Monday, January 6, 2014

LIBERAL HYPOCRISY on DISPLAY

In what ways might Marxian-Fabian-Liberal-Progressive-Socialist-Statists legitimately defend 
their schizoid position against this simple, 
clear statement of fact? 

How could they justify their bizarre dichotomy?

What other considerations might have been in play that caused ultra-left Columbia University 
to make such an egregious gaffe?

In what way other than the out-and-out denial in which they habitually indulge could they explain this?

I imagne most of them will just say, "It's a lie conjured up by the vast right wing conspiracy," but I persist in hoping for more.

BOILERPLATE SPAM WILL BE REMOVED



32 comments:

  1. Our crack-brained progressive confreres are also cool with the Iranian Mullahs having atomic weapons.

    Who are we to judge?

    I repeat again an eternal piece of wisdom from Dr. Michael Savage:

    "Liberalism is a mental disorder"

    Excellent post. I have a Duck Dynasty post up as well today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank You FT, You are of course correct.
    Those of us on the RIGHT who have had enough BS from the Leftist PC Police are fed up with this New kind of America, where everything we believed in has been thrown out the window and whatever we stood for is now on trial. We have already lost the battle.
    It is hypocritical, paranoid, intolerant narcissism of the PC Police, and how they want to punish and intimidate people and businesses.
    Just how far down the intolerance line are we going to go?

    ReplyDelete
  3. So the obvious question is: who gets to define what hate speech is, how it should be enforced, and if or how it should be punished”

    Let me guess. the obvious answer is the self appointed Christianity-bashing political-correctness-Liberal-PC Police! That’s who!

    The liberal fascists are demanding that you fall in line and do what the self appointed Liberal vigilantes tell you to do.

    For example, Now they want the Redskins to change their name. The American Indians don't care about the issue, why should the Liberal PC Police?

    Liberals are the cause of decaying our society~

    ReplyDelete
  4. These malignant fascist, narcissist's like Obama don't care if you love him or hate him. All they cares about are getting things their way. Ignore them and watch them flop around on the ground like a fish out of water.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's interesting to see how you left wingers are projecting your own bigotry onto others as know just precisely what is in their minds and hearts .

    You left wingers are suppose to lead by example in being tolerant, and open minded of others. Once again, you've proven you can't practice what you lecture.

    ReplyDelete
  6. if you had any intellectually honesty on the right you would make the comparison to Martin Bashir who was fired for pointing out what a low functioning loser is Sarah Palin.

    Phil suffered NOTHING.
    There are clips going back years showing what a fundamentalist primitive this guy is and nothing was ever made of it.
    Odd that all of a sudden, just before the start of a new season we have this flap.

    Merchandise flies ff the self.
    Phil's return for the new season is announced.
    Ratings at a time in a show's life cycle when they often drag will be up.
    The right wing will have no idea they were played.

    Nothing to see here folks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The hypocrisy of PC liberals is astounding with a obviously complete lack of logic ... Let alone the Duck Dynasty Phil. Robertson case, bu the injustice of the George Zimmerman trial and how if Treyvon had been the shooter it would have been a completely different story for sure. They actually would have just let Treyvon off the hook from the get-go, not trial, no reward for finding him Dead or Alive, NO NOTHING!
    I always thought that Liberals were supposed to be defenders of freedom of speech in America!
    Or take the case of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, again the typical liberal view of the world the worst possible sin is hypocrisy. Liberals have managed to inoculate themselves against charges of hypocrisy by not expounding any moral principles. So when Bill Clinton cheated on his wife it wasn’t hypocritical, and hence he wasn’t a bad person, because he’d never condemned adultery, it was simply a case of “It all depends on what the meaning of the word is is”
    Give me a break! How can anyone come up with an excuse like that one? AND GET AWAY WITH IT!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is a false equivalency to compare Robertson's comments to someone suggesting we hold down Sarah Palin and defecate in her mouth.

    Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Debonair Dude (sic) -- So when Bill Clinton cheated on his wife it wasn’t hypocritical ...
    -------

    Whoever said that?

    It wasn't a cause for impeachment but it was vulgar.

    Man, the fringe right really has their knickers in a twist today.



    ReplyDelete
  10. WAS HIS LYING A CAUSE FOR IMPEACHMENT?
    The Dude's post was correct and a good one at that.

    Your nonsense about Sarah Palin is as always off track, nonsense and hypocritical.

    Get a life.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh never mind our Canardo, our resident contrarian! He has a positive GENIUS for missing -- or more likely EVADING -- the point.

