Very last bit of first clip and beginning of the second, please:-
Oh, the fantasies of arrogance amongst white privilegists!
The thing, it seems, which enrages Progressives most about the President the fact that, you know, he doesn't stop everything at once and legalise pot. Yes, with a Republican House and a slim majority of Democrats in the Senate. Better yet, why doesn't he use that old fiat, the Executive Order?
It seems to me the mischief-making ignorati of the Left have to have some stick with which to beat this President, so why not the pot issue?
Watch the end of the first clip and the beginning of the second.
So Bill's now regretting his million-dollar contribution? What does he think will be achieved under a President Romney and a Republican Congress?
But what angers me the most about this incident is that it's so indicative of the arrogance and patronising assumptions of those morally superior "Progressives" who inhabit the Left Coast and the Northeastern Coast of the United States - the same types who reckon all Southerners and Midwesterners are beyond redemption because they're either gun-greedy survivalists or shit-kicking, toothless inbreds from Deliveranceland.
Eric Klininberg, with the sort of authority only a white, wealthy, coccooned-in-academia self-proclaimed Progressive would possess, warns that "the base" will rebel against the President and not vote because of this failure to legalise pot.
The base?
Please. Don't insult my intelligence. It may be Southern-born, bred and nurtured, but I'll pit my post-graduate degrees and my liberalism against Klininberg's any day of the week. "The base" is not those cosy, smug, affluent and erudite white people drinking Merlot and watching the sun set over San Francisco, nor are they the cosmopolitan elites found in New York City.
They're the people, nationwide, black, white, brown, male and female, gay and straight, who haul their asses out of bed first thing on election morning with one goal in mind - get to the polls and vote Democratic. Some of them have teeth. Some do not. Some have guns. Some may not even be educated to Dr Klininberg's high standards, but they are the base. Not you.
And what angers me even more about this, especially in this split segment, is the overt patronising tone of Bill's punditry here. Once again, he's pushing the lie he pushed relentlessly from the beginning of this President's administration: That he started out weak, that he was a wimp, but he's learning, and he's learning from - surprise surprise - FDR's example. Yet still, he has to step up to the plate and go the extra mile FDR did - after all, Roosevelt ended Prohibition, so why can't Obama just show some balls and legalise pot.
There's a propagation of a bad myth here, which people like Maher and his creatures have pushed since 2009, but it's been the meme of the Left Coast and Northeastern Progressives for the past forty years. They think no one's noticed, and they think themselves beyond racism, which is why people like Joan Walsh get their asses up when Ishmael Reed and others recognise it for what it is.
That's the myth of the weak and inadequate black man, who must be nurtured intellectually and tutored by his white betters. And he must take as his example the ultimate white mentor who may even guide him from the grave, but who gives him an example to follow which may, one hopes, afford him strength of character. Thus, the patron saint, Franklin Roosevelt, the ultimate white privilegist, is called upon, posthumously, to guide the poor, beleagured, genetically and racially weak character of Barack Obama.
The same old same old ... Roosevelt did it, why can't Obama?
And finally, please, would someone tell the likes of Maher and Klininