The Left’s Accusatory Finger

Pages: 1 2

Christine O’Donnell, U.S. Senate candidate from Delaware, has faced considerable criticism and news media attention about her youthful association with witchcraft. Have we seen similar news media attention given to other politicians who have made bizarre remarks that border on gross stupidity — possibly lunacy?

During a congressional Armed Services hearing in March, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., expressed concern that stationing 8,000 Marines and their equipment on Guam, our Pacific territory, could cause the island “to become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.” Such a remark is grossly stupid but the liberal press didn’t give it anywhere near the amount of attention and derision that they gave Christine O’Donnell.

On the campaign trail in March 2008, then-presidential candidate Obama told his Beaverton, Ore., audience, “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” Whether Obama misspoke or not, that’s a grossly stupid remark, but white liberals among the intellectual elite and the liberal news media all but ignored it. Of course, when former Vice President Dan Quayle misspelled “potatoe,” they pounced upon it and had a field day.

So what might explain the liberals giving Hank Johnson and Obama a pass whilst playing up the perceived shortcomings of Christine O’Donnell and Dan Quayle? The answer might be as simple as just looking at the colors involved. O’Donnell and Quayle are white and Johnson and Obama are black. That means the white liberal vision comes into play where to openly oppose, criticize and ridicule blacks is racist. The key term is openly. I bet that when alone, in trusted company, white liberals crack up over the things that some black people say and do. The white liberal vision holds one set of standards to which white people are obliged and another that’s lower for blacks.

I don’t believe that white liberals are racists in the sense that Klansmen and neo-Nazis are; however, their paternalistic and demeaning attitudes toward blacks are far more debilitating.

Pages: 1 2

  • davarino

    Walter didnt talk about the way some comedians talked about Rice. It was totally wrong what some of them did, and some were black. Rice is a good person, a very sophisticated, and educated person, but the way she was treated just because she was republican was so two faced. The left should be ashamed of themselves, but they have no shame, only a mission.

    • firewalker

      Interesting! The same could be said about the Right's abuse of Obama. Maybe it's time for both Left and Right to agree that working together gets more constructive progress.
      Oops! there's that awful word 'progress' sneaking into the conversation again. The anger that so many feel about government could go a very long way toward change for the betterment of all if strict allegiance were not paid to "all or nothing" philosophies on either side of the issues.

      • Chuckray

        "The Rights Abuse of Obama?" What is racist about wanting smaller constitutional gov't.? Firewalker, huh? You wouldn't be that Lucifer that Saul Alinsky was so fond of would you?

      • Lustmorde

        The word 'progress' has little meaning in a political context anymore, since your side has such penchant for reinterpreting and redefining words. I have little doubt that your definition of 'progress' is truly awful.

      • Reason_For_Life

        Really?

        How about a cartoon with George Soros saying to his butler Obama "Boy, fetch my bailout!"

        You will never see it because people don't hate Obama for his race, they hate him because his policies show that he hates them.

  • tim heekin

    I'm reminded of when "Vice President" Biden waxed fondly about FDR's televised fireside chats.

    • trickyblain

      That was pretty bad. How about when Hilary claimed she came under fire?

      Or when Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet? Yeah, nobody heard about that from the "MSM". Even though he never said it.

      • lilliberalme

        Or how about the time that Dick Cheney and George Bush claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and took us into an illegal war. Now THAT was a riot! ha ha ha

        • trickyblain

          My all-time fav was the SOU when W told us, right as the war in Iraq began becoming unpopular, that we are heading to Mars. Mars! Pay no mind to what's happening here, look over there — 40 million miles away.

          This was just before he warned us about the dangers of "animal-human hybrids." Why didn't we listen?!?!

          • therealend

            "the war is lost" Who said that? Right before the surge? RIght before the surge changed things dramatically? I know it wasn't W. Who could it have been? Was it the same person who said he voted for the war before he voted against it? No, it was somebody else. It'll come to me.

          • trickyblain

            1) Harry Reid
            2) John Kerry

            And how do I know this? The "MSM" that never reports thinkgs liberals say.

          • therealend

            True, they did report that minus the skewer marks.

        • therealend

          Illegal? Was that because so many Democrats voted to go into Iraq? Such as Hillary Clinton, Dodd, Edwards to name a few. Highly pricipled people, wouldn't you say? How did you not remember that?

  • Dr. Know

    I saw the signs myself… He's a Nazi; He's an idoit [sic] (French idiot); No blood for oil…
    Oops. Sorry. Those were the daily signs aimed at President Bush.
    The L Ib E ral S are lemmings; rodent zombies chanting, "Duh, yes we can."
    Am I being too direct? Too concise? Too Honest?

  • trickyblain

    That "57 states" thing is so incredibly lame. Look at the video. A clearly exhaused Obama stumbles when talking about the contiguous 48 states ("with onbe left to go"). Sure libs say some pretty dumb thing on occasion, but it's a real stretch to claim that Obama doesn't know how many states are in the union.

    On the other, hand a peppy and perky O'Donnell explains to us that evolution is bunk because she's never seen a monkey transform into a human before her eyes. So we have a verbal slip vs. a fundimental rejection of empirical fact and accepted science.

    • MsJuJuB

      "empirical fact and accepted science"? Really? So, TB, theories and hypothesis is fact in your world? Just like the "scientists" (scarcasm switch on) that evaded the scientific method of discovery to subvert, conspire and manipulate results to meet the working hypothesis of "climate" history. I don't know TB, I will choose many over the current smoking, boozing (2010 recommendations of physical exam: "cut back on alcohol consumption", coke head (his book), Marxist (his book), malignant narcisstic president. Obama" intelligence and abilities were hype on a grand scale. I know of no scientist that considers working theories as "fact", such as human evolution.

