Comments Posted By L.N. Smithee
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 12 Comments

CPAC AGENDA SHOWS CONSERVATIVES STILL IN DENIAL

Dagnabit. Here's the link to the Cooper and Phillips videos.

Comment Posted By L.N. Smithee On 25.02.2009 @ 16:24

Chuck Tucson wrote:

Yes he does Funny Man. Or at least he wants to. Because without guys like Sharpton to hone his message and indirectly prove his (awesome for America) points, he’d have to start digging deeper, where the tough questions lie. Questions with more complicated answers than “with proper initiative and work ethic, minorities can become productive members of society!”

You don't like "my" answers, it's clear. You suggest that they are a simplistic response to the "tough questions with more complicated answers..."

So, Chuck ... what are the "more complicated answers?" Where are those "tough questions?" Do you have any idea what any of them are?

Your thinking is classically bassackwards. Not that I'm surprised.

funny man wrote:

the media wants to sell the news, what better way to put up a clown making silly noises. Same deal with conservatives, if the media wants a ‘conservative voice’ ridiculous figures like Ann Coulter are dug up. However, all this doesn’t matter to me. Case in point is the terrific job Michelle Rhee is making as chancellor of the public school system in DC. Sure, fossils like Marion Barry are mad about her but the majority of black parents support her. I used to live in Detroit so I know a school system that needs reform badly (ever since Coleman Young’s soultrain came to town). I know a lot of people in the inner city are not as usually portrayed in conservative blogs but want practical results not Al Sharpton enjoying his own voice.

Your doubting of Sharpton's influence (whether he has rank-and-file support or not) should have been answered this past week, as the Poverty Pimp Blimp has whined, wailed, and threatened his way to another high-profile CEO apology (first Sumner Redstone, now Rupert Murdoch) and reignited racial controversy. This has nothing to do with "selling the news" -- Sharpton is a conduit through which political pressure is placed on the right of center. His phony outrage is covered by the MSM, then the MSM -- always viewing the right as guilty until proven innocent -- leans on the right to defend itself and more often than not, the right caves.

Here's a perfect illustration of how it worked this time around: Watch these CNN videos featuring Anderson Cooper and Kyra "The Zipper" Phillips. On AC 360, black former Bush Admin official Ron Christie is sandwiched between fake centrist David Gergen and black minister Roland Martin. Watch as Gergen and Martin snicker at Ron Christie's logical, sensible case for the chimpanzee NOT to be taken as representative of Obama. Cooper actually was pretty fair, but Phillips, talking to Sharpton and some whoozat black professor -- back up the agenda dump truck and pile it through your TV screen.

Comment Posted By L.N. Smithee On 25.02.2009 @ 16:16

funny man wrote:

L.N. Smithee,
do you honestly think Al Sharpton is taken serious in the black community. Just go to any black barber shop to find out. People know what he is.

It doesn't matter. As long as he is propped up by the MSM as the go-to guy for blacktivism (replacing loose-lipped hypocrite Jesse Jackson), nobody will pay attention to more reasonable voices. How many black people did you see on the news last night who looked at that cartoon and said, "You're overreacting?"

Comment Posted By L.N. Smithee On 19.02.2009 @ 19:06

It must be rough being to (sic) misunderstood.

It's rough being surrounded by people who are so thoroughly duped. Heaven help the first person who talks face-to-face with me about that New York Post cartoon that ignoramii believe is racist.

Comment Posted By L.N. Smithee On 19.02.2009 @ 17:28

Chuck Tucson wrote:

That’s interesting. I’ve never had to fend of accusations that I was a bigot.

When all you do is bash conservatives, nobody accuses you.

Comment Posted By L.N. Smithee On 19.02.2009 @ 13:34

Let me put it this way: you may think the GOP’s not anti-black and anti-Hispanic, but they sure think you are. So one way or the other, you have a bit of a problem.

