About Me

Name: Patrick S. Adams
Email: patsworld1@comcast.net Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Liberal Hypocrisy: The Discourse

Tea Party protesters and Town Hall meeting attendees have been mocked and vilified by the American left in such a nasty hateful way, you wonder if liberals ever had an ounce of decency to begin with. Last week, we had a G20 Summit with hundreds of arrests after protesters threw rocks and became violent. Liberals were silent. We had hundreds of thousands, possibly a million people in Washington DC for the 9/12 Tea Party with no arrests. Liberals were outraged, calling them "angry mobs." The ugly political discourse we are witnessing today is a direct result of the fact that liberals are hypocrites, intellectually inconsistent and downright intellectually dishonest.

After the Tea Parties, Nancy Pelosi accused American citizens who were exercising their right of free speech of carrying swastikas and being part of a funded AstroTurf movement. The president also chided his own citizens in a way most management and leadership trainers will tell you is destructive to the relationship between a leader and his people.

Many liberals who accuse the Tea Party and Town Hall movements of being racist, hate mongering, anti-American are the same people who burned American flags and acted violently at anti war protests during the Vietnam and Iraqi wars. The Snooper Report said:

I didn't see anyone dropping their trousers and crapping on the American Flag at any of the Tea Parties. Did you? I didn't see anyone dragging the American Flag behind them as they walked around. Did you? I didn't see anyone vandalizing any private or government property at the rallies. Did you? Apparently, that is reserved for the anti-Americanist crowds to do and Nancy Pelosi says that they can do that because it is OK with her.

For years, liberals have screamed "freedom of speech" when protesting. But when the shoe is on the other foot, they don't think very highly of freedom of speech. They considered it patriotic to protest. Now, right wing protesters are considered unpatriotic.

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this (the Bush) administration somehow you're not patriotic," a shrill-sounding Clinton shouted during her address to Connecticut's Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner. Oh well, you can throw that argument out the window. The shoe is on the other foot. That argument is no longer convenient for them.

It's the epitome of irony that the president of the United States goes before Congress and calls American citizens and government leaders liars and a few days later, he is complaining to the press about the political discourse on health care reform.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. - President Obama

I think it's important for the media, you know - not to do any media-bashing here - to recognize that right now, in this 24-hour news cycle, the easiest way to get on CNN is or Fox or any of the other stations, MSNBC is to say something rude and outrageous," Obama said on CNN's Sept. 20 "State of the Union." "If you're civil and polite and you're sensible and you don't exaggerate the-bad things about your opponent and you know, you might get on one of the Sunday shows. But you're not going to be on the loop. And, you know, part of what I'd like to see is all of us reward decency and civility in our political discourse. - President Obama

The liberal media, of course, continues the hypocrisy. Gary Fouse of Radarsite writes: 

It's hard to put into words just how arrogant a man Keith Olbermann is after watching his performance on "Countdown" tonight, which was devoted to insulting the thousands of Americans who turned out to demonstrate against high taxes and profligate government spending today. And why did he insult them? Was it because they threw rocks at police, rioted or had to be taken off to jail? Hardly because that did not happen. No, Olbermann attacked them for having the temerity to protest high taxes and out-of-control spending.

Pop culture also rears it's ugly head as the godless wonder himself decides he is going to take a "righteously indignant" position regarding health care reform on the Jay Leno Show:

Sarah Palin is the one who brought up death panel... And you know what, Sarah Palin? I got news for you, honey. If we were gonna get rid of useless people, you would be the first to go. -Bill Maher

There is no worst example of leftist hate mongering, hypocrisy and leftist lies than what comes out of the mouths of liberal bloggers, pundits and talk show hosts when discussing Sarah Palin. They have become a caricature of cynicism and negativity, demeaning themselves and making a mockery of the political debate as a whole.

