Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Palin Exposé Exposes Liberal Sexism, Racism

Liberals love to think everyone else is a bigot. We’re all sexist, racist, ageist, you-name-it-ists. Only they are enlightened because they don’t partake in such evil. . . except they do. In fact, they are the biggest purveyors of it. The latest proof comes from the book about Sarah Palin.

For those who don’t know, a weirdo with a Palin obsession just wrote a book about Sarah Palin. I won’t bother giving his name or the title of the “book,” because he’s not really relevant. . . even to his mom. This “book” is a collection of obviously false rumors strung together to excite liberals. What kind of rumors you ask?

How about this. Weirdo claims Palin snorted cocaine off an oil drum. I like the oil drum, that’s a nice touch guaranteed to get liberals all excited. But the creativity of the rumor aside, this is pure hypocrisy. See, liberals don’t actually mind people doing coke. Nope. Clinton did pot plus. Obama did coke. Marion Barry did (does?) crack. And yet, they’re all happy figures within the liberal pantheon. Since this isn't any worse than conduct liberals already routinely dismiss, how can they attack Palin for doing coke? Easy, they hate Palin. She could do charity and they would attack her for it. By the way, I heard Obama snorted coke out of George Soros’s ass! True story.

Anyways, you’re here to see the liberal sexism and racism in action, not just to be entertained by the creative drug use of our first homosexual president and his Nazi-sympathizer friends. So let’s move on to the “big” allegations: did you know that Palin slept with a basketball player? Oh the horror! And her husband’s business partner! And now Mike Tyson claims she slept with him too. . . between prison stints. Oh my. How could anyone vote for her?

Ok, let’s take this in parts. First, why does it matter if she slept around? The left is all about sleeping around. They’ve been encouraging that since they all gave each other herpes at Haight and Ashbury. Bill Clinton fooled around and liberals said it was Bill being Bill. John Edwards fooled around, lied around and bribed around. Al Gore raped around. The Kennedys fooled around, raped around and killed their dates around, etc. etc. And yet these are liberal icons. In fact, a huge number of liberal males have fooled around and that apparently only adds to their charm among liberals. So how can this allegation excite liberals?

Well, liberals hold conservatives to a higher standard. They think nothing of attacking conservatives for things they do themselves -- that’s how liberals maintain the delusion that they’re better than everyone else. But even that doesn’t fully explain it. The truth is that liberals hold conservative women to an even higher standard than they hold conservatives generally. In their little world, conservative women better live like nuns or they deserve to be attacked for their behavior. Hence, the idea that a liberal man can be attacked for sleeping around is a non sequitur to them, but they happily consider it a high crime for conservative women. Why do they apply this higher standard? Because they’re sexist. What else do you call it when you selectively apply a moral standard only to women?

Moreover, the two ways liberals attack conservative women are the exact ways feminists always said it was improper to treat women. For as long as I can remember, feminists claimed that it is sexist to suggest that any woman is not "independent." They also particularly bristled at anything that suggested women are sex objects. Yet, when liberals attack conservative women, the most common lines of attack are (1) to assert that these women are mindless, stupid drones who slept their way to the top and are dependent on their husbands for their success, and (2) to attack their looks, the way they dress, and their sex lives. That's exactly what this book does, and that's sexism.

But there’s something even worse going on here. These allegations aren’t just about fooling around, they’re about fooling around with black men. Indeed, that seems to be the real “strength” of these allegations in liberal circles. Now think about that. This allegation is meant to demean her. Or, said differently, the allegation that she slept with black men is meant to demean her. If I said to you, “it is demeaning for a white woman to sleep with a black man,” you would call me racist. . . and yet, that’s what this allegation is: “Sarah Palin demeaned herself by sleeping with black men.” Nice, huh? That’s pure racism right there.

And before anybody suggests that not all liberals believe this because even the New York Times, the mouthpiece of dippy, hateful liberalism “defended” Palin against this book. Let me point something out. They didn’t say these allegations were racist or sexist and have no place in politics -- something they certainly would have screamed if a conservative had alleged this against Hillary. Nope. Instead, they criticized the book because it was sloppy, its allegations were not substantiated and this was a missed opportunity. There has been no condemnation of the nature of the attacks on Palin, there has only been an attack on weirdo’s failure to do a better job proving them.

