Posted on 09/07/2013 6:17:22 PM PDT by lowbridge
Remember how the left’s concern with the slightest signs of sexual harassment disappeared when it threatened to ensnare Bill Clinton? (That episode also had the benefit of causing liberals to see the defects of the independent counsel statute; while railing against Ken Starr, they failed to perceive his great Machiavellian deed.) Well, the left is suddenly revealing their anti-war principles really only apply to Republican presidents.
Of course, what is revealed is that their anti-war principles are closely connected to their essential cowardice. Ed Asner has admitted as much, saying they don’t want to criticize Obama on Syria because of Obama’s race. From the Hollywood Reporter: “A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama.” Give that man a Kennedy Profile in Courage Award (heh).
David Sirota wonders, “What Ever Happened to the Anti-War Movement?”
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Taken to its logical conclusion, Ed Asner would prefer to have people across the world blown to bits than to look bad to his friends .
It is a weakness of conservatives that they constantly complain about Leftist hypocrisy, or a Leftist "double standard".
Leftists are not hypocrites, and they do not have a double standard.
They have a single standard, viz.: If it's good for the revolution and works to destroy America, they support it. If it slows down the revolution and makes America stronger, they're against it.
They simply reveal that they are the true racists. It isn’t about truth or reality, it’s Obama’s skin color.
But it does show a glaring fault of the liberal mind: they truly believe that criticizing a black, for anything, is racist. Even if what he is doing is something they would protest if a white was doing it/had done it, to criticize a black for doing it is racist. How infantile!
The mind of a liberal is the mind of a child.
But the black must be a liberal to not be criticized.
>>Taken to its logical conclusion, Ed Asner would prefer to have people across the world blown to bits than to look bad to his friends .
Ed Asner wouldn’t mind seeing people blown up across the street, if it helped him maintain his credibility with the Tanzi Progs.
Man do I remember. CEO's, managers, bosses, foreman, masses of men were being swept aside with the greatest horror of the time "sexual harassment", and then Bill got caught up in rape and the most serious sexual harassment and exploitation charges imaginable, and the feminist movement was broken, they still exist, but they destroyed themselves for Clinton, and have never returned to power.
Perhaps the author should have posted a headline “The Eternal Hypocrisy of the Liberal Mind” as Leftist generally indicates a Marxist, Socialist mentality versus ditz.
They are terribly conflicted on this. They absolutely must be seen as thinking right. Can’t appear to be racist by criticizing Obama. But must oppose war. What Would Ginsberg Do?
Nope. Criticize a black man for supporting free-market economics, or believing in personal responsibility or traditional morality, and the left join the attack the same way sharks go after a wounded swimmer. They'll even claim the black man who believes those things is somehow a racist (even though the ideas are color-blind and apply to all people equally), will call him an "Uncle Tom" or if they're really in a vicious mood a "race traitor".
You’re right about the people at the top - they know. But there’s lots of useful idiots who need to hear us call them
hypocrites...
A conservative black is an "Uncle Tom". That's the only legitimate charge one can bring against a black in the liberal's world view.
Now that I think about it, the greatest Uncle Tom of all time currently resides in the White House. He's a shameless suck up to money; most of his backers are white: Soros,Buffet, Bill Gates, the Saudis, etc.
This is a fact that conservatives have overlooked, one that could offer rhetorical leverage, with a little imagination.
Rhetoric is all that matters in liberal politics; they have no ideals to contradict. In their hearts they are brigands and the only thing that matters is getting more of what we have.
But rhetoric is the liberal's currency.
"For a long time the public was receiving a one-sided, negative picture of Kenneth Starr because, in great part, he was under intensive attack from those around the president and was not defending himself. He's now fighting back...""...Starr is finally speaking out. Visiting the Monitor breakfast the other day, he asserted that he'd been blackened by the White House 'spin machine' and said that White House-related charges that he had been carrying on a 'vendetta' against the Clintons were "a totally bogus and bum rap."
"...he told us, President. Clinton, himself had 'yet to come to terms with his own responsibility' in trying to 'play games with the law.' He urged Mr. Clinton 'to get himself right with the law,' meaning that he believes that the president should go beyond his apology for his personal misbehavior and acknowledge that he committed perjury and sought to obstruct justice..."
"Meanwhile the president is seeking to change the public perception of his impeachment, making it out to be nothing more than an act of GOP political vindictiveness for actions that were nothing more than personal misbehavior. He says he broke no laws. Starr told us he was dismayed over this Clinton effort to squirm out of responsibility and said how wrong it is to believe that 'it's OK to commit perjury and obstruction of justice if the arena of conduct is personal.' That view, he said, 'is a lawless perspective.'..."
To call it mind is to call dog crap Baked Alaska.
>> Even if what he is doing is something they would protest if a white was doing it/had done it, to criticize a black for doing it is racist <<
Well, Clinton was white, and all the "anti-war" lefties who demanded Bush's impeachment were fine and dandy with every one of Clinton's wars (Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.) I don't recall any massive protests and calls for Clinton's impeachment when he bombed an aspirin factory.
Seems pretty clear to me that ideology triumphs EVERYTHING and leftists will ALWAYS defend one of their own, even when he or she does something that they claim is treasonous and impeachable when a Republican does it.
Obama's skin color is just an added "bonus" for them. If Obama was white, they'd be defending him and screaming about the "hateful Republicans" and "vast right-wing conspiracy". But since Obama is black, they can also call us racists. If Obama was openly gay, they'd be calling us "homophobic" for opposing war with Syria, etc.
” Well, Clinton was white, and all the “anti-war” lefties who demanded Bush’s impeachment were fine and dandy with every one of Clinton’s wars (Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.) I don’t recall any massive protests and calls for Clinton’s impeachment when he bombed an aspirin factory.
Seems pretty clear to me that ideology triumphs EVERYTHING and leftists will ALWAYS defend one of their own, even when he or she does something that they claim is treasonous and impeachable when a Republican does it.
Obama’s skin color is just an added “bonus” for them. If Obama was white, they’d be defending him and screaming about the “hateful Republicans” and “vast right-wing conspiracy”. But since Obama is black, they can also call us racists. If Obama was openly gay, they’d be calling us “homophobic” for opposing war with Syria, etc.”
You know, it really sucks that you are so right. Every opportunity taken to do the name calling game and never any substance. Only important thing is to advance the progress of destroying America.
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.