It's as if liberals become mentally ill and deranged individuals who are reduced to drooling, frothing at the mouth, soiling themselves and wetting their pants at the mere mention of her name. Because she is such a formidable threat to the very existence of their ideology, they can't ignore her. Yet they keep trying to convince us that she's irrelevant, a lightweight and not intelligent enough.

The constant regurgitation of the "she's an idiot" argument makes me and anyone with half a brain immediately suspicious. Why, if the sky isn't purple with green polka dots, do I need to be told so forcefully every day that it is?

Ironically, in their zest to destroy Palin, liberals use the weakest and most childish arguments. They call her dumb and even go as far as to say stupid crap like she wrote her book in crayon. It's simply moronic to think that an intelligent person would even listen to that kind of drivel. Adults with a sense of respect for their fellow man can logically debate, argue and articulate their reasons for disagreeing with someone politically or why they don't feel someone should run for a particular political office.

No one's saying you don't have the right to oppose or disagree with Sarah Palin. We're just saying grow up! Intelligent Americans recognize childish and nasty behavior and are turned off by it.

Sad individuals with tortured souls who choose hate filled rhetoric actually don't say a convincing word anyway. Reduced to name calling, they write blog after blog of second grade nonsense. Yet after a few hundred blogs and several hundreds of thousands of words, they have given us nothing of substance or value. The Alaska bloggers who spewed lies about Palin at the direction of David Axelrod and the DNC during the presidential campaign remain obsessed mental patients who, rather than go on with their miserable insecure lives in quiet obscurity, continue to flaunt a "thought salad" mentality which causes them to throw everything they can at Palin with the hopes that something will stick.

This open display of their inner hatred resulting from a comparative juxtaposition to Sarah Palin reveals them as insecure, incomplete and vapid individuals. Why they wouldn't hide that is beyond me. If you don't want people to think you're ugly, don't stand next to the pretty girl in order to try to convince us that she's the ugly one.

Hypocrisy at its most obvious level is vividly visible in the intellectual inconsistency of an argument that was made in support of Van Jones. Arianna Huffington wrote:

Isn't it time we acknowledge that no human being with any passion and deeply held beliefs ever emerged flawless into the world? And that if every mistake, misstep, boneheaded decision, or error in judgment becomes an automatic disqualifier for public service, then we're going to be left with a political landscape filled with nothing but wrinkle-free, foible-free, passionless automatons who have never made a mistake because they never took the risk of having an original thought.

This would have been an eloquent argument for Sarah Palin, don't you think? So now it's been proven. Liberals use one set of standards while judging their own, but conveniently toss those standards aside when judging conservatives like Palin. If it feels good just do it. There is no need to have sound footing for a liberal argument. It merely needs to float on whatever the "premise du jour" is.

Read the rest of Huffington's article. The part about how quitting his job will help Van Jones be more able to effect change without being shackled to the desk of the green job czar is side splitting.

It gets better:

Contrary to the media caricature (emphasis added after the soda went up my nose), the real Van Jones is a thoughtful leader who knows how to use words to move people to action. To stick him behind a desk, working out the details of tax credits for green jobs -- incredibly important though the job is -- was never the best use of his unique and abundant skills.
Exchange the names Palin and Jones in the article and tweak a few words for the situational and gender differences and you could practically plagiarize it and use it as a defense of Sarah Palin and an explanation of how she was driven from office by a smear campaign.

Having read to this point, you are probably wondering why the political discourse is so bad in our country right now. The answer lies in a question. Will someone please explain to the liberals that they won the election?

The liberals have gone from winning the election to having the world's biggest worried mind in mere months since the inauguration of their beloved "messiah." This tells you something right there. This election, this presidency, is not on stable ground. They remain the angry mob who spend more time hating conservatives than they do governing. We made a mistake. The country should have never been placed in the hands of people with this kind of governing temper and demeanor.
In explaining how the discourse has deteriorated to such a level, we need look no further than the top. From Obama on down, the left is more interested in trashing their opponents than crafting an agenda that a majority can embrace. Having won the election, they own the board. They control the discourse. They make the rules, hypocritical rules, but rules none the less. Yet, they get mad at conservatives who use Alinsky tactics back on them and who marginalize and ridicule them. You have to have really big ones to be like that.

