Two amazing articles that should be required reading as the left spews it's lies against Tea Partiers/conservatives across the land. When they accused us of hate, they should have taken a moment to research their own misdeeds.
Lucky for you, I just made your job in the fight against them easy cheesey.
Article #1: Michelle Malkin's The progressive climate of "hate:" an illustrate primer, 2000-2010
Michelle's primer is badass, no doubt about it. Take your time. Read it in pieces. Let the truth of the left sink into your brain and never forget what these people are capable of. Do not be fooled. Follow their deeds. Listen to their words. Their hate is deep and disturbing. And you are target #1 if you disagree with them and their agenda.
Article #2: Commentarama's Leftist Hate Speech
Commentarama is another badass site and Andrew knocks this one out of the park. It sickened me to read this piece in it's entirety because it's true. I'm reading it and I can't believe the contempt and the mindless hate the left embodies. Their rage is nothing short of breathtaking. And shocking. And becoming more dangerous as the days pass.
A wounded animal is a dangerous and unpredictable beast. That's what the left has become: dangerous and unpredictable. Not to mention vile and contemptible in it's wrongful finger-pointing and baseless attacks on the right after the horrifying tragedy of Arizona's shooting.
Please take some time and click over to these site. Bookmark them, even. We, as a nation, need to arm ourselves with truth and knowledge if we are to win the fight against the left.
Onward, Patriots.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Patti, Thanks for the link! :-)
You've done a great job this whole issue, finding links and adding a good deal of energy to the issue! Great job!
I honestly think it was the new media calling the old media on their behavior and pointing out the truth that was responsible for the public overwhelmingly rejecting the left's lies and smears on this.
This is gonna make me highly unpopular and thereby possibly disqualify me from fudgegiveng events in the future but I think all sides (demmies, repubs, indies, etc) need to watch what and how they say. We shouldn't be at war with each other. Putting a map out with target markers WAS irresponsible. It just was. Her intention I am sure was never for people to take it literally (and I am not even convinced that lunatic who did the shooting was even influenced by such) but it doesn't change the fact that it was not a wise decision to put that out there. Nor is all the crap democrats say in tehir war against republicans right either. I feel like I should be allowed to be the ULTIMATE TIME OUT GIVER and put Obama in one corner for 40 minutes and Palin in another for 40 minutes and then bring them together with me in the middle and everybody apologize and remind each other that "we're all friends. be nice and if you can't agree still use kind words to express that".
I think I should run for President with my VP being Barney. "I love you... You love me"...
shelmo
Shelmo,
Ok, where do we shelmo? The NYT drew a target on Peyton Manning before the playoff game. I take it you see that as hate speech? What about the word "target", should we ban that? Or only when you use it against a person -- like "he's the target of this investigation?" What about boxing analogies? Boxing's not lethal, but people could misinterpret it to mean violence of any sort. What about the word "take out?" Take out means food, but it can also mean to destroy a target. Do be ban it or just it's misuse? What about the phrase "I hate"? That seems like a root cause of violence, and it dehumanized people. How about "f*ck the cops?" That's pretty clear what it advocates. Are you going to ban rap songs then? What about movies that might inspire people to violence? And if you start judging which movies will inspire violence and which won't, how do you do decide? What if I agree with you and I think we should ban all movie violence and all words of violence? Are you going to be upset by that? Can you even be "upset" because that implies violently turning over a gameboard. Where do you stop?
Moreover, why are you drawing the line at all? 308 million people did nothing wrong this weekend, so why do you want to force them all to change the way they think and speak and neuter their culture and language just because of the actions of one insane asshole? And what happens when the next one goes crazy because cartoon dogs told him too? Do you ban cartoon dogs?
I agree 100% that we should be respectful in our words and actions. But, since I slip up myself, I certainly can't expect everyone everywhere to always maintain calm and cool in all situations at all times. And if we can't even use widely used, recognized, and accepted metaphorical words and symbols in our discourse, (i.e. targets) then we are just baby steps away from a total newspeak Orwellian society. Never, ever, should there be an appropriate time to legislate words. Clear and Present Danger is clear enough. I think Andrew deftly and accurately painted the picture of the slippery slope of legistaing or banning "hate speech." Seriously, if the father of the little girl who was murdered saturday can openly say he prefers a free society where sometimes innocents are victims of crazies to a society where our liberties are stripped, then we should all be able to accept this for what it is and not become willing to give up freedom and liberty because of one single nutjob. On a similar theme, Arizona rushed legislation to ban protesting at funerals to protect these victims. While I agree they should be protected from assholes like the Westboro "church," the right to assemble is fundamental. The citizens of Tucson had put their own peaceful plans in place to prevent nastiness from any protestors hurting the grieving family. The ban isn't necessary. We take care of our own.
