RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/02/26/meme-of-the-week-crazy-cat-lady-liberals/trackback/
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
0.363 Powered by Wordpress
An example of the subtle programming in our culture.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/26/jeopardy-mocks-mitt-romney-binder-full-women-category
Jeopardy! Mocks Romney with a “Binder Full of Women” category. What gets me about that whole “binder” thing is, I don’t even get what was so bad about it. Everyone knew he meant binders full of RESUMES of women. I never could figure out how the Democrats got any traction against Romney with that. It was like the Democrats were able to say “Romney said WOMEN!” and that was somehow bad or something.
Comment by crosspatch — February 26, 2013 @ 11:13 pm - February 26, 2013
Why is it not surprising that that “Crazy Liberal Cat Lady” is a “paranormal researcher”?
Comment by Rattlesnake — February 26, 2013 @ 11:30 pm - February 26, 2013
Crosspatch–All the business about the “binders full of women” comment as some sort of gaffe was so juvenile and idiotic, I was astounded to see it receive as much attention as it did. That it’s still being played up by the media tells us how formidable the challenge of resisting leftist dominance of the media’s narrative will be.
Rattlesnake–Yeah, sometimes these characters play exactly to type with no self awareness or irony whatsoever.
Comment by Kurt — February 27, 2013 @ 12:06 am - February 27, 2013
Another example:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa/2013/02/26/left-wing-blowhard-stephanie-miller-fawns-over-study-showing-being-calle
“A study from NSON Opinion Strategy — yeah, I’d never heard of them before now either — said that 87% of their respondents found the word Republican synonymous with greed, racism, and violence.”
Just publishing this piece of bogus malarkey is party of the psychological game. It says “hey, kids, if 87% of the people think that way, it means you are supposed to, too”. Considering that well more than 13% of the population are Republicans, I wonder how they did this “poll”. Was it done at UC Santa Cruz?
Comment by crosspatch — February 27, 2013 @ 1:05 am - February 27, 2013
Ok crosspatch, you have finally managed to depress me. It is difficult to maintain optimism after reading that link/so-called-poll. Maybe it’s the hour — I am going to bed. Tomorrow I may get back to feeling hopeful again.
Comment by Jane Austen — February 27, 2013 @ 2:26 am - February 27, 2013
I found the hysteria over the “binders full of women” bit to be somewhat sexist. Do liberals doubt that there exist enough qualified women to work for Romney? That is what I took away from all the spin.
As far as Crazy Liberal Cat Lady, I find it interesting that she even cares to mention her fibromyalgia. Does this mean she can fault her condition if she posts potentially offensive comments?
Comment by B. Long — February 27, 2013 @ 2:35 am - February 27, 2013
I saw it as more of a anti-technological slam against conservatives and Republicans, as well as a self-aggrandizing implication that Dems don’t have to use “binders” to know who the qualified women in their camp are; they interact with them every day: they are their mothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, nieces, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.
Yet you know (that is, if you know how campaigns are run and how transitions are managed—just read any of the books dissecting campaigns over the last couple of decades for clues) that when Team Obama took over in 2009, they had computer databases full of people who might be appropriate appointees for various positions, and—gasp!—many of those entries were occupied by those of the XX chromosome. [I'm also willing to bet there was a covert field indicating the ethnic or racial component of the possible appointee—lest someone on the transition forget who someone was— even though that would be illegal in the real world; and even though they'd never admit it, even under subpoena.] The days are long gone when incoming governments can have discussions over scotch-and-cigars about whom might be good for what position—there just isn’t time for that and besides, the computer age has made it so much easier.
This is where the anti-technological spin comes in. The whole “binders full of women” meme was designed to subtly point out (perhaps, as referenced in another comment recently, in NLP fashion) that Republicans are way behind the times and have to wear gloves in order to keep from getting their knuckles scraped up as they drag along the ground when they walk. It would be similar as to how the characterization might go if, during one of the Presidential debates, President Obama had to do an mathematical calculation and whipped out a calculator [solar-powered, of course—as would inevitably be pointed out] and when Governor Romney had to do the same, he pulled out a slide rule (or worse, an abacus). It wouldn’t matter if Mr Romney could produce the answer in the same amount of time (or more quickly) than his counterpart—and never mind that many people in the world still use both slide rules and abacuses—and can obtain results more quickly than many people with electronic calculators; it’s the implication that technology is always better and that anyone who seems to not comply (or just do things the way “we” do them) is archaic, ancient, and a relic of a bygone era. [Hint, hint—guess who typifies that stereotype today.]