By now, the evidence is overwhelming that liberals are sexist and racist to their cores. This is just the latest example. And if liberals were even 1% self-aware then they would see this. Of course, if they were even 1% self-aware, then they wouldn’t be liberals.

48 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

Liberals do hold conservative standards, no question about it. I think those that do fall into two camps 1) those that are fully aware of the hypocricy, and are strictly doing hardball mud sling politics where the end justifies the means, or 2) those who believe the talking out of both sides of their mouth is justified because it is conservatives, particularly social conservative Christians, who try and claim they own "family values."

Anyway you cut it, moral highground "applies to thee; not to me."

Tennessee Jed said...

"to higher standards" in first sentence.

T-Rav said...

To play devil's advocate, I guess it could be argued that liberals object to conservatives doing liberal stuff because it's hypocritical to denounce such actions publicly and indulge of them privately, with which I concur. But then liberals love such behavior, so I don't know why they would denounce conservatives for it, unless they were in fact only concerned with scoring political points. Ah, screw it, they're idiots anyway.

DUQ said...

Andrew, I'm glad you're defending Palin on this. I don't like her, but this kind of attack is ridiculous and really highlights what why we need to push back on everything liberals do to attack our side.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I agree with your breakdown, except let me add something to the second group -- I don't think they see themselves as being hypocritical. They only see the other side as hypocritical. This is the most common type of liberal I've met. They feel free to attack people they don't like for things they would never hold against themselves or people they like and they truly don't see the contradiction because they always say "that's different." It's like a self-delusional cure all. And if you ask them how it's different, they come up with something -- it's always a stretch, but it's enough for them to them to think they aren't being hypocritical.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Let me add, the other thing they do is look at their own mental version of "intent." Thus, when a liberal tells a racist joke, they aren't being racist because they are liberals "and I know they aren't racist." But a conservative will be presumed to be racist, thus no matter what the conservative say -- joke or objection to the joke -- they will be judged racist.

It's a form of circular thinking that lets liberals always arrive at the conclusion they want to reach: conservatives are racist, thus whatever the conservative did is motivated by racism, thereby proving that conservatives are racists. On the other hand, liberals aren't racist, therefore a racist joke was not meant to be racist, ergo liberals are not racist.

I've seen that "logic" applied a million times by liberals. It's all a way to avoid unpleasant realities and they genuinely believe this.

AndrewPrice said...

Devil's Advocate T-Rav, That's the point exactly, that it makes no sense for them to denounce conservatives for doing the very things they otherwise condone.

It would be like owning a steakhouse and then denouncing your competitor for eating beef. It's nonsense unless you understand that they are simply looking for something to attack with and they don't care about the hypocrisy and they don't think things through.

And what they choose to attack with is what is interesting. What they've shown here is that liberals think sexist and racist attacks are valid attacks. Hence, they are showing ingrained sexism and racism here. And as you know, this is hardly the first time -- such attacks are common from liberals.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, It doesn't matter if this is Palin or someone else, the point is the kind of attacks liberals are making and accepting here. That's what needs to be exposed. We need to stop giving liberals a free shot every time they want one.

Tennessee Jed said...

agreed, Andrew. It is actually pretty much of the same phenomenon, perhaps described somewhat differently. If I had a dollar for every tim I've heard "that's different" from a liberal, I'd be a wealthy man.

As far as the "intent" rule, I agree although I've seen that from people on both sides. I think a lot of people tend to take the very worst stereotype from the margins of each side of the political spectrum and project those same characteristics and motivations to all members of the opposing party. Thus some will think 'all liberals "hate" the rich, and all conservatives want to "starve" the poor.' Both are, on their face, absurd, yet I surely am more attuned to noticing it in liberals.

