Charles Krauthammer's presidental endorsment. Interesting perspective...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302867_pf.html
CU's voter guide coming next week.
conservativeuncensored.com RSS feeds
Posts
All Comments
25 October 2008
22 October 2008
The Fairness Doctorine...
AAL: 2
I hesitate to post this, because all this does is give ideas to anti-press leaders (which in fairness, huh that word again, I consider both McCain and Obama to be), but this recent talk about the fairness doctorine has me worried.
People are always going to choose what they want to buy, or watch, or read, or listen to. Reviving the "Fairness Doctorine" in communicaitons would force many outlets to make sure time is equal. On the surface that seems okay, but lets look a little deeper.
I know the most common argument against the Fairness Doctorine is the trappings in finding the mythical most neutral person in the world to arbitrate this (by the way this person hangs out with Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, and all the Super Bowl trophies the Buffalo Bills have won). However I'm going to take a different look at this.
If the goverment gets to control who says what when on the media and that's percieved as fair, does it also seem fair if the government...
1) Forces you to buy an Ann Coulter book for every Al Franken book you want to buy...
2) Forces you to buy a ticket for "W" with every ticket for "An American Carol"...
3) Forces you to watch "Davey and Golaith" after you watch "Family Guy"
4) Forces you to watch Hannity after watching Olberjerkoff
5) Regulate your computer so you spend equal time on homework and facebook (now I have your attention)
6) Forces you to watch "Gary Unmarried" after watching "How I Met Your Mother" (this one is not really partisan, but only one of these shows is of legen-wait-for-it-dary quality).
I know nobody is talking about doing these thing (yet), and obviously some of them are not possible. But I would like any supporter of the Fariness Doctorine to explain to me what the moral difference is that justifies forcing the media to suddenly make sure everything is equal and forcing any of the changes on the list above.
My contention is whatever argument you can make for the Fairness Doctorine you can make for any of the things on my list.
In a sense that's what Conservativeuncensored is about, becuase the media people want to watch will be forced into media they don't want to watch. The government can get away with this because they own all the licensenes. But they don't own the internet (yet). Enjoy conservativeunsensored.com, before somebody in the goverment tries to force me to automatically redirect you to moveon.org when you're navigate away.
I hesitate to post this, because all this does is give ideas to anti-press leaders (which in fairness, huh that word again, I consider both McCain and Obama to be), but this recent talk about the fairness doctorine has me worried.
People are always going to choose what they want to buy, or watch, or read, or listen to. Reviving the "Fairness Doctorine" in communicaitons would force many outlets to make sure time is equal. On the surface that seems okay, but lets look a little deeper.
I know the most common argument against the Fairness Doctorine is the trappings in finding the mythical most neutral person in the world to arbitrate this (by the way this person hangs out with Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, and all the Super Bowl trophies the Buffalo Bills have won). However I'm going to take a different look at this.
If the goverment gets to control who says what when on the media and that's percieved as fair, does it also seem fair if the government...
1) Forces you to buy an Ann Coulter book for every Al Franken book you want to buy...
2) Forces you to buy a ticket for "W" with every ticket for "An American Carol"...
3) Forces you to watch "Davey and Golaith" after you watch "Family Guy"
4) Forces you to watch Hannity after watching Olberjerkoff
5) Regulate your computer so you spend equal time on homework and facebook (now I have your attention)
6) Forces you to watch "Gary Unmarried" after watching "How I Met Your Mother" (this one is not really partisan, but only one of these shows is of legen-wait-for-it-dary quality).
I know nobody is talking about doing these thing (yet), and obviously some of them are not possible. But I would like any supporter of the Fariness Doctorine to explain to me what the moral difference is that justifies forcing the media to suddenly make sure everything is equal and forcing any of the changes on the list above.
My contention is whatever argument you can make for the Fairness Doctorine you can make for any of the things on my list.
In a sense that's what Conservativeuncensored is about, becuase the media people want to watch will be forced into media they don't want to watch. The government can get away with this because they own all the licensenes. But they don't own the internet (yet). Enjoy conservativeunsensored.com, before somebody in the goverment tries to force me to automatically redirect you to moveon.org when you're navigate away.
20 October 2008
What is conservativeuncensored.com
This should've probably been the first post of the blog, but I decided to a get a few current event posts out first before defining what this site is about.
I'm one who's been a conservative as long as I've had political thought. However, I admittedly checked out of the political process in 2004. Though a support of President Bush (43), I still became disgusted with media lies and both republicans and democrats moving left.