    Surely you've noticed by now that he NEVER addresses the subject at hand, but ALWAYS tries to alter it to suit his chronic peevishness?

    Either Canardo has no understanding of PRINCIPLE, or he deliberately HIDES it to try to lend his ever-antagonistic point of view more credence -- as if we were too stupid to know what he is doing.

    Strained parallels, false equivalencies and stale, stock leftist clichés are his speciality.

    Don't take it too seriously. Ducky is playing a character part. It's just not POSSIBLE that anyone with even half a brain could POSSIBLY believe all the drivel he pretends to espouse.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. PS: His motive is, of course, to DERAIL discussion of the point at issue. be smart, and DON'T let him get away with it. We are not here to discuss Sarah Palin, Lewinsky-Clinton, or Impeachment. We are here to examine the question of WHY would a venerable LIBERAL INSTITUTION like COLUMBIA U. invite a Savage Creep like Ahemdinejad, who publicly advocates the Torture and Brutal Murder of one of the Left's pet "VICTIM GROUPS" to speak as a presumably-honored guest on AMERICAN SOIL one year, and publicly REVILE a rather trivial, innocuous entertainer like this Robertson for merely expressing an OPINION?

    Forget Canardo's canards and red herrings. He wants to act as The Pied Piper. Be wise. Don't LET him.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I warned you, Emily, that BOILERPLATE will be removed.

    NOW do you believe me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that you are a foolish man who cowtails to the progressives yet forbids anyone who justly speaks out against them.

      Delete
  15. Not sure what, if anything Columbia had to say about Phil Robertson, but I disagree with your assessment that Ahmadinejad was an honoured guest. He spoke on the campus, but his reception was not warm IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ducky is not a contrarian. He is a lefwing ideological crank.

    Your moniker sums him up best: Canardo

    He rarely adds to any conversation, but as you note, he delights in subtracting from them, derailments being his bomb-throwing specialty.

    A contrarian presents a coherent argument that makes you stop and think, and if you are intellectually honest, question your beliefs.

    His street theatrics rarely do that, proving again that obedience to ideology is intellectually stunting.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What conversation, Silverfiddle?

    A conversation over allowing a head of state of a critical nation, as vulgar as he is, to speak versus a publicity ploy by for some lame ass reality show?

    Give it up. You've been spanked.

    You have noticed that much of our media intentionally runs on pointless controversy, I assume.
    Or maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Give it up. You've been spanked."

    I must have missed that, but thank you for engaging in further irrelevancies, proving my point, Canardo.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Who's to say that the role that Ahmadinejad isn't theatrics? In hindsight one could even consider the Ayatollah Khomeini, himself, a contrived action. What sane people would select such a primitive dark age force as a head of their country?

    This has succeeded in focusing the eyes of the world on religion and splitting the world into groups along those lines which historically have shown to be more rabid than the political fanaticism of the 20th Century.

    Where is a sane person supposed to turn today? Try to find some semblance of sanity in the rabid frothing ravings of religious extremists? Or eschewing that, try to find some semblance of reason in the frothing madness of the visions of the political slave camps of communism or fascism?

    Hardly enticing choices, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well Waylon, Ahmadinejad was introduced at Columbia as a petty tyrant and there was considerable derision.

    Phil the Nutlog has been rewarded with increased sales and support. He suffered no adverse affect.
    In fact the whole thing was a stunt.

    ReplyDelete
  21. One thing that you Liberals can be sure of, Conservatives are NOT Politically Correct!
    Did you liberals ever stop criticizing, or belittling, insulting President Bush? Of course not, because he is white, and a Republican, and your progressive ilk can say all the bad things about whites with impunity.
    All Republicans and conservative that I know tend to make a big deal about how having NOT to be "politically correct" .Conservative’s are never for restricting anyone's freedom of speech .. Topics like race, bigotry, sexism deserve just as much civility as any other aspect of our lives. Being respectful of others is not a trait to be made fun of or demeaned. You’ll find the lefties are having a field day poking fun at Phil Robertson’s beard and his looks. I even read that he has been receiving Death Threats.
    I don't care how much you disagree with someone, it is simply wrong for you to wish death or serious physical harm on another human being.
    But any criticism of President Obama's disastrous policies would automatically condemn one as a RACIST.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "In fact the whole thing was a stunt."

    Pretty funny watching the rubes rubbing their teary eyes and whining about how they actually bought the corporate BS about A&E supporting LGBT, diversity, etc...

