The liberal media does a great job of portraying moderates as staunch conservatives. They make the masses believe conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, equal KKK Grand Wizards with better vocabularies and more teeth. They pretend extreme liberals Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are moderate, while regular liberals are "conservative Democrats." So when liberals try and call themselves Republicans, the media says, "The Republicans are so close-minded they won't allow moderates into their party."
How do the media do this?
They tell their followers that Rush Limbaugh praised certain aspects of slavery when he never once uttered a word in favor of the vile practice.
You have to credit the media for turning America left. They made George W. Bush seem like a staunch conservative when he was actually a very moderate man. Because they succeeded in making the masses think Mr. Bush held extreme views, it's easy for them to portray Mr. Limbaugh as an extreme right-winger, when in reality he simply holds conservative beliefs. But the liberals' goal is not spreading the simple truth. Otherwise they wouldn't fabricate quotes. They're only interested in you believing what they believe, even if it means lying to you over and over again.
Because of the constant lies, your children will not enjoy the freedoms you have taken for granted your entire life. Elections have consequences, and because you didn't have time to research your pick for president, instead choosing to rely on the likes of Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson, your children will face jail time for failing to purchase health care.
After all, it's because of you that people are being killed in the name of political correctness. Sure people died at the Fort Hood shooting, but at least the terrorist never had his feelings hurt in the years leading up to the massacre.
Your children will soon live in a world where they are targets of terrorists who could have been stopped if not for political correctness, who will face jail time if they don't buy health care, and who are unable to purchase the automobile best suited to fit the needs of their family due to speculation from non-scientist politicians who have a monetary stake in the world buying into their scientifically-unproven theory.
They talk about parents wanting more for their children, but your children will have much less freedom than you enjoyed.
And it'll all be because of you.
What's the Harm in Destroying Whitey?
The Reverend Al Sharpton's response to those pesky justice-seekers who point out that he has several times tried to bring down white men for their alleged crimes, crimes that never took place, is one of contempt. He often threatens lawsuits against those who simply bring up facts.
You'd think a man who accused others of horrendous crimes would be contrite when it was proven that those men were in fact innocent. I'm writing specifically about the Duke Lacrosse case as well as the Tawana Brawley case.
But, to the Reverend Sharpton, it doesn't matter that his accusations were not based on anything other than unsubstantiated speculation, as long as the men he was attempting to destroy were Caucasian.
A claim of racism is one of the most serious allegations one man can make against another; yet Reverend Sharpton and his ilk do it on seemingly a daily basis. The same goes for cases of sexual abuse.
To them, the white man has been persecuting minorities for so long that a few innocent Caucasians rotting in prison or being branded as racists for the rest of their lives is only a drop in the bucket.
Deep down, the Reverend Sharpton probably believes that every white man feels African-Americans are second class citizens, or far worse. Why would someone think that way? ...Because Reverend Sharpton probably believes the same about Caucasians.
Other liberals likely wouldn't go out of their way to destroy the lives of innocent white people, yet have no problem cheering when others like Reverend Sharpton do the dirty work.
That's the different between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives enjoy debating ideas, while liberals enjoy destroying the lives of people with whom they disagree or individuals who don't fit into a particular ethnic group as long as the demonization of said individuals furthers their political goals.
Otherwise a person making false accusations would apologize once it became perfectly clear the accusations were indeed false.
But, to Reverend Sharpton, no apology is necessary, because, as long as his intention was to demonize whitey, he did right thing.
You'd think a man who accused others of horrendous crimes would be contrite when it was proven that those men were in fact innocent. I'm writing specifically about the Duke Lacrosse case as well as the Tawana Brawley case.
But, to the Reverend Sharpton, it doesn't matter that his accusations were not based on anything other than unsubstantiated speculation, as long as the men he was attempting to destroy were Caucasian.
A claim of racism is one of the most serious allegations one man can make against another; yet Reverend Sharpton and his ilk do it on seemingly a daily basis. The same goes for cases of sexual abuse.
To them, the white man has been persecuting minorities for so long that a few innocent Caucasians rotting in prison or being branded as racists for the rest of their lives is only a drop in the bucket.
Deep down, the Reverend Sharpton probably believes that every white man feels African-Americans are second class citizens, or far worse. Why would someone think that way? ...Because Reverend Sharpton probably believes the same about Caucasians.
Other liberals likely wouldn't go out of their way to destroy the lives of innocent white people, yet have no problem cheering when others like Reverend Sharpton do the dirty work.
That's the different between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives enjoy debating ideas, while liberals enjoy destroying the lives of people with whom they disagree or individuals who don't fit into a particular ethnic group as long as the demonization of said individuals furthers their political goals.
Otherwise a person making false accusations would apologize once it became perfectly clear the accusations were indeed false.
But, to Reverend Sharpton, no apology is necessary, because, as long as his intention was to demonize whitey, he did right thing.
