Wow. I haven't visited the deck in awhile. This was one of the most entertaining and refreshing interviews I've seen in awhile. This could be analyzed on so many levels. But I agree, AC did a stand up job at calling out this moveon.nut for what he really was.
CNN ratings have almost dragged bottom with the Piers Morgan disaster. Maybe if AC keeps this up, they can regain some credibility for journalism.
It is sad that catch phrases like "war on women," even get designed, then disseminated and repeated often enough, that thinking people begin to not question how they are being manipulated into actually believing it. It is beyond belief to assert, that a political party (any party) by design would target half the population, to systematically cause that single gender harm in any rational way.
If in fact the country for the last two elections has shown that the American public is split ideologically between liberal democrat thinking and conservative republican thinking, then one half of each side is comprised of women. The conservative women I know do not say anything about a war against them. It's ludicrous—and another far reaching exaggeration of fact. I'm asked to believe with this logic, that the GOP is made up entirely of white men who have it out for squashing women's rights. Nonsense. As AC points out, with that logic then so Barack Obama also has a war on women. If you want to see a war on women, check out the middle east, or China for that matter.
Most thinking people can see through this catch phrase marketing for what it is. A baseless diversion away from the core facts that the hope and change agenda lacked substance and quantifiable experience and we are seeing the results of tax and spend just like we always have. $5 trillion in debt and nothing to show for it. No jobs, no plans that work. Just spending. Or a president who actually expanded the war in Afghanistan and personally picks the targets for drone hits. Could Bush have gotten away with this? He has not spent $5 trillion 3 years after leaving the WH. No that would be the last democrat congress.
This country is run by women ...and men. I had women bosses for 20 years in corporations and most always directly-reported to a woman. They were smart and paid handsomely. However I find it uncomfortable to even speak in terms of group classifications like "women" or "African Americans" that the left is so comfortable with. They have made this idea OKAY and it is really not okay. Individuals don't tend to count anymore. Why is that? It has to be a group. I find it derisive to speak in terms of working for a classified group name. I would never
say I worked for Gay men or African Americans for 20 years. I have a theory about this and why the liberal left has successfully made this behavior okay for so many years.
Here's the simple formula:
— Create Victims (real or imagined)
— Rescue Victims (real or imagined)
— Become a Hero through dependency (also see Pavlov's dogs and behavioral reward) By dependency, I of course mean some sort of government dole. Because once you start accepting it, human nature says you will never voluntarily stop. If I promise to give you food assistance until you get on your feet, say $200 a week, you look at me like, sure you're the government, you can afford it. Then things do get better and you don't technically need the assistance anymore, but you know the government is overworked and probably won't track you down to check, do you make the call, or just justify it like I deserve it, my people deserve it, they have the money, I feel a little guilty, maybe next month, I'm still catching up... Multiplied by say 25 million that might not technically need the assistance, but it's too difficult to track and it's ...Houston, we have a problem.
On the Barack Obama
website, here is a sitting president who actually panders to groups, the more the merrier! The main navigation contains prominent links (called "Groups") which is perfectly fine with segregating and pandering to swaths of designated groups.
So much easier to pander to groups who self-identify as "special" and by extension, are victims of... something... from which to be rescued.
This is remarkable (not surprising, but remarkable). Talk about herding the sheep.
They are not even trying to create a uniting theme for all Americans. This is just saying segregate yourselves as Groups! But unite around me, Barack Obama at all costs. I think I'm safe in suggesting that in the history that I can remember in my lifetime, no president has ever done anything like this. And oh, to be in that exalted club! Like Steve Martin in "The Jerk" screamed when the phone books came out... I am somebody!! But if you miss the group list, well that's just too bad. You really aren't in the club.
Every conceivable (voting block) group is represented, starting alphabetically with:
• African Americans
• Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders
• BarackObama.com en Español
(creating an in-language experience for Latinos)
• Jewish Americans
(not Jewish Faith and not Muslim Americans... sic, or Buddhist Americans)
(but not Latino Americans)
• LGBT Americans
[a.k.a. Obama Pride] (but not the newer uber-lib LGBTQ for queer curious)
(but not Doctors)
• People of Faith
(but not Americans of Faith, and not Jewish)
• Veterans & Military Families
(but not Law Enforcement)
• Women (but not Men)
• Young Americans
(but not OWS or Obama-Youth which would be too similar sounding to...well, you know)
The original Americans, Native American Indians
did not make the list—and they were colonized by the imperialistic white colonists from Europe! so BO is really missing an opportunity there.
You will also note another GIGANTIC block is missing. Seniors. Is that because maybe they are too smart to be herded easily? Every day 10,000 boomers turn 65 and will continue to do so for the next 16 years. Maybe his young staffers, like the kids that wrote the 2700 page affordable health care act, figure that seniors can't use the internet, so why bother calling them a group? Curious though.
See why I call it pandering to groups? They will all clearly be rescued though, because they've been designated! What I don't get is (a) why people see themselves as members and (b) why they don't see themselves as being blatantly manipulated in the most insulting way to their intelligence? All you nurses, stand in line over here, no no, not female doctors, you have a separate but equal line... African Americans over here, no, no not Nigerian Americans, those with accents have to go over here silly...LGBT Americans, you have to do your own sorting out, but only LBGT Americans! any French or Australians won't be tolerated in this group, so don't get all that