Friday, April 16, 2010

Bill Clinton Illustrates The Hypocrisy Of The Left

H/T to Tim at LCR

In an article in the New York Times from yesterday, Bill Clinton likens the Tea Party movement to Timothy McVey and the Oklahoma City Bombing. An except from the speech:

“There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, “were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.”

Really Bill? I bet you didn't feel that way about The Weather Underground, SDS, SNCC, The Black Panthers, etc. In fact, you were probably with your fellow proletariat in those movements. What hypocrisy.

I condemn what Timothy McVey did, but truth be told, we still don't know the whole story behind that as Nichols isn't talking and neither is our government. Tying what McVey did to the Tea Party is not a proven arguent. In fact, I would say it is an a priori argument that is political in nature to support the increasingly fabian nature of Obama's agenda. They know that they cannot roll over us with force like their compatriots Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, so they figure they better try guilt and shame first. Sorry Bill, we aren't buying it.

And while I am at it, Shame on Bill and the New York Times for printing such propaganda (said in the vernacular of Frank from Queens). At this point, it's obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt who and what the fourth branch of government is: The Main Stream Media. Josef Goebbels would be proud of how Obama has co-opted the press in the country, and he has done so without any threat to them at all. In fact, for the most part, the MSM is in total agreement. That makes everything so much easier.

Michelle Bachmann, the other beauty from the north, rebuts Mr. Clinton:

In her remarks Thursday, Ms. Bachmann made light of the suggestion that antigovernment activists were angry.

“You look happy to me, you don’t look angry,” she told the crowd. “That’s because you get it. You are smart enough to get off your couch and do something.”

The Article Continues:

Mr. Clinton said his intent was not to stifle debate or muzzle critics of the government but to encourage them to consider what repercussions could follow. He acknowledged that drawing the line between acceptable discourse and that which goes too far is difficult but that lawmakers and other officials should try.

“Have at it,” he said. “You can attack the politics. Criticize their policies. Don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”

Mr. Clinton, who is carrying the gun here? Is it the Tea Party, or the government? So what measures should lawmakers try? Hate speech laws like Canada and Germany? Just try it.

Right now, the dems have driven themselves over the cliff and they are looking for someone to blame other than themselves. Note to Bill, The New York Times and the rest of the MSM:

Look in the mirror. Your ideas, agenda and propaganda are so out of touch with what the american people believe and it is that which put you where you are, going over a cliff. Take responsibility for your own bad ideas and bad actions. The Tea Party had nothing to do with your choices in life, but only illustrate how out of touch and utterly ridiculous you are.

November is coming and pay back is a bitch.

Thank you for reading this blog.


Anonymous said...

"November is coming and pay back is a bitch."

Sounds like the name for a great song, Right Guy.

And to think that I technically voted for this asshat back in '92. My vote went to Ross Perot. I learned my lesson though, which is why I would not vote for a third party candidate on the national, or statewide level.

The Right Guy said...

Would you vote for a third party if they polled higher than the GOP or the dems?

Anonymous said...

They would have to poll high... very, very high, with lots of coverage and endorsements from the new media, before I would consider. I suppose some would say that isn't thinking for yourself, but it actually is. Perot polled pretty high, and look what happened. I don't think that is going to happen though. Libertarian Party has been around for almost forty years, and they haven't done much in terms of national elections. Local elections, maybe, but not for federal government. And I don't think there is going to be a TEA Party or Independent Party with tea party types as a base, on the ballot. With as many tea party people as there are, I don't think anyone aside from the left is going to want to screw this election up by voting for name recognition.

The Right Guy said...

I think if Palin had wanted it, she could have done with the Tea Party, but chose not to. In the 19th century, we had all sorts of parties, and Lincoln was the first republican to win. For some reason today, it's heresy to consider something different. How things have changed.

You also might like:

Related Posts with Thumbnails