"[A democracy] can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Unconfirmed Author*
I've decided I can no longer check out, as apparantly conservatism no longer has a party. No matter who wins this election, conservatives aren't going to have a friend in the White House. And instead of politcs being the public service it was intended to be, it's has become a carrer opportunity for the ignorant that only know how to give voters what they want, because their re-election depends on it, even though they don't know how to stop the destruction of their voters in the process.
I think many people that call themselves republicans and democrats in fact have many conservative values. However, the thing the ruling class doesn't like about it is that inheirant to conservative belief is a certain indepence from the government. It's not easy to court voters that know they don't need you. And if you run on the people don't need the government, those that do want to vote themselves the purse will villify you as mean to any number of groups (age, race, etc...)
So while I have conservative beliefs, I think we need to attack the ruling class at all turns, regardless of the letter after their name and before their state. I believe leaders need to start ignoring those voting for handouts, and start convincing people that continuing down this road will lead to our demise, and we need to vote over the temptation in favor of our freedom, that's the conservative way.
Concerning conservatism's opponents, I may use very foul language and very personal attacks, but I assure you it is not just because of who someone is, it's because of what someone stands for. I don't care if you're a small town mayor, a 50 year old lawyer, a SCUM journalist or a carrer politican (actually if anything I will be hardest on career politicains), that in istelf is not enough to bring my wrath. However, if you do anything to destroy the virtue of conservatism, I will use language that will make your grandma blush+, insults that would make your preacher squirm, whatever it takes to demostrate why the ruling class is hurting us to protect themselves.
Welcome to conservativeuncensored.com
*Interesting research on this quote here: http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
+how do you get 3 old ladies to say the f-word at the same time?
have the fourth one yell "bingo."
I'm one who's been a conservative as long as I've had political thought. However, I admittedly checked out of the political process in 2004. Though a support of President Bush (43), I still became disgusted with media lies and both republicans and democrats moving left.
"[A democracy] can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Unconfirmed Author*
I've decided I can no longer check out, as apparantly conservatism no longer has a party. No matter who wins this election, conservatives aren't going to have a friend in the White House. And instead of politcs being the public service it was intended to be, it's has become a carrer opportunity for the ignorant that only know how to give voters what they want, because their re-election depends on it, even though they don't know how to stop the destruction of their voters in the process.
I think many people that call themselves republicans and democrats in fact have many conservative values. However, the thing the ruling class doesn't like about it is that inheirant to conservative belief is a certain indepence from the government. It's not easy to court voters that know they don't need you. And if you run on the people don't need the government, those that do want to vote themselves the purse will villify you as mean to any number of groups (age, race, etc...)
So while I have conservative beliefs, I think we need to attack the ruling class at all turns, regardless of the letter after their name and before their state. I believe leaders need to start ignoring those voting for handouts, and start convincing people that continuing down this road will lead to our demise, and we need to vote over the temptation in favor of our freedom, that's the conservative way.
Concerning conservatism's opponents, I may use very foul language and very personal attacks, but I assure you it is not just because of who someone is, it's because of what someone stands for. I don't care if you're a small town mayor, a 50 year old lawyer, a SCUM journalist or a carrer politican (actually if anything I will be hardest on career politicains), that in istelf is not enough to bring my wrath. However, if you do anything to destroy the virtue of conservatism, I will use language that will make your grandma blush+, insults that would make your preacher squirm, whatever it takes to demostrate why the ruling class is hurting us to protect themselves.
Welcome to conservativeuncensored.com
*Interesting research on this quote here: http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
+how do you get 3 old ladies to say the f-word at the same time?
have the fourth one yell "bingo."
19 October 2008
ACORN and the Supreme Court
AAL2: Surpisingly Calm
So Friday's big news was that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United State) denied the Ohio GOP's.
I'm going to claim ignorance, but I think SCOTUS basically said since the Ohio GOP isn't a "citizen" they don't have the standing to bring this case.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBR781&show_article=1
So don't confuse this decision with the innocence of Ohio secratary of state Jennifer Brunner, though CNN, and the rest of the SCUM seem to be content to bury this fact at the bottom of the story, saying it's a "victory."
This was basically thrown out on a technicality, that the law wasn't designed for civil action. It sounds like another challenge will mount.
That said, I do understand the other side of this, and this is one situation where I would prefer the scalpel to the hatchet. I think they need to be careful how they purge the roles, and make sure they are following up on the discrepancies and not just discarding them. It wouldn't be the first time government information is wrong, and disenfranchising voters because the DMV has the wrong address wouldn't be right.