The problem is that alleged genius Karl Rove insisted on pandering to minorities instead of treating them like adults. Instead of cowering and hiding from the NAACP, George W. Bush should have stated forthrightly, "Harry Belafonte should be ashamed of himself, and Julian Bond does the NAACP no favors when he deliberately misstates facts." When he was scapegoated in the DNC/AFL-CIO-sponsored open-border protests, he should have pointed out that he is in favor of legal immigration, but that he swore to protect this nation from criminals (and, potentially, terrorists) crossing over and back across the border just as much as at the nation's airports. But Rove thinks the way to get Hispanic votes is to imitate the Dems' strategy: Let immigrants in without question, and give 'em everything they demand.

Blacks born in America are controlled by poverty pimps who perpetuate the idea that unlike immigrants who fled here, they are owed "The American Dream" as retribution for past wrongs (African and Caribbean immigrants generally don't fall victim to such attitudes). Look at the way Al Sharpton is sapping the energy of people by raising phony outrage about that New York Post editorial cartoon).

You can deny until you’re blue in the face that the GOP is anti-gay, anti-Hispanic or anti-black, but it doesn’t matter in political terms because each of those groups believes you are. So, you say “No, we don’t practice dog-whistle racism!” and then you lose 95% of the black vote. “No, we don’t demonize Hispanics,” and then you actually manage to lose ground among a highly religious, socially conservative group like that. “No, we don’t bash gays,” and the only gay supporters you have are your closet queen Senators.

Let's put it this way: If you have teenagers who sneak out of your house and meet at friends' homes for drinking, drugs, and sex, instead of alienating them by grounding them or punishing them, you can stay in their good graces by letting them booze, bong and bang in your living room. They'll either love you until the day they die or when they come to their senses and realize they were out of control and needed reigning in and counseling, whichever comes first.

Policies discouraging initiative are bad for blacks and America. Unfettered immigration is bad for Hispanics and America. Destroying the concept of the nuclear family is bad for America. Histories of past civilizations have shown us the longterm effect of policies that perpetuate overreliance on welfare, open borders, and family erosion. If no entity stands for those things, it won't matter if there is a "functioning second party" or not -- neither will stand on a foundation that aids the nation's continued strength.

Comment Posted By L.N. Smithee On 19.02.2009 @ 13:08

Chuck Tucson wrote:

I’m a fiscally conservative independant.

I'm not surprised. You answered "I don't care" to relevant counterpoints twice in your response to manning. Independents say "I don't care" a lot.

Also, for the most part PC is just a way of proper labeling. Sometimes taken too far, but mostly it’s a way of telling people to stop being assholes to people who aren’t like them.

Puhleeze. Political correctness is perhaps a-holes' favorite weapon! It's like a stun gun: If you're making a sound, literate point, they whip out PC, and say (as I detailed in a previous post) "I'm being attacked!" and the usual suspects rush to their defense and counterattack without question. You can't continue to make your point because you have to fend off false accusations that you're a some sort of bigot.

Comment Posted By L.N. Smithee On 19.02.2009 @ 01:09

Michael Reynolds wrote:

You know how many times Ronald Reagan tried to outlaw abortion? Zero ... His Supreme Court appointees? O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy. He was not the furthest Right.

My question to you was “What political figure in 1980 was perceived as further to the right than Ronald Reagan?” The only one that I could think of is Jesse Helms, but Helms never ran for President. Barry Goldwater was sixteen years removed from his firebrand days, and had moderated many of his views. Nevertheless, I was pretty confident you couldn't give me an answer. And you didn't.

There is a new biography of former Reagan Administration Deputy Secretary of State Bill Clark in which it is revealed that Clark – a California judge under Reagan – turned down Reagan's offer to nominate him to replace Potter Stewart. Clark believed Roe needed overturning, and after interviewing Anthony Kennedy at Reagan's request, recommended Kennedy's nomination partially because he felt Kennedy also would vote against Roe. Stewart's slot went instead to Sandra Day O'Connor, a former pro-ERA Arizona Republican legislator appointed to the bench by Gov. Bruce Babbitt (who may have feared she would run against him). Here's what Reagan wrote in his personal diary on July 6, 1981:

"Called Judge O'Connor in Arizona and told her she was my nominee for Supreme Court. Already the flak is starting, and from my own supporters. Right-to-life people say she's pro-abortion. She declares abortion is personally repugnant to her. I think she'll make a good justice."

