To paraphrase, it focuses on a perceived liberal bias of the media and the double-standard this bias has created specifically between John McCain et al and Barrack Obama et al. First off, it insinuates that Joe Biden’s comment about how the world will test Barrack Obama actually stems from inside information he has obtained from serving on the Foreign Relations Committee about impending international crises.
A rational person would assume that the author is being facetious, but who knows with the standards of WND, which I will delve into soon. For sake of argument, let us assume they are being literal. Why do we have a right to know? Should we not continue to use the same school-of-thought the Bush administration has implemented over the last eight years? You know, the school-of-thought that dictates honesty and forthrightness and transparency and accountability. Frankly, I don’t understand how the conservatives at WND demand a right to know now, but had no problem being kept in the dark the last eight years. Don’t you think we had a right to know about Bush’s domestic spy program and the complicit telecommunication companies? Don’t you think we had a right to know Bush’s inclination to invade Iraq prior to 9/11/2001? According to former Treasury Secretary O’Neil and several unnamed administration sources, the Bush administration began planning to invade Iraq at its very first National Security Council meeting in January 2001, with the President stating "Go find me a way to do this." Don’t you think we had a right to know about the Bush administration’s blatant disregard for the Geneva Convention in methods of torture, not to mention secret extradition policies in order to torture in locations where the Geneva Convention had not been signed? Not that that even mattered. Don’t you think we had a right to know about the use of Depleted Uranium in Iraq, another violation of the Geneva Convention? Why is it that conservatives demand the right to know now, but not when it has mattered the most in the last eight years?“Is Russia about to move on the Crimea? Is Israel about to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear sites? What is Joe talking about?”
“If one assumes Joe is a serious man, we have a right to know.”
“Had John McCain made that hair-raising statement, he would have been accused of fear mongering about a new 9/11.”There’s a credible reason McCain would have been accused of fear mongering. Fear mongering has been a quintensential Republican campaign platform since 2000 and probably before I was old enough to understand these unethical campaign strategies. Win at all costs, right?
Contrasting McCain with his hero, Joe declared a few weeks back, "When the stockmarket crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and ... said, 'Look,here's what happened.'"Obviously this is a gaff and historically inaccurate.
Can one imagine what the press would have done to Sarah Palin had she exhibited such ignorance of history? Joe gets a pass because everybody likes Joe.There are two reasons the press would have been all over Palin had she exhibited such ignorance:
1) The level of ignorance she has displayed in interviews since her VP candidacy has been epic. Need we talk about her comments on her foreign policy intelligence as a function of geographic proximity; or perhaps her inability to mention just ONE publication when asked which ones she read. No one can be this fucking stupid. I’m sure it has more to do with McCain campaign strategists puppeting her around than her inability to intellectually combine words to form any type of answers. I mean seriously, no one can be this fucking stupid. Obviously the above is only an anecdotal argument, but it’s my blog and I’ll cry if I want to.
2) Palin has been so illusive to the media since McCain chose her as his running mate, in perhaps the most contrived politically motivated move ever, that when she does speak, the press is extremelly interested, but unfortunately for Palin, it's usually nothing of substance.
Oh and 3). I forgot about 3). Sarah Palin has the so few morals that she chose to make an adult movie. If you don't believe me, watch the intro to her latest movie:
There’s a reason everyone likes Joe. He’s pragmatic in his approach to progressive movements such as gay rights, woman’s rights, science education, middle-class support, the environment, etc. He is an outspoken Catholic who is an ardent supporter of secularism and not allowing faith to influence the majority of his decisions. I must point out though that even Obama/Biden are against gay marriage, which I disagree with; however, I have a theory they are just pretending to be Christian for political reasons and are actually Atheists.
The article goes on to say:
Has anyone ever asked Joe about his own and his party's role in cutting off aid to South Vietnam, leading to the greatest strategic defeat in U.S. history and the Cambodian holocaust?Ok, I’m not sure how the U.S. decision to leave Vietnam led to Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge murder of thousands of Cambodians, but saying Joe was wrong in cutting off aid to end the Vietnam War, come on. Tell that to one of the 68,000 Americans who died, or perhaps the majority of soldiers who came home and eventually protested the war outwardly or inwardly.
What about the article indicating Joe was wrong on the Iraq War? Why is it that the people who are always so in favor of war are the pro-life, right-wing Christians? Does that not piss anyone else off? Does anyone see the hypocrisy here? Why is it that the people who are always so in favor of war are the ones who are not there themselves or willing to send other people, but not their people?
In an earlier post I touched briefly on a concept that perhaps one should not be in favor of a violent cause such as war, unless they themselves are willing go and fight and possibly die for said cause. I can see what the conservatives are saying now, “Oh another liberal oversimplification.” This is typical of similar lectures I receive from conservatives such as, “Wait until you get older; you’ll be a Republican.” Or, “Wait until you have kids; you’ll be a conservative.” I call bullshit to all of those arguments. I am liberal and progressive because like science, there is an intrinsic humility, it allows for and promates change and it admits to the one item that most conservatives resist, and that is that it conforms to the fact that everything in this world has been and will always be in flux.
I disagree with the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars because I don’t think they are winnable. I don’t think they have made us safer and in fact the very opposite. And, while we enjoy our freedom, I do not believe freedom is always ours to give.
The final part of the article is perhaps the single valid point, but does not explain the cause of the circumstance.
Can one imagine "Saturday Night Live" doing weekly send-ups of Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud" of my country, this "just downright mean"This is definitely something in which I do not identify with left-wing philosophies. I am very into my political incorrectness and think there is a double-standard when it comes to racism. However, we have to ask ourselves why this double-standard exists. Let me list a few cause and effect words: kidnapping, human trade, slavery, selective human breeding, rape, torture, whipping, lynching, underground railroad, forced conscription, nigger, kkk, Jim Crow, 2/3 vote, separate but equal, segregation, and so on. That’s why there’s a god damn double-standard and while I’m not racist, but willing to offend black and white alike, I understand why this double-standard exists. It is reparations I must pay for the utter lack of humanity and ignorance of my ancestors.
America, using a black comedienne to mimic and mock her voice and accent?
"Saturday Night Live" would be facing hate-crime charges.
Ok enough with content refutation, let’s get to my ad hominem attack. Let me state for the record that this is perhaps the worst article I have read this election season, which is why I don’t read rubbish from bloody absurd sources such as World Net Daily. World Net Daily is a socially conservative publication that draws much influence from and directs most articles to the religious right. I mean right there we can conclude that WND uses logic as a basis for information and not faith, right? Not to mention that common authors for the publication include the likes of Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. I especially enjoyed the WND article from Anthony LoBaido claiming that 9/11 occurred because of America’s moral depravity and claimed that maybe God had created radical Islam to fight America in this regard.
Let’s hear it for irrational faith-based rhetoric.
