Media Lies About AZ SB1070

I saw and add for this while on Facebook today. I know I am wishy-washy on the law (more of what it could become than what it is) but this is just a blatant lie!

The Governor of Arizona just signed a bill that requires police to harass or arrest anyone who “appears to be an undocumented immigrant.” The President and Congress need to take action immediately we don’t see this trend spread to other states! (link)

How can people say this? It is so wrong that it actually makes me laugh.

I Guess I am Not the Only One Getting Banned from Debate for Being a Conservative

After recently getting banned from Democraticdiva.com’s blog for – well, I am not really sure what the exact reason is – I decided to look around to see if others have had the same problems with debating Liberals. It seems that I am not the only one. I am quite baffled at how people who claim to be intellectuals can behave in this manner. If you are going to debate, then debate! If you think my comments are genuinely wrong then let my stupidity speak for itself (aka, let me continue to debate and don’t moderate my comments).

If there is anyone out there that reads this and affiliates Left to any degree, how do you feel about this type of behavior? Do you feel that it is justified to snuff speech for whatever reason and mostly without notice or without warning?

In any case, here is an article written by Nancy Morgan of RightBias on the issue. It is over a year old, which means the problem has never changed much to this current date. Enjoy.

(Original here)

How does one debate with a liberal? Sorry, under current rules, debate is not allowed. Just as our new national conversation on race is limited exclusively to authentic blacks, so is any semblance of debate with those on the left limited to those who accept the rules of debate, as defined by liberals.

Just as Boy Clinton redefined the meaning of sex, so have liberals redefined the meaning of debate. If your view doesn’t accord with the progressive, politically correct elites, the debate is relabeled an ‘argument’, your opinion is redefined as a ‘judgment’ and both are promptly dismissed.

By controlling language, the left controls and defines the issues. Hillary didn’t lie about being under fire in Bosnia, she merely misspoke. The rules stipulate that only conservatives lie. If you’re on the left, you’re either factually incorrect, mistaken or just plain human. Liberals call this a win-win situation, which is one of the few times they are factually correct.

If the member of the vast right wing conspiracy (conservative) persists in trying to debate the original issue, liberals then revert to personal attacks. Attacking the messenger as mean-spirited usually does the trick. The indignant liberal then has carte blanche to personally vilify the messenger while touting his own moral vitas. Very effective.

By this time, the subject of the argument is long forgotten. If, however, the rude, argumentative conservative persists in addressing inconvenient facts, the liberal invariably points to ‘bad behavior’ by others, as if that excuses all bad behavior. That’s called the ‘Everyone Else Does It So It Must Be OK’ defense. Voila, the debate veers again from the original issue and turns into a catalogue of left vs. right scandals. Needless to say, if the ‘Everyone Else Does It’ defense was valid, we’d still have slavery.

If the MOTVRWC is still standing, demanding an answer to the original issue, which has yet to be addressed, the beleaguered liberal will kindly inform one and all that the debate is over. The question has been settled. Case closed. It is now time to, you guessed it, Move On.

The best scenario for liberals, however, is to avoid debate altogether. This is called the pre-emptive defense. Gore just gave us a prime example when he declared on 60 Minutes that anyone who doesn’t believe in global warming probably also believes the earth is flat. Can you spell Neanderthal? Another pre-emptive defense includes labeling any dissenting view as propaganda which, of course, is unworthy of debate.

Another neat trick the left uses to avoid debating  inconvenient facts (formerly called corruption, perjury, lies, theft, adultery, etc.) is to cry foul and whine about being taken out of context. This is called a do-over, and usually leads to more media face time to explain what they really meant. Another win-win situation. If the do-over is done with panache, the offender is magically transformed into a martyr and/or victim by a complaisant media. This is called spin. Again, it only works for liberals.

The question arises, do liberals really believe their own arguments? Does Gore really believe the earth is in crisis? Does Hillary really believe there is a vast right wing conspiracy? Do 50% of Americans really believe Bush lied? I have an inquiring mind. I’d like to know. So I set out in search of a liberal I could debate.

I started on My Space by sending a friend request to a (gorgeous) liberal guy who billed himself as open minded. He replied, questioning why I wanted to be friends with a liberal. Duh. I told him I wanted to find a liberal who could actually debate both sides of an issue. OK. He read one of my conservative articles and, to his credit, he responded with a lengthy critique. So far, so good. I wrote back, pointing out that his response dealt only with feelings, not facts. Alas, I now have one less friend on My Space. Did I mention how cute he was?

My next step: The Daily Kos, hotbed of the far left. I posted my latest article White Racism in their forum. Here’s the response:

From: kestrel9000@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:32 PM
To: nancy@rightbias.com
Subject: news/031508race.aspx – your garbage

I have requested your banning from Daily Kos. We have no interest in, or use for, your filth.

When I entered the Kos forum to answer the 50 some comments on my article, I found I was no longer allowed to participate in the conversation. I had been banned.

On to the Huffington Post. I again posted a conservative article, and when I logged in to join the debate, I found that I was banned, my posting privileges were revoked. No answer from the moderators as to why.

This experience was repeated on other liberal forums. To date, I have yet to find a liberal who will debate an issue on the facts. With the one exception of my lovely niece, Sarah.

This refusal to debate on the left no longer angers me. I know that no matter how flat the pancake, there are always two sides. By ignoring and censoring debate, liberals invalidate only themselves, not the opposing view. Just because the majority of them believe something is so, doesn’t make it so. They can redefine the meaning of the word ‘is’, but ultimately, reality is defined by God, not man. To liberals, that is unthinkable. Which is probably why they don’t think about it. Or acknowledge it. Or debate it.