I hope I don't have to inform you about Scalia. If you don't know where he stands on Roe and abortion, you haven't been paying enough attention to even have an opinion.

Reagan himself authored a book while in office about his feelings on the right to life called Abortion and the Conscience of Nation. It was the Reagan Administration that in 1984 established the “Mexico City Policy” that was reversed by Clinton, reinstated by GWB, and reversed on day two by Obama. So no, Reagan did not ever threaten to issue an executive order “outlawing abortion,” but it's clear how he felt about the right to life. There has been no serious Presidential candidate who has ever “tried to outlaw abortion.” You read like one of those fact-challenged folk who are under the impression Roe v. Wade “legalized” abortion.

He was as far Right as he could be and still touch the center. Which is the sweet spot for you guys.

I disagree. Everything Reagan was able to accomplish he did despite having to contend with House Speaker Tip O'Neill and Robert Byrd as Senate Majority Leader. He moved away from the center; George W. Bush and his father (to a lesser extent) moved toward it when they didn't need to.

What would be the difference between a center right GOP and a center-left Democratic Party? Your side would still look primarily to free market solutions with government as a competent handmaiden. The Democrats would reverse that. A smart GOP would push power back to the States. The Democrats would continue to centralize power in Washington.

So, in other words, smart Republicans would encourage state government to grow up, and not rely on Washington pork-barrel spending so much. Hey, you know who said that sort of thing back in 2007? Sarah Palin. But Dems didn't like her because she's too pro-life, too Christian, too pro-gun. Don't try to tell me it's all about her intellect or readiness; the long knives of feminist liberals were out for her before her shaky response in ambush interviews raised those issues. Oh, and don't forget that Roe v. Wade is the ULTIMATE states rights issue nowadays.

You don’t think the GOP is guilty of attacking gays, blacks, Hispanics? Then explain why your party is as white and straight as a Utah country club? Obviously gays, blacks and Hispanics don’t feel comfortable with you guys. Do they? Your party is rural, white and old. If you think that’s a winning coalition going forward then you must be doing the new new math.

As long as the GOP is the party of gay-bashing, dog whistle racism, immigrant-baiting and abortion fanaticism, that’s all you’ll be. You slam the door on people in the center who might vote with you on economic issues and defense but can’t stomach the Religious Right’s nastiness.

“Attacking”? Please, don't be such a drama queen with the hyperbolic language. That's a cheap trick – if someone says something critical of you and you are a minority of some sort, some kind of sympathy will come your way if you scream “I'm being attacked!”

Republicans have not “attacked” gays, they've opposed same-sex marriage. They haven't “attacked” Hispanics, they've opposed open borders and illegal immigration. They haven't “attacked” blacks at all, but have been unjustly accused of it on the flimsiest of premises. (On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Democrat legend Robert Byrd has literally attacked blacks.)

“Dog whistle racism” is an especially disingenuous debating tool – it's another way of saying, “I have no way whatsoever to prove that someone is a bigot, but if you take this word here and that word there, you can fill in the blanks and prove it to yourself.” That crapola came into play when an Associated Press “analyst” contorted himself like a Cirque du Soleil gymnast to allege that Sarah Palin's truthful statements about Obama “palling around with terrorists” was “racially tinged.” Even worse was black New York Times columnist Bob Herbert embarrassing himself by suggesting John McCain's “Celeb” TV ad was designed to stoke latent racism by blending images of blondes Paris Hilton and Britney Spears with Obama and phallic monuments.

Of course, you're overlooking the fact that despite all the smearing the Gay-stapo does of the Mormon church, California's Prop 8 would have lost if Bible-believing black Obama voters hadn't made the difference. But it's tricky for gay radicals – who are mostly white – to go after blacks and claim victim status.

