Emily Mortimer – Tea Party is “lunatic fringe.”
“I can remember when Bush got in for the second time, just feeling like so much of the problem about the way that politics go here is that people are improperly informed. That they didn’t know that they had been lied to, or they didn’t understand exactly to what extent they had been, and they still thought that there were weapons of mass destruction. “
She must’ve gotten her talking points from Michael Moore – that mis-guided film-maker who, confronted with the facts that Mr Bush had been mis-informed about the WMDs (all intelligence up to that point said there were WMDs in Iraq) out and out called him a liar – well. Delusional?
“I’m going to sue your sorry ass Mr Birosh!”
“No doubt for definition of character.”
Not to out-do herself, Ms Mortimer wasn’t done yet! “You can’t rely on getting the facts, or getting them presented in a way that is actually objective and makes sense and puts people in a position where they can make informed decisions about who to vote for. It’s just over-sensationalized and, as our show keeps pointing out, one of the big problems is that they act like there’s just two definite sides to every discussion — and that’s just not necessarily the case, but it feeds into the way this country has just become completely polarized. This Tea Party is presented on the television as the viable alternative instead of like a lunatic fringe. “
Well, Ms Mortimer, let’s examine this. MSNBC doctored the Trayvon Martin 911 tape to make Mr Zimmerman appear racist.(*) In the edited tape, they had Mr Zimmerman appear to state without being asked that Mr Martin was black. After the backlash, they had to admit that the tape was “edited for time” … and state that Mr Zimmerman answered a police dispatcher question. So … are you still going to say that the media is objective? Really? They “edited” the tape due to “time constraints” and edited out 5 seconds of him answering a dispatcher’s question. Yeah, that’s really objective Ms Mortimer.
How about Mr Romney’s “Wa-Wa” tape? Again, edited by MSNBC “due to time constraints” the edited version and the unedited version are very very different. (*2) (Note here that I’ve selected two liberal outlets to make my point for me.)
No doubt it was “fake but accurate.” Rathergate, anybody?
But what gets me is where Ms Mortimer says “…one of the big problems is that they act like there’s just two definite sides to every discussion – and that’s just not necessarily the case…”
Really? It wasn’t until “just a blogger” pointed out that the Trayvon Martin tape and the Mitt Romney tapes were edited that the story changed. Ms Mortimer, are you absolutely certain that the news media is telling the entire story without distortion or concealment? Really?
Here’s the entire tape of Mr Romney’s remarks.(*3)
And then the “lunatic” part. I thought we weren’t supposed to be calling names Ms Mortimer. Or is it just that you’ve fallen into the liberal “holier-than-thou” dung? If you’re going to apply those rules to me you can be damn sure I will apply them to you. Otherwise, it’s hypocrisy(*4), isn’t it?
But what, pray tell, was the word I used to describe another liberal’s thinking?
“Remember Janeane Garofalo on MSNBC speaking about the Tea Party Movement? She herself said it. “Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.[21] “ (Links are Wikipedia’s and are left intact.)
So, according to her, I don’t know my history, and the reason I dislike Mr Obama is because he’s black. Well, it’s so very nice to know that Ms Garofalo knows what’s in my mind and my heart. She can conceive of no other possible answer. It’s not because I dislike Mr Obama’s policies, again according to her. It’s not because he’s surrounded himself with socialists and Marxists (a la Van Jones, a self-confessed Communist) it simply must be, again according to her, because he’s black.
There is a word for that. But first, the definition from dictionary.com: “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion”
So, according to her, I don’t know my history, and the reason I dislike Mr Obama is because he’s black. Well, it’s so very nice to know that Ms Garofalo knows what’s in my mind and my heart. She can conceive of no other possible answer. It’s not because I dislike Mr Obama’s policies, again according to her. It’s not because he’s surrounded himself with socialists and Marxists (a la Van Jones, a self-confessed Communist) it simply must be, again according to her, because he’s black.
There is a word for that. But first, the definition from dictionary.com: “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion”
“Yes, the word is delusional. Note that I’m not calling her a name, I’m describing her reasoning. Yes, the first part certainly fits, doesn’t it? The race card has been debunked how many times now? Yet they still reach for it. Believe it or not, but they’re part of the problem too. “
I would invite you to debate me, if I weren’t already convinced it would be an exercise in futility. You would, in very short order, reach for one of the liberal’s favourite playing cards.
Perhaps I’m not the only one to blame? Now how about it?
No comments:
Post a Comment