For the readers of Democraticdiva.com

I came to Democraticdiva.com to debate. I ask questions because I want clarification. It seems that the hostess, Donna, did not like my questions…

First she ignored me (here). Then she half-answered my questions (here).  Then she started calling names (here). Then she starts making fun of my screen name and continued to avoid the question (here). More avoidance of the questions (here). Then she tells me to DIE and starts slandering (here). Then she goes to my blog, writes a post on her page declaring me a troll (here).

Then she bans me from posting. So much for letting me defend myself. So if you are there and thinking that I have run-off, this is not true, I was banned and cannot post.

So for the record – yes, I do like Ron Paul. I like him because he stands for the same general principles that I do, most notably, the Constitution. I wouldn’t call myself a fanboy though. A Ron Paul fanboy is one who says they will vote for RP in 2012 even though RP says he will not run. I am into RP because of his principles, not because Ron Paul is Ron Paul. There are many other people out there that I believe have the same principles as RP and I will give them a nod when the time comes.

Also on record – I believe in rules and logic. I am not a birther, I just want the rules to be followed. Since Obama does not want transparency (just get us the long form birth certificate) then I have reason to doubt his validity. I think this is logical and fair. If he can provide that (and he can, he just has to ask) then there is nothing else to discuss. Period.

And lastly, I am far from a troll. I just ask questions. If asking questions is troll behavior, then we are all trolls.

Thanks.

Sotomayor and her Bias

This whole Supreme Court Justice thing is interesting to me. The things that are said by both her and her supporters both surprise and anger me. I have nothing against her or her supporters personally but I do have a bit to say about their words. Maybe, of course, I am viewing this entirely biased, but I really don’t think that is the case.

I received an e-mail from Obama, or at least that is who it is from, in my junk mail box. I am not sure why I got it, as I surely don’t really want to hear Obama’s updates on how he is ruining my country (even if it is not him writing it, but rather someone on his behalf). Nevertheless, I got it.

I would like to take a minute to point out some things that I found interesting in this letter.

And then there is Judge Sotomayor’s incredible personal story. She grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx — her parents coming to New York from Puerto Rico during the Second World War. At the age of nine, she lost her father, and her mother worked six days a week just to put food on the table. It takes a certain resilience and determination to rise up out of such circumstances, focus, work hard and achieve the American dream.

I find it interesting that Obama would point out that it was resilence and determination versus some sort of governmental intervention that allowed her to achieve the American Dream. What Liberal ever attributes anything to hard work and determination? I thought that life was always unfair and we all needed to be leveled so that everyone could succeed. I thought it was impossible (or near) for someone born in the ghetto to rise up and out of the slum, much less out and into stardom or a position of power! As the Left would have you believe, the only way that life would be fair for those less privleged would be to give them more.

But even so, why even mention the American Dream I ask? Isn’t the American Dream the thought that anyone can work hard and make a life for themselves? That you can work hard and become someone? That you can work hard and get what you want? The American Dream is not about crying about how life is unfair and how you are born into a situation of which you cannot escape. No. It is about busting your ass and getting what you want regardless of how sour the odds are against you! So why are we even talking about the American Dream when the Liberals don’t even truly believe in it?

Of course, it is always nice to say one thing out the side of your mouth and then another thing out the other side. Yes Joe, we want to take away from your success and spread it around. Forget you working on the American Dream, we want to take your dream and spread it around. Horse dung!

The letter goes on to say the following.

In Judge Sotomayor, our nation will have a Justice who will never forget her humble beginnings, will always apply the rule of law, and will be a protector of the Constitution that made her American dream and the dreams of millions of others possible. As she said so clearly yesterday, Judge Sotomayor’s decisions on the bench “have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice.”

I am not so sure, Turbo. To defend the Constitution? Law has no eyes…

Sotomayor in 2001:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Sotomayor in 2002:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life

Sotomayor in 2005:

court of appeals is where policy is made

Interesting. I am not quite sure how we are applying the law without bias when we actively are admitting that ones history affects your decisions.

(Link)

Voting For What You Say Is Corrupt

I’ve gotten myself into a few conversations about politics where the end-all result is that we both agree that the current US government doesn’t do it’s job (doesn’t represent us properly) and that it needs to be redone.

However, most of these people that I get into discussions with about this are Liberals. As Liberals, they primarily believe in more government. I do not understand this. If you tell me that you want to redo the entire government because you think that the current government is completely corrupt, but then vote for more government, doesn’t that make you a hypocrite? This is like continually putting money in a soda machine when you know that the machine is just going to each your money – isn’t it?

With that said, I understand that with the dual party system here (which I cannot stand) that sometimes you have to vote for the lesser evil. But if you truly believe that the mainstream political contenders are corrupt then why would vote for the party that wants to create and spread it’s corruption (more government)? Wouldn’t you try to actively seek a contender that is not mainstream (not Democrat or Republican)?

The only thing that I can figure with this logic is this. With more government-is-your-daddy, you will receive more government programs. With more government programs, you have more taxes. More taxes and you have more wealth distribution. With more wealth distribution, you will get more personal kickbacks.

Go ahead and flame me…

I guess my question is this. Why are we so scared to step out and vote for someone that is not in the main two parties? Why don’t we have more people voting Libertarian, Socialist, Green, Labor, and Constitutional? I think that a lot of people would find voting much easier if they didn’t have to always vote for the lesser evil.

Taxes: Liberals vs Conservatives

Man, this is not only hilarious…. but eerily true.