As such, they have no grounds from which to whine when the media focuses on Town Hall people, when people carry pictures of Obama as the joker or citizens speak out in protest. Liberals have some set to rail against the so called smearing of Van Jones or the videoing of ACORN wrongdoing after what they have done to Sarah Palin and the American housing market and mortgage industry.

Because of the example liberals have set for the discourse, agree or disagree with the tactics, Hitler moustaches, joker faces, harsh words or comic mocking and strong hyperbole are now in play. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Face your own monster now, liberals and play if you must. But when the smoke clears, the children are going to be sent home by the voters and the grown ups will be back in charge.

The next time someone says something about the right's rudeness or their discourse, dismiss them and carry on. And remember this small sampling of the real discourse that is going on in our country (courtesy of Freedom Eden):

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American."
--JIMMY CARTER

"Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"
--MAUREEN DOWD

"OK, I think, I think some of the people are upset because we have a black president."
--CHRIS MATTHEWS

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game... During the 7th inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."
--DAVID LETTERMAN

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."
--SONIA SOTOMAYOR

"Yes, [I am accusing the CIA of] misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. I am."
--NANCY PELOSI

"You know, you might want to look into this, [President Obama], because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker, but he was so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight."
"Rush Limbaugh -- 'I hope the country the fails.' I hope his kidneys fail."
--WANDA SYKES

"[Tea Party goers are] just a bunch of wimpy, whiny, weasels who don't love their country."
--PAUL BEGALA

"Reagan's dead and he was a lousy President."
--KEITH OLBERMANN

"I wouldn't want [gay marriage] to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court."
--BARNEY FRANK

"He's a terrorist. Rush Limbaugh is a terrorist."
--JOY BEHAR

"You know, I just want to say to her (Sarah Palin), just very quickly...F--- you."
--JON STEWART

"I also believe that America is the greatest sin against God."
--FR. MICHAEL PFLEGER

"Look, [Mitt] Romney comes from a religion founded by a criminal who was anti-American, pro-slavery, and a rapist. And he comes from that lineage and says, 'I respect this religion fully.'"
--LAWRENCE O'DONNELL

[The Bush] administration has done the greatest assault on our Constitution perhaps in American history."
--RUSS FEINGOLD

"Don't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers."
--ROSIE O'DONNELL

"Is America ready for a black president? Well, I say we just had a retarded one. When did being black become a bigger deterrent than being retarded?"
--CHRIS ROCK

"I think President Bush very well may have signed an authorization for the 9/11 attacks."
--KEVIN BARRETT, UW-MADISON Lecturer

"On the eve of the election last month my wife Judith and I were driving home late in the afternoon and turned on the radio for the traffic and weather. What we instantly got was a freak show of political pornography: lies, distortions, and half-truths -- half-truths being perhaps the blackest of all lies. "
--BILL MOYERS

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."
--HOWARD DEAN

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."
--MICHAEL MOORE

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."
--JOHN KERRY
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will Dr. Krauthammer and the Rest of the Press Please Leave the Room

As uninformed sheep, the public allowed themselves to be led through the corrals and corridors into the pen without questioning the process. As the sound of the shearers grew louder and closer, the sheep suddenly realized that they had now found themselves inside the pen and ready for fleecing. They're now bleating loudly as they clamor to get out, realizing that they blindly voted for a presidential candidate whose ties to and associations with radical thinkers were not properly covered by the press.
 