This came back to me recently when I was watching floor debate in the Senate gallery of my legislature and observed one of the smartest members of that body (a cattle-ranching Harvard MBA) use a lateral desktop flip-file to house his collection of the various bills which had been filed for the session—in all of its resource-diminishing, global-warming, dead-tree-variety glory. Meanwhile, every other legislator had the state-issued laptop (even if some seemed to use them as giant coasters). I have no way of knowing, but I’ll bet the senator with the flip file could locate a particular bill just as quickly as his younger lawyer counterparts could with their laptops.
In the end, it really doesn’t matter what you use, just as long as you get there. Yet in our modern ridicule-enhanced debates, it isn’t the end that matters [eg, qualified people in appropriate positions], it’s entirely the means. That is what the “binders” meme was meant to convey, and with it, the implication that Romney does it all wrong and Obama does it right.
Comment by RSG — February 27, 2013 @ 4:56 am - February 27, 2013
“Binders full of women.”
Please. One should never overanalyze snark. The phrase caught the snicker-bone of the stuck-in-seventh-grade liberal media and they har-de-harred in mockery and derision.
Robert Heinlein advised: “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” There is nothing to be gained by attempting to “educate” the liberal away from his innate snarkiness. It is part of their green-eyed streak of jealousy to belittle the greatness in what they are emotionally driven to viscerally oppose. It is a form of topic shifting to avoid exposure. It is in Alinsky’s community organizer’s handbook (Rules for Radicals): * RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions or a belaboring explanation that makes him look even more silly.
The liberal MSM kids were out to ridicule Romney and all they needed was something that made a kid at the lunch table snicker.
Some liberals immediately play the race card if they hear the word “welfare” and shift the topic to a hopeless debate where they can moan and wail and make all sorts of charges. Conversely, if you desire to overanalyze “binders full of women” you could play the Mormon card and cry that it was a reference to Romney’s religion and polygamy and an underhanded slap at religion in general. The only problem, of course, is that liberals slap away at religion for amusement and have long since assumed nobility and rectitude and reduced religion to an unenlightened form of cult bigotry.
Comment by heliotrope — February 27, 2013 @ 10:02 am - February 27, 2013
And in the end, it always ends badly for the cats; filth, starvation, disease and euthanasia at the hands of their “rescuers”.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 27, 2013 @ 11:13 am - February 27, 2013
The notion is to never actually SOLVE a problem, but to make the problem easier to live with. Democrats never solve problems. We have the same percentage of Americans in poverty today as we had when Johnson was elected President. All that money spent since the late 1960′s “fighting” poverty hasn’t really reduced the number in poverty at all. But the people living in poverty are actually living better than the impoverished people were in the 1960′s because the benefit programs in some cases provide the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars worth additional income when you combine all of the available benefits.
The use things like “benefit cliffs” to keep you “sticky” to the benefits. You can’t get out. It’s like a roach motel. Once you are on the benefits, you really can’t afford to get off. This is from data provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. A single mother earning 29,000 a year would have to earn 69,000 a year in order to have the same disposable income without benefits. Who is going to take a 35,000 a year job and be worse off? Democrats have configured the benefit programs in such a way that you can’t get off of them.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/julias-mother-why-a-single-mom-is-better-off-on-welfare-than-taking-a-69000-a-year-job/
Then they go after the next generation. They create rent subsidies that basically are a payoff to slum lords. Pack people into areas with subsidized rent or public housing project. Then you put them in poor schools and prevent them from exercising any choice of school. The notion here is to make the situation ripe for being able to snare the following generations into your net of dependence. All the while, the Democrats are saying how much they are “helping” the poor when they are doing nothing of the sort, they are ensuring a maximum possible number OF them while making those conditions somewhat tolerable through benefit programs. Then they demagog the Republicans saying “they want to cut off your benefits”. I saw literally hundreds of people this last election cycle who honestly believed Romney wanted to “cut off” their food stamps. That isn’t true. Romney wanted to get them back to work and moving up the ladder so they don’t NEED the food stamps but the way the benefit programs are currently configured, even that is a tall order.
