Post by Rob W. Case on Jun 17, 2009 23:42:53 GMT -6
In politics, moral values, or lack thereof is an interesting component worthy of being studied. One has the opportunity to destroy somebody else with the hope of scoring political points for themselves, and some are genuinely sincere in calling out something that they see as offensive, denouncing the comment, asking for an apology, and if they actually get it, then they forgive that person. The contrast is so different in both cases, and I’m afraid it works mostly within partisan lines.
I can say with confidence of accuracy and without fear of retribution that most of the Democrat leadership today lacks any moral values, and pounces on anything and everything they can to advance their own wants and desires even if that means they eat their own people and trample over you to get what they want.
I want to go back to April 4th 2007, when talk radio personality Don Imus made a remark about the Rutgers women’s basketball team.
(Partial Transcript)
IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.
ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.
That “nappy-headed hos” comment sparked a fierce firestorm in the media, and believe me, it was not for the purpose of eliminating racism from the airwaves. The liberal Democrats used it as a political opportunity to try and bring back the deceptively titled “Fairness Doctrine” which is really designed to get anybody who opposes the liberal agenda (i.e. Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage) off the air, to clear any obstacles the Democrats might face if too many people are aware of what these stealth politicians are trying to push down your throats. In fact, throughout the whole summer of 2007, the push to eliminate conservative talk radio was strong.
The Liberal Group “Media Matters” funded by multi-billionaire George Soros (one of Obama’s main puppetmasters) spelled out the real agenda in an article entitled, “It’s Not Just Imus.”
Take a look for yourself:
It's not just Imus
April 12, 2007 6:55 pm ET
mediamatters.org/research/200704120010
The most ironic thing about the Imus controversy was that it sparked a war on Conservative talk radio, when Don Imus was in fact a Democrat. They tried to blame Conservatives for something a liberal said. As for the substance of the issue, Don Imus apologized in the presence of Democrat preachers, but forgiveness was out of the question. It was an opportunity. Don Imus apologized, even got fired for a time, but engaged in a legal battle which won him his show back. But there was no forgiveness. He apologized and apologized, and eventually got mad giving off the impression, “what else do you want from me?” You see, there was an agenda at play, an agenda that exploited a situation day in and day out, without mercy to try and eliminate the real ones they wanted defeated. Here is another example of how liberal Democrat politicians even went so far as trying to apply the Imus comment to serious matters such as shootings and all sorts of different things.
On April 18, 2007 Liberal, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin said this:
DURBIN: Just yesterday, reports that a car in a garage of an Illinois state court judge on the north side of Chicago, was damaged by gunshots. The sad reality is that violence and threats against our judges are on the rise. Between 1996 and 2005, the number of threats and inappropriate communications towards judges has gone up dramatically, from 201 in 1996 to 943 in 2005. There may be many reasons for this increased violence against judges, but one of the most regrettable is a rise in criticism and condemnation of these fine men and women, not only in the halls of Congress, but in some of the shock radio shows that go on and pass as news on some cable channels and radio stations.
Then Candidate for the Democrat primary Barack Obama said this around the same time.
OBAMA: Obviously, what happened today was the act of a madman at some level, and there are going to be a whole series of explanations or attempts to explain what happened. There's also another kind of violence, though, that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily physical violence, but violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways. Last week the big news, obviously, had to do with Imus and the verbal violence that was directed at young women who were role models for all of us, role models for my daughters.
Talk about exploitation! Obama personalized the matter and even went as far as to word the comment as “verbal violence.” That sounds serious, especially when you have representatives of the government making such claims over a private citizen who said something controversial. This is the Democrats way of trying to destroy somebody (in this case, someone who supported them) in order to get something they want passed. It backfired, and failed, but nonetheless, they would do it again in a heartbeat if given the chance.
In Contrast:
Then, there is the recent controversy over David Letterman’s remarks about Sarah Palin’s daughter 14 year old daughter Willow. Sarah Palin went to a New York Yankees game with her daughter Willow, but Letterman assumed that it was her 19 year old daughter Bristol. That night on his show, Letterman said, “During the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.” That infuriated the Palins on a personal level, because they knew that the daughter that Sarah took to the game was the 14 year old, and it appeared as though David Letterman was joking around about the possibility of Sarah Palin’s 14 year old daughter being engaged in statutory rape.
Now, knowing the situation in context and knowing that it was due to a failure to check the details, if Letterman were a Conservative Republican (which he is not), then the context would not matter at all, and there would be a call nationwide to have him removed for “verbal statutory rape” of a 14 year old. Not only that, but it would have ignited a fight and a call to have him and people like him removed. But because he is a Democrat, and the joke was aimed at a family that does not share the same ideology of other liberal Democrats, then the incident was okay and funny to them. It was the people who relate to Sarah Palin who got upset and got angry, not the politicians. Expressing outrage at a comment made against a Palin does not fit the Democrats’ agenda, especially when a Democrat is making the remark. But as for the substance of the matter, what happened?
Sarah Palin addressed the issue saying, it was “disgusting” that a “62-year-old celebrity” would promote “perverted speech” about her 14-year-old daughter. Palin then went on NBC’s Today Show and said that he owes women an apology for the remark he made. Letterman did apologize on his show and how did Palin respond? She responded with sophistication and class. She forgave him, and released a statement saying that in America he has the right to joke about anything he wants to and that, “thankfully we have the right to express our reaction.”
Palin did use the incident as an opportunity to thank the troops, and did not exploit the matter to impose an agenda.
“This is all thanks to our U.S. military men and women putting their lives on the line for us to secure American’s right to free speech. In this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect.”
