Posted on 07/06/2009 6:19:17 AM PDT by tobyhill
Who elected Obama? Aside from the left wing intellectuals and labor unions, a whole bunch of American dunderheads did. Members of what I call our “People Magazine Culture” our “pop culture”. The culture that worships movie stars, and rock stars. Obama is the first “rock star” President. Since the msm wouldn’t give us his background, I spent a few hours researching him on my own. He is a totally corrupt life long leftist, who was involved with shady, probably criminal real estate deals. But he is an American pop culture hero, like Michael Jackson, so we must revere him........not!!
Our pop culture is mourning a human freak, who paid 20+ million dollars to buy off serious jail time. I don’t care if he invented the light bulb! At least we have the guts to tell it straight.
Bingo!
Ask ABC News or Katie at CBS or Letterman or Maureen at the New York Times or ANYONE at the Washington Post. YES. They besmirch her all the time - and they sure as hell don't kiss her behind like they do with Michael KING OF PEDOPHILES Jackson. Do you live on this planet?
On Sarah by David Kahane:
Hit her with everything we have: Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, taking a beer-run break from her quixotic search for Mr. Right to drip venom on Sister Sarah; post-funny comic David Letterman, to joke about her and her daughters on national television; Katie Couric, the anchor nobody watches, to give this Alaskan interloper a taste of life in the big leagues; former New York Times hack Todd “Mr. Dee Dee Myers” Purdum, to act as an instrument of Graydon Carter’s wrath at Vanity Fair. Heck, we even burned her church down. Even after the teleological triumph of The One, the assault had to continue, each blow delivered with our Lefty SneerTM (viz.: Donny Deutsch yesterday on Morning Joe), until Sarah was finished.
You know what? It worked! McCain finally succumbed to his long-standing case of Stockholm Syndrome (“My friends, you have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency”), Tina Fey turned Palin into a see-Russia-from-my-house joke, “conservative” useful idiots like Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker hatched her, and finally Sarah cried No más and walked away. If we could, we’d cut off her head and mount it on a wall at Tammany Hall, except there is no more Tammany Hall unless you count Obama’s Tony Rezko–financed home in Chicago. And it took only eight months — heck, Sarah couldn't even have another kid in the time it took us to destroy her. That’s the Chicago way!
LOL!
What I find amusing with liberals and MJ is how they wrong their hands over the “imooverished” and then LAVISH themselves with narcissistic gifts and lifestyle - all the while viewing YOU as vile. Just imagine how even 1/10th of MJ’s estate could improve home grown poverty. Or take one day with MJ spending MILLIONS on himself - that's perfectly acceptable from the liberal point of view because MJ is a pop god of freaks. It's also okay that his money bought him off as a child molester as well as ILLEGAL drugs that killed him. Now they want to point the finger to anyone but MJ for his own death.
Maybe that’s the problem of the guy I’ve been sparring with. Sick!!! Sick!!! Sick!!!
BUMP
Lots of self righteous judgemental posts here. Typical.
First, freedom is speech is of no merit if it's only used to gush nice things about public figures who have given 20 million to pay off the parents of various "boys" who have accused him of pedophilia. I can assure you if Sarah Palin had paid 20 million dollars to keep various parents quiet who had accused her of diddling their daughters - the press would never shut up about it.
I understand that, and I agree with you 100% And really and truly - all people who are found "not guilty" are not necessarily innocent. You do understand how our legal system works even if you don't quite understand the first amendment, right?
I understand that "not guilty" means just that - not guilty as opposed to innocent. We have a system whereby the onus is on the accuser to prove their accusation. If you accuse people of some wrongdoing, the law says that the onus is on YOU to prove it, not on them to prove otherwise. There's no need to insult me.
OJ was found "not guilty" - did you think he was innocent of the crime? Or that the State didn't prove their case to that particular jury on that day?
I think the State did not prove their case, and that under the current rules no one would be ever convicted of anything if they had access to the same kind of high powered laywers. The system is broke, because it does not treat people equally.
Should we all show great respect for OJ? How about great respect for the man who killed the abortion doctor?
Youre getting carried away now. This isn't about respect. This is about a point of law.
Or do you draw a line there. How about great respect for skinheads who lynch blacks? Do they also get "great respect"? What if one of the skinheads wrote a beautiful song? Or six beautiful songs - and danced to one of them? Does that trump our ability to condemn him for being a racist-killer?
If a skinhead wrote a beautiful song or danced very well to one of the, he should be accorded respect for being a good songwriter or dancer. Check back on any statement Ive made about MJ. Hes a great entertainer, flawed human being.