A great example of camp #1, I thought, was during Limbaugh's show yesterday in what was a very good segment. Obama saying we have only two choices 1) gut/destroy medical research or raise taxes on the most fortunate among us, blah, blah, blah. We KNOW he can't be so stupid as to actually believe the strawman limitations on available options so he is clearly doing a classically pure liberal class warfare demagogue riff.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal. And as you've pointed out, Palin seems to stir something in the liberal hypocritical soul that only Michelle Bachmann can approach. Their jibes at Perry are almost comical, but their attacks on female conservatives are inordinately vicious, sexist and created wholly out of the dirty minds of people looking for their fifteen minutes of fame.

BTW: I did not get Herpes during my time in the Haight-Ashbury. But I did get--uh--never mind. It's part of the explanation for why I'm not a left-wing radical anymore. LOL

Writer X said...

It's interesting that the Suskind book and the Palin book are being published at the same time. Of course, according to liberals, everything in the Suskind book is false (despite the supposed existence of tapes) while everything in the Palin book is bankable truth. Yeah, right.

Mike Tyson is now getting into the act? Yeah, that's believable.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I agree on all points. First, I have seen some conservatives make similarly flawed arguments and wrongly assume that all liberals think alike.

That said, I see this MUCH more in liberals, and I think the reason is they receive no opposition in the culture -- the MSM, Hollywood, etc. all spew out liberalism. So it's very easy for them to wrongly think that everyone agrees with them. Conservatives can't fall into that, thus they are less likely to think that everyone thinks the same. But you will still see that among conservatives where they wrongly assume that all liberals are alike.

On the Obama point, right, clearly that's pure rhetoric and demagoguery. He's not that stupid. But he's creating a marketing point. By giving only these two options, he lets liberals work each other up with the idea that it's either or without anyone getting distracted by the idea that there are other things to cut. And by using this as a comparison to the rich, he makes it sound like rich people are trying to deprive you good liberals of your health care.

Finally, yeah I can't tell you how many times I've heard "that's different" -- and always without justification or explanation.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, If you get the chance, check out this article that I put up while you were out golfing with Spike Lee.

Liberal Delusions

I think you will find it interesting.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I think it's obvious to all conservatives at this point that liberals just go insane when they run into conservative women or conservative black or conservative anyone else they assume must be liberals.

One of the first truly nasty attacks on a conservative woman that I recall was on Jean Kirkpatrick, with liberals everywhere suggesting she was a lesbian because of her looks -- yet, at the same time, they were telling people there's nothing wrong with being a lesbian... unless you're Jean Kirkpatrick.

Thatcher, Nancy Reagan, Palin, Bachmann, Clarence Thomas, etc.... each of them have incensed liberals by their very existence.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, It is interesting to see the comparison, isn't it? They have poured over the Suskin book and written lengthy articles attacking the book for even the smallest of typographical errors. Yet, the Palin book, nope they've pretty much accepted it as true, they're just upset they didn't get more documentation.

Yeah, Mike Tyson has tried to get himself noticed in this. He needs to go away.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X,

The Post is reporting that they got to listen to some of the Suskin tapes, so there are tapes.

Also, Anita Dunn is now saying her quote was "taken out of context." A few days ago she was claiming she never said it.

Here's the link: Post

Ed said...

Excellent article Andrew, though the George Soros image will give me nightmares for weeks. Lol!

I think you hit the nail on the head. There is implied racism and sexism in their attacks. But they don't see it because they don't believe they're racist, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

Ed said...

Also, Issa has announced an investigation of Solyndra and Lightsquared! The scandals are starting to pile up fast around here!

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ed! Yeah, sorry about the Soros thing, but it seemed true when I made it up, so I ran with it... just like a liberal! ;-)

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, Excellent! Let's hope Issa strikes gold! Lightsquared in particular bothers me and I think will be a huge problem for Obama because there's now a second witness who says they were ordered to change their testimony to be more favorable to the Democratic donor.

By the way, Paul Ryan just referred to Obama's economic plans as "Solydra Economics." Nice!

LawHawkRFD said...

