Well, I don't know why they're upset.
It's not as if they wouldn't do something like that, themselves. Because they did.
And that's not all. There's more.
The Democrats and the Big Newsmedia are trying to propagate a big lie about Republicans, Tea Partiers and non-leftist Americans being "violent" and "hateful" and all that crap.
So it's necessary to expose just exactly who's violent and hateful.
See for yourself.
Ah... a hateful, violent left-wing extremist, dubbed "The Eggman" unmasked...
No backing down for Andrew Breitbart...
If you have any other evidence on the rent-a-thugs of the IBEW Local 357 caught in this series of videos who even dared to call the police and accuse me of what they had done, please email feedback@breitbart.com. We are looking to do a series looking into this chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Why would they go to such length to agitate, misdirect, threaten, vandalize, and lie on behalf of Sen. Harry Reid and why would the police turn a blind eye to their misbehavior?
Advisory to far-left-wing extremist brownshirters: The People are watching you closely. And they're capturing you on media, and WILL expose your brownshirtery.
Wrongdoers who want to help the criminal Democrat Regime cheat its way through power and through the next elections... WILL be exposed to the light of Public Scrutiny and Condemnation.
Hateful, violent, crazy ultra-far-left-wing extremist brownshirts WILL be exposed.
Behave as law-abiding citizens and you have nothing to worry about.
But if you're going to be criminals... you WILL be exposed, even if the police are ordered to look the other way when you exhibit criminal behavior. Oh, and the police will be exposed, too, as they're caught looking the other way with respect to criminally-behaving left-wing thugs... as they have been before. Political interference with law enforcement is a crime, and must also be addressed.
MORE: The more things change... (video photojournalism of deranged, hateful, inciteful anti-Bush, ultra-far-left-wing extremists (Democratic Party & Obama voters, of course). (ht: SDA)
And a telling observation...
But it seems that publicly airing your grievances stopped being patriotic right around noon on January 20th, 2009.Yep. Dissent was patriotic when Bush was President. Obama himself said so.
Once President Obama was sworn in, protesting became incitement to violence ....
But now dissent is criminalized. Hmm. What does that make Obama, then?
Conclusion: Leftists/Democrats are violent and hateful. And inciteful. And the Big Newsmedia looks the other way when they're like that, while, on the other hand, manufacturing phony, "reported" "hate", "threats", "violence", "incitement" with respect to non-Leftists/Republicans/Tea Partiers/anyone who disagrees with the policies/agenda of the Obamacrat Reich... Oops! I called it a "reich"... doesn't that count as "incitement", seeing as I'm not a Leftist and can't therefore get away with it? Oops! My bad! *slap, slap*...
7 comments:
Scenty...Palin showed people - individuals - in the cross hairs.
Not targeted states.
Are you actually going to pretend you can't understand that?
I have to agree with Balbulican. CS don't pretend that you can't understand moral relativism.
Actually, that was my point.
The Left said it was bad for Palin to do it.
Yet they do it themselves.
Individuals, states, whatever, Balbulican.
Besides, states contain millions of people.
Targeting states is targeting millions of people.
Guess Balbulican thinks targeting a few folks is worse than targeting millions...
This is interesting. When I read Glasnost's comment, I saw the concept of moral relativism, a post modern concept, as a perfect and ironic foil to B's comment. Moral relativism is a permissive phenomenon which breaks with socio/religio traditions, paradigms, world views, etc.
Immediately I think this is really good sarcasm from Glasnost but I am not sure.
Now C.S. doesn't see this as sarcasm and suggests that his point illustrates there is hypocrisy from the left by using moral relativism in the comparison of the Palin target to the Dem. strategy target map. By seeing them as an equivalent he is illustrating relativism as that was the point.
So... did Glasnost mean: "C.S., don't pretend that you can't understand liberal thinking." which is quite funny.
or.. "C.S., don't pretend that you can't understand (essentially) the difference between map targets and people targets.
The irony of the latter is, that THAT deficiency is the hallmark of the progressive; the social experimenter, the Mengele of societies; and although perhaps from a different context, C.S. states (I believe) exactly that.
Another very telling trait of the moral relativist is the demonstrable pliability of the mind. Palin puts a target on a politico and sees it merely as a part of the game and so do her constituents. There is no intended threat. But on the left, this is seen as a very real threat. They often miss the subtleties of symbolism. They are more keenly tuned to the mindset of the nutter as they themselves are more prone to using symbols in a literal rather than a figurative fashion. Through their constant use of moral relativism, to justify their actions and/or change the perspective to their advantage, they often lose a firm grip of reality and become daffy moonbats, deranged killers, and fascist dictators.
So this is an interesting thread.
∞ ≠ ø ☺
Clarification would only take the fun out of it.
Glasnost is a killjoy. ∞ ≠ ø ☺
Post a Comment