--Sarah Palin's Response, June 16, 2009
Of course, I would expect such a response from somebody who does not race to see who she can destroy to further her own political ambitions. I do expect such behavior from her critics as they have done and will do again, whether its shameful or not.
I can say with confidence of accuracy and without fear of retribution that most of the Democrat leadership today lacks any moral values, and pounces on anything and everything they can to advance their own wants and desires even if that means they eat their own people and trample over you to get what they want.
I want to go back to April 4th 2007, when talk radio personality Don Imus made a remark about the Rutgers women’s basketball team.
(Partial Transcript)
IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.
ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.
That “nappy-headed hos” comment sparked a fierce firestorm in the media, and believe me, it was not for the purpose of eliminating racism from the airwaves. The liberal Democrats used it as a political opportunity to try and bring back the deceptively titled “Fairness Doctrine” which is really designed to get anybody who opposes the liberal agenda (i.e. Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage) off the air, to clear any obstacles the Democrats might face if too many people are aware of what these stealth politicians are trying to push down your throats. In fact, throughout the whole summer of 2007, the push to eliminate conservative talk radio was strong.
The Liberal Group “Media Matters” funded by multi-billionaire George Soros (one of Obama’s main puppetmasters) spelled out the real agenda in an article entitled, “It’s Not Just Imus.”
Take a look for yourself:
It's not just Imus
April 12, 2007 6:55 pm ET
mediamatters.org/research/200704120010
The most ironic thing about the Imus controversy was that it sparked a war on Conservative talk radio, when Don Imus was in fact a Democrat. They tried to blame Conservatives for something a liberal said. As for the substance of the issue, Don Imus apologized in the presence of Democrat preachers, but forgiveness was out of the question. It was an opportunity. Don Imus apologized, even got fired for a time, but engaged in a legal battle which won him his show back. But there was no forgiveness. He apologized and apologized, and eventually got mad giving off the impression, “what else do you want from me?” You see, there was an agenda at play, an agenda that exploited a situation day in and day out, without mercy to try and eliminate the real ones they wanted defeated. Here is another example of how liberal Democrat politicians even went so far as trying to apply the Imus comment to serious matters such as shootings and all sorts of different things.
On April 18, 2007 Liberal, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin said this:
DURBIN: Just yesterday, reports that a car in a garage of an Illinois state court judge on the north side of Chicago, was damaged by gunshots. The sad reality is that violence and threats against our judges are on the rise. Between 1996 and 2005, the number of threats and inappropriate communications towards judges has gone up dramatically, from 201 in 1996 to 943 in 2005. There may be many reasons for this increased violence against judges, but one of the most regrettable is a rise in criticism and condemnation of these fine men and women, not only in the halls of Congress, but in some of the shock radio shows that go on and pass as news on some cable channels and radio stations.
Then Candidate for the Democrat primary Barack Obama said this around the same time.
OBAMA: Obviously, what happened today was the act of a madman at some level, and there are going to be a whole series of explanations or attempts to explain what happened. There's also another kind of violence, though, that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily physical violence, but violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways. Last week the big news, obviously, had to do with Imus and the verbal violence that was directed at young women who were role models for all of us, role models for my daughters.
Talk about exploitation! Obama personalized the matter and even went as far as to word the comment as “verbal violence.” That sounds serious, especially when you have representatives of the government making such claims over a private citizen who said something controversial. This is the Democrats way of trying to destroy somebody (in this case, someone who supported them) in order to get something they want passed. It backfired, and failed, but nonetheless, they would do it again in a heartbeat if given the chance.
In Contrast:
Then, there is the recent controversy over David Letterman’s remarks about Sarah Palin’s daughter 14 year old daughter Willow. Sarah Palin went to a New York Yankees game with her daughter Willow, but Letterman assumed that it was her 19 year old daughter Bristol. That night on his show, Letterman said, “During the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.” That infuriated the Palins on a personal level, because they knew that the daughter that Sarah took to the game was the 14 year old, and it appeared as though David Letterman was joking around about the possibility of Sarah Palin’s 14 year old daughter being engaged in statutory rape.
Now, knowing the situation in context and knowing that it was due to a failure to check the details, if Letterman were a Conservative Republican (which he is not), then the context would not matter at all, and there would be a call nationwide to have him removed for “verbal statutory rape” of a 14 year old. Not only that, but it would have ignited a fight and a call to have him and people like him removed. But because he is a Democrat, and the joke was aimed at a family that does not share the same ideology of other liberal Democrats, then the incident was okay and funny to them. It was the people who relate to Sarah Palin who got upset and got angry, not the politicians. Expressing outrage at a comment made against a Palin does not fit the Democrats’ agenda, especially when a Democrat is making the remark. But as for the substance of the matter, what happened?
Sarah Palin addressed the issue saying, it was “disgusting” that a “62-year-old celebrity” would promote “perverted speech” about her 14-year-old daughter. Palin then went on NBC’s Today Show and said that he owes women an apology for the remark he made. Letterman did apologize on his show and how did Palin respond? She responded with sophistication and class. She forgave him, and released a statement saying that in America he has the right to joke about anything he wants to and that, “thankfully we have the right to express our reaction.”
Palin did use the incident as an opportunity to thank the troops, and did not exploit the matter to impose an agenda.
“This is all thanks to our U.S. military men and women putting their lives on the line for us to secure American’s right to free speech. In this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect.”
--Sarah Palin's Response, June 16, 2009
Of course, I would expect such a response from somebody who does not race to see who she can destroy to further her own political ambitions. I do expect such behavior from her critics as they have done and will do again, whether its shameful or not.