What we need to do is smooth out the benefit “cliffs” so that it always pays to improve your situation. As it stands today, if you earn even $1 over the cutoff amount, you could lose thousands in benefits or extra taxes paid. Why take a $2/hr raise when you are going to lose an $8,000 rent subsidy if you do?
Are the people in Detroit or Chicago or Philadelphia any better off now than they were 20 years ago? What exactly are the Democrats doing to actually help, REALLY help people out of the cycle of poverty? Nothing. They want poor people. They want a LOT of poor people. Then they can claim they are “helping more than every before!”.
It’s like something straight out of Orwell.
Comment by crosspatch — February 27, 2013 @ 11:48 am - February 27, 2013
I took the ‘binders full of women’ hullabaloo as a DNC-generated confection, linking Republicans to women being ‘bound’, oppressed, “…put y’all back in chains…(har, har)”, making the false association between conservatism and disempowerment through an implied word game. They had nothing on Romney, so they created a sexist buffoon from thin air and sold it to a audience desperate to believe such a caricature exists.
Comment by Ignatius — February 27, 2013 @ 11:55 am - February 27, 2013
I never could figure out how the Democrats got any traction against Romney with that.
Me either. I understood what Romney meant and took no offense and I am a woman. I think of it along the lines of the character assassination of Palin during the 2008 elections. Ask anyone now, and they would all say Palin said she could see Russia from her house, when in fact it was Tina Fey (who was poking fun of the very real fact that you can see Russia from parts of Alaska-Fey and those laughing at Palin were the ignorant ones who managed to convince the US that Palin said she could see Russia from her house).
I think the crazy cat lady comparison is a very good ones. Liberals are often about feeling good about themselves and they want to think they are helping, without really helping-their help is about feeling good, not necessarily about the success of those they are helping. And when shown that their help isn’t helping, they tend to point the finger at others to lay blame for why the help isn’t working.
Comment by Just Me — February 27, 2013 @ 12:07 pm - February 27, 2013
I took “Binders full of women” to be Democrats saying “hey, that SOUNDS like there should be something wrong with that. We can’t quite put our finger on what might actually be bad about it, but it SOUNDS like it should be bad so we are going to run with it. Our supporters will jump on board even if they don’t get what’s bad about it either, because they are our supporters and because Romney”.
Comment by crosspatch — February 27, 2013 @ 12:08 pm - February 27, 2013
Exactly. They will help you right to death. Sometimes literally, and they will rationalize every step of the way, too. Wait till they have to start killing off old people.
Comment by crosspatch — February 27, 2013 @ 12:10 pm - February 27, 2013
What will really be interesting is when partisans combine “death panels” with public political donation data. Two people’s files appear before the panel. One is a rich Democrat donor, the other a rich Republican donor. Which one gets the “pathway to death” or maybe gets put in the long queue for service and which one gets in the express queue? You think that won’t happen? Remember Joe the Plumber? We have partisans in government. Political donations should be private.
Comment by crosspatch — February 27, 2013 @ 12:13 pm - February 27, 2013
What Conservatives understand and liberals don’t is that you can’t help someone who isn’t willing to be helped. A person who really wants to improve his circumstances doesn’t need help, and someone who doesn’t is a waste of time and effort.
Comment by V the K — February 27, 2013 @ 12:24 pm - February 27, 2013
I partially agree and partially disagree. Democrats attempt to collect both. The ones that don’t want to improve their situation are just fine where they are, the ones that want to improve their situation are prevented from doing so by benefit cliffs.
Lyndon Johnson was a brilliant evil genius. Imagine you want to intentionally malnourish someone. There are two ways you could do it. The first way is to withhold food from them. The second way is to give them all the free candy they can eat. If you try the first way, it builds up resentment, if you do it the second way, they will willingly do it themselves and love you for it.
What the Democrats managed to do is to institute a set of benefits that screws the people on them but they are thanking the Democrats for them every day. LBJ knew he could continue to forcefully segregate minorities, or he could just keep them poor and have them self-segregate by giving them free money which took away their need to move themselves up.