They Hated Bush Because He Was White!
When you closely examine the policies of former President George W. Bush, you discover that he's a pretty liberal guy. In fact, he and the Democrats have a lot in common.
Let's look at some of the truly progressive things President George W. Bush did while in the White House. He gave more to Africa than anyone in the history of humanity, spent taxpayer money like it was going out of style, all but promised to go down to the border and escort illegal immigrants into America with a heartfelt, "Howdy y'all - stay as long as ya want now!".
He is a liberal in so many ways, yet liberals hated him...
Why?
It had to be because of the color of his skin.
They couldn't handle a white man in the White House!
You Dems might be tempted to argue that you fundamentally disagree with many of former President Bush's policies, but conservatives, who have always frowned upon socialism, are in the same boat.
A year before President Obama was even a candidate, if you would have asked a conservative for their reaction to the next president passing a huge stimulus package, attempting to cram universal healthcare down the throats of Americans, and filling the White House with radical czars, some of whom are admitted communists, the conservative would have most assuredly flipped their lid, despite the fact that their was NO mention of race.
But if icons such as Jimmy Carter say that conservatives who criticize President Obama are racists, then Jimmy Carter is a racist for criticizing President Bush, because anyone who criticizes anyone is only doing so because of skin color.
Since nobody can be for lower taxes and higher taxes, we're all racists.
Ah, but, according to you liberals, minorities can't be racists, because, based on your definition of racism, they lack the power.
So only white people can be racists, and since President Carter disagrees with African-Americans such as Clarence Thomas and RNC Head Michael Steele, it means he is a flat-out, unadulterated racist human being.
Throughout history, while minorities, such as Hispanic Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, have been praised for saying people belonging to their own race are better than white people; all white people who have made racially insensitive statements regarding minorities have been terminated by their employers or forced to resign. See Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder and Al Campanis.
Therefore all whites should immediately receive their walking papers and minorities should be the only individuals left employed. Of course that would leave a lot of jobs that needed filling, which could easily be done using illegal immigrants.
White people could survive on what minorities in government (since Congressperson is a job, no Caucasian should be allowed to represent the people of America) deem necessary in the form of welfare.
It sure is a shame we will no longer get to see Peyton Manning hurl the football around on Sunday, Tom Cruise smash a few heads in his latest blockbuster, or Britney Spears bust a move on stage...
On second thought, maybe this new America won't be so bad.
Let's look at some of the truly progressive things President George W. Bush did while in the White House. He gave more to Africa than anyone in the history of humanity, spent taxpayer money like it was going out of style, all but promised to go down to the border and escort illegal immigrants into America with a heartfelt, "Howdy y'all - stay as long as ya want now!".
He is a liberal in so many ways, yet liberals hated him...
Why?
It had to be because of the color of his skin.
They couldn't handle a white man in the White House!
You Dems might be tempted to argue that you fundamentally disagree with many of former President Bush's policies, but conservatives, who have always frowned upon socialism, are in the same boat.
A year before President Obama was even a candidate, if you would have asked a conservative for their reaction to the next president passing a huge stimulus package, attempting to cram universal healthcare down the throats of Americans, and filling the White House with radical czars, some of whom are admitted communists, the conservative would have most assuredly flipped their lid, despite the fact that their was NO mention of race.
But if icons such as Jimmy Carter say that conservatives who criticize President Obama are racists, then Jimmy Carter is a racist for criticizing President Bush, because anyone who criticizes anyone is only doing so because of skin color.
Since nobody can be for lower taxes and higher taxes, we're all racists.
Ah, but, according to you liberals, minorities can't be racists, because, based on your definition of racism, they lack the power.
So only white people can be racists, and since President Carter disagrees with African-Americans such as Clarence Thomas and RNC Head Michael Steele, it means he is a flat-out, unadulterated racist human being.
Throughout history, while minorities, such as Hispanic Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, have been praised for saying people belonging to their own race are better than white people; all white people who have made racially insensitive statements regarding minorities have been terminated by their employers or forced to resign. See Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder and Al Campanis.
Therefore all whites should immediately receive their walking papers and minorities should be the only individuals left employed. Of course that would leave a lot of jobs that needed filling, which could easily be done using illegal immigrants.
White people could survive on what minorities in government (since Congressperson is a job, no Caucasian should be allowed to represent the people of America) deem necessary in the form of welfare.
It sure is a shame we will no longer get to see Peyton Manning hurl the football around on Sunday, Tom Cruise smash a few heads in his latest blockbuster, or Britney Spears bust a move on stage...
On second thought, maybe this new America won't be so bad.
And Hitler Could Have Choked on a Jolly Rancher
One of my favorite arguments against the CIA using rough interrogation methods says that, though waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc. garnered vital information which resulted in saved lives, we can't be certain the exact same information couldn't have been obtained using gentler methods.
So every aggressor in the history of humanity could have been stopped using methods other than those which have proven successful?
