The pathology of liberalism becomes more apparent daily. They despise anyone would professes deep and abiding love the the Lord Jesus Christ and regard people of faith as stupid, nonthinking, anti-intellectuals. Yet they abject themselves before an adulation seeker and bestow all manner of wisdom, experience, compassion and superhuman abilities upon him. Equally infuriating to liberals are men who aren't seeking adulation as these liberals want someone to adulate. It is very sick.
Evan Thomas says:
"Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial."
Then Thomas elaborates on Obama as God, as he patronizingly says:
"He's going to bring all different sides together...Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together...He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that.
HE HAS THE MORAL AUTHORITY? What???!!!! Authority given by whom? Well, Rush Limbaugh now calls the media "State-Run Media" and he couldn't be more correct. I guess the state run media along with Obama sycophants and various other Liberal-types have bestowed said authority upon The
Further, what an arrogant airhead Evan Thomas is -- Who's he referring to when he says "children?" Oh, yes how could I have forgotten to the Modern Liberal Americans are children and so following their pathological logic the leaders of the world must be children as well and Obama the leader of the World not just America is the benevolent "Father" aka
I am reminded of a very scary book I read by C.S Lewis several years ago called The Heinous Strength. I can't help but think about the spiritual apostasy which abounds in this age and how the the spirit of anti-Christ can appear as light to those who are not spiritually discerning. I'm not saying that President Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ but if those who are called to be salt and light have no concerns about following and supporting this man, its going to be a veritable cake walk when the real Anti-Christ comes.
35 comments:
Well CBW, on this one, we are going to have to agree. I don't think Obama himself thinks he is a god regardless of what some on the left or right would say.
Obama is acting like the President of the U.S. - not God. Why not let him take a shot at resolving the situation in the Middle East, while we're waiting for God to get around to it.
And it gets sillier and sillier.
DJBlackAdam & Irey~I agree that this it isn't President Obama who is advancing the "Obama-mania", the MSM has completely abdicated their duty to operate as unbiased, impartial journalist.
This is dangerous because the majority of Americans look to the MSM for news and information and since they are so over the moon, slanted and tilted towards the left how can a regular citizen make informed decisions and develop well-informed opinions.
Wrong again CBW.
Today's print and electronic media is clearly biased toward conservatives.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/06/04/exposing-the-medias-conservative-bias/
UTS~Even you couldn't seriously believe that!?! It's utterly laughable to contend that the media is biased in favor of the right. But I did find this little snippet interesting found within your link:
" Democrats love to think that Limbaugh and Gingrich are weakening the conservative side. But guess what? By dragging the media to the right, Rush and Newt are winning.”
If it is true Rush and Newt are "dragging the media to the right," why would they be winning unless their arguments are so compelling that a person of reason is hard-pressed to dispute them? Just sayin'......
But actually UTS the media shouldn't be slanted either left or right. They should report ALL of the facts in an unbiased fashion so that readers and hearers can based their conclusion based on truth...not popular opinion and manufactored adulation, and propaganda. Can we at least agree on that?
@CBW and UTS:
I see it being slanted left or right deopending on who is reporting, it is hard to find neutral news reporting period.
"But actually UTS the media shouldn't be slanted either left or right. They should report ALL of the facts in an unbiased fashion so that readers and hearers can based their conclusion based on truth...not popular opinion and manufactored adulation, and propaganda. Can we at least agree on that?"
Sure.
And we shouldn't judge people by the color of their skin, religion or country of origin either.
But guess what?
The slant is all in the eye of the beholder.
I bet you consider Matt Lauer a "liberal", don't you?
Yet I can remember Lauer hosting a NYC TV talk show during the 80s and supposedly moderating a debate on Affirmative Action between a black college student and some middle aged Republican operative.
Lauer literally screamed at the student, challenging him with "WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION?!!??"
The late ABC TV anchorman Bill Monroe was an segregation sympathizer.
