As many of you will recall, I became a momentary conservative whipping boy when a gerrymandered version of one of my texts got passed through blogosphere right. I don't apologize for the unedited version of what I wrote.
I averred that if the Jesusmaniac red-staters -- who get more from the Federal government than they pay in taxes -- now want further hand-outs from us blue-staters, they should: 1. Sit still and listen to our much-needed lectures on fiscal frugality and 2. Refrain from insulting Californians and New Yorkers, as they have done continually for as long as I can recall.
If leech-staters aren't willing to take steps one and two, I really have no pity on them. I love dogs, but if a stray mutt bites the hand that feeds him, I say toss the pooch out and let 'im starve.
Is that sentiment too harsh? Compare my writings to what we're hearing now from the right -- and from far more powerful voices than mine.
Nationally-heard radio personality Glenn Beck called the Katrina victims in New Orleans "scumbags." Well, at least he didn't use the word "nigger," although you may have sensed it lurking at the back of his throat. He also said "I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims."
Hatred, we are told, is a very, very bad thing. Except when righties practice it. Then hate is considered a fine thing indeed. I need not cite many examples of the blame-the-blacks approach -- you can find plenty for yourself, just by turning on any AM radio.
Then there's ABC's notorious John Stossel, who -- as this Media Matters page reports -- defends price gouging in emergencies:
In his September 7 syndicated column, ABC News 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel defended price gougers, writing that by charging $20 for a bottle of water to a person whose baby needed it to live, "the price gouger makes sure his water goes to those who really need it." Stossel added: "It was the price gouger's 'exploitation' that saved your child."Imagine if you could travel back in time and tell people 30, 40 years ago that vile views like Stossel's would receive an airing on ABC. Nobody would believe that America could ever reach so low a point.
The ever-reliable Pat Robertson claims that abortion caused Katrina. Sensible, no?
The Media Matters story on the religious response also notes that noted Apocalyptic scare-monger Hal Lindsey (whose bestselling pile of bunk, The Late Great Planet Earth, relied on filched material) claimed on the Trinity Broadcasting Network that Katrina was proof that the last days are nigh. Of course, he's been bleating about this and that piece of newfound "proof" ever since the Beatles were together. Back in the '70s, he would tell audiences that the bolshies were going to come spilling over our borders any day now...
I note with some concern that TBN is also the media home of Dream City, the Pentacostal group in Los Angeles which is housing New Orleans evacuees in the old Queen of Angels hospital. Dream City, everyone says, does remarkable work. Still, the linkage is troubling.
If you're tired of Rush's blame-the-blacks approach, you may want to sample the wares offered by the blame-the-gays crowd:
Repent America's director, Michael Marcavage, said that "this act of God destroyed a wicked city. New Orleans was a city that opened its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. May it never be the same."If blowjobs cause hurricanes, I'm surprised that this country has any truck stops left standing. Marcavage, incidentally, faced charges for hate crimes committed during a gay rally.
The apocaplyticians intrigue me. Most conservatives insist that hurricanes of this sort happen all the time, which is why we cannot blame global warming. But in the Bible belt, it is perfectly acceptable to say that Katrina was something unique -- if you go on to scry the hand of God at work.
I could go on. Point being: There is no shortage of hate in the wake of this disaster. Conservatives of varying stripes feel free to spew it out, but they cannot tolerate being on the receiving end. Classic bully behavior.
10 comments:
Substitude abuser for "bully" in the last line of this post and you're dead on. Never has Michael Moore's comparison of the neo-con right to a spouse-beating monster been more adroit than in the post-Katrina weeks. It's sickening.
Yes, and speaking of Michael Moore, I heard that he's seriously considering another documentary on Hurricane Katrina, or Hurricane George, as some prefer. I look forward to it.
On August 24 of this year, The New York Times Book Review printed former Vice President Al Gore’s favorable review of Ross Gelbspan’s book “Boiling Point.” The book analyzes global warming and attacks the Bush administration for opposing the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
While I applaud Al Gore’s position on global warming, I don’t support ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Apparently, I am in good company in opposing that Protocol as currently written, as I laid out in a letter to The Times Book Review that stated in part:
On July 25, 1997, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, along with 93 other senators (with five senators not voting and none voting in opposition) adopted a resolution stating that ‘the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.’ Shouldn’t someone who has held the office of vice president of the United States and who has sought the presidency disclose the facts, even when reviewing a book? The reason that Gore’s name is not found with the 95 others is that as vice president presiding over the Senate, he could not cast a vote unless there was a tie. On the Kyoto vote the result was 95 to 0 against the treaty.
I agree that the best way to ward off global warming is to reduce the use of fossil fuels, primarily coal and oil, and their derivatives such as gasoline. This can be done by a number of means such as conservation, developing alternative energy sources and increasing combustion engine efficiency.
The Kyoto Protocol imposes limits on the expansion of fossil fuel use and requires cutbacks. The countries most affected by the limitations or cutbacks called for by Kyoto are the developed countries, primarily the United States, which uses 25 percent of the world’s gasoline, and to a lesser degree, Japan, Russia and the European Union.
