Plunging Towards Gomorrah
Posts tagged Sarah Palin
Dumbest Facebook Group Ever: Intelligent Women and Men Against Sarah Palin
May 1st
This is about as "intelligent" as it gets at the Facebook group Intelligent Women and Men Against Sarah Palin. I'll never forget the most important lesson I learned about intelligent debate: If you disagree with someone, just tell them to shut up, or call them names. Works every time!
They say ignorance is bliss, but apparently it becomes more “blissful” the more “intelligent” you are, or say you are. The ever-tolerant left wing is alive and well in its efforts to destroy one human being, in this case Sarah Palin, simply because that person doesn’t buy into their Utopian objectives.
For whatever reason, Sarah Palin is a lightning rod for the self-proclaimed “intelligent” among us, consisting primarily of the hipster dufus crowd that sees every political issue through the prism of the propaganda they were taught in college.
A typical post on the Sarah Palin-hating Facebook group, Intelligent Women and Men Against Sarah Palin, says, “Someone should overturn a rig on her and her damn family and let them see how ‘easy’ it is to ‘recover’ and ‘go on’…….F’ING IDIOT!….get OFF THE STAGE…..YOUR SCENE IS OVER!!!!!!!”
I guess this is what passes for “intelligent” commentary at Intelligent Women and Men Against Sarah Palin. The rest of the writings and rantings are no more illuminating than that one. In fact, that’s about as “intelligent” as it gets.
These are people who never see the other side of an issue and simply spout hateful missives about people and policies they care not to delve into themselves. I believe “shallow” would be the more pertinent word, as in Shallow Women and Men Against Sarah Palin.
Me? I’m neutral about Sarah Palin. I agree with her on most issues, but she hasn’t shown much depth in her ideological reasoning. Ironically, just like the groups aligned against her, her positions don’t appear to be very well thought out, other than “it sounds right.”
Like me, she has taken a stand against increasing government growth and interference. But at the same time I haven’t heard a rational defense of this position other than the fact that she’s against it.
When asked to name her favorite founding father, she said, “All of them.” While that might be true, it shows that maybe she hasn’t really thought all that much about the founders or the founding principles of the nation.
In the same way, the leftists at Intelligent Blah Blah Blah on Facebook provide no reasonable defense of their positions, other than calling anyone who disagrees with them Teabaggers, Baggers, anti-choice, Nazis, F’ing idiots and other vulgar word combinations, as well as original stuff like, “How’s that drill-baby-drill thing working out for you?” It’s like reading Bizarro Palin.
More from the “Tolerant Left”
Apr 15th
I caught this over on The Corner this morning, and it’s just another in an unending stream of examples from the deranged and “tolerant” left. Is it possible that tolerance is a circle where the more “tolerant” you are the more intolerant you become? I don’t know, but there are many more images of “tolerance” over at dig.
Unintelligent Debate
Mar 28th
Whatever happened to intelligent debate? There seems like there’s less and less of it these days. Debating the common man has become almost pointless. Who has time to cut through the talking points, misconceptions, myths, and partisanship anymore? We live in the information age, but too many people have crawled into their caves.
Research suggests that conservatives are more likely to read “opposing views” than their liberal counterparts. Perhaps this is the reason liberals have such a difficult time understanding the arguments of conservatives. It’s just much easier to call conservatives names. The left’s angle on the tea party movement is very clear. Brand the entire group as mindless racists even though a majority of Americans are opposed to ObamaCare. Last week when Congressman Emanuel Cleaver claimed he was spit on and called names there was no evidence to support the claim. Even though there were thousands of people around and his staff was holding up phones to record everything that was going on (a point I’ve seen no one in the press make). What does it say about a political ideology and its supporters when instead of defending ObamaCare they’d rather call their opponents racists?
Four administrators of the “I bet we can find 10,000,000 people who think Sarah Palin is an idiot” group on Facebook go to Stanford. Is this how they practice intelligent debate at that prestigious university? Why is okay to dress up as a vagina at a Palin event, but it’s radical to oppose ObamaCare? For the hipster dufus, protesting anyone who is a Republican is cool. Getting your news from The Daily Show is cool. Plus, calling the opposition stupid is encouraged. Remember the left also hated and looked down at Ronald Reagan. Certainly 1/6th of the people who voted for the most unqualified person ever to become president might think Sarah Palin is an idiot. They have to do something to “feel good” about themselves.
Four six years the United States had a very vocal anti-war movement that was full of radicals and hate speech. The examples of radical behavior were a lot clearer back then, except I never heard about it on TV. I don’t remember the Democratic leadership calling for the crowds to “tone it down.” Now one Congressman yells fire in a crowded room and I’m supposed to believe him? If we’ve learned anything during this reform process it’s that the Democrats will lie to advance their agenda.