Here’s another thing Democrats do: If a school performs badly, they increase the funding. The teachers get a raise. The worse a school does, the money money the government pours into it. If they want to keep the money coming in and keep their salaries up, they simply have to keep doing poorly. A Republican saying that we must cut off funds to poor schools and give parents a chance is demagoged as being evil somehow.
It is straight out of 1984.
Comment by crosspatch — February 27, 2013 @ 12:43 pm - February 27, 2013
And yes, I know the majority of people on welfare are white, but I also know that the majority on it CHRONICALLY and across generations aren’t.
Comment by crosspatch — February 27, 2013 @ 12:44 pm - February 27, 2013
And just like the cat lady, when she feels threatened she uses those cats as shields and weapons to repel differing opinions.
http://aux-www.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/crazy-cat-lady-e1336759816579.jpg
Comment by V the K — February 27, 2013 @ 2:23 pm - February 27, 2013
Welp, I don’t care what anyone thinks, Paul Krugman is a cat lady in real life and that’s my meme and I’m sticking to it.
Comment by Richard Bell — February 27, 2013 @ 5:45 pm - February 27, 2013
Now every time I see the cat lady on the Simpsons, I’m going to think of Nancy Pelosi, or maybe Barbara Boxer…
Comment by Tavern Keeper — February 27, 2013 @ 6:22 pm - February 27, 2013
I’d certainly describe him as a spinster.
Comment by Ignatius — February 27, 2013 @ 6:26 pm - February 27, 2013
If a person has a high school diploma, is married to someone with a high school diploma, and waits until their mid 20′s to have their first child, the statistics say they are *extremely* less likely to be impoverished.
One way to find pockets of poverty are to look for areas with the lowest graduation rates, highest incarceration rates, highest teen pregnancy rates, and largest percentage of “out of wedlock” births. The data show that this is where you are going to find the majority of the poverty.
Comment by crosspatch — February 27, 2013 @ 7:09 pm - February 27, 2013
Crosspatch,
We are up to our ears in social engineering directed by government endorsed private sector and government employed poverty pimps and slum lords.
Your #23 comment is spot on, but it also is an open door to more poverty pimps and slum lords.
Since Kennedy and Johnson got us deep into urban renewal, public housing, food stamps, medicaid, aid to families with dependent children, jobs core, head start, day care, community action programs, family stabilization programs, child abuse programs, rehabilitation programs, WIC, Section 8, and this cornucopia we have dug a bottomless pit for unfunded entitlements into which we throw a growing amount of endless money.
As I read your comments, I see many references to issues I have also commented on here. We seem to perceive the same monsters.
But, our politicians can not figure out how to get off the welfare dragon which they created and which they are strapped onto. Truth be told, most of them don’t want to dismount. (* see Scalia below.)
Rush Limbaugh recently said he was ashamed of America. Any half-way intelligent person knows he is referring to that section of America which is made up of the voters whose stupidity allows them to fall for a pack of lies and then dutifully elect the liars.
Robert Creamer wrote a book, Stand Up Straight! in which he drew the blueprint for the permanent Democrat majority in Congress. It is not pretty. He laid out a two-fold strategy and echoed Alinsky by instructing the Democrats (in the nature of Machiavelli instructing the prince) that “we must not just generate understanding, but emotion-fear, revulsion, anger, disgust.”
While he was in prison (it is always thus with radicals and dictators) Creamer devised the national health care plan which was step number one toward the permanent Democrat Congress. He reasoned that national health care would turn more people into wards of the ever-expanding government and, consequently, these wards would support the party that works to grow government and pass out even more goodies.
Creamer’s second step was to give illegal immigrants amnesty which would create another Democrat Party constituency overnight.
Robert Creamer is married to Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky.
Obama is joined at the hip with the Alinsky, Creamer, Chicago machine playbooks. He avoids “generating [honest] understanding” by ignoring actual governance and not getting caught by leaving fingerprints when actually directing governance. That is to say, he does not make the daily decisions of governance, he spends his time feeding his selected community of takers with tid-bits of fear, anger, disgust, resentment, revulsion, hate, division, self-pity, doubt, wrath, jealousy, impatience, fretfulness, envy, swagger, discord, suspicion, vindictiveness…. you get the picture.
Obama has Eric Holder at his Politburo side and he is sending the nominations of capos to the Senate in order to install his caporegimesto head cabinet departments. These capos take their instructions from the underboss or the Consigliere who assiduously shield Obama and any trace of his finger prints.