Rant off. Long story short, we can't legislate emotions and opinions. To do so would be much more grievously irresponsible than using "hateful" words and symbols.
andrew: thanks for the nice words. i love hearing when i resonate with anyone.
i was having a conversation about the new and old media recently and you hit it on the head. we the peeps, ain't gonna sit down and take it anymore when asswipes accuse us of inciting violence or even murder. throw your sticks, old media, and we is picking them up and throwing them back. 'cept we ain't playin'. we're coming at you like a new media tsunami.
shelmo: i think andrew covered it, but i do want to make a few points.
1) you can always disagree with me. it's your right, baby. i don't even care if you use foul language, or common sayings that everyone knows aren't threats just merely trash talk, just as long as you don't actually threaten to kill my ass, i'm good. and i think that's where we may part company. i'm ok with your anger. the left is threatened by mine. i'm ok with your opinion, hell i'll even go as far as to try and understand you, but that's again where we may part company. yet, i'm accused of being closed-minded and moronic in the lefty community.
2)i don't believe the targets were irresponsible. crass maybe. cringe-worthy to some. i own guns. i've looked thru gun sites. when i see the image of a gun site it doesn't incite violence in me OR make me think that whoever is using them is inciting violence. it makes me think someone is trying to make a clear point. "there's my target. let's get it (um, with our votes, which seemed infinitely clear to me. again, yet, i'm the moron)."
3) timeouts?! lol! there is a place and time for "kind words" and if someone accuses me of responsibility in a madman's rampage that is responsible for murder, momma ain't using her kind words. period. if the media (play along here) had accused you of complicity with this young man, based soley on your political affiliation and nothing more, would you be using your timeout method and then making nice with kind words?
bullies need to be dealt with swiftly and with a harder punch than they deliver. they need to understand we stand together and to mess with one is to mess with all. to simply allow them to run roughshod with the truth is irresponsible on my end.
andrew: i was thinking the same things, but was away from the computer all day. well said, brother.
tam: well, i think we all know how i shoot (pew pew pew) off my mouth!
damn sister, you freakin' nailed it.
we MUST have free speech. i want to know how the other side feels. i want to know what all sides feel. i want to know who's a clear and present danger. legislate words and we're doomed.
i've never understood the fear of words. i may not like what someone is saying, but i certainly know where they stand, which makes us all safer.
concerning the right to assemble, i agree. this nutjob church has the right to assemble. and the good peeps of arizona have the right to stand between them and the mourners. it goes back to taking the power away from the bullies by standing up for what's right (as these good folks - both libbies and conservatives will be my guess - in tuscon will do)but it's way easier to legislate, to swipe freedoms in the name of concern and caring, isn't it?
i hope you undstand i think all political parties need to chill down. not just one side or the other. this political environment we are in is toxic. I hate that. I really do. and I certainly don't "blame" anyone other than the lunatic who shot him bit I can see where our toxic environment in politics is not good for the greater culture.
I am not a smart girl, which is probably why I get along so well with the 4 and 5 year olds that I teach. They have an innocence about the, that I envy. Sure, one day little Joey might be mad at Mikey but once the issue becomes known to me I can usually talk them out of it and within a few minutes they are getting along well again. I just wish adults could be that way.
shelmo
shelom: i hear ya. and it would be great if we could get along, but given what's at stake, i don't think it's gonna happen.
Patti, Thanks! Well said. Freedom is always the superior choice in all things.
Shelom, It doesn't matter to me if the idea of censoring speech come from left or right, I think it's a bad idea. It only hides divisions and let's them fester.
In terms of the debate, I agree. I think there is far too much name calling, far too much anger, and far too much game playing. But I think the key to fixing that is for people to stop rewarding people who misbehave. Let them have their say and just don't vote for the people who throw the verbal bombs. Unfortunately, people too often clamor for the loudest voice, the squeakiest wheel.
If we start trying to legislate, then we start down a slope from which there is no end. Everyone will jump in and find something offensive that will only ratchet up the hate as people start spending their time trying to play gotcha rather than listening to each other.
Post a Comment