Saturday, August 31, 2013

More Leftist Lies

The Oprah-tinged movie, "The Butler", has gotten rave reviews, yet it is factually wrong about the Reagans and their relationship with their butler, according to four presidential biographers. In an article in the Washington Post, no less, the biographers take on the portrayal of President Reagan as neutral-to-hostile regarding racial issues.

The comments, as one might expect at WaPo, are loaded with foaming hate rants about the Reagans and their supposed racism. This is boiled down to several common issues.

First, Reagan referred to a "welfare queen" who was abusing the system.  This is exceedingly racist according to the commenters; no "welfare queen" existed; it was a racist creation by Reagan. But true, according to The Washington Post itself, which documented this:




Welfare queen, Linda Taylor, was further documented in the NYT:
"But as the original manuscript for Reagan biographer Craig Shirley’s book about the 1980 campaign, “Rendezvous with Destiny,” shows — not only did the Washington Post document that Reagan was right — but so did the New York Times:
Chicago’s justice system was cracking down on people such as Reagan’s famed “welfare queen” Linda Taylor who was finally convicted of using multiple aliases and bilking the taxpayers out of thousands of dollars. (New York Times, March 19, 1977) Reagan had made much of the woman in the 1976 campaign as an example of the “waste, fraud and abuse” that the federal and state welfare agencies engaged in. It was much disputed at the time over exactly how much she stole. Human Events, Reagan’s favorite weekly newspaper, claimed one thing and some in the media claimed another about the amount of her excesses. The Washington Post account verified the conservatives’ charges about the woman, stating that she’d stolen over $150,000, had 26 aliases, three Social Security numbers, 30 different addresses around the city and “owned a portfolio of stocks and bonds under various names and a garage full of autos including a Cadillac, Lincoln and a Chevy wagon.” She incidentally had several dead husbands and had just returned from a trip to Hawaii, presumably to avoid the last bit of the winter of 1977. All of her ill-gotten goods were courtesy of the US taxpayer. “Prosecutors say there is no category of public aid—welfare payments, rent subsidies, medical reimbursements, food stamps, transportations allowances, child-care expenses, survivors’ benefits –that Taylor had neglected to apply” for. The Post re-dubbed her, “The Chutzpa Queen.” (Washington post, march 13, 1977 page 3)
From Dailycaller

The next objection is to Reagan's observation about "working people angry about the 'strapping young buck' using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks at the grocery store", because no one can use the word "buck" since everyone knows that it is racist - along with who knows how many other sacred words which can't be used. I lived in the South during my upbringing, and I never heard the term used that way, ever. But they can have their sacred terms, I suppose.

Actually, Reagan's point struck home because I personally have witnessed many, many incidents which are close to just that: abuse of food stamps to buy, among other things, lottery tickets, cartons of cigarettes, booze, cases of candy and pop, etc. - all on my dime. It was very common, back then, and I suspect that a great many working folks did, in fact, get angry as I did, and I was incensed.

But it is racist to point out any defect in the behavior of some who are abusing welfare, even though not all of the abusers were black, and no one said they were. Not only did Reagan NOT single out blacks, his thrust was against illegal fraud, not race. The charge of "racist" is itself racist, abusive, nasty, and pointedly protective of the dole on which the Victim Class is dependent; moreover, it is by default protective of actual fraud. And that, in pursuit of maintaining the Victim Class. The Victim Class must be maintained, or the Messiah Class is without a cause-celebre, and their self-ordained uber-morality is without a focus and has no outlet, no raison d'etre. Without a showcase, their moral superpowers are kaput. So any attack on the dole must be countered with the only weapon they have: verbal abuse. Well, that and hate crime laws.

The third objection is Reagan's use of the term: "States Rights", a Constitutional reference to the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and part of the Bill of Rights. This term is also now sacred and cannot be used, because it is designated as a "code word" for racism, probably because of the Democrats' use of the term when they started the Civil War. The Race Baiters are really big on secret racism, unconscious conspiracies, and sacred code words taken out of context in order to pretend racism where it does not actually exist. Racism is very important to the Race Baiters. If it doesn't exist, it must be created.