It would be decent of Brunner to at least acknowledge that she shares the goal of an honest election and supports the idea of getting fraudulent registrations off the rolls. However, at best I interpret her actions as she's decided to be apathetic about this (at worst she's conspiring, but I'll need more proof on that) for whatever reason, and seems okay with the risks posed with fraudulent names on the rolls, which I find irresponsible.
This isn't over, those sounding the Brunner victory horns may have to backpedal...
So Friday's big news was that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United State) denied the Ohio GOP's.
I'm going to claim ignorance, but I think SCOTUS basically said since the Ohio GOP isn't a "citizen" they don't have the standing to bring this case.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBR781&show_article=1
So don't confuse this decision with the innocence of Ohio secratary of state Jennifer Brunner, though CNN, and the rest of the SCUM seem to be content to bury this fact at the bottom of the story, saying it's a "victory."
This was basically thrown out on a technicality, that the law wasn't designed for civil action. It sounds like another challenge will mount.
That said, I do understand the other side of this, and this is one situation where I would prefer the scalpel to the hatchet. I think they need to be careful how they purge the roles, and make sure they are following up on the discrepancies and not just discarding them. It wouldn't be the first time government information is wrong, and disenfranchising voters because the DMV has the wrong address wouldn't be right.
It would be decent of Brunner to at least acknowledge that she shares the goal of an honest election and supports the idea of getting fraudulent registrations off the rolls. However, at best I interpret her actions as she's decided to be apathetic about this (at worst she's conspiring, but I'll need more proof on that) for whatever reason, and seems okay with the risks posed with fraudulent names on the rolls, which I find irresponsible.
This isn't over, those sounding the Brunner victory horns may have to backpedal...
18 October 2008
Conservative Uncensored Features...
A couple things that I think will make my blog unique.
1) AAL (Anger Alert Level)
This is a parody of the famous Department of Homeland Security multi-colored terror alert scale after the 2001 attacks. It's ranked 1 to 5 and borrows the same terminology with a description in terms of how threating I am to the EO-Cs (new blogword, Enemies of Conservatism). Each post will be rated 1 to 5 based on how angry I am and that will give you an idea of the tone to attribute to my words. There is a graphic on the right hand page.
2) CUBs (new blogwod, Conservative Uncensored Blogwords)
I will seek to define concepts that will be repeated in simple word and acronyms. The first time it appears in the blog I will define it parenthetically as a new blogword or new CUB, as in the two examples in this post. This will become a list on the right hand side of conservativeunsensored.com, and will also appear in the label list so you can see the usage in every post it appears (with the exception of CUB, since that will probably appear in every post).
Now obviously these features don't exist in RSS forwarded versions of this posts, so if you need to see these definitions or my color AAL chart you will have to visit conservativeuncensored.com.
1) AAL (Anger Alert Level)
This is a parody of the famous Department of Homeland Security multi-colored terror alert scale after the 2001 attacks. It's ranked 1 to 5 and borrows the same terminology with a description in terms of how threating I am to the EO-Cs (new blogword, Enemies of Conservatism). Each post will be rated 1 to 5 based on how angry I am and that will give you an idea of the tone to attribute to my words. There is a graphic on the right hand page.
2) CUBs (new blogwod, Conservative Uncensored Blogwords)
I will seek to define concepts that will be repeated in simple word and acronyms. The first time it appears in the blog I will define it parenthetically as a new blogword or new CUB, as in the two examples in this post. This will become a list on the right hand side of conservativeunsensored.com, and will also appear in the label list so you can see the usage in every post it appears (with the exception of CUB, since that will probably appear in every post).
Now obviously these features don't exist in RSS forwarded versions of this posts, so if you need to see these definitions or my color AAL chart you will have to visit conservativeuncensored.com.
Reason I support executions...
Found on Drudge on Friday, warning it's not for the squeamish
(and I know full well by giving that warning that guarantees you will all click it)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1078514/Husband-hacked-wife-death-meat-cleaver-changed-Facebook-status-single.html
(and I know full well by giving that warning that guarantees you will all click it)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1078514/Husband-hacked-wife-death-meat-cleaver-changed-Facebook-status-single.html
17 October 2008
Joe the Plumber (Can we fix it, yes we can)...
AAL 2:
This is a little Limbaugh Echo Syndrome here, but I do want to ask, "What if the media investiaged Sen. Barak Obama the same way they've investigated Joe the Plumber?"
