash For Clunkers" just to name a few. The people have spoken and apparently THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT GOVT-RUN HEALTHCARE. Why is that so hard for Obama and the Democrat congresspeople to understand that? They aren't listening to the will of the people so the people's voices have to get louder and have to shout things like "YOU STILL WORK FOR US" to remind them this is still a democracy, not a dictatorship or an elitist form of rule.
Fights have broken out, divorces have occurred and nations have gone to war all because one or both sides of an argument stop listening to each other.
Where were these people back during Bob Dole's '96 run for president when Democrats were saying that Dole - himself an elderly gentlemen at the time - would eventually have the elderly so down and out they'd have to eat dog food if he got elected president? Now that was using scare tactics.
Govt run healthcare has no success story anywhere in the world. Rather it has histories of rationing, increased taxation and poor quality. Wanting to avoid that is a scare tactic?
The govt screws up darn near every program it tries to run. Look at Medicare, the IRS and "Cash For Clunkers" just to name a few. The people have spoken and apparently THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT GOVT-RUN HEALTHCARE. Why is that so hard for Obama and the Democrat congresspeople to understand that? They aren't listening to the will of the people so the people's voices have to get louder and have to shout things like "YOU STILL WORK FOR US" to remind them this is still a democracy, not a dictatorship or an elitist form of rule.
Fights have broken out, divorces have occurred and nations have gone to war all because one or both sides of an argument stop listening to each other.
Where were these people back during Bob Dole's '96 run for president when Democrats were saying that Dole - himself an elderly gentlemen at the time - would eventually have the elderly so down and out they'd have to eat dog food if he got elected president? Now that was using scare tactics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)