Monday, October 27, 2008

Lynching is OK Right? Obama? Palin?

Imagine the outrage if this were a house in, say, Virginia or Western Pennsylvania, heck how about George Fox University and the Halloween "decorations" were of Biden and Obama. I doubt the defense of "free speech" would fly and the homeowner would more likely face some sort of federal hate crime. But since this Californian is only "hanging" Gov. Palin . . . nothing wrong here:
A mannequin portraying U.S. Republican vice-presidential nominee Alaska Governor Sarah Palin hangs by a noose as a mannequin portraying U.S. Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain protrudes from the chimney of a private residence in West Hollywood, California October 27, 2008. Part of a Halloween display, the likenesses drew complaints on Monday, but local officials said the homeowner was covered by free speech rights.

So, is lynching ok even in effigy? Anyone remember the George Fox story a few weeks ago? Why is this one ok? Why isn't the ACLU all over this?
Because the WHOLE FREAKING COUNTRY HAS GONE MAD!!!

12 comments:

Shirley Buxton said...

Yes, gone mad, absolutely mad!

The Blunt Matt said...

Well, lynching is not associated with anti-white behavior. As we all know lynching connotes racism with a white against black attitude. Is this okay? No, but it is kind of funny...

Bill's Waste of Air said...

I don't really care what lynching is "associated" with, I care more about the fact that the mainstream media gives this a pass!

I don't find it funny at all, I don't like ANY death related stuff. I am against Halloween and all the death and murder and crap associated with that "holiday".
This is another example of how low and stupid this country has become.

mick b: beaver boy said...

The issue is that it's a private citizen "expressing" himself and it only sullies his reputation. When it's done on a school's campus, the university must protect it's image. While I will agree that it appears personal attacks upon Republicans go relatively unpunished, they do occur on both sides of the political spectrum. It's not a generational "thing". I've seen it occur at many age levels. It's indicative of the moral decline of the United States as a whole. It's become more prevalent, visible and acceptable.

The Blunt Matt said...

I think you're right, Bill. Our country is full of idiocy for sure. But, doesn't the media have better things to do like idolize Obama? Plus, ignoring this guy is the best medicine in my opinion. And I would disagree about Republican attacks. Haven't the Clintons taken a pretty healthy dose of punishment? I think we choose to see what we want. I think the media is far more biased toward the right than left, but that arguement will go on forever...

Tammy Bowers said...

I see Matt thinks that the media is biased toward the right, not the left. That surprises me, as I always felt it was just the opposite.

The war in Iraq is a good example. The media reports when our troops are attacked, they report our death toll, they report on protests, angry moms who lost their sons fighting on foreign soil. And yes, they should report on all that. But there is NO equal time spent on the lives they've saved, the Serbs they've saved from being gassed, etc. No pictures of the Iraqi people running out to thank soldiers and kiss their hands or give them gifts. This happens over and over and over again. Where are those pictures? I don't think the media wants to report on anything we are doing good over there. It's like the media doesn't want to report ANYTHING that implies Bush was right.

At least that is my biased opinion.

The Blunt Matt said...

Well, since I haven't spent ANY time in Iraq, I can't comment on what is going on over there--nor should anyone else who hasn't been there! But my family members who are over there don't say very many positive things about their experiences. As for the lives we're saving, I'd say the estimated 500,000 who have died is not a good place to start. The media doesn't show the caskets coming home as per the Bush administration's request. Far fewer were dying over there before we showed up. Where was the media in the build up? Nobody asked the tough questions. They gave George a pass on the WMD and terrorist issue. It is a fact that there were no WMD nor did al Qaida have a presence before we showed up. Saddam and Osama did not like each other and that is a simple fact.

Look Tammy, you can disagree all you want, but what good has come out of our invasion? It's been 5 1/2 years. When are we leaving? Why are we still there? Where is all that free oil? Do you know why we invaded in the first place? Bush was WRONG to invade and history will show him to be one of the worst presidents ever. And what do Serbs have to do with this, anyway?

As Americans, we sometimes need to allow a little criticism of our foreign policy when it is wrong. How else do you expect us to grow and understand our mistakes? Bush made a mistake and it is okay to say so. Study the history of a successful nation state and you will understand the real reasons we invaded Iraq. Are you famliar with the formula Queen Isabella stated 500 years ago?

