Showing posts with label crybabies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crybabies. Show all posts

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Crybabies or overly sensitive people??

A Foxnews video about the biggest crybabies at the White House is what spurred me to think about Alldeaf, DeafTV, audism, racism and including what Barry said over at his Holism blogsite.

Recently I decided to play the devil's advocate in Alldeaf where I essentially asked the question whether saying "I'm proud to white" would be any different than saying "I'm proud to be black" or any other ethnic background one could be proud of. Since Alldeaf is overwhelmingly a liberal forum with at least one liberal moderator who actually thought that a photo of a cat dressed up as an al Qaeda suicide bomber pictured in the jokes section of Alldeaf was considered as an "offensive" photo. No, I'm serious. Laugh if you will but that's how lame it was. But back to the devil's advocate position I took. I went out there and said "I'm proud to be white." Now, to a liberal they'd find it horrifying since it would bring all kinds of connotations though what I said had nothing to do with white pride like the KKK, skinheads and such. Yet at the same time avoided the question on why it's ok for others to say "I'm proud to be black"? It was a honest question. Hard hitting but honest. I was questioning the double standards. I also asked them whether if they are proud to be white as well? As expected, they evaded the question saying it didn't matter. Or one would say he is proud of one's heritage or ethnicity but at the same time blurt out that it doesn't mean that he is ashamed for being white, either.

Okayyy. They won't say it. Pretty obvious at that.

Say anything else for fear of getting labeled as a "racist," which is ridiculous in it's own right. Even though there's a good chance that for a white or black person to have other ethnic blood (Indian, European, African American, Asian, etc) in him though diluted with each passing generation. AD members began to joke and say, "I'm proud to be a mutt" but the irony is that Alldeaf banned me for a day for using the word "mulatto" to describe Obama as the "first mulatto president," a president of mixed black and white heritage. Entirely acceptable when there is even a mulatto.org group that pride themselves as mulutto people and see Obama as an example of that.

Trust me, it gets surreal in there. Like having a hearing mother make a claim that her profoundly deaf son with a hearing aid can talk and listen over the phone with anybody with ease in an attempt to save face and credibility.
And so by asking the hard question about "I'm proud to be white," I get banned again for "Trolling; Provoking; Enticing; Racism." Bottom line, Alldeaf is essentially calling me a racist for asking the tough questions. They used a coward approach by implying that I am a racist as one of the reason for being banned. Remember what Barry said over at Holism about DeafTV, audism and racism? Or perhaps Krauthammer said it best about using the "racist" charge:
"The accusation of racism is a sign of desperation by people who know they are losing the national debate and they want to hurl the ultimate charge in American politics."
It gets old. You can actually see desperation unfolds when people do that.

Now, are they crybabies? Limp-wristed, overly sensitive people? What do you think? If they ban words like "Deafreedom" in your Personal Message or find a picture of a dressed up cat as a suicide bomber as being "offensive" in the jokes section, no less, then certainly we're dealing with a few loose screws. Kind of like hearing through the filter the den of screams of anguish with the gnashing of the teeth over DeafTV by people who are basically accusing the Deaf owner of DeafTV of "audism" for not defending against "audism" which is equally amusing though I have no interest in the whole affairs anway.

Though it does get old. It becomes an indefensibly and intellectually dishonest approach.

Sensitive people need to suck it up. And argue on the merit itself rather than the route of feigned or mock outrage, and continued ad hominem attacks which a 7 year kid can do that.

It does get old.

I'll be back to ask the hard questions once again as I descend into the voids of liberal thinking tomorrow. A little challenge doesn't hurt anybody, except for the really sensitive ones.

Chris Wallace: "Biggest bunch of crybabies in Washington"

Here's a bit of palate cleanser from a well known news anchor who worked at one time for NBC now works for Foxnews describes how he has to deal with a bunch of crybabies at the White House.




Transcript (below) and captioning via Overstream courtesy of Kokonut Pundit.

Wallace:
When I covered Ronald Reagan for NBC in the 80s, you know some days you do a good piece, passive piece, and then you do a tough piece. And then you come in the next day and they always treated you professionally, I think it came from the top down from the old man, Reagan who felt, you know, I'm gonna get a good review today or a bad review tomorrow, nothing personally. These guys everything is personal. I gotta tell you, everything. They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.

*O'Reilly interjects..unclear.

They're constantly on the phone, emailing me complaining. Well, you have this desk. Or, you did this, this thing. I mean, they are working the, um, I think it works with the others but it doesn't work with me.



Hmmm, crybabies? Sounds about right.

UPDATE: Hmm, the "famous" Mike Malloy has a blog piece with a link that connects to my piece here. Let me say "thank you" but I can't let this one go on what's he's said which is loaded with conspiracy theories worthy of 9/11 Truthers' nod.

Gee Chris, I wonder why Obama refuses to join the “fair and balanced” fantasy with you freaks? You questioned the legitimacy of his Presidency and now call him a crybaby? You dangerous idiots set the tone, organizing anti-Obama rallies and tea-bag parties all over the place; you urged parents to keep their children home from school lest they be mesmerized into zombies by Obama’s scary mind-control speech about working hard and studying in school; you encouraged your brain-damaged Fox “News” viewers to arm up and go to battle to fight the Big Evil in the White House. And, those are just the obvious assaults on rationality.
Assault on rationality? Oh, really? Why is it rational that the current running deficit of approximately $2 trillion dollars which is nearly quintuple (that means 5 times) the amount of Bush's own deficit at the end of 2008? But Obama did all this in an amazing, toilet flushing 6 months time, instead.

Why is it rational to add more govt programs and contribute more to the convuluting mess already? And the fact we don't have the money?

Why is it rational to include the extra 12 million (or however many millions we have) of illegal aliens under the auspice of a national health care program by making them "legal aliens" in one fell swoop? Where's the money? Where will the doctors come from? The question comes into play for the 40 million Americans as well.

Why is it rational to not call it a tax but a "fine" on Americans who do not want health care yet when tax is clearly defined as a charge imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.


STEPHANOPOULOS: Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

***

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase…

***

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.
Who would rather bet on? Webster or Obama?

Zombies?? Ah, you must mean these guys. Had it been anywhere near that nutty with the current protesters who are for limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense you'd see the MSM having a field day reporting these protesters on getting arrested and hauled off by Secret Service to investigate their threatening signs against a president.

Looks like Chris Wallace is right about the crybaby bit. Don't you know already that ACORN supports pimps, drug-addicts, prostitutes, and commie terrorists?

A "sample of sanity" you say? Seriously, I gotta wonder.