So the Bill Of Rights is racist - several parts of it. Anyone who believes that federalism should prevail rather than the current oligarchy of government-wealthy patrons, is racist. Hmm. Probably the term "federalism" is racist, too, who knows?

So who, then, is actually racist, those who need racism for their own purposes to be realized? Or those who do not?

In her recent speech Hilary Clinton claimed that the Supreme Court decision was discriminatory against blacks (and the crowd went wild). The obvious implication is that blacks are too simple, too inferior to actually obtain IDs in order to vote. Either that, OR: voter fraud is necessary for the maintenance of the Democrat Party. So which is it? Racism? Fraud? Both? (It can't be "neither": she was emphatic, so that would be an obvious lie rather than a covert lie).

The Left; they would be a hoot... if they weren't in charge.

15 comments:

TheTruth said...

The truth is...
This is yet another example of Stan not supporting his view; he prefers to attack others'.

Will the owner of the blog ever support his views?

Stan said...

The Truth,
You must not be paying attention: I give my views here every day. My view is that the Leftists of the world have no common morality except for consequentialism, which is merely a tactic. They are emotionally needy in the sense that they lust after superiority over the commoners; they flock together with those of their own kind, all of whom wish to be considered superior and elite, both intellectually and morally, despite their intellectual incapacity to leave the Leftist Narrative due to intellectual cowardice, and their complete lack of any actual morality other than that which they create themselves (and that is for the behavior of others, not them).

Most of the Left is Atheist and those with religious ties are either Muslim or use religion as an excuse, just as did the KKK in the South.

The Democrats have used every tactic available to them to suppress blacks, including slavery, secession, war, Jim Crow, Bull Connor tactics, and since the Civil Rights Acts: welfare plantations and constant lies regarding the political party which actually did free the slaves and kill segregation.

The Leftists have created a dependent black subculture upon which they, the Democrats, depend to keep themselves in power. This black subculture is maintained in onerous conditions, is maintained in fear of racism - which is manufactured for the press - and which in turn generates black gangsta deaths and racial aggression toward whites who are scapegoated for the black condition.

I have made these views as clear as possible. Show how they are false. Go ahead.

142 alcorol said...

Will people with different political views to mine ever realise that they are responsible for every evil in history throughout the universe? People with my political views have never done anything wrong.

TheTruth said...

The truth is...
The author of the blog confirmed he doesn't support his own values, morals, beliefs, decisions, preference, actions, choices, religious convictions, political leaning.... He discusses why others' are wrong.

Stan said...

alcorol & Truth,
So. You two have nothing to contribute, then, right? AtheoLeftists without any defense, I suppose.

Ok. Got that.

TheTruth said...

The Truth is...

1) the author of the blog knows nothing about 'who' wrote, yet decides to use the label 'AtheoLeftist' as a derogatory term, avoiding accountability of his own position

2) the author will avoid commentating on his irrational rants such as:
"Most of the Left is Atheist and those with religious ties are either Muslim or use religion as an excuse"

The author of this blog rejects truth and promotes his own views as facts. He wants to control, instead of the current "left", in order to impose his own self-derived morality. The truth is... he accomplishes nothing but entertain casual readers.

Stan said...

Truth,
You appear to be a sock puppet for a previous troll.

This blog, in case you hadn't noticed, is about Atheism, its fallacies and its overwhelmingly Leftist march.

If that's not what you want to discuss then you're at the wrong place.

Why not defend your antithesis to the thesis presented? In other words, defend Atheism, or defend Leftism, or both.

But instead of defending either Atheism or Leftism, you use Tu Quoque as if it were a legitimate logic process. There is no legitimate argument to be made by attacking me. If you have a legitimate belief regarding Atheism or Leftism then present it.

Your comments merely demonstrate that you don't like what has been said here, but that you have no actual rebutting argument, so you attack me instead. That is very, very weak.

If you want to refute a statement made here, then present some actual evidence; if I have been wrong, I will admit it, when it is proven so. I suspect that you cannot and will not, because you have not.



TheTruth said...

"This blog, in case you hadn't noticed, is about Atheism, its fallacies and its overwhelmingly Leftist march."