For an idea of how shallow these people are just read this column by Courtland Miloy that was published in the Washington Post:
I know how the “tea party” people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their “Obama Plan White Slavery” signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads. I am sick of these people — and those who make excuses for them and their victim-whiner mentality.
How’s that for constructive dialogue about an alleged incident? Racism is a serious issue in this nation but why aren’t people like Courtland Milloy, Emanuel Cleaver, and Randall Robinson called out for making incendiary claims that are untrue? Are wolf attack victims allowed to cry wolf because they’ve been attacked in the past? What I’d love to hear from the wise minds on the left are some logical arguments. Branding the opposition with lies is a bit totalitarian for my taste and a certain sign they’re losing the debate.
Twitter Agitators
Feb 19th
Over the last six months I’ve really enjoyed using Twitter. At first I didn’t see a real use for the platform, but now I’m not sure I can live without it. For breaking news and politics Twitter is essential. There is also a lot of riff raff to deal with. This really isn’t a indictment of “progressives” because I’m one person and I can’t really generalize a whole ideology based on a few bad apples, but lately I’ve run into some really partisan hacks.
Now on to the tweet of the day. As I mentioned a few days ago @top20reos has been a real joy to read the past few days. I pointed this fact out today and someone rallied to his defense. After a few exchanges (none, of which were logical) here’s the classic tweet from @ilovemytroops.
Actually, I don’t know who exactly I was talking to, but if her website is any indication it wasn’t anyone who was well respected. The liberal condescension here is amazing. I’m a fool and inferior? I tried four or five times to get a direct answer from this person, but all I got was random name calling and comments about Sarah Palin. What is it about Sarah Palin that is driving some of those on the left to derangement. I just don’t get it.
More Palin Derangement…
Feb 12th
I still haven’t figured out what it is about Sarah Palin that drives people on the left bonkers. My only guess is that they must feel that she is some kind of political threat. Let’s face it, when a mainstream figure (and Palin is mainstream despite the left’s derangement) like Palin is subject to constant partisan attacks it means the person as viewed as a threat. Ronald Reagan, easily the best President since Eisenhower, was hated on the left. In fact, most people on the left still struggle to say anything nice about Reagan. At the time Reagan was dismissed as an old forgetful idiot by liberals. Check out this description of Palin in a recent entry on the Huffington Post.
After a year and a half of exposure to this virulently toxic presence, the question on the table is: In our lifetime, has there ever been a worse human being in American politics than Sarah Palin? For all the morons and criminals and bigots we’ve been subjected to, has there been anyone else who has combined all of the fetid qualities — the proud ignorance, the sadistic viciousness, the shameless hypocrisy, the arrogant laziness, the congenital dishonesty, the unctuous sanctimony, the bilious resentment, and whichever others I’m forgetting for the moment — that this morals-free harridan so relentlessly displays? (Not to mention that atonal bray with which she communicates it all.)
Has there ever been a worse human being in American politics? Where is this coming from? I’m not sure how anyone on the left can complain about “terrible human beings” as long as disgraced Democrat John Edwards walks the Earth. John Edwards is a living, breathing example of everything wrong with politicians/lawyers and Paul Slansky is concerned about a former governor from Alaska?
tonight show classic: palin vs. shatner
Dec 12th
For the past six months William Shatner has been marvelous on The Tonight Show reading Sarah Palin’s selected tweets, Facebook updates, and book excerpts. Last night, was the best one yet.
racism: deciphering fact from fiction
Nov 23rd
I have been purposely been avoiding Palinmania because I’m suffering from Palin fatigue. I don’t understand either side of this phenomenon. Many on the left hate her for no reason and many on the right love her because she’s so despised. The whole thing is juvenile. Now that Palin has a book out, the madness continues. Anyway, CNN has an editorial by LZ Granderson a senior writer and columnist for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com. There have been some stupid columns written about Palin, but this ranks near the top. Evidently, Palin is insensitive to minorities because her book tour doesn’t stop in minority areas.
It just seems that in going to few diversely populated cities, she’s purposefully steering clear of minorities. I mean, what author with a $5 million book deal avoids promoting books in large cities? Palin’s curious tour schedule takes me right back to some of the more disturbing displays during last year’s campaign, when people at some campaign rallies at times made racist remarks. This is not to say I believe Sarah Palin is a racist. But she said or did very little to address the racist ugliness around her during the campaign.
Did Hillary Clinton say or do anything about the “racist ugliness” around her during the campaign? This whole “angry racist crowd” is another myth from the 2008 campaign. What’s so sad is that people like Granderson are so willing to believe such sensationalist nonsense. Granderson, who went to a Palin event, obviously didn’t see any racism, otherwise he would have wrote about it. Instead, he says, “I did get a lot of strange looks from the line, which I guess was to be expected. After all, I’m a black man with dreadlocks and, judging by the racial makeup of most of the cities Palin has scheduled for her tour, it doesn’t seem I’m her target audience.” I guess “strange looks” are open for debate. What does a “strange look” look like? I think this observation says more about Granderson than the crowd itself.
Why should Palin visit areas that have no interest in seeing her? Will that make Granderson feel better? McCain made a series of trips to minority areas untouched by previous Republican campaigns and it didn’t help at all. I wonder how much longer the Democrats will get away with this “Republicans are racist” nonsense. On social issues African Americans share more in common with the religious right than with the Democratic party. The Democrats do have an upper hand when it comes to spending money on government programs to supposedly reduce poverty. For those scoring at home the percentage of people living in poverty in the United States was steadily decreasing for decades before the “War on Poverty.” Since the 1960s the U.S. has spent trillions of dollars and the poverty rate has remained unchanged. Here’s one last bit from Granderson:
As a Midwesterner with some Southern roots, I actually have a lot in common with Palin. I’ve hunted with dogs, fished, had a kid in hockey, I go to church on Sundays and, having worked in New York and L.A., I’ve had my fair share of run-ins with elitist, liberal snobs. This is why I am so profoundly disappointed with her. Instead of using her popularity and influence to highlight our similarities and move the nation forward, she has allowed some of the nation’s most painful wounds to be re-opened to advance her career.
Huh? What has Palin done to re-open wounds? Granderson needs to look outside of his soapbox. He’s trapped like many other Americans in a perception soapbox and unable to decipher fact from fiction. Palin’s only crime is being Republican in a political system that has exonerated Democrats from being racist, I guess because Democrats treat minorities like children and come up with programs that ensure their slavery to the state to the detriment of the individual.
defending sarah palin, part 2
Jul 14th
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
-Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
“And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.”
-Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
Ever since the publication of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, fellow travelers on the left, either consciously or unconsciously, have followed Alinsky’s roadmap to affect sweeping change to American society.
Two points regarding Rules for Radicals are pertinent to Sarah Palin’s story. First, it emphasizes the destruction of the individual to discredit the policy views and beliefs of that individual. Second, it seeks to distract and complete the personal destruction by levying accusations of wrongdoing, whether true or not (known euphemistically in Rules for Radicals as, “Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”)
Certainly, Palin has been victimized by the particular methods outlined, which, in part, contributed to her resignation from the governorship. Despite the fact that she had accomplished much in her short time as governor, her effectiveness was being sapped by any number of frivolous ethics complaints. It is no coincidence that these complaints coincided with Palin’s rise to prominence. Rules for Radicals anyone?
These distractions, which were costing the state and Palin millions of dollars, were launched in conjunction with a public campaign of personal destruction unprecedented in modern American politics. I won’t go into the litany of rumor, innuendo and outright lies disseminated about Palin; they’re already well documented.
The point is that she is a threat to the status quo, at least the status quo as envisioned by the progressive elites in politics and the media. Palin is a lightning rod for conservative values. She represents everything the elites hate: independence and freedom from government control.
Progressives seek to change the very fabric of our society, using the state as the mechanism to force conformity to their vision of Utopia. As has been mentioned here before, this particular Utopia requires the enslavement of the individual to the state, which is only possible through concerted attacks on the values of a functional society.
A dysfunctional society in which the family is useless and meaningless makes the individual ripe for state control. It is the breakup of the traditional family that was used as a control mechanism for the worst 20th Century tyrants. Palin, on the other hand, represents traditional American values, based on limited government and the supremacy of the family and the individual as the core drivers of society.
Thus she was targeted for destruction. The destruction was almost complete when Palin announced her resignation, or at least it seemed that way. It was apparent that the hits would just keep on coming, so Palin wisely announced that she would take the hits as a private citizen. This provides her the freedom and leeway to deal with those hits on her own terms, without having to fight off trumped up ethics charges that are so effective against a public official. She also has more time to support the causes she believes in.
Will she run for president in 2012? I doubt it, and believe it would be foolish to do so. She draws crowds and fires up the so-called “base” of the Republican Party wherever she goes, so she could be instrumental in turning the tide in 2010. I bet if she hones her speaking chops and policy positions between now and 2016 she could be a formidable force indeed in a presidential election, but not any sooner.