We could have made Adolf Hitler close every concentration camp through means other than attacking the German Army! We could have sent leaflets to the commandants asking them to please stop murdering Jewish people?
We don't know the allied forces were even necessary. Hitler could have caught the flu. He could have had an Ebenezer Scrooge-esque dream and changed his evil ways overnight. Today he could be held up as inspiration to those currently headed down the wrong path in life. Dog killer/quarterback Michael Vick could say in a press conference, "I thought about how Adolf Hitler turned all those concentration camps into theme parks for underprivileged children, and decided that if he could do it - So can I!"
But the allies had to go and attack Hitler's army, depriving him of the chance to turn his life around. And can you imagine the emotional toll brought about by seeing his army pelted with artillery!? He was getting daily reports on how his loyal soldiers were being killed! Oh the heartache he must have felt! Hearing from his generals had to be tougher on Hitler than a waterboarding session was for Muslim extremists. Yet you liberals don't admonish the allies like you admonish the Bush Administration. Why not!? In fact, you become extremely agitated when people compare you to Hitler. Why!?
Hitler wanted people dead and Muslim extremists want people dead. They had equal goals, yet you only admonish those who stopped Muslim extremists. You do realize that those who stopped Hitler used a plethora of armies equipped with real guns!
And do you really believe nicely interrogating terrorists would result in useful intelligence? Seriously?
Let's say someone kidnaps you with the express purpose of getting information that you're desperate not to give. Perhaps they would like to infiltrate ACLU headquarters, but can't work the internet and don't know where it is. They've got you tied to a chair and are demanding you tell them how to get there. You know they want to harm the ACLU, and if you spill the beans, the beloved association of which you're a proud member could be irreparably damaged... I'm sure asking you nicely is the best way to pry the information from your cold, dead brain; right?
The fact you people make the argument that nicely asking a captured terrorist if an attack is imminent may work just as well as using mildly forceful tactics is all you need to know about... well, you.
When you have arguments that don't make a lick of sense, your leaders need to lie, which is the reason President Obama insists he would rather Attorney General Holder move forward by not investigating Bush Administration officials for their role in so-called harsh interrogation methods.
But the truth is clear. And the truth is that you know full well harsh interrogation methods save lives, but since they save American lives, and you view Americans as evil oppressors, you're not as passionate about those lives. Because no person who wants their own country to win a military conflict would stand up and demand everyone be nice to the enemy.
So every aggressor in the history of humanity could have been stopped using methods other than those which have proven successful?
We could have made Adolf Hitler close every concentration camp through means other than attacking the German Army! We could have sent leaflets to the commandants asking them to please stop murdering Jewish people?
We don't know the allied forces were even necessary. Hitler could have caught the flu. He could have had an Ebenezer Scrooge-esque dream and changed his evil ways overnight. Today he could be held up as inspiration to those currently headed down the wrong path in life. Dog killer/quarterback Michael Vick could say in a press conference, "I thought about how Adolf Hitler turned all those concentration camps into theme parks for underprivileged children, and decided that if he could do it - So can I!"
But the allies had to go and attack Hitler's army, depriving him of the chance to turn his life around. And can you imagine the emotional toll brought about by seeing his army pelted with artillery!? He was getting daily reports on how his loyal soldiers were being killed! Oh the heartache he must have felt! Hearing from his generals had to be tougher on Hitler than a waterboarding session was for Muslim extremists. Yet you liberals don't admonish the allies like you admonish the Bush Administration. Why not!? In fact, you become extremely agitated when people compare you to Hitler. Why!?
Hitler wanted people dead and Muslim extremists want people dead. They had equal goals, yet you only admonish those who stopped Muslim extremists. You do realize that those who stopped Hitler used a plethora of armies equipped with real guns!
And do you really believe nicely interrogating terrorists would result in useful intelligence? Seriously?
Let's say someone kidnaps you with the express purpose of getting information that you're desperate not to give. Perhaps they would like to infiltrate ACLU headquarters, but can't work the internet and don't know where it is. They've got you tied to a chair and are demanding you tell them how to get there. You know they want to harm the ACLU, and if you spill the beans, the beloved association of which you're a proud member could be irreparably damaged... I'm sure asking you nicely is the best way to pry the information from your cold, dead brain; right?
The fact you people make the argument that nicely asking a captured terrorist if an attack is imminent may work just as well as using mildly forceful tactics is all you need to know about... well, you.
When you have arguments that don't make a lick of sense, your leaders need to lie, which is the reason President Obama insists he would rather Attorney General Holder move forward by not investigating Bush Administration officials for their role in so-called harsh interrogation methods.
But the truth is clear. And the truth is that you know full well harsh interrogation methods save lives, but since they save American lives, and you view Americans as evil oppressors, you're not as passionate about those lives. Because no person who wants their own country to win a military conflict would stand up and demand everyone be nice to the enemy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)