I watched some 1950s footage on PBS where Monroe interviewed Emmett Till's murderers after they were acquitted by a Southern jury.
Monroe said to the thugs and their wives "Well I guess you good folks are glad this is all over."
UTS you have one and only one agenda, anger, through out time there have been horrible injustices but looking back will not change anything...CBW said "could you agree that our media should report the news without bias..."
Yes, CBW you are right it is the media's job to be impartial and report the news. It is unfortunate that this rarely happens today. This is further compounded by the fact that our nation's people do not see the difference between commentary and unbiased reporting.
This reference to Obama as god is so...well, I'm horrified and speechless. As I Christian I am disconcerted and saddened that as you so aptly pointed out our nation is replacing our God with idols.
In the past, materialism, power and wealth were coveted; now Americans are worshiping celebrities and leaders. Oh, that the world would just look up.
http://www.viddler.com/explore/ConstructiveFee/videos/318/
(Sorry for the editing of the video)
This shows how arbitrary Secular Science is.
Religion is tossed out because it depends upon "Magical Jesus" having created the heavens and the Earth.
Those who practice SCIENCE proclaim that all of their positions stand up to LOGIC AND REASON.
Can someone tell me what about this guy's comments on how this Earth and the life upon it was founded are different than the "Magical Jesus" that Secular Progressives reject?
In the absence of an immutable GOD....the world will adopt one of their own. Outside observers should not look at HIM.....they should instead look at the MASSES of people and what they are willing to yield to him that they had been calling "THEIR RIGHTS" which no government could take away previously.
"UTS you have one and only one agenda, anger,"
Oh please.
You phonies lay the "angry" label on anybody who sees through your lies and hypocrisy.
Case in point.
"Yes, CBW you are right it is the media's job to be impartial and report the news. It is unfortunate that this rarely happens today."
Can you please identify a time and place in history when the media was unbiased and impartial.
Take all the time you need.
I bet you're one of these people who thinks Fox reports straight news.
@Southerndrawl:
"In the past, materialism, power and wealth were coveted;
In the Past? Mammon ain't went no where....
You continue with: "...now Americans are worshiping celebrities and leaders."
That seems to always have been as well, I don't see why people are surprised.
[quote]"UTS you have one and only one agenda, anger,"
[/quote]
I agree that UptownSteve is not "angry".
He IS at his wits end though.
As an ideological bigot and the sight of HIS IDEOLOGY making substantial gains in certain key areas of the nation he STILL cannot point to the evidence of irrefutable gains for the people that live in these areas that are monopolized by his ideological soul mates.
Any Black person that points out these lingering problems AND how much we have been shorted is called an "Uncle Tom" in Steve's book.
Bless you, bless you for swimming against the stream.
The only way BO could see himself as a God is if he had faith in anything. Which I do not believe he does; he does see himself as a savior though; no doubt about it.
A list of 'liberals' is unhelpful and misleading. Just the name 'liberal' is misleading as conservatives were first to be called 'liberal' in the USA. To have a more accurate discussion with clearer understanding there would need to be a moratorium on the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' so as to eliminate confusion. Temporarily of course, as one may grow weary of not being confused.
I'm thinking that there is some confusion over status quo equaling: accurate, appropriate, honest, justice, free, affluence, better, or correct. In a quest for 'human rights' it bares mentioning that a rich slave is still a slave. Some things transcend material gain.
It may not be popular but it's still true "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" and it's a bore to see continuance on the path of willful ignorance.
Who said, “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program..."
Constructive Feedback
Despite the bleatings of self hating fools like you, black America has never been more prosperous, upwardly mobile and achieving.
The only ones losing ground are Uncle Toms like you who no longer serve a purpose for the white rightwingers who are no longer in power.
Michael Steele will be removed as RNC Chairman by the end of this year.
You heard it first here.
There is no market for black sellouts today.
Uncle Tom seems to be used as a term for a black person who is perceived as behaving in a subservient manner to white authority figures, or seeking ingratiation with them by way of unnecessary accommodation.
Clearly, CF is speaking to black people here. CF isn't groveling to whitey.
Anyway, it seems that the term is rarely used accurately, even by the above context: subservient... It seems to be used more as a threat, to provoke guilt or embarrassment, or to manipulate and ridicule.
Mostly, it's a shame to take good intentions out of context. If we go wayyyy back, the inspiration for the story (UT's Cabin) was a rejection of the existing stereotypes, minstrel shows, and the author's infuriation over the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.
The author, Harriet Stowe, was an American abolitionist and helped President Lincoln write the Emancipation Proclamation.
CBW:
I disagree with you on this one.
LET THEM TALK!!!
When I engage in conversation with some people I don't interject my views and sway the conversation. Instead by allowing them to talk as if they were among agreeing minds I am afforded an excellent opportunity to hear how they think.
This is the editor of Newsweek. Are you really surprised? Newsweek and MSNBC are joined at the hip.
We need 4 or 8 years worth of evidence built up (and this video library to refer to later) in order to compare their lofty vision as they project their HOPE AND CHANGE upon this one man (and the Federal Democrats) versus how reality pimp smacks them.
Notice that the news media is not blasting the information about the continuing attacks and bombings in Pakistan, India Afghanistan and Iraq to us on a daily basis any longer. Why allow the reality that the USA and Obama have no control over those who use terror as their main tool of communication?
The Newsweek guy should also be mindful that there was a LARGE CONTINGENT of "Anti-War protesters" during World War I and II.
Clearly HE is projecting his own thoughts about "We are the bad guys" right now.
Isn't Obama fighting the same wars as Bush? What has made the USA "less evil" in 5 months?
[quote]Today's print and electronic media is clearly biased toward conservatives.[/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I saw this Jay Bookman claim LAST WEEK and I laughed because it was so incredible then. I am laughing at Steve for echoing it on this blog.
Hey Steve - when Black Conservatives use the words of White Conservatives you attack us as parrots. What should we call you when YOU make use of the words of White Liberals? An intellectual?
"What should we call you when YOU make use of the words of White Liberals?"
For example CF?
I bet you don't answer.
You're so full of crap if you took a dump you'd be transparent.
And CF
The part that doesn't seem to penetrate your thick skull is that conservatives have fought every measure of black advancement since we arrived on these shores.
From emanicpation, to Reconstruction, to integration, to cvil rights laws the rightwingers have been on the opposite side of righteousness..
Surprise me with a rant about how Lincoln was a Republican. The Republicans in 1860 were the liberals idiot. They're not anymore.
How the hell do you propose to convince black folks that the conservatives are the good guys now?
The fact is that you don't want to convince us.
You black righties want to be different.
You hate being black and you hate black people.
You love being little black fish in shiny white ponds spreading the ugliest lies and stereotypes about your own people.
The main reason why you're obsessed with black criminality and dysfunction and attempt to make those traits the defining marks of the black community is to rationalize your disconnect from the community.
The saddest thing dude is that you'll never be anything but black no matter how much you try to run from it.
And the same people you grin and shuffle for will call you a nigger as quick as they call me one.
They'll just pat you on the head while they say it.
Dear Uptownsteve,
Why are you rating about race? It dones not matter wheater you white, black, yellow, brown, purple,wheatever.
Meg
Dear Uptownsteve,
People are being conservative in ALL colors, shapes and sizes, but you said that the black righties want to be different.
You said that we hate being black and you hate black people. NOT TURE! I love everybody regardless of color and I love black people too!
You said that the main reason why we're obsessed with black criminality and dysfunction and attempt to make those traits the defining marks of the black community is to rationalize your disconnect from the community. Also, NOT TURE, the liberls are the ones that obsessed with black criminality and dysfunction and attempt to make those traits the defining marks of the black community. They are viewing us as victims! There are the ones thats are selling us, well most are.