      • trickyblain

        Hypotheisis are based on fact. Hypothesis leads to theory. And there are litterally millions of facts that support evolution. Not a single fact supports a sky god waving a magic wand and making it all appear.

        • coyote3

          No they aren't, not necessarily. They can be mere conjecture and still be hypotheisis. Indeed, hypothesis does not lead to theory unless there is experimentation to verify it. No one said anything about any "sky god".

          • trickyblain

            Scientific observation is empirical – factually based. Observation leads to hypothesis, the hypothosis is tested and if proven viable, becomes theory. I'd have to see an example of

            The sky god reference came from O'Donnell's belief system. I guess you could call it the "god of the solstices" as well, since the sacred times for Western religious still revolve around the same sacred times of their pagan ancestors.

          • Vic

            Theological as well as scientific ignorance on display for all to see.

    • ELivaudais

      Are you dumb? Americans know that there are 50 states thus there is no confusion. But since Obama is not American, he was confused with the 47 Muslim States therefore he slipped when he said that he had alreadY gone to 57 states and had one more to go; also he is not much of anything without his teleprompter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_major

      You must know nothing about True Science because there is NO WAY that you can get living Organic cells out of nonliving Inorganic matter. Dr. Carl Baugh was a professor of evolution until he discovered that it won't work in reality. He now teaches Creation and has a Creation Evidence Museum in TX. Check out these websites and get informed and know the Truth. The question is: can you handle the TRUTH? http://www.creationevidence.org/
      http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com
      http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com

      • trickyblain

        By saying "there is no way you get…." shows that you are scientifically illiterate.

        By saying that Obama meant, what? He really meant Muslim states, but since there are only 48, not 57, he really meant, what? So he's neither a good Muslim or a good American.

        Only idiots capitalize truth. Only supreme idiots capitalize "true science" (whatever that means)

        Get a Real Education or just stop talking.

        • txn4ever

          trickylame,

          You don't know didley about science. A hypothesis proves nothing. A theory is not proof of anything. They are both attempts to explain observable phenomena with a theory being somewhat more robust since those who postulate the theory generally provide some explanation as to how the theory could be disproved.

          The theory postulated for evolution and the requirements for disproving evolution are laughable in scientific terms. One has to prove that an inifinite series of random mutations "can not" turn a single cell life form into President Obama. OK, maybe that's a bad example. But for every successful mutation there should loads of unsuccessful mutations that died off. There should be a lear line in the fossil record, with no holes or gaps, that would clearly show the evolutionary tree.

          Guess what? No such tree exists.

          • trickyblain

            txn, I never said that a hypothesis proves anything. A theory is just as the name suggests.

            Evolution is simply the most plausible scientific explanation (theory) as of this moment, as it has been for the last 150 years. I'm not asking anyone to “disprove” evolution, I'm asking for a theory that is more plausible based on observable data. Since the most essential component of creationism (a "creator") has never been observed in the earthly realm – in any objective scientific fashion — it ain't it!

            And are claiming that the fossil record is complete? That is to say, modern scientists have fossil record of every successful and failed species ever to inhabit the planet? No peer-reviewed paleontologist would claim that. Maybe those "holes" are merely undiscovered records? After all, a pretty special and rare set of circumstances has to occur to produce a fossil that will last millions of years.

    • lilliberalme

      You got that right or how about her stating she's dabbled in witchcraft? Now that's a balanced individual eh? lol

      • therealend

        Is that the disqualification for office now? I mean since Hillary dabbled in channeling Eleanor Roosevelt's long dead spirit? Perhaps she could have asked Mrs R where her law firm records went or she may have channeled J Paul Getty for his help in cattle futures investing. If she did, Mr Getty steered her right. Maybe she's just psychic but that wouldn't explain why she didn't know what her husband was up to and where her law firm records disappeared to or who brought them back. Or that she would lose the primaries to Obama. Or that she shouldn't vote for getting into the war in Iraq. Or Iraq didn't have any WMDs. Is that what you meant by a balanced individual?

      • Vic

        Yes indeed, we have so many "balanced" individuals in DC these days!… "?"… I'm sure the self proclaimed "bearded Marxist" is much more "balanced".

    • Reason_For_Life

      There are two hundred years of empirical data that government spending does damage to the economy. Obama denies this is true so that makes him every bit as unscientific as those who deny the validity of evolution.

      If O'Donnell is wrong about evolution (which she is) it will have next to no effect on the average person. If Obama is wrong about Keynesian spending (which he is) millions of people will suffer.

      O'Donnell's ignorance is a lot less threatening that Obama's.

  • mystified

    Amen! How about the first couple taking off for a spa weekend days after the BP explosion? This is on a left wing site and STILL they sleep. At least there is one conservative blog on Salon. All is not lost!
    The Spill, the Spa and the School-Globalization Czar (http://open.salon.com//blog/nyframed/2010/09/16/the_spill_the_spa_and_the_school-globalization_czar)

    • lilliberalme

      OR how about the Conservative Right who wants to cut taxes for the RICH and will hold up any extension of the tax cuts that leaves them out? Now that's a riot too! Yeah, those good old boys, always looking out for the CEOs, what would we do without them? ha ha

      • coyote3

        The rich are, in large part, responsible responsible for the increase in wealth for the nation, as a whole. I guess the rich are just here to be oppressed and discriminated against.