(I wrote most of this a day or so ago, so, it may be dated, but, I still stand by it. Useless Wizbang points for the first to guess where the title came from!)
You’d think I would learn by now that the liberal species knows no shame. Be it lefty politicians or their boot-licking media toadies, everytime I think they couldn’t possibly scrape any more sludge to suck from the bottom of the intellectual barrel, they come down with a more advanced case of mental constipation. An extra-strength dose of Brain Metamucil is in dire need for these low-life blowhards.
As someone who the left tries to marginalize, Sarah Palin sure does live rent-free in their honeycombed minds.
For liberal politicians and pundits alike, the current bowl of creamed Palin consists of this nonsensical obsession concerning the use of target symbols to, well, target areas where political change is needed. Of course, the use of such symbols, right or wrong, was never questioned when it served their political means. (Google the DLC.)
And there has been no dearth of “rhetoric” coming from the holes under their many snort-prone noses. From the Pima County Sheriff/Democratic political hack Clarence Dupnick, to left-wing sewers like Daily Kos and The Huffington Post, to the failing liberal main-stream publication Newsweek, this display of manufactured outrage and disgusting political savagery reeks of blatant sophistry, festering from an ideology which offers nothing but gloom, desperation, and lust for power.
With their rejuvenated denunciations of the supposed heated “vitriol and rhetoric” existing in this country (which, apparently, is only practiced by the “Right-wing,” and only occurs when Democrats get trounced in an election) placating their rabid base, they suddenly exhibit a newly professed, enlightened desire to “ratchet down” (As Arriana Huffington suggests) the recent political discourse. This comes from the tragically hypocritical party of unparalleled selective memory, who for 8 years of the George W. Bush Presidency belched up a visceral hatred for the man, decrying him as an election stealing war-criminal, routinely burning him in effigy, while liberal party members kept complicity silent as those on their side displayed images of Bush with a gun to his head.
(I decided against linking to any of the above mentioned known examples, as there exist too many from which to choose, and I don’t want to pad their traffic. For those so blinded by ideology to NOT have fairly or historically acknowledged the well-documented existence of said examples, do the searching or linking yourselves. You may learn something. But I doubt it.)
The use of targets as symbols to identify where political action needs to be taken against a politician or area has no hidden or nefarious meaning. (This has been practiced by the far-left, Conservative-hating “Democratic Leadership Council.” Unsurprisingly, nothing critical was ever said about their actions by the same indignant media or liberal water-carriers.) Arrows are used on signs and maps to indicate direction to a destination, sometimes down to a specific house. I don’t believe anyone has ever taken that as a literal desire by the map, sign-makers, or township officials to shoot up someplace or someone with a crossbow.
Actually, I’m a bit shocked and disappointed in Sarah Palin for caving in and pulling her use of targets on her political maps. They do not suggest anything. And her aide’s attempt to liken them to “surveyor’s symbols,” while most likely not a statement approved by Palin herself, was very lame.
No matter. What ever she does, her detractors will find excuses to keep their boots on her throat. (One of those innocent Obama metaphors used to describe their enemy-de-jour. Look it up.)
The reaction to her video statement yesterday offered proof of that bias. They slammed her as playing the victim card, being selfish for responding to their perverted finger-pointing that she is somehow linked to the motives of the shooter.
Predictably, if she kept silent, the leftards would claim she’s hiding. If she said something in her defense, they’d say she’s playing the victim. Either way, she’d be skewered.
The media and their complicit brain-washed liberal blogs have parsed every word she’s uttered, and are now attacking her for using the term “blood libel” to defend against their sick accusations.
“Blood libel” is a term used in the middle ages to describe the false practice by Jews of killing Christian children and using their blood for baking.
Pretty demented and archaic thinking to link that to what she actually meant.
Sheesh. I wish this was a bad joke. Imagine the cry of outrage if this were determined to be an historically Muslim term used unknowingly to describe the current invective.
I am a Christian. I’ve heard the word “crucified” used many times to describe harsh criticism or taunting by others, especially within the political arena. Should that be taken literally? Are we supposed to be offended by the use of that word? Does that exhibit some kind of disrespect or anti-Christian sentiment?
I’d rather have “heated rhetoric” in this country than the indisputable insanity of the left’s faux-emotional, knee-jerk, putridly partisan attacks.
It seems they’ve regressed to a new low, as if they have finally bottomed-out to the pinnacle of soulessness, and self-absorption. They have nothing left. No ideas, no optimism, no respect, and no shame.
If they thought it would be politically expedient, they’d eat slime out of a dead dog’s ass.
(Just an observation:
I went to Target yesterday to find a replacement for my blown-out ear-buds. For those unfamiliar with the establishment, Target is a national chain department store.
Their logo is a bright red and white target.
It would surprise me not one bit if someone has complained to them that they find the logo offensive. Equally, it would not surprise me if someone in the company now worries they will come “under fire” for what has been deemed such a dangerous, suggestive logo.