Posted on 03/29/2009 8:06:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Barack Obama promised to elevate the level of political discourse. Some of his apparent admirers didn't get the memo.
Take, for example, this user comment on the Washington Post's 44: The Obama Presidency blog today:
Considering how many people donated small amounts to his campaign, I imagine it would be difficult to find people who couldn't be considered "backers" in some way. I mean one of these guys donated a whopping $250. Yay Matt Drudge! Yay Rush Limbaugh! Way to be more retarded than Palin's down syndrome baby.
The poster was responding to the blog item "Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Backers." That piece documented that at Obama's town hall meeting, his staff stacked the deck with the president's partisans.
Introducing Gov. Sarah Palin's special-needs child into the discussion shows how low Obamatons can go in defending their hero. I don't know if the Washington Post's blogs are moderated. I do know, however, that the newspaper maintains User Discussion and Submission Guidelines. The very first section states in part:
You agree not to submit inappropriate content. Inappropriate content includes any content that: . . .degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability, or other classification
Here's a screen shot of the comment. On the Internet, things sometimes have a way of getting scrubbed. (At Link)
If the Washington Post doesn't moderate its blogs, it might want to give serious consideration to doing so. In this Golden Age of Obama, his backers obviously feel free to coarsely express their opinions no matter how despicable.
That blogger would fit right in here on FR.
Your right, anyone that can bash an innocent child is not human as far as I’m concerned. They are sick, hateful people who are irrelevant to me. My cousin is autistic as well, and when I hear people say such hateful things about the disabled it makes me physically ill. No wonder these monsters love abortion so much, they don’t care about human life
> An empty red envelope will send a message to President Barack Obama that there is moral outrage in this country over this issue [The Freedom of Choice Act...
Actually, it won’t. An empty red envelope will send a message to Obama that if you have enough money to waste on sending empty red envelopes to the President you aren’t paying your fair share of tax.
Subtlety is wasted on the Devil and His servants like Obama.
I have mixed emotions about this...sort of like Osama bin Laden driving off a cliff...in my new convertible.
This is just a blog poster/unwashed masses citizen like us. Some of the stuff I/we say is brilliant and should be on the front page. Then again, there are many times when I say stupid stuff and I’m grateful that nobody cares what I think.
Actually the empty red envelope is a good tactic, if it were given time to get some attention: the day after tomorrow is just NOT ENOUGH TIME to get exposure for it, both for the senders and press releases to the MSM. We know there are enough people who feel this way for it to make a big splash, if only there were time to do it.
I suggest push up the date a bit, like tax day or later.
Someone needs to be the spokesmen, it needs to get air time and exposure, say on Hannity, or Mark L or Rush on the radio, and THAT is the way to alert millions to do it,
and convey to millions more just what we think of this President’s policies.
My sympathies FRiend.
Mine is a British expat with BDS who made much money off of our capitalist system all while longing for the socialism he left behind in the UK. (He does this in between downing as much alcohol as he can find, and mistreating his wife.)
Come to think of it, the few libs I know are walking pathologies. It would be hilarious if they weren’t ruining this country.
Why spend one minute talking about this. We know who they are...We know how ignorant they are. There are more important things to talk about.
A better tactic would be a general strike. All who don’t agree with Obama’s policies withdraw their services. Just like they do in France. Put up picket lines just like the Unions do, and call anybody who crosses them a ‘scab’.
There is nothing wrong with using the Devil’s Own tactics against him.
On the other hand, any vicious attack on Sarah was approved. So I think this kind of bias is very common with these people.
Evidently they don’t know what Down Syndrome children can do — like hold jobs!
You know, one of the sad things about being a leftist—and I’m talking about trolls here on FreeRepublic—is their intelligence falls short of having the ability to stop and think about themselves and how stupid they really are.
I know what you mean I used to think they were just losers on the internet and the idea that they are something more was just too crazy for me. Until I started seeing carbon copies of the same responses over and over and over again on various websites. I don't even want to think about who is paying for this to be done.
I have been thinking along those lines too.
A general strike would work if there were enough numbers
(like more than half the work force)ready and willing to do it, and ALSO make sure they are protected both economically (stockpiles of food,etc.)and ethically (bosses who agree with them) so that they won’t be fired from their jobs, and Obama scabs hired, when the “strike” is over. How long would a strike like this last?
And just what would its “demands” be?
The BIGGEST problem is that this demagogue and his Administration want to control YOUR MONEY, and can do so through the very same means they can create “your money”.
THey don’t need you, or me, or us strikers, when economic power can merely be granted to whomever they wish to grant it to: a strike would be no threat to them. Think of how to answer these very important considerations. WIthout realistic answers and plans a strike is bound to sputter and die.
> (like more than half the work force)ready and willing to do it, and ALSO make sure they are protected both economically (stockpiles of food,etc.)and ethically (bosses who agree with them) so that they won’t be fired from their jobs, and Obama scabs hired, when the “strike” is over. How long would a strike like this last?
I dunno about this part at all. It would be a very, very luxurious situation for workers to be protected and not suffer due to strike action. There is a big downside to that game: the workers neither win nor lose by the outcome of the strike, so they are less dedicated to the strike’s objectives. OTOH if you stood to lose everything if the strike failed, you would try harder to make sure it succeeded. It would need to last until it succeeded, which could be a very long time.
Looks like there was reason behind some of this...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.