The Sacred Heart University poll released this week indicates that the American people have now figured out that the media lies, or is at best biased. They have also figured out the truth about the role of the media in the dynamics of the 2008 presidential election. 
Poll results found 83.6% saw national news media organizations as very or somewhat biased while just 14.1% viewed them as somewhat unbiased or not at all biased. Some, 2.4%, were unsure.
A large majority, 89.3%, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama. Just 10.0% suggested the national media played little or no role. Further, 69.9% agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5% disagreed. Some, 3.6% were unsure.
 
Over half of Americans surveyed, 56.4%, said they agreed that the news media are promoting President Obama’s health care reform without objective criticism. Another 39.3% disagreed and 4.3% were unsure. Further, a majority, 57.6% of those surveyed agreed that the news media appear to be coordinating efforts to diminish the record of former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin. One third, 34.6%, disagreed and 7.9% were unsure.
When analyzing how the press's non-coverage of Obama's radical associations during the campaign is a huge credibility killer for the media, the words Van and Jones come to mind. Also, Barack Obama wrote "Dreams From My Father" with someone who candidate Obama said "was just a guy who lived in my neighborhood," which the press so easily parroted without further research during the 2008 presidential campaign.
 
This is the same media which sent legions of  reporters to "basically dig through Sarah Palin's trash" and which went on ad nauseum about Troopergate and Palin's associations with the Alaska Independence Party and conservative religious organizations while barely acknowledging the existence of ACORN's voter fraud problems, Reverend Jeremiah's Wright inflammatory rhetoric from the pulpit in Obama's presence and, well, lets just mention this little video with William Ayers and Obama that the LA Times decided wasn't newsworthy.
 
Daffy Duck and Micky Mouse had an easy time becoming registered Democrats at a time when Sarah Palin had to have her voter registration records thoroughly investigated to verify that she had indeed been a lifelong registered Republican.
 
It's a "chickens come home to roost" moment for the president who recently complained that his health care reform initiatives were being hurt by the media because they were focusing too much on town hall meeting confrontations and TEA parties. Given the public's reaction as guaged by the poll, the days of digesting the news without chewing first may be over for the American electorate.
 
So far, the most effective techniques in overcoming, or "end running" the media if you will, have been demonstrated by none other than the media's biggest victim, Sarah Palin. By removing herself from the position of "moose out in the open" as governor of Alaska and taking a more behind "behind the lines, attack from the rear" approach, Palin has galvanized supporters, caused those in the "not sure" category to hit the reset/reconsider button and has made it clear that winning over those who are in the tank against her for ideological reasons is a waste of time.
 
When she quoted MacArthur's "we're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction" line, she meant it. Seeing this deeper meaning now emerge from her resignation speech is difficult for people who don't appreciate what goes into making a good and healthy word salad.
 
When the discourse on health care reform began to grow ugly, the left (including the president) asked everyone on the right to shut up and let them handle the details. This, of course, frustrated the right which was now dealing with main stream media air time being given to the president for such things as his "ABC Infomercial" and his Town Hall meetings. When flag@whitehouse.gov was established so that "informants" could tell the White House what arguments, or as they called them "fishy lies," were being used against it in the battle against the health care measures being put forth in Congress, it seemed that the propaganda machine which included the main stream media was about to rev up again.
 
Then came "death panels." On facebook no less! And to make sure that the malpracticing media was not going to twist her words again and mock her, she used footnotes and detailed research that documented credible experts' analyses, observations and knowledge which supported her arguments. And the next day, she came out again and doubled down on "death panels," further refuting those who would mock her and accuse her of lying. Palin, the hunted in the arena of propaganda had now become the hunter in the arena of ideas.
 