You act as if there is something inherently wrong with being “white and straight.” There isn't. It shouldn't go unnoted that most people in America are. Your attitude implies that ideology ought to be partially determined by skin color. I'm used to that kind of “thinking,” being a black man whose views are overwhelmingly conservative. I rejected affirmative action once I realized that supporters expect me to be less responsible and intelligent because I am black.

Nice try.

Comment Posted By L.N. Smithee On 17.02.2009 @ 16:00

In my previous post, the paragraphs after each of the blockquotes should have been included in the . I was not aware this version of WordPress automatically closes the blockquote tag after a hard return.

Comment Posted By L.N. Smithee On 17.02.2009 @ 15:43

Kate wrote:

John McCain ran the kind of campaign Frum, Brooks etc have advocated. And guess what, he lost! Why do you want to replicate their ideas Rick?

Your use of the term “freeperland” says oodles about who you really are. The disdain shown for conservative Republicans by Frum, Brooks and now sadly yourself, show who are really intolerant. Sadly, I have lost a great deal of respect for you. As one who reads “freeperland” frequently I laud all types of conservatives. Its too bad you don’t.

Rick Moran responded:

John McCain ran a very bad campaign – worse than Kerry and far worse than Al Gore. He didn’t follow anybody’s advice nor did he run his campaign the way any professional would have wanted. He lost because he was a horrible candidate – as inspiring as a jello mold and as clueless as a tapir.

The Freepers have come to this site many times and have shown that they don’t know what a conservative is. They are mindless parrots, mouthing their talking points and calling anyone who disagrees with them a liberal. It is apparent that they have no knowledge of political labels and can only spout hate. If you respect them, I have to assume you are as ignorant as they are.

For the record, David Frum supported Giuliani for the nomination, and pulled the lever for McCain despite reservations about the selection of Governor Palin. "Conservative" David Brooks, on the other hand, melted under the Obama "charm offensive" like a smitten schoolgirl. When Brooks discovered he and Obama shared an affection for the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr, he was a goner -- once Obama won the nomination, it seemed like Brooks was looking for reasons NOT to vote for a Republican. "Conservative" Peggy Noonan's true colors shown through in her open mike moment on MSNBC. She backtracked at first, but reiterated her trashing of Palin in the weeks before the election, echoing Brooks' admiration of Obama's honed image of "coolness" and even demeanor. "Conservative" Christopher Buckley -- son of the most revered conservative thinker of the latter 20th century, and who once wrote a campaign speech for John McCain -- endorsed Barack Obama, thinking BHO was too smart to believe the ideology he embraced for most of his adult life would work. Here's young Buckley:

[H]aving a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves.

That shows you how well secular prayers work. I have more to say about Christo Buckley's folly on my blog.

The idea that "political labels" like "conservative" are easy to perceive when their side is sticking to its guns and the our side is laying ours down is ridiculous.

I registered at Free Republic a decade ago (in the thick of the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation) and used to log on and comment daily, but, I admit, the level of discourse has devolved in recent years. I finally grew weary of trying to talk down people who thought Obama could be stopped by a certifiable career criminal who insisted he and the then-Senator shared cocaine and fellatio in a limousine nine years ago, and only occasionally check FR out nowadays. I was part of the minority of vocal FR members who joined you in saying that Ann Coulter's name-calling and bomb-throwing was counterproductive to the cause. So I am mystified at what you think is being accomplished by your dismissive, profane tone.

Since you're so keen on statistics and demographics, you must realize that the electorate is a sliver of the adult population. A lot of people want to make a living, support their families and communities, or even be rich. Not all of us went to college for the purpose of pondering for a living, Rick. But usually there is some issue that forces up to sit up, take notice, and ask, "What's going on here? How can I stop what's going wrong? Who's responsible for causing this?" To meet such people with "Shut up, you ignorant dumbshit!" goes Coulter one worse in alienating applicants up for a fight. And it also shows who has the "hate."

Comment Posted By L.N. Smithee On 17.02.2009 @ 15:31


 


Next page »


Pages (2) : [1] 2


«« Back To Stats Page