You need to get real Vanders. You seem to feel that you know where the "line" is - it's where the people you like are on the good side of that line - and the rest of us are not. That's heavy handed totalitarian. It seems I don't agree with you on any of this - it happens.
AND that is where my point about the misuse of freedom of speech comes in. I havent made any claim about "lines". I certainly have not tried to claim im on the "good" side and you are on the "bad". You are extrapolating what you know about other people, and then ascribing those viewpoints to me based on the fact that I have the temerity not to completely agree with you. Now that enables me to call YOU totalitarian.
The principle remains the same. I thought all people were supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law? Is that not the case in the USA? From evidence like the OJ Simpson trial it seems that money, popularity and power count for more than with the “little people”.
And what IS it with “plea-bargaining”? How the hell is that justice????
Exactly! You dont believe that Sarah Palin should be besmirched like she has been. I agree. So how can you not believe that, but be prepared to do exactly the same with other people who you dont like? And then you have the temerity to accuse ME of drawing a line!
If a behaviour is wrong, it is wrong. End of story. You fight fire with water, not with fire.
“And what IS it with “plea-bargaining”? How the hell is that justice????”
It isn’t. Sometimes the law fails.
Where is the law when our President tries to reinstall a dictator in Honduras?
If Sarah is molesting children and paying off their parents, anyone can go after her in any way they want to.
So NO I don't agree with you on this - not any.
Actually, some of your comments were well thought out - if we had more time we might find areas of agreement. Who knows? Hopefully we won’t be taking different sides on pedophiles in the future.
You're projecting. I believe if the MSM wants to "besmirch" Sarah, they should have the complete freedom to do so - and I would defend that freedom.
That said, if they are one-sided,biased, unfair, and bigoted in their "besmirchments" I will condemn them, not buy their newspapers, not watch their "news" shows, or buy from their advertisers.
The MSM has the right to be outspoken as-holes and I have the right to reject them on every level possible. Well, EXCEPT taking away their freedom to be outspoken as-holes. ( They have the right to be free - but not without suffering the consequences of their choices.) Me? I don't think I'll be invited to a Jackson family get-together. Pedophiles will not speak kindly of me. You Vanders will write unkind things to me. That's OK. It's the texture of freedom.
I have the right to judge Jackson's actions - they have the right to not like me. BUT they don't have the right to censor me.
Same for Sarah. They have the right to go after her. We have the right not to buy their newspapers, TV shows, or anything else they hawk. Do we agree?
I hope so too.
BTW - Alleged pedophiles :)
:)
By besmirch, I meant "tell untruths/be biased/unfair", so I think if you understand by what I mean by that expression we are really on the same page.
Where I do disagree with you though is in your final quid pro quo type assessment. Although in an ideal world I think that is fair enough, in the current postmodern information-at-the-touch-of-a-fingertip culture we live in, it's really not up to the job.
I think the difficulty is that conservatives, being in the main honorable people with a logical, commonsense mindset, generally believe that truth is an absolute. Something is true, or it isn't. There is good, there is evil; there is right and there is wrong. All you have to do to determine the correct course of action on any issue is to find out which viewpoint on the issue is true, and which ones are not.
Unfortunately, as Liberals are only too aware, truth is far from being an absolute. It can be twisted, bent and corkscrewed into pretzels if neccesary. Liberals, who generally think with their hearts rather than their brains, understand that if you shout a lie out loud enough, and long enough, it somehow becomes true (presumably by some sort of weierd psychological osmotic process).
Their are so many examples of this I hesitate to point them out to the frequenters of these boards. But, for example, it is a known "fact" that the Democrats are the party for "people of color", the ones who fight racism. All the evidence is quite to the contrary - after all it was a Republican president who issued the emancipation declaration - but everyone "knows" that democrats are for Blacks, and so 95% of Black people vote for them.
Similarly, the evidence for anthropomorphic global warming is remarkably flimsy. But every news outlet, every scientific statement, every natural history program thumps home the message that the world is getting hotter, and that we are all gonna die, and they go on, and on, and on about it. Most people now accept it is true. It must be, everyone says it is!
Now, I agree - if Sarah Palin makes a botch of something, the media has every right to point it out. If she does something morally unsavory, they should report it. But if they make unsubstantiated claims about her; if they decry her as a "hick" based on her accent, that she comes from a rural state; and that she didnt attend an ivy league college - well, I'm not so sure that we can rely on the good sense of John and Mary Doe out there to sift through that. This is the information age. Everyone is very busy and we all rely too much on precis and bottom lines. Just check some of the blogs...the things people say about her are appalling - and most of them have no evidence to back up what they write - they are literally parroting back what they have been told.
I don't see any alternative to resorting to lawsuits to protect against this kind of thing.
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.