(*) Yesterday (2/27/13) SCOTUS heard arguments on Shelby County v Holder and Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether continuation of Section 5 represented the “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” That was a bombshell in and of itself. But Scalia added, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”
What Obama and Holder and the Senate are doing is far from the “normal political process.” They have gone way down the path of Chicago style politics and it is going to be very hard to get them or politics in general off that path.
What Alinsky drew up and Creamer put forth is far from the “normal political process.” The Senate won’t pass budgets and the Obamacare pathway to becoming law can not be diagrammed.
Using Scalia’s words, all entitlements are, “very difficult to get out of (…) through the normal political processes.”
We can not aspire to “correctively” social engineering the mess that has been created by getting “our guys” at the controls. The only way to get welfare out of profligate madness that it has acquired is by starving it out.
Many Republican governors hopped on Obamacare because they have to answer to the takers and Federal funny money is too big a lure to stand up to. Through block grants, grants in aid, revenue sharing, and all manner of national government shenanigans the states are so tied to the federal funding umbilical cord that they are wholly owned whores for “free” government cheese. Chris Christie is a textbook example of whoring for dollars when Sandy did what hurricanes do to property that is built in the path of violent storms and hurricanes. (Does anyone have any intelligent questions about why insurance companies essentially refuse to insure properties built in high risk places?)
Profligate welfare entitlements naturally encourage more welfare entitling actions. Sheriff Arpaio provides his tented prisoners with reasons why they might prefer to avoid incarceration in his jurisdiction or choose to head off to other places to do their felonious business.
Can we make any mileage campaigning to curtail entitlements? Or, must we say one thing and do another in the dedicated manner of the Progressives?
When Communists come to the peasantry, they promise immediate and profound improvements to their lives. We democracy people promise to help them build their way up over time. The peasants invariably choose the immediate gains.
Our entitlement crowd of takers who live in poverty (by U.S. standards) have a standard of living that attracts people in real poverty from all around the world.
Can we unwind our entitlement programs and get a substantial number of our takers off the welfare roles and into being productive in the non-government economy?
Now go back to the poverty “indicators.” Rudy Giuliani cleaned up New York City. Doug Wilder took Richmond, Virginia out of the murder capitol status, Haley Barbour cleaned up after Katrina without the New Orleans histrionics. It takes backbone, principles and smarts.
It can be done; but not in the hands of 99% of the Republicans serving at the national level and none of the Democrats.
Comment by heliotrope — February 28, 2013 @ 12:59 pm - February 28, 2013
As I was reading various perspectives about how universities engage in indoctrination, I was a little skeptical. I was not exposed to this as I mostly studied hard sciences and then went to University of Chicago — so my response was “surely it is not that bad…”.
I can see how the radical left can really influence minds. See below… I was intrigued by the discussion and the critique, very well written, until I got to the last section, which is chilling. So after all the failed experiments, people somehow think they can address the vulnerabilities of capitalism through a new-fangled marxist vision that nevertheless requires hierarchical decision making — with a few “wiser, nobler, and better” beings engineer and organize the world.
http://davidharvey.org/2010/08/the-enigma-of-capital-and-the-crisis-this-time/
Comment by Jane Austen — March 1, 2013 @ 8:01 pm - March 1, 2013
Wow, a lot there.
Woah, woah, woah. Hold on a minute. Republicans set all that stuff up, Democrats expanded on it but Republicans created all that stuff. George Romney was a huge advocate of public housing. A lot was done in the Eisenhower administration. Teddy Roosevelt created the FDA. The EPA is a Republican creation. Granted some of the additional programs run under these departments were created by Democrats, but Republicans created that framework.
That is a typical mechanism. If you look at organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, the way they get popular support is by providing medical services for the people. They basically take over the medical services for a particular area. It is more than just turning people into “wards” of the government, it plays on a very basic human instinct. Lets say a doctor saves your life or that of a friend or family member, maybe a child. Maybe that doctor displays an Obama campaign image or has their waiting room full of “progressive” literature. The unspoken message is “these people aren’t so bad, they saved my life”. It creates a sense of gratitude.