As I mentioned on Monday (Green Weenies Headed for Jail?), "as part of the deal for the infusion of taxpayer money, the taxpayers position was subordinated to that of Kaiser in the event of a company failure." Fox and a couple of other news outlets have finally picked up on that little jewel. Issa has said that the subordination of the taxpayers' interest to that of the preferred shareholders (Kaiser in particular) may be an intentional violation of law, and will be part of his investigation.

rlaWTX said...

~~~Paul Ryan is dreamy... ~~~

OH, as for liberals - T-Rav hit it on the head, they are idiots. They are contradictory, self-serving, hypocritical idiots that generally defy explanation...

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, The blatantness of it all shocks me. Clearly, Obama thought he would have a free pass as long as he controlled DOJ and the Democrats control Congress. Sadly for him, he no longer controls Congress and they lost control over the MSM years ago. Now all we need is a new White House occupant who is willing to hand out indictments for these crimes. Come on November 2012!

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, LOL! I think a LOT of conservatives would agree with you about Ryan. I really, really, really wish he had run for President.

Yeah, liberals are idiots. That's why think they can tax their way to prosperity and spend their way out of debt. Idiots. Unfortunately, they're also vicious idiots who love to destroy their enemies. And sadly, they are also allowed to vote. We need to change that.

Anonymous said...

I don't like Palin, but I agree this is unfair and shameful.

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, As you say, you don't really have to like Palin to see that this is pretty shameful stuff.

BevfromNYC said...

I agree with everything. It's the whole racist/sexist megillah wrapped up in one ugly Liberal package. But I think Palin can take it. She is such a lightening rod for Libs, it's amazing. Whenever they post an article about Palin on HuffPo it's like throwing blood-soaked animal carcass into a river of piranhas! But she hasn't back down and she just keeps on going.

But I theorize that conservatives set a high standard of behavior for themselves and especially others. A standard that is almost impossible to maintain as humans. Liberals have no standards or such low standards so they never reach the leval of personal/moral/ethical failure because there's no bar/line/level/standard from which to judge.

No line, then no line to cross. Can't be a hypocrite if you never say I will never do [fill in the blank].

Anonymous said...

These people will even eat their own kind. Who was it that ran against Captain O. in the primaries?

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I'm glad you agree.

You make an interesting point (if I am interpreting you correctly) that conservatives may be partially at fault here because we set impossible standards and then we get upset when our people don't meet them. But liberals set no standards so they don't get upset when their own people do the things we attack our own about.

That would mean that liberals are essentially tweaking us with our own standards but then laughing off our demands that they hold their own people to similar standards. That makes liberals hypocrites (for using a standard they don't believe in just to go after us) and us suckers (for falling for it). Hmm.

I agree about Palin, she seems to thrive on the attention -- good or bad -- and hence, all of their attacks have fallen flat.

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, Good point. If you lose as a liberal, then you are finished. They disavow their failures.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - That is exactly what I mean. They flog us with our own high standard failures and, yes, we are suckers for letting them. But I'd rather see a politician fail to reach a high standard than one with no standards at all.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I agree. I think we need to keep holding our people to a high standard.

That said, I would like to see a stronger push to hold them to the same standard. I really don't like the idea of giving them a free ride.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

This book does more for Palin than against her. It is so over the top that people will take a new look at her.

Your argument is right on that the liberals are hypocrites. Taken from another angle, it is perfectly in character since Palin is their mortal enemy and the use of any means, fair and unfair, is morally justified.

Hopefully, you understand that I am not defending this latest piece of excrement vomited up from the deep vaults of liberal hatred.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Don't worry, I understand you. And I think you're right. The biggest mistake you can make when you're attacking someone is to go too far and to make an attack that strikes people as unfair. Not only do people reject that argument, but they begin to question everything else you've argued up to that point.

The allegations in this book are obviously false and they are incredibly unfair. And making this kind of attack will only do exactly what you say -- it will get people to re-examine the prior attacks as well.

This was a huge mistake for liberals.

(Though the author will probably make a fortune because controversy sells.)

I think you're right too that the liberal code says "by any means necessary" when it comes to defeating their enemies and they see nothing as out of bounds or off limits. . . except when it comes to them.

Ed said...

Andrew and Joel, I think you're right, I think this helps Palin because it makes her seem like a victim of an out of control rumor monger.

