Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Obama and his human kiddie shield

Then: political protest (during time of war, on foreign soil, heartening enemies and demoralizing troops) is patriotic

Now: political protest (on American soil, of attempted tyranny) is done only by mobs, and is Nazi-like

Then: if some protestors have political connections, the whole is invalid

Now: hey look! An innocent, randomly-chosen cute little kid who just happens to like The One and feel pouty about all those mean signs!

Except maybe not so much.


UPDATE: here's another very important then/now.

26 comments:

NoLongerBlind said...

More opportunity for the MSM's hypocritical double standards to be made manifest.
Imagine if this were the Bush Administration's tactics....

Paula said...

I was watching the coverage of the Town Hall infomercial on Fox New yesterday. After sweet little Julia asked her question the network cut away to the commentators and directed its viewers to their website if they wanted to watch the rest of the dog-and-pony show (OK, that's my paraphrase).

It was almost as if even they couldn't stomach a minute more of the charade. Tucker Carlson said he'd bet his car that the questions were pre-screened. Gibbs continues to exist the questioners were randomly selected.

Interesting he's now saying that the shout-y town hall meetings are an aberration being exploited by the cable news channels and not the norm. It's just a few fringy people who are mad/concerned/worried about the takeover. A lie a day keeps reality away.

TOTUS reports that the POTUS went off the teleprompter when he said, "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems." That explains it.

Newt Gingrich on the difference between Fedex and government bureaucracy.

Paula said...

Gibbs continues to *insist* the questioners were randomly selected.

Another interesting comment from Gibbs. A reporter just asked him if the White House would consider distributing tickets to the Town Hall in Montana to Republican Congressmen instead of ONLY Democrats like they did for yesterday's. Answer: The President is comfortable that he's getting a balanced, representative audience by ONLY giving tickets to Democrats. As Ann Coulter would say: Riiiiiiiigggggggggggggggttttttttt.

CR said...

Funny thing about the FedEx and UPS thing. Did President Obama even realize when he was saying what he said that he just gave a good example of why government should not get involved in healthcare?

Here's the thing, when President Obama is not on his telemprompter that's when he is most honest. When you're a liberal, you can't be honest so you have to very carefully craft what you say. When Obama said twice in years past that he wants single payer, that's what he wants. When he said, I want to spread the wealth - that's when he is honest. When he said, I don't want my daughters to be punished with a baby, that's when he's honest.

DJP said...

Yep.

Not Obama - Unplugged; but...

Obama - UnPrompted.

Citizen Grim said...

Look on the bright side - there's a good chance that girl is gonna grow up pretty jaded and cynical about Democrat politicians...

steve s said...

Another question from an English correspondent because, over here, we tend to disbelieve ALL politicians equally.
When Bush wasn't on his tele-prompter (or even when he was!) was he telling the truth?

steve s said...

"When you're a liberal, you can't be honest so..."
CR, I'm sure you're a lovely guy but your credibility as a witness to Christ looks real shaky when you make statements like that.

DJP said...

Why?

steve s said...

Which post are you 'answering' Dan?
Why do we tend to disbelieve all politicians? or Why does suggesting that liberals can't tell the truth impact your Christian witness?

DJP said...

B.

steve s said...

Whew. A was harder.
Because whilst we may not agree with their theology (I say WE because I'm inside your camp;-) ), to suggest that they are incapable of telling the truth is: a. not true, and b. destined to set you apart as an extremist with whom any kind of reasonable dialogue is unlikely.

DJP said...

For my part, I think it's not only true, but patently obviously true.

It being Carlo's question, I'll leave it to him, now that it's a bit clarified - though he may want more clarification.

steve s said...

Sad to say this, Dan but...QED.
I wonder if 'liberal' means something different where you guys live.

Paula said...

grabbing a lowfat mocha decaf and pulling up a chair..

steve s said...

Consolation is; I make myself unpopular around these parts, I probably won't even know it because of the language problem. ;-)

CR said...

Steve,

It may seem harsh but I don't know any other way to say it. Liberals lie. They have to have a monopoly in order to flourish because in a monopoly the lies never get challenged.

One of the lies today that continues to be spread today is that President Obama doesn't want single payer. I really don't have time to link you explicit statements, but he has on more than one occassion said he wants single payer. Maybe he was lying then and not now? (Barney Frank was also caught on camera saying that was the ultimate goal).

Liberals must lie in order to succeed because most of the American population is conservative and they know they can't win elections by being completely transparent. The American electorate is now seeing that and that's why Obama only has a 47% approval among likely voters. Well, America, sorry, but too late. We have a minimum of 3 years and 5 months left.

steve s said...

I see, now, that you were discussing this specifically in relation to current American politics as opposed to the broader terms of reference I was embracing. Presumably, in a situation where most of the population was liberal, a liberal could be honest, maybe, occasionally?
I have to ask you, though, Carlo, for balance. Do Conservatives sometimes lie, too?

steve s said...

I'll presume not, but remind you of all the WMD they didn't find in Iraq. ;-)

DJP said...

And, having done that, what would you think you had accomplished? If that's an issue to you, that would reveal a lot about your level of discernment. EVERYONE believed there were WMD in Iraq, Hussein stoked the fires of suspicion by barring the inspectors he'd agreed to, and there is every possibility that there were weapons that he later moved.

Further, there already had been WMD in Iraq, and he had already moved them.

If that is your prime example of a conservative "lying," it says a lot about your viewpoint.

For it to have any significance in this forum, you'd have to find a place where one of us argued that it is OK for conservatives to lie. It isn't.

And if you could find a conservative pol who lied, would that make any difference as to the river of lies pouring out of the O administration? Moral relativism isn't a Christian viewpoint.

steve s said...

Dan, what would it say about
a) my level of discernment? and
b) my viewpoint?
I expressed the view earlier in this thread that in Britain we tend to believe that politicians of all hues are perfectly capable of lying whenever it suits them. I was merely attempting to ascertain whether or not that was the case in the States.
Nobody answered my question of 13. 8. (that's the RIGHT way round! ;-)) so I followed it up.
I'm not waiting for somebody to say that it's OK for Conservatives to lie, just that they do.
As far as your point about moral relativism goes, I absolutely agree, but 'IF I could find a conservative politician who lied....' Are you serious?

DJP said...

Totally serious in the context of the whole sentence. It's a silly, juvenile distraction.

I tell you, "You know, you really shouldn't commit adultery." You say, "Do Americans commit adultery?" I say, "...and if they do, what does that have to do with anything?"

For it to be meaningful (and not just a timewasting way to dodge the point), you'd have to demonstrated that I excuse American adultery, while thundering condemnation of British adultery.

As to the rest, the whole "Bush lied" meme (as an explanation for anything to do with Iraq, say) simply marks one as either a deranged loon, or a gullible, uncritical MSM zombie. To put it in a sentence.

steve s said...

I'll take the 'deranged loon' as I rarely catch the MSM.
I haven't been around these parts for long, I found your blog via Pyro and I like a lot of what you have to say, but Dan, you're very spiky with anybody who doesn't agree entirely with your viewpoint and, I might add that you sometimes come across as uncharitable.

Do Conservative politicians lie? And while we're at it, Do you believe that George W Bush is a Christian?

DJP said...

Odd; you're complaining about my prickliness, while I'm actually beginning to regret being so indulgent with you.

So I'll hit the median by invoking blog rules 1-3 and 5, and ask you to relate your (already-responded-to or irrelevant) questions to the post topic, or move on.

steve s said...

I appreciate your gentleness.
I have no further questions.

Stan McCullars said...

Let's see..."Profile not Available" or "Occupation: Student"?