The SCUM seem to be very selective who they go after. They've turned Sarah Palin's life upside down within a couple days of her selection, they've done the same now with Joe the Plumber (who knew he would be the October Suprise).
But there's no way you can say CNN has been that in-depth on Obama. Otherwise, Rev. Wright would've come to light a year ago when radio host Sean Hannity was beating that drum, or more people would know about mobster Rezko giving Obama a sweetheart deal (I'm not going to use "bribe" in two posts in a row, oops too late) on his house. Or Biden, caught plagerizing a speech from the British parliment, if you are hearing these things for the first time, you're a victim of the SCUM.
Even a columust at Slate (no bastion of conservative thought mind you) admitted Biden is getting very different treatment than Palin.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200302/
We pause here for a couple asides:
* For the Record, Fox is reporting that Joe the plumber isn't expected to earn above the OWL (new blogword, Obama Wealth Limit, slang for $250,000, sample sentence: New York Ranger Aaron Voros now earns 4 OWLs a year since leaving the Minnesota Wild), and reporting that he has tax liens and may not be licensed. I got all that without having to watch a SCUM network like CNN or MSNBC.
* This post was originally going to be added thoughts from the debate, I did want to say Schieffer did the best job of all the moderaters. I liked his question formula "You said, such and such and you said such and such, why are you right and why does the other guy suck."
Back to the post:
All I wanted to establish is the right never get a fair shake, those that disagree with the right seldom go after the ideas (there are exceptions), they go after the person. I get it that with regular politicans, they put themselves in the public eye. But if the personal attacks aren't backed up by policy relavance it's sounds flat.
I do find it disturbing that the SCUM have gone after a voter for just asking the politican a legitamate question. If every voter gets scrutinized this heavily for asking questions I weep for the 1st Amendment (much I like I did after McCain-Feingold passed, but that's another issue).
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber is still below the OWL mean that he's not allowed to believe in not screwing those above the OWL? This is certainly the implication of Obama's condesending question "How many plumbers do you know that make $250,000?" As if that disqualifies Joe from having an opinion about those above the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber isn't licensed mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber owes taxes mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
If you answered yes to any of those questions you have a serious 1st amendment problem. Joe the Plumbers alleged problem probably mean he's too checkered to run for president, but remember there was only one guy running for president in that conversation, and it wasn't Joe.
The guy that answered the question gave the "share the wealth" answer, that's an answer american on all parts of the political spectrum don't like. That is now a problem for the Obama campaign. And to cover the fact they need to run from that answer, they are attacking the questioner.
This is a little Limbaugh Echo Syndrome here, but I do want to ask, "What if the media investiaged Sen. Barak Obama the same way they've investigated Joe the Plumber?"
The SCUM seem to be very selective who they go after. They've turned Sarah Palin's life upside down within a couple days of her selection, they've done the same now with Joe the Plumber (who knew he would be the October Suprise).
But there's no way you can say CNN has been that in-depth on Obama. Otherwise, Rev. Wright would've come to light a year ago when radio host Sean Hannity was beating that drum, or more people would know about mobster Rezko giving Obama a sweetheart deal (I'm not going to use "bribe" in two posts in a row, oops too late) on his house. Or Biden, caught plagerizing a speech from the British parliment, if you are hearing these things for the first time, you're a victim of the SCUM.
Even a columust at Slate (no bastion of conservative thought mind you) admitted Biden is getting very different treatment than Palin.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200302/
We pause here for a couple asides:
* For the Record, Fox is reporting that Joe the plumber isn't expected to earn above the OWL (new blogword, Obama Wealth Limit, slang for $250,000, sample sentence: New York Ranger Aaron Voros now earns 4 OWLs a year since leaving the Minnesota Wild), and reporting that he has tax liens and may not be licensed. I got all that without having to watch a SCUM network like CNN or MSNBC.
* This post was originally going to be added thoughts from the debate, I did want to say Schieffer did the best job of all the moderaters. I liked his question formula "You said, such and such and you said such and such, why are you right and why does the other guy suck."
Back to the post:
All I wanted to establish is the right never get a fair shake, those that disagree with the right seldom go after the ideas (there are exceptions), they go after the person. I get it that with regular politicans, they put themselves in the public eye. But if the personal attacks aren't backed up by policy relavance it's sounds flat.
I do find it disturbing that the SCUM have gone after a voter for just asking the politican a legitamate question. If every voter gets scrutinized this heavily for asking questions I weep for the 1st Amendment (much I like I did after McCain-Feingold passed, but that's another issue).