The truth is...
This blog is not about Atheism and Atheists are not Leftists by default (regardless of overlap in statistics.) The author of the blog does everything but discuss Atheism. He merely presents his rants, whining and lies. He also pretends he wants to discuss when nothing could be further from the truth. He distorts, lies and attack those he dislikes, labeling them all as AtheoLeftists, regardless of their actual beliefs he couldn't bother understanding.

Then he asks for arguments! What a pity. The truth is there is nothing productive to be done with such individual. His control greed makes him request interaction with readers, only to later satisfy this greed by pushing away people.

Stan said...

You have made my point commpletely: you have nothing to offer in support of either Atheism or Leftism, or you would actually address the concepts.

But you do not.

As per the other thread, you and your sock puppet menagerie are banned... again.

Not Anonymous said...

Demands, demands, demands... is that all your blog is for?

Of course not, you also whine and whine and whine: This sucks! Atheists are evil! The Left is destroying America!

And then you ask others to support claims they never made: Defend Atheism! Prove there is no God! Defend Leftism! Prove your self-derived morality and elitism!

Why should anyone do what you ask them to do? You are an insane person with a ridiculous blog. People come here to laugh at you. You could be an Atheist, or a UFO believer, and it would not change anything.

WILL YOU EVER UNDERSTAND THAT --YOU-- ARE BEING LAUGHED AT!? NOT YOUR RELIGION, NOT YOUR POLITICAL LEANING, YOU!

Hilarious that you don't realize that; you really think you are in control of what gets published here. So cute...

Steven Satak said...

"This is yet another example of Stan not supporting his view; he prefers to attack others"

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is yet another example in a long line of drive-by nonsense.

Bored anti-Stan netizen (otherwise known as a troll) stops in, makes a random unsupported accusation of perhaps a sentence or two, and then steps back to watch the fur fly.

To Stan's credit, he less and less often rises to the bait. But I love watching these bozos demonstrate the very things we so dislike about them every time.

- holding theism and conservative views to a completely different standard than their own.

- thinking that making a statement makes it true.

- thinking they are completely anonymous.

- thinking that *they* are the rational ones.

Stan, please don't spend too much energy on these fools beyond that necessary to prevent their stupidity from appearing here more than is needed. You have already got more than enough examples of juvenile delinquent behavior on record and really, anyone can use any name they want to say anything. Block their ISP if it's at all possible.

These drive-bys are on the level of most commenters over at Yahoo. Yeesh!

Stan said...

Steven,
What is actually hysterical is the angry tone of the hate rant just above yours. When they get that way, you know you have hit them where it hurts: the offer to present rational cases for their position.

They can't defend any position they have, because they are emotional positions, not rational positions.

So they exercise attack rants.

And this one claims his angry hate rant is a "laughing at you" rant.

They have nothing to offer in defense of either Atheism or Leftism. Nothing. Completely empty: VOID.

Stan said...

Blogger doesn't allow me to block by ISP, but it does allow me to prescreen the comments via moderation. I don't even have to read the comments.

Atheism and its associated pathologies are typically acquired in the years before maturity is achieved, and that freezes the maturity level at the point where Atheism takes over the thought process. (The same thing happens with drug users - a 35 year old druggie who started at 15 y.o. is typically still the maturity of the 15 y.o.).

The challenge to present their rational case for Atheism and/or for their Leftism is a threat to their equanimity of self: because they cannot do it, it means that they are living in a paradox. So they employ the 15 year old's methodolgy of atttempting to destroy the attacker with juvenile mockery and taunts.

That doesn't deter from the fact that they have no rational reasoning to present; if they had it, they would present it.

Morgan said...

Hate rants used to be mildly entertaining. Sadly, they've become the norm and ultimately boring. I rarely read past the first two sentences anymore.

'The Truth' and the others like him here are simply unable to defend their positions with anything other than one long burp. I'm unsure why they even pretend to take part.

Better to be thought a fool and remain silent, and all that...

John said...

@ Not Anonymous

The only whining I see here is from you.It's clear that you can't defend your position logically,and you have hit a point of frustration.The demands Stan has made on atheists are the exact demands atheists make on theists.At least Stan is consistent.