Charles Krauthammer, normally a stalwart voice for the right, made the mistake of asking Sarah Palin to leave the room on behalf of the media. But instead of leaving the room, she asked them to leave. There was the media, which at first asked her not to be part of the discussion, outside the room in Hong Kong with ears against glasses pressed to the door begging to be let back it.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Happens After The Speech is The Important Thing

Last night, my computer was down so I missed out on all the blogosphere chatter about the President's speech. Unable to write, I simply drew some conclusions and mentioned them to a friend on the phone. I came to two conclusions: 1) The President's characterization of opposition as lies and falsehoods damaged an otherwise "okay" speech (not a home run but not a disaster either). I told my friend that the negative stuff in his speech offset the positive stuff in his speech leading me to 2) It's not the speech that matters, but what happens after the speech.

The key is going to be what Congress does after the speech. If they can put together a bill that recognizes a key point I made to my buddy last night and which Sarah Palin made today in her Response to the President's Health Care Speech that government bureaucracy cannot be part of any real meaningful health care bill, then they will have a firm premise from which to work.

I have always been a proponent of the notion that insurance companies should pay their claims. Nickeling and diming consumers who are distraught, sick or in financial distress is never good business and, as I sometimes run into issues with conservatives on this, places them in the crosshairs almost begging for government intervention. Government should intervene when there is fraud and not paying claims is fraud.

However, the President goes in the wrong direction. He demonizes insurance companies and says the government must force them to do things. Yet, the nickeling and diming that goes on in the insurance industry is because of the government, not, as the President said because of "an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise."

By creating bureaucracies, burdensome regulations and a tort system that forces insurance companies to divert your hard earned and highly paid premiums to their legal and compliance departments, they have to balance their budgets and insure profitability for their shareholders by limiting what they pay on claims. So if the liberals accuse insurance companies of being "death panels," they have a legitimate root in their claim, but their solution, like President Reagan once said is "the problem."

If the Congress is unwilling to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines and write laws that oversees how insurance premiums are distributed, we will never get the true reform we need. I agree with the President that insurance companies should not drop people because of illness and should not deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. But how this gets done, I fear, will again be corrupted by the legislative process.

Sometimes, it's necessary to deregulate before you re-regulate. In this case, reducing compliance costs and limiting insurance company's involvement in litigation is as much a compelling reason for tort reform as is the need to reduce the cost of health care from the provider's side by reducing their malpractice insurance costs.

I say let insurance companies compete across state lines and write laws that strictly direct the non-operational and non-payroll portion of insurance premiums toward paying actual medical costs and prohibit or severely limit the use of such funds for bureaucratic costs or to line some middle man's pocket. In exchange for the lifting of many burdensome regulations, we should pass two basic regulatory laws:

1) If a person is ill or has a pre-existing condition, they should not be denied coverage.
2) If it's in the policy, pay the claim.

That's right, simple government oversight can replace burdensome government regulation when you throw out the pages of stupid bureaucratic nonsense written in our insurance laws and replace it with this: PAY YOUR CLAIMS.

There is no need to have a public option or force people to have insurance if you can create a free market environment that encourages competition and lowers cost.

Instead of requiring people to purchase insurance, why not require them to purchase catastrophic insurance, not out of extra out of pocket money, but out of a "bubble" that could be created using the F.I.C.A. money that already comes out of our paychecks and supplement that with tax credits and employer incentives. The insurance provided would have to be from a private company and not a government entity or public option like it is with social security.

If we had done this with the money we are required to put into social security and instead put the "mandated" money into safe private investments, most Americans would retire with an average of $500,000 per person tax free instead of a measly taxable $1300 a month (but that's a topic for another blog). Social security is proof that while the noble purpose of insuring that Americans retire in dignity, the public option was a bad idea.

If the Democrats are willing to craft a bill that implements the 5 things that Newt Gingrich says are necessary and take the positive stuff that the Democrats are putting forth regarding coverage for pre-existing conditions, there would be room for compromise and consensus that could result in real reform that will help Americans.

Messing around with Medicare, calling people who dare mention the existence of "death panels" as liars and creating a federal bureaucracy to oversee national health care with or without a public option is not the way to go. On these points, the President fails miserably in his approach toward health care reform.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »