Remember that time they tried to link Sarah Palin’s ‘crosshairs’ map to Gabby Giffords attempted murder? How about that time they said the Colorado or Newtown killers were probably ‘far-right extremists or Tea-partiers.’ Then they were sure the Boston Marathon Bombers attacked the marathon because ‘far-right’ elements used ‘Patriots Day & Tax Day’ and… ohmygawsh ‘the Boston Tea Party!?’ Each time they were wrong, but isn’t it sad how to legitimize your cause you try to link evil deeds to the other-side? Salon.com even ‘wished’ for the bomber to be a homegrown far right extremists. Pathetic
—Both sides do this, but 4/5 times it is the Left.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Of all the asinine things that have been said by the media in the last 36 hours, this has got to be right there at the top of the list.
Apparently, Salon thinks that a terrorist bombing of innocent people is the perfect object lesson with which to teach about “white privilege.” Never mind the fact that the main police suspects have been described as “dark skinned” or just the fact that, quite frankly, we have no clue who the bombers are. They could be anybody of any ethnicity. But no, Salon actually hopes that the terrorist is a white American.
“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”
source (but please don’t click on this drivel and give these racist low-lifes your business)
There are so many problems with this kind of “logic” that I’m not even going to address it head on. Instead, let me ask you this: if a conservative publication like The Weekly Standard or National Review had published a story titled “Let’s hope the bomber was a black man,” do you not think there would be rightful outrage from the left?
Why would there be outrage? Because this is racism, pure and simple. It’s the inability to see any issue through any prism other than that of skin color. Liberals are obsessed with the color of people’s skin, and here we are less than 48 hours from a terrorist attack with liberals openly hoping they can crucify a white person for this horrible act.
The biggest problem the RIGHT has is that they allow the LEFT to re-define them in a way that is negative… allowing for the often “emotion” appealing LEFT to Label, accuse and win the argument (emotionally) before dialogue begins.
Pro-Traditional Marriage = Anti-gay rights / homophobia
Anti-Affirmitive Action = Anti-Black / Racist
Pro-Life / Anti-Abortion = Anti-Women / Anti-Choice
Pro-Gun = Pro-killing / Pro-murder
Anti- (excessive) Welfare = Anti-poor / Greedy
Pro-States Rights = Pro-Confederate / Pro-Bureaucracy
How does the Right counter? It spends time explaining itself in paragraphs whereas the left can sum us up in 1-Loaded word.
The Right needs to “come out” first. It needs to be able to sum up it’s positions quicker… without need of explanation. Should it push the “emotional” argument above the “reason” - no. Unfortunately though, this position is harming us because today’s society will not take the time to listen to an argument it traditionally and immediately finds opposing or offensive.
This is the first line in long list of challenges faced by the Right. What are some solutions?
If you don’t vote for Gun control the way we want, you don’t care about the children killed at Newtown - Obama and the Democrats.
This is the scenario set up by the President as he sat down a Newtown mother to give the weekly address… we watched as she choked up telling her story. What a way to politicize a horrific event. “But wait, didn’t she do it voluntarily?” Of course! yes. Who wouldn’t want action to prevent gun violence!? I would if I were her. Unfortunately, it’s twisted to not do something that WORKS but rather do what “WE” (the Dems) want - because “WE” say this works.
What works? Assault weapons bans? Nope. Most murders max shootings and otherwise are done with handguns. Hand gun bans? Nope… Chicago has the strictest laws and the highest murder rate. Universal background checks? They do merely nothing as criminals will find their way around it.
If you want less violence (guns and otherwise), you fix mental health (the ‘Dark Knight’ shooter, the Gabby Gifford Shooter, the shooter at a California christian college & the shooter at Newtown all had mental health issues); men need to man-up and be “fathers” (60%+ criminals, runaways, kids with issues etc. lack a father in the home), and you develop appropriate concealed carry laws in your state - as a constitutional right. No, just because I disagree with your notion of gun control doesn’t mean I don’t care about what happened in Newtown; I just simply think your policies stink.
“Remember, remember the fifth of November of gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder treason should ever be forgot.” - V for Vendetta
Guy Fawkes Night, also known as Guy Fawkes Day, Bonfire Night and Firework Night, is an annual commemoration observed on 5 November, primarily in Great Britain. Its history begins with the events of 5 November 1605, when Guy Fawkes, a member of the Gunpowder Plot, was arrested while guarding explosives the plotters had placed beneath the House of Lords. Celebrating the fact that King James I had survived the attempt on his life, people lit bonfires around London, and months later the introduction of the Observance of 5th November Act enforced an annual public day of thanksgiving for the plot’s failure.
…not many people know that (added emphasis on last word)…
hmmm… I like. Why not?