Apr
29
Civility and Tolerance
April 29, 2009 | | Leave a Comment
“CIVILITY AND TOLERANCE”: Obama and other Democrats talk a lot about “civility and tolerance.” But where IS “civility and tolerance” in the way they treat people who disagree with them? Janet Napolitano, his choice for Homeland Security Secretary, says “conservatives are dangerous right-wing extremists” while openly gay blogger Perez Hilton calls the “Miss USA contestant who is against gay marriage a “dumb bitch” on his Hollywood gossip blog. That he is gay doesn’t bother me. That he had the power to “sink” this contestant does.
“HATE CRIMES” DEFINED: There is no definitive definition of a “hate crime.” Such crimes are defined by those enforcing them. That means a cop or a bureaucrat can DEFINE anything you did as a “hate crime” after the fact, and prosecute you for it. They can prosecute you for what you SAY. That this is a violation of the Constitution doesn’t seem to bother them.
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN? Have we forgotten that Islamic terrorists murdered up to 3,000 innocent civilians who did not realize they were targets at the world Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001? Why are so many people concerned about how we interrogate Islamic terrorists? I don’t think they DESERVE our “concern” about anything related to them.
ETHICS COMPLAINTS: Isn’t it funny how when you anger certain politicians (mostly liberals) you start collecting “ethics complaints” like stamps? Newt Gingrich had, at last count, 39 of them when he was the Majority Leader of the Senate who got the “Contract With America” adopted, which put the Republicans back in power? Last I heard, ALL of them were “thrown out.” But did you hear about that? Not likely. Now Sarah Palin, who frightens Republicans and Democrats alike because she CAN win the presidency in the next election (and they don’t like that) is beginning to collect them. They’re all just as phony.
“HATEFUL WORDS”: What is a “hateful word?” Nobody knows, and that’s what liberals like about it. They get to DEFINE what IS a “hateful word” so they can prosecute somebody for things they SAY as a “hate crime.” That this violates the First amendment of the Constitution against ANY law that prohibits freedom of speech doesn’t seem to bother them a bit.
NO “EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE”: There is NO “empirical evidence” that people die from smoking. Yet the liberal news media keeps on promoting that IMAGINARY number of “four million people dying each year from smoking.” Yes, they can “draw an inference” from some things, but an “inference” is NOT proof. But they care not. If that many people died from ONE CAUSE, there’d be a revolution. But that many people have NOT “died from smoking,” so there hasn’t.