You said that the saddest thing is that we'll never be anything but black no matter how much you try to run from it. Why are you obsessed about our blackness? Do yor forgot that we are humans and color dones not matter. We do not suppose to judge someone of their color but our character.
You said that the same people we grin and shuffle for will call us a n****r as quick as they call us one. All liberls and conservatives and anything else in between are doing as same as you talking about and the black fokes are doing the same thing as calling us other names too. These people, is full of hate and ingonrance, no matter what their color are.
You said that they'll just pat you on the head while they say it. NOT TRUE. Most people in all colors are doing the same as you are talking about no matter what we do.
Meg
Thomas elaborates on Obama as God is getting more creepier every minute.
Meg
When I say 'Hillshire' you say 'Farm' but purhaps you're not talking about a hotdog. When I say 'talking' perhaps I mean typing. When I say 'hotdog' perhaps I mean show off (do I say bully or do I intend to say definition), but that doesn't mean the weenie isn't a weiner.
As I said upstream, 'liberal' can be a misleading term. Back in the day we called our ride a horse or a carriage. It's an auto of some sort now but it's still my ride and the same thing. A choice can be made for which one and you can be biased and not like one for no good reason or lots of great reasons. There's facts about them that one doesn't have to discuss, admit, or avail themselves. You can go to a carnival and get on a ride but it's not the same thing.
There's a difference between understanding and rote memorization. Absolutely, there is a difference between definition and meaning or intent. Then there's the intellectual honesty ( avoiding a deliberate, comprehensive, honest approach to a topic because it may have an adverse effect on professional/personal views and beliefs.) perspective.
Certainly, when the Repubs used liberal it represented a different set of beliefs, views, stances, intent, then it does for the Dems. Admittedly, popular opinion impacts these things.
The civil rights efforts would have gone down in flames without the Republicans who championed that cause, even from pre civil war. Repubs were considered 'radical' back in the day due their stance against 'popular' opinion.
If one has a desire to flesh out the facts it is entirely possible to find many facts, what political party a politician belonged and their evolving record, who supported what in a passage or failure of bills in congress/senate... Here's a web addy to find many things to research: http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
Regardless of what facts one finds remember, we're all free to choose. One need only feel embarrassed by their choice based on their willingness to be informed.
Whatever the reasons one chooses to be supportive of a political party, these reasons can be discussed. If there are no facts, twisted info, and race pressure, it might seem that a position is weak or empty and an ulterior motive to insert guilt for fleeing the plantation. Who would want to do that?
Or maybe it's viewed as a strawman and it might be ignored.
To see a man making a big deal out of the color of his skin talk like this to another man whose skin is the same color is despicable.
I fail to see where anyone can find a valid or sane position presented from that. On the off chance there is some sort of position, it would be ludicrous to want to participate with it and be convinced of its righteousness.
Technically, you wouldn't be an atheist if she knows and believes that a god (Obama) exists..
"People are being conservative in ALL colors, shapes and sizes, but you said that the black righties want to be different."
Then how come the GOP convention looked like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir?
Sorry but, uptownsteve you are nincompoop of the highest order period
You may be the only person that I have seen who is completely impervious to logic and empiricism. It's as if density is your mutant power. I marvel at and respect all those who have the patience to exchange with you.
And I am rather known for my patience. DJBA and I disagree on most things, but he has at least made statements that I can marginally agree with on occasion.
I say with a measure of Christian charity that there are some folks that you come across whom you have to cease casting pearls before and kick the dust off your feet and move away from. You I find to be such a one.
Thank You CBW, a singularly telling video.
Digital Publius,
I'm deeply hurt.
Now go fix me a sandwich Rastus.
Well, in all these years Jesus Christ never solved the Mid-East problem, so why not turn toward someone else?
Post a Comment