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber is still below the OWL mean that he's not allowed to believe in not screwing those above the OWL? This is certainly the implication of Obama's condesending question "How many plumbers do you know that make $250,000?" As if that disqualifies Joe from having an opinion about those above the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber isn't licensed mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
Does the fact that Joe the Plumber owes taxes mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?
If you answered yes to any of those questions you have a serious 1st amendment problem. Joe the Plumbers alleged problem probably mean he's too checkered to run for president, but remember there was only one guy running for president in that conversation, and it wasn't Joe.
The guy that answered the question gave the "share the wealth" answer, that's an answer american on all parts of the political spectrum don't like. That is now a problem for the Obama campaign. And to cover the fact they need to run from that answer, they are attacking the questioner.
15 October 2008
Presidental Debate Part III
Anger Alert Level: 1 (Low, in fact I'm almost giddy)
I don't know what part of the debate I liked best...
1) The part where McCain said he wasn't racist and Obama blew him off
2) The part where Obama had to defend his screwing of Joe the Plumber (which really demonstrates Rush Limbaugh's contention that Obama's american dream ends at $250K)
3) The part where McCain told Obama to run 4 years ago if he wanted to oppose Bush
4) The part where Obama had to defend not sticking to his pledge to stick to public financing unlike McCain
5) The part where Obama had to defend the $850,000 ACORN bribe
6) The part where Obama couldn't defend foregin policy "expert" Joe Biden's stance against the first gulf war, and against the troop surge.
7) The part where Obama couldn't explain why he opposes offshore drilling and nuclear power when that will get us off of forgein oil
8) The part where Obama looked absolutly confused on free trade
9) The part where he had to admit that small buisness may not be able to afford his government healthcare plan and would be exempt since the big buisness were the only ones that could afford it.
10) The part when Obama tries to say he reaches across the aisle but missed the chance to join McCain's "gang of 15" on Bush's appointments (in the interest of full disclosure this is one of the reasons I don't like McCain, but it illstrates Obama's partisanship and inablitly to bring people together)
11) The part when Obama explained that his present vote to kill abortion survivers is in fact being opposed to partial-birth abortion
12) The part when I distinctly heard NEA members across the country cringe when McCain suggested that bad teachers find another line of work
13) The part where McCain so succinctly summarized Obamas position on school competition and vouchers "Because there's not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn't do it, even though it's working. I got it."
As of this I've only watch about 30 minutes of the Fox News channel panel, and they seem content to take the PC-everyone's-a-winner-line saying this was a draw and therefore Obama won. I don't buy it, these punches landed and will shape the tone of the last few weeks. Is it too little too late for McCain? that's the only question, but he hurt Obama tonight, make no mistake.
I don't know what part of the debate I liked best...
1) The part where McCain said he wasn't racist and Obama blew him off
2) The part where Obama had to defend his screwing of Joe the Plumber (which really demonstrates Rush Limbaugh's contention that Obama's american dream ends at $250K)
3) The part where McCain told Obama to run 4 years ago if he wanted to oppose Bush
4) The part where Obama had to defend not sticking to his pledge to stick to public financing unlike McCain
5) The part where Obama had to defend the $850,000 ACORN bribe
6) The part where Obama couldn't defend foregin policy "expert" Joe Biden's stance against the first gulf war, and against the troop surge.
7) The part where Obama couldn't explain why he opposes offshore drilling and nuclear power when that will get us off of forgein oil
8) The part where Obama looked absolutly confused on free trade
9) The part where he had to admit that small buisness may not be able to afford his government healthcare plan and would be exempt since the big buisness were the only ones that could afford it.
10) The part when Obama tries to say he reaches across the aisle but missed the chance to join McCain's "gang of 15" on Bush's appointments (in the interest of full disclosure this is one of the reasons I don't like McCain, but it illstrates Obama's partisanship and inablitly to bring people together)
11) The part when Obama explained that his present vote to kill abortion survivers is in fact being opposed to partial-birth abortion
12) The part when I distinctly heard NEA members across the country cringe when McCain suggested that bad teachers find another line of work
13) The part where McCain so succinctly summarized Obamas position on school competition and vouchers "Because there's not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn't do it, even though it's working. I got it."
As of this I've only watch about 30 minutes of the Fox News channel panel, and they seem content to take the PC-everyone's-a-winner-line saying this was a draw and therefore Obama won. I don't buy it, these punches landed and will shape the tone of the last few weeks. Is it too little too late for McCain? that's the only question, but he hurt Obama tonight, make no mistake.