    ReplyDelete
  23. FT,

    Please define "Boilerplate" as it applies to this site. I know what it means pertaining to commercial and legal documents but its application remains unclear to me insofar as comments which are, otherwise, in compliance with the house rules here.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  24. Liberals may need to retake English Comprehension to understand what PC means for religion and speech: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nope... no epiphanies discovered here today. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hello, Jon,

    You want to know what I mean by BOILERPLATE?

    Here we go, though it's already been said here many times, many ways.

    BOILERPLATE consists of prepared "speeches" or "rants" -- usually in thorny, lengthy, densely compacted prose -- written to express rage, disapproval and dissatisfaction on subjects that bear little or no relationship to whatever topic may be at hand.

    Occasionally, I let some of it stand just as a horrible example of what blog commentary ought NOT to be.

    BOILERPLATE is a form of SPAM. You often see it cut and pasted at several blogs on the same day.

    You've seen a lot of it a AOW's blog lately, because A) she's been very busy with "Christmas," and B) because she's fallen ill after the last houseguest went home. C) She's more tolerant of nonsense than I.

    Perhaps you find these aimless diatribes interesting or amusing, but I have no patience with them whatsoever. Neither will I put up with gratuitous insolence and invective aimed at myself or at others who post here.

    We have three very simple rules.

    1. Either be RELEVANT or be GONE.

    2. Don't try to tell me how to run the blog.

    3. Don't even THINK of trying to act BELLIGERENT.


    Now Emily posted some BOILERPLATE, and then she became rude and insulting after I eradicated it.

    Emily and anyone else is welcome here, IF they follow our simple guidelines, but not if they don't.

    I believe in freedom of expression, but not when it becomes intrusive and abusive.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This thread is interesting and instructive.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm glad you think so, Les, although I've been disappointed that no one -- especially Ducky -- has appeared to grasp what-I-see-as the significant point.

    I'm a Principle person. When attacking or considering any subject, I believe it best to find and attempt to define underlying principles from the myriad specifics that often cloud the issue.

    While no one may particularly admire "Okma-dinna-Jod" - OR - the bearded pseudo-backwoodsman -- or whatever Mr. Robertson is supposed to be -- it is the opposite way so-called "liberals" choose to regard two anti-homosexual entities that ought to be the focus of our discussion.

    It isn't whether Columbia received "Okma-dinna-jod" CORDIALLY that should concern us, it's their, apparent, willingness to receive such a figure at ALL.

    "Okma" represents a mentality brutally hostile to ALL traditionally Western values. I, personally, can't understand why the powers that be ever allowed such a figure to enter this country under ANY circumstances.

    Robertson is not in that league. I had never heard of his show until this absurd controversy broke out. I would never watch something like that, because I frankly despise inane, gimmicky forms of entertainment aimed at "the masses." But again, the question we need to consider is WHY would "liberals" choose to ACCEPT one of TWO forces vehemently opposed to one of their Pet Causes, and publicly REJECT the other?

    Why aren't we discussing oxymoronic Liberal INCONSISTENCY or HYPOCRISY, instead of raging on about minutiae IRRELEVANT to the issue?

    ReplyDelete
  30. LIBERAL HYPOCRISY! Where to begin?
    Remember when liberal hero, the dictator Hugo Chavez blamed capitalism?
    He blamed capitalism for ending life on Mars. Yes, he blamed capitalism for ending life....on Mars.


    ***Side note: Did these morons from the left blame the shrinking polar ice caps on Mars on SUVs or human activity too?***********

    Anyway, back to the liberal hero, Hugo Chavez and his comments.

    Chavez says capitalism may have ended life on Mars | Reuters

    (Reuters) - Capitalism may be to blame for the lack of life on the planet Mars, Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chavez said

    "I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Chavez said in speech to mark World Water Day. "World water day"

    Chavez, who also holds capitalism responsible for many of the world's problems, warned that water supplies on Earth were drying up.

    "Careful! Here on planet Earth where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts," Chavez said, sipping from a glass of water.

    He added that the West's attacks on Libya were about water and oil reserves.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "WHY would "liberals" choose to ACCEPT one of TWO forces vehemently opposed to one of their Pet Causes, and publicly REJECT the other?"

    Is it the same people?

    "It isn't whether Columbia received "Okma-dinna-jod" CORDIALLY that should concern us, it's their, apparent, willingness to receive such a figure at ALL."

    I believe a well stocked academic library should include mein kampf. That is, academics must have the freedom (in fact it is their duty) to confront tyrants and their diabolical ideas.

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.