In response to my letter criticizing Gore for urging support of Kyoto, Gore wrote to The Times as follows:
The ‘Sense of the Senate’ resolution that Ed Koch refers to actually took place five months before the Kyoto Protocol was even written, and was aimed at providing guidance to the negotiators on general principles. During the political give-and-take over its wording, that resolution was eventually stated so broadly that even the strongest supporters of a tough treaty ended up supporting it. Indeed, the author of the resolution, Senator Robert Byrd, has publicly criticized the subsequent misrepresentation of its meaning by opponents of Kyoto. The fact that the Protocol was not ratified by the Senate during the two years between its signing and the end of the last administration is evidence of the vigorous opposition by the Republican Congress to confronting the global climate crisis.
Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia wrote Resolution S. 98 that opposed ratification of Kyoto if it did not comply with certain concerns, the primary one being the exemption of developing nations like China and India from its requirements. The resolution was passed on July 25, 1997. The text of the Kyoto Protocol was ready for signature at the United Nations headquarters on March 16, 1998. The Protocol has not yet been ratified by Russia, whose signature is needed before it can become effective and binding on all signers.
As recently as October 30, 2003, Senator Byrd stated, “The Kyoto Protocol, in its current form, does not comply with the requirements of Senate Resolution 98.” He continued: “S. Res. 98 directed that any such treaty must include new scheduled commitments for the developing world in addition to any such requirements for industrialized nations but requirements would be binding and mandatory and lead to real reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases over time. This is clearly different than the minimal, vague, and voluntary commitments that we are currently pursuing.”
This was a reference to the Bush Administration. Byrd also emphasized that “developing nations, especially the largest emitters, need to be a part of any binding global climate change treaty.”
President Clinton and Al Gore were unsuccessful in getting the signers of Kyoto to include the developing nations. Knowing that the Kyoto Protocol would not be passed without the inclusion of developing countries in some way, Clinton did not even send the Protocol to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
Gore now blames Bush for not getting the parties of the Protocol to include developing countries under its mandates. This is an outcome which neither he nor Clinton had been able to accomplish during their eight years of office from 1993 to 2001. How could Bush be expected to succeed where they had failed?
China has since surpassed Japan in its use and importation of the world’s major energy source, oil, ranking second in use after the U.S. China is now one of the largest manufacturers of automobiles, with millions of new buyers joining those already in line to buy its Cadillac and Volkswagens and many other foreign brands licensed for manufacture in China. The aggregate population of China and India is in excess of 2 billion people.
Should we sign the Kyoto Protocol in its current form, as Al Gore appears to be urging, if those nations which have signed it decline to renegotiate the Protocol and include the developing nations? I don’t think so, and I don’t think you will find a single U.S. senator who urges that we do so under these conditions.
Senator John Kerry should be asked if he as president would submit the flawed Protocol to the Senate for ratification and if he were still senator would he vote for it.
I view each and evry one of those examples you cited as being egregious and from idealougues that have no place in the public discourse. But you can't whitewash your own earlier post - it is just as harsh and just as condemning.
And just you can't ignore it:
Those Bush-loving Darwin-hating quasi-retarded brutishly-primitive hillbillies
you southern soft-heads
you barbaric, Jesus-addled, Limbaugh-tomized red-state hicks
your arrogant lies and smears and fake science and supernaturalistic yawpings and ludicrous self-deceits
you Jesusmaniac simpletons
Taking the first step to This, are we?
'Nazi policies were initiated as early as 1933 to take steps to assure that persons who were "undesirables" were unable to dilute the Aryan race by reproduction. The first step was the forced sterilization of persons considered "mentally deficient." A July 14, 1933 law legalized sterilization for persons with certain hereditary diseases, and empowered the Hereditary Health Courts to enforce this policy. The intent of the program was to eliminate the possibility that these people and their potential offspring would continue to be a burden to society.
Once sterilization became accepted, it was only a matter of time until the Nazis went one step further in approving a program of euthanasia. Intentionally masked by the onset of war, mentally and physically handicapped persons were rounded up and sent to special facilities for "treatment." Most were never heard from again. The families of the victims would often receive telegrams informing them that their loved one had died of a heart attack or pneumonia. In this way, the Nazis hoped to eliminate defective genes from the population, which would have the effect of strengthening future generations of the "master race." Early victims of this program were given fatal injections. These facilities were soon equipped with gas chambers.'
-----
I've seen elsewhere, where your elitist type refer to those who believe in a Higher authority, as 'mentally deficient.'
You can see what we did to your kind 60 years ago. Start using the mind God gave you and get the ignorant, bigoted, twisted Hatred out of your system, bub.
Karl, is that you? Glad you could finally grace us with an actual acknowledgement here at Cannonfire. How're those pesky kidney stones treating you? Yes, I know you'd like your minions to think that Joseph's opposition to oppressive theocracy makes *him* the elitist bigot, but--nobody with a brain is buying it.
No idea who Karl is Jen, but I know fascism when I see it- I get enough of it as a Canadian.
Came here searching for adult dating dating dating personals personals site site sites.info
Not a bad site you got here mate!
Check out mine
All about
adult dating dating dating personals personals site site sites.info
the best place to find illinois adult personals in my opinion is illinois adult personals
You can find lots of stuff illinois adult personals related just click
illinois adult personals
Good Marketing information.
Advanced Business Marketing
More business marketing information you can use.
Post a Comment