09 October 2008
Do you really Believe Sarah Palin is Racist?
Anger Alert Level: 3 (Elevated)
Someone needs to explain to me how Gov. Sarah Palin's comment on Saturday about Sen. Obama's associations with known terrorist turned college professor (lateral move) William Ayers: "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," is "a racially tinged subtext" as AP "journalist" Douglass Daniel states in this article:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93KD6Q00&show_article=1
You know I get that the SCUM (new CU blogword, So-Called Unbiased Media) talking point is that this when Obama was 8 years old, but the deeper you get into this the less true that is.
We'll set that aside for now, All Palin is talking about is specifically people that would turn on their own country. For Palin to have slighted a whole race, or all races, as Dumbass Dougie asserts here, he has to believe that all minorities (or whoever he thinks Palin is slighting here) are ready to "target their own country." All this is yet another example of a SCUM journalist that has been taught that Sarah Palin is a religious republican, all republicans and religous people are racist, therefore Sarah Palin must be a racist in everything she said.
----
I'm sorry this anger is way unfounded on the part of these congresspeople. They are acting like like "Joe six-pack", "Hockey Mom" and "doesn't see the country the way we see it" are passwords for a KKK meeting. (If in fact they were they could just ask former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV).
"Joe six-pack" doens't mean "white joe six-pack," it means working class person. Obama is "not one of us" because, he's black. It's because McCain believes that Obama doesn't see the goodness in the country and sympathises with its enemies.
I'm going to break "hockey mom" down a little. The truth is most "hockey moms" are white, but not white and exclusive. Clark's comment impling that "hockey mom" is exclduing minorities is a sterotype on the same level as "White Men Can't Jump," which I guess in this case could mean a white woman, and Palin shouldn'tve been a high school basketball player. Now I don't belive this what Clark is saying, but you have to understand her implication is on the same level. That if one is believable so is the other.
But republicans NEVER get the benefit of the doubt with the SCUM. Anything they can stretch into racism they will, and I hope the electorate sees through that.
Someone needs to explain to me how Gov. Sarah Palin's comment on Saturday about Sen. Obama's associations with known terrorist turned college professor (lateral move) William Ayers: "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," is "a racially tinged subtext" as AP "journalist" Douglass Daniel states in this article:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93KD6Q00&show_article=1
You know I get that the SCUM (new CU blogword, So-Called Unbiased Media) talking point is that this when Obama was 8 years old, but the deeper you get into this the less true that is.
We'll set that aside for now, All Palin is talking about is specifically people that would turn on their own country. For Palin to have slighted a whole race, or all races, as Dumbass Dougie asserts here, he has to believe that all minorities (or whoever he thinks Palin is slighting here) are ready to "target their own country." All this is yet another example of a SCUM journalist that has been taught that Sarah Palin is a religious republican, all republicans and religous people are racist, therefore Sarah Palin must be a racist in everything she said.
Furthermore, we have heard from some Democrat Congresspeople..
---
from Brit Hume http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434747,00.html:
[Representative] Yvette Clark was critical of Sarah Palin's repeated appeals to "Joe Six-Pack" and "hockey moms." "Who exactly is Joe Six-Pack and who are these hockey moms?... Is that supposed to be terminology that is of common ground to all Americans? I don't find that. It leaves a lot of people out," Clark said.
Congressman Gregory Meeks says in The New York Observer, "They are trying to throw out these codes. He's 'not one of us?' That's racial. That's fear."----
I'm sorry this anger is way unfounded on the part of these congresspeople. They are acting like like "Joe six-pack", "Hockey Mom" and "doesn't see the country the way we see it" are passwords for a KKK meeting. (If in fact they were they could just ask former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV).
"Joe six-pack" doens't mean "white joe six-pack," it means working class person. Obama is "not one of us" because, he's black. It's because McCain believes that Obama doesn't see the goodness in the country and sympathises with its enemies.
I'm going to break "hockey mom" down a little. The truth is most "hockey moms" are white, but not white and exclusive. Clark's comment impling that "hockey mom" is exclduing minorities is a sterotype on the same level as "White Men Can't Jump," which I guess in this case could mean a white woman, and Palin shouldn'tve been a high school basketball player. Now I don't belive this what Clark is saying, but you have to understand her implication is on the same level. That if one is believable so is the other.
But republicans NEVER get the benefit of the doubt with the SCUM. Anything they can stretch into racism they will, and I hope the electorate sees through that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