StanH said...

The cognitive dissonance of liberals is so profound that the kinetic energy from the opposing points of view could generate enough power to light every house in the 57th state, err…teepee in the 57th state, that’s better.

I for one like Palin a lot, anyone who can agitate liberals as she does, is okay in my book. Sadly many people have purchased the liberal narrative, hook, line, and sinker, not cool. She is a fearless purveyor of conservative ideals, and I don’t mean who you sleep with, or your choice of poison, have at it, it’s none of my business. I’m talking about self reliance, and pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. Entering the arena of ideas daily jousting with the entire ruling class, that’s cool to me. I don’t even care that she’s getting rich as some say, I don’t know. My two cents worth.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I agree. Let me also add, not only does she look like a victim of an out-of-control rumor monger... she is. This was purely a hit piece.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I'm not a big fan of Palin, but I agree entirely that people were way too quick to buy into the liberal smears. That's something conservatives need to stop doing. We tend to shoot our own candidates at the first hint of a liberal smear.

And you're right that Palin has been doing a good job of annoying all the right people!

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I will say that on stuff like calling Kirkpatrick a lesbian just because of how she looks, that is obviously hypocritical in the extreme and says a lot about the mindsets of the people spewing such crap.

By the way, with regard to the Tyson thing, did anyone happen to watch Greta Van Susteren on Fox last night? She interviewed The Daily Caller's Tucker Carlson, who put up an article about the interview over the weekend, but didn't really add any negative commentary of his own. Greta proceeded to say Tucker was implicitly condoning Tyson's comments as a result and that he was lying when he said he wasn't, then he replied that she'd been taking it easy on Tyson in her own interviews, and then it got really personal. It's not that important, and really kind of juvenile, but I just mentioned it because it was surprising to see the two of them just tearing into each other like this, and I'm still not really sure why.

rlaWTX said...

awesome, Stan: "The cognitive dissonance of liberals is so profound that the kinetic energy from the opposing points of view could generate enough power to light every house in the 57th state, err…teepee in the 57th state, that’s better."

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I think van Susteren was offended by the words Tyson used, first and foremost -- he was a real ass in what he said (in addition to obviously being a liar). And then Carlson repeated the slander without criticism even using Tyson's words. And when he was called on it, he hid behind the "I'm just repeating what was said" line that muckrackers always use. So I can't say she was wrong in calling him out.

I'm not sure if there is more to the feud or not, but it wouldn't surprise me.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, That's one of the great things about our audiences -- they always come up with something great! :-)

StanH said...

Thanks riaTexas, it just blurted out.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I have no idea what the history between them is. I know Daily Caller has caught some criticism before for acting too much like a gossip column, but on the other hand I can't imagine Carlson or anyone else there approving of what was said in that interview. Personally, I think it's likely he was just putting it up and was letting the words speak for themselves. But then I've been busy lately and haven't had time to read the article or even watch/read the interview itself, so I won't stand by that statement.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, It blurted well! I especially love the teepee.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I didn't see the interview itself, but from what I've read, I think what upset her was that Carlson just ran with it when he should have used some editorial discretion to treat it differently.

My understanding is that he basically ran it without even pointing out that it's 100% likely its pure slander. I think that's what she was upset about.

If there's more to it, that I don't know.

T-Rav said...

Interestingly, NBC is leading off tonight with stories about discord and deception among Obama's team. They mentioned the statement by the WH that they were only compromising with Boehner out of necessity, and quoted passages from Suskind's new book where staffers were saying to each other, "There's no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes."

None of this is anything we don't already know, of course; I mention it, though, because it indicates that the media has, finally, begun to jump ship on Obama. Hmmm.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, As they used to say, if you've lost the New York Times then you've lost the daffy liberal world. If they've lost NBC, that's a very bad sign. And while I wouldn't say they've "lost" them yet, they certainly no longer enjoy the full protections they were getting for so long -- especially as far as Obama appearing weak compared to the Republicans is concerned.

I think liberals have decided that they need to call Obama out every time he starts to compromise.
The ironic thing about that though, is that while they will no doubt be hoping to get Obama to jump to the left and show some courage, the real effect will be to turn off liberals and depress their turn out.

Post a Comment