Democrats proved again why they are repugnant

Theo

Active Member
It's been an interesting week in partisan politics in America.

Over the weekend there was a horrible shooting committed by a deranged lunatic who apparently had a strange obsession with a congresswoman for at least 3 years. The victims of this horrific shooting included a 9 year old little girl.

Within minutes of the shooting, I was astonished to witness virtually the entire Democratic Party - from their politicians, to their mainstream media outlets (such as Paul Krugman of the NY Times), on down to the rank and file - queerly and sickly attempting to blame the incident on, generally, the Tea Party, and, most specifically, Sarah Palin.

From those first minutes after the shooting, and for days afterwards, these Democrats were attempting to say that Americans need to censor themselves, or be censored by the government, in order to "tone down" their rhetoric. They need to be pressured to watch what they say, because the rhetoric from the Tea Party movement and its sympathizers has now caused someone to murder people. They claimed that the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin now have "blood on their hands".

I shouldn't have been astonished. It has been a propaganda tactic, talking point, and obsessively-pushed theme for a long time from the Left that the Tea Party movement is on the brink of violence. That its membership is a bunch of racist terrorists who are trying to incite political violence. They have actually invented racial incidents out of thin air in order to smear Tea Party events, because they are frustrated they have no real evience to back up their prejudices against ordinary Americans.

And each and every time something happens (Times Square bombing, death of a Kentucky census worker, etc etc etc), they instantly leap to say that the Tea Partiers are guilty.

And in each and every case, the Tea Party has been guilty of nothing. The only thing the Tea Party has ever been guilty of is providing an outlet for average Americans to voice their disapproval at things going on in their government.

But no matter how many times they make total fools of themselves, the Democrats and Leftists refuse to give up this despicable smear tactic.

This latest attempt to incriminate the Tea Partiers has been exposed as having absolutely zero basis in fact, yet I see no apologies from these scummy Democrats. Instead, they are now actually attacking Sarah Palin again, for responding to their disgraceful attempt to politicize this tragedy. She is trying to "make this all about her". No, you asswipes, YOU tried to make this about her, and she is calling you out for your reprehensible tactics. And she is CORRECT.

Her response was right-on:

[youtube]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-fiNFCbsz8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-fiNFCbsz8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

A hardcore partisan Democrat sheriff in Arizona joined the mob of laughable Democrats trying to pin this on the Tea Party movement. On top of this sheriff being 100% in error, it turns out that had the sheriff actually been doing his job he probably could have stopped this lunatic from committing this mass murder in the first place.

No, the lunatic shooter had nothing to do with Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement, Rush Limbaugh, etc etc. He did happen to be someone into left-wing punk rock bands such as Anti-Flag, as well as anti-American 9/11 conspiracy documentaries such as Loose Change. But mostly he was just a nut who should have been in a mental institution long ago.

What is most disturbing about the Democrats' scummy partisan political reaction to this tragic shooting is that MAINSTREAM Leftists and Democrats have once again revealed their contempt for one of the primary principles behind the whole idea of AMERICA. That is, freedom of speech. They don't like what Tea Partiers have to say about health care legislation, so they become obsessed with trying to smear average Americans, who dare to voice concerns about their government, as "dangerous". And to tell them that if they don't watch what they say they will actually cause people to DIE!

I was relieved to see that President Obama's remarks about this incident were far better than most of what we saw from his party.

Most of what I saw from Democrats and the American Left was nothing short of an anti-American assault on our First Amendment and most Americans' core values. They should be ashamed of themselves.

I now have one more reason to reject voting for a Democrat in the near future.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I try and think the Democrats cannot be so reprehensible and so un-American. I spent most of the weekend watching the NFL playoffs and whatnot, and I wanted to believe that the assault on our freedom of speech was only from a few people on the Left, and I could tune them out after a quick snicker at how ridiculous they are.

By Monday, however, I realized I could not laugh this one off. This was something I had to get ANGRY about.

And that's how I feel. I am completely angry that a major political party, their supporters in the mainstream media, and a massive percentage of their rank and file, engaged in this ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH response to the shooting incident. And they did so without one single shred of evidnce to back them up. And it's not the first time they have done this. This is now a pattern. This is now their obsession. And they need to be hit back so hard their f***ing heads spin. If they didn't like the last election, they'd better buckle up for 2012.
 
Last edited:
110110_HL_Loughner-mugshot_TN.jpg
 
[youtube]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p9kfcEga0lk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p9kfcEga0lk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]
 
Paul Shanklin "I'm not a Sheriff"

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jBVi-cdv5Mg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jBVi-cdv5Mg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]
 
[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_krtN_Vnnyk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_krtN_Vnnyk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]
 
The Times Loses It
Sense and nonsense about Tucson.
P.J. O'Rourke


Excerpt:

In the matter of self-serving, bitter, calculated cynicism, there wouldn’t seem to be much left to prove against the Times. Judging by what I’ve heard from my fellow conservatives, the issue is decided. The New York Times is a worthless, truthless, vicious institution. But I disagree. I think things are worse than that.

A reaction so disproportionate and immaterial to a news story by a news organization is indicative of trouble in the body politic​—​trouble almost as severe as that which the Times claims the Giffords shooting indicates. I worry that in the tremors and hysteria of the Times we’re seeing the sad end of liberalism.