Rush Limbaugh today hit the nail on the head but he didn’t drive it far enough. He said the reason why the Democrats get traction but the Republicans don’t is because the great majority of people out there who are not really paying much attention believe the Democrats are out to “help” people and Republicans are only out to help the rich. What Rush didn’t say, or maybe isn’t aware of, is that these people were TOLD exactly that by their teachers in 6th grade! The reason they believe it is because they were taught to believe it. My son’s teachers told him exactly that in class at school. So they not only have the medical care, they have the teachers.
Sure, the Democrats are trying to do to the Hispanic population what they did to the black population. There is an old expression that a politician would condemn you to hell and have you looking forward to the trip. The Democrats are masters of that. They “give” you everything. And through that, after a few generations of it, the work ethic is lost. The people think it is great but it is destroying them. The Democrats want to turn the latinos into the new “blacks”. Turn them from hard working though somewhat segregated by language and culture into completely dependent and perpetually segregated through substandard education and lack of work skills. The Democrats don’t really care a rat’s pair of hips about “la Raza”, they just want to use them. They will throw them money as long as they stay in their place and say what they are told to say. The minute they get “uppity” and start demanding real power over their own destiny, they will be attacked and degraded.
The biggest threat to the Democrats is the concept of the melting pot. The Democrats absolutely do not want hispanics or blacks from melting into the mainstream culture. They absolutely have to keep them segregated culturally. That is the key to keeping them segregated educationally and economically.
It’s a song that kind of goes like this:
America is a racist country. America doesn’t like you because you are different. You are special and need to maintain your difference. The system is stacked against you and no matter how hard you try, you will never accomplish as much as the white people (you aren’t supposed to notice at this point that it is a bunch of white people telling you this). So … it isn’t your fault you can’t do well in school or can’t get a good job, it’s the fault of “the man”. So here, I will give you cash money every month because you’re good enough, you’re smart enough, and by golly, we like you. So don’t even bother trying to bust your ass out there. Just take a seat on the couch, watch your new TV and we will send you a check every month. Oh, and we will print everything in Spanish for you so you don’t even need to learn English either. Now, don’t vote for those mean Republicans who are out for the rich people because they will take those checks away from you and leave you poor, impoverished and destitute. Oh, and we know the school your kids are going to is crap, but it doesn’t really matter because we will give them checks, too, when they come of age as long as you keep voting for is. So, you see, as long as you keep us in office there is nothing to worry about.
So the Democrats are imprisoning them with benefits and doing it in a way that they are happy to get it. Democrats stroke their feelings and tell them what they want to hear. In the meantime, they are being robbed of their dignity and after a few generations, they wouldn’t be able to go to work if they wanted to because they no longer have the skills.
There is nothing more corrupt, more hypocritical, more absolutely criminal than what the Democratic Party does to people.
Comment by crosspatch — March 2, 2013 @ 3:07 am - March 2, 2013
Ok, here is the deal.
Lyndon Johnson campaigned against civil rights his entire time in Congress. He was pushing the Democrats in the Senate to filibuster the civil rights legislation proposed by the Democrats. Then Barry Goldwater said he didn’t want to see federal civil rights legislation and that each state should be free to address the problem in their own way. That’s when Johnson did a complete 180. At that point Goldwater was portrayed as a racist bigot. Republicans were portrayed as racist bigots. LBJ did a complete overnight flip flop and went from opposing civil rights legislation to supporting it.
On a flight on Air Force One, LBJ laughed and told reporters that “with one stroke of this pen, I will have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years”.
Comment by crosspatch — March 2, 2013 @ 3:16 am - March 2, 2013
Meant: was pushing the Democrats in the Senate to filibuster the civil rights legislation proposed by the Republicans.
Comment by crosspatch — March 2, 2013 @ 3:49 am - March 2, 2013
The “Crazy Cat Lady Liberal” is one type of leftie: someone who wants to “do something”, but whose actions are so misguided that they can never work.
I’m not in love with the meme, though, because I don’t think it gets to the heart of leftism. The CCLL has at least some virtues (even if terribly misguided) of compassion and activism. But there are more malignant types of leftie out there: the parasite on society, the Useful Idiot, and others. The most malignant type, the Aspiring Dictator who produces the lies that the others dutifully consume and spread, is the type that we really need to worry about.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2013 @ 8:39 am - March 4, 2013