That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?Well, it would be a little different if the racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes didn't have the filibuster, frankly.
I like how Krauthammer describes those who hold the wingnut positions that define blacks as "lazy welfare queens", Latinos as "drug-smuggling killers", gays as "morally destructive deviants" and Muslims as "America-hating terrorists" as all being victims of a giant misunderstanding, a product of "incorrect thinking", as if Obama is personally leading the thought police to round up those of us who consider blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims as less than real Americans or even less than human.
It's just "incorrect thinking". Free speech! Free speech!
Here's some free speech for you: Krauthammer's a mendacious, mean-spirited hack who is looking for someone to project all his considerable anger on, and this week he's decided on "liberals" in general.
Krauthammer has his right to his opinion, I have my right to agree or disagree with it, that's how it works.
Posts
5 comments:
But which opinion is better presented?
Someone speaking in all encompassing statements:
Well, it would be a little different if the racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes didn't have the filibuster, frankly.
those who hold the wingnut positions that define blacks as "lazy welfare queens"
Or someone who attempts to put info behind their opinion
Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.
Neither are "correct" as it is an opinion but it isn't him replying to your blog post now is it?
Who has "lost in the court of public opinion" is not the final arbiter of what is right and lawful in America, Waffles.
Krauthammer's playing the victim here, plain and simple.
P.S., 75% of America think gays should be able to serve in the military, so he's wrong about liberals "losing everything" in the court of public opinion, too.
What is "right and lawful" is apparently up for debate and interpretation.
We agree its not right to ban gay marriage but up until this point it has been all but banned.
I don't see the GOP or the Dems saying gays can't serve, it's a debate over dont ask dont tell.
To borrow from the audience participation in"Rocky Horror": "Charles Krauthammer, he's ok, but he's got no f-ing neck!"
Post a Comment