Its passing is to be mourned, perhaps most by true conservatives. -Civilization owes a debt to liberal politics. From the Reform Act and the religious emancipation fight of the British Whigs to the American civil rights movement, liberals have in fact held positions on political high ground (though not during Clinton’s exploitation of the Oklahoma City bombing). Liberals have seen government as a force for good, and sometimes it can be. World War II comes to mind. While conservatives have delighted in the free market, liberals have been there to remind us that all freedoms, including market freedoms, entail responsibilities. At the very least it can be said that we conservatives would not be so upright in our ideals if we hadn’t been pushing against liberals.

But liberalism, as personified by the New York Times, became a dotty old aunt sometime during the Johnson administration. She’s provincial, eccentric, and holds dull, peculiar views about the world. Still, she has our fond regard, and we visit her regularly in her nursing home otherwise known as Arts and Leisure and the Book Review. Or we did until Sunday, January 9, when she began spouting obscenities and exposing herself.

We observe in the Times a bizarre overreaction to people and things that can be construed as “antigovernment.” (And all people and most things often can be so construed, e.g., the man who just got a speeding ticket.) The Times has become delusional, going from advocating big government to believing that it is the big government. Americans being somewhat disgruntled with big government, the Times imagines itself under attack from every side, even, no doubt, from within.

Ross Douthat wrote a calm, well-reasoned Monday Times opinion column about how most contemporary attacks on American politicians have been of greater interest to psychiatrists than ideologues. “From the Republican leadership to the Tea Party grass roots, all of Gabrielle Giffords’s political opponents were united in horror at the weekend’s events.” The newspaper probably heard this as a hallucinatory voice in its head urging self-destruction. If we’re going to discuss dark, paranoid corners of the Internet that have an unwholesome influence on our national life, there’s the New York Times online.
 
From: I do not want civil discourse

My free speech matters more than the feelings of anyone on the left. You don’t like what I say? Tough.

I will not allow people to label my words Hate Speech or try to lecture me on civility. I saw the lefty signs. The left’s definition of civil discourse is surreal.

We have a terribly unfit president who has expanded government control beyond not only what is constitutional but what is healthy for our freedom.

Indeed, this call for civil discourse is itself a direct threat to my free speech.

So screw you.

You don’t like my words? You don’t like my tone? You feel threatened?

Too bad.
 
It just keeps getting more ridiculous.

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EBQGU5vxoR4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EBQGU5vxoR4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

CNN's John King: "My friend Andy Shaw, who now works for a good government group out there, used the term 'in the crosshairs' in talking about the candidates out there. We're trying, we're trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he's covered politics for a long time, but we're trying to get away from using that kind of language. We won't always be perfect, so hold us accountable when we don't meet your standards."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL :lbf::lbf::lbf:
 
Last edited:
It just keeps getting more ridiculous.

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EBQGU5vxoR4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EBQGU5vxoR4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

CNN's John King: "My friend Andy Shaw, who now works for a good government group out there, used the term 'in the crosshairs' in talking about the candidates out there. We're trying, we're trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he's covered politics for a long time, but we're trying to get away from using that kind of language. We won't always be perfect, so hold us accountable when we don't meet your standards."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL :lbf::lbf::lbf:



InstaPundit comments:
PERSPECTIVELESS DOPES: It’s come to this: CNN apologizes … after guest uses “crosshairs” metaphor.


Am I hallucinating or didn’t this same network once have an entire show devoted to heated political debate called … “Crossfire”? With a crosshairs logo? How did the republic survive while it was on the air?
And in six weeks, they’ll be doing that sort of thing again as if this moment had never occurred.


See also:

CNN anchor John King's "magic wall" sent him over the edge when his beloved touch screen jammed.

The DC-based anchor had a meltdown while anchoring his 7 p.m. show, "John King USA," from CNN's New York studio just days before the midterm elections.

After a slew of technical and editorial errors, King lost his cool when his signature and somewhat overworked touch screen malfunctioned.

"I wish I brought a gun to work," King yelled at studio operators on Oct. 29, according to several CNN sources.

According to a source, Turner Broadcasting System CEO and chairman Phil Kent called King into his office to reprimand him. "Phil has always been a huge fan of King and has always protected him when people were tired of his hothead antics, so this is a blow to him," the insider said.


ROFL!
 
Reason TV:

[youtube]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oSLR3bW4vI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oSLR3bW4vI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]
 
Why didn't he shoot Sarah Palin instead of Giffords? :crazy:
 
Rhetoric vs. Reality: Liberal Protest of Gov. Walker's Budget Repair Plan:

[youtube]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/71gsnLfsbbM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/71gsnLfsbbM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Wow, not just crosshairs on congressional districts on a map, but crosshairs on the face of Gov. Walker of Wisconsin.

The double standard from the leftists and Democrats is noted.
 
Last edited:
What a laugh - a supporter of the Repugnacunt party complaining about infringement of freedom of speech!
The party that gave us Watergate, the Department of Domestic Diplomacy, most members of the late unlamented PMRC, collaborated uncritically with CoIntelPro, extended the copyright time-limit to 75 and then 100 years [instead of recognizing that "intellectual property" and "freedom of speech" cannot co-exist, full-stop]...
 
Tags
blood libel omg it's... theo in 2012
Back
Top Bottom