And, just by sheer numbers, there are far more conservative magazines, TV pundits, talk show hosts, and newspapers who lean right. GE owns NBC. Do you think GE is a liberal company? Westinghouse owns CBS. Do you think they are liberal? Both, by the way, manufacture the weapons we are using in Iraq so are they critical? FOX is just too obvious. Disney owns ABC. Do you think Disney is liberal? If you look at the numbers you will see it. Over 90% of our media outlets are owned by 6 corporations. How does that translate to being liberal? I just don't think you have done the research to make an educated or informed decision. But, if you did that, you'd have a much harder time sleeping at night like I do...

Bill's Waste of Air said...

Now Tammy, Matt, Mick, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!!
I don't want this getting personal.

Of course I CAN.

It's my blog.

So, stop, cease and desist.

As to your points Matt, here is why I am okay with GWB's invasion of Iraq: If you got the power, use it.

We are the strongest nation in the world and NO ONE can tell us what to do, and NO ONE can bully us.
So, kick their butts is what I say.
And that is why we invaded. It wasn't oil, it wasn't Osama, it was pure out KICK SOME **S AND TAKE NO PRISONERS Boorah!
If someone had done that in 1933 we wouldn't have had WWII, or in 1916 we wouldn't have had Communism, in 1858 we wouldn't have had a secession of states.
PREEMPTIVE strikes are at time needed by courageous and powerful nations.
Maybe someday, someone will do it to us. Law of nature, the strong will survive.

Tammy Bowers said...

Bill,
My response to Matt was not a personal attack at all. I was simply stating why I don't think the media is fair to the right. He disagrees. No sweat off my back.

The Blunt Matt said...

Ya, sorry if I sounded like I was getting personal. I am enjoying the discourse! I also promised to keep myself in check or face your wrath.

Anyway, I subscribe to Foreign Affairs magazine and an article appeared before the invasion with their thoughts on why we were going to do it. I'll lay them out for you...

1) Saddam was engaged in negotiations to sell his oil to Russia, France, and Germany based on the Euro and not the dollar. If you aren't familiar, we allow OPEC to exist since they've agreed to use the US dollar as the preferred currency to purchase their oil. That means much investment in America to get those dollars. If everyone follows suit, our economy is much worse off than it is now.

2) There is no need for Saddam to exist. Osama is the bad guy now and we've declared an unwinnable war on an ideology i.e. terrorism. Isabella's plan included having a common enemy to scare the people into following your orders. We don't need two bad guys, just one, and Osama is the perfect justification for a continuous "War on Terror". Even though only one country in the history of the World Court has ever been convicted of terrorost activities. That's right! The good ol' U S of A!! In 1886 in case you want to look it up...

3) Iraq has roughly 60 known oil fields and only 20 are producing consistently. That's a lot of oil left in the ground for us to help ourselves to...

4) A successful nation needs to be in a constant state of war for the economy to do well and prosper. It encourages innovation, production, and reinvestment in capital. It keeps the defense budget strong and thriving...

As I mentioned before, I only want to help educate people when they speak of these things. We are the biggest guy on the block, but do we have to be the neighborhood bully? What purpose does that serve? What would Jesus think of such behavior? Nobody was pushing us around, Saddam was of no threat to us.

As for the liberal media, it does not exist. Every study ever done to prove those words has come to the same conclusion: writers tend to be more liberal, but out of fear of looking so, they often try too hard to be balanced. Editors do not publish any news story that comes in. They filter it and publish what their advertisers feel comfortable with. You can read anything by Bob McChesney or, gulp, Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky. I am always curious to know what people read that lead them to their conclusions...

Lastly, I am a business owner so I vote Republican purely for financial reasons. I'm not rich, but I also don't want Obama raising my taxes because I fall into that upper bracket. So, I apologize if I seemed personal, but I was simply curious as to how anyone thinks Bush was right...

The Blunt Matt said...

Oops! That's 1986 with the World Court conviction...

The Blunt Matt said...

I'm still awaiting my answer as for how the media is liberal. I'm dying to see the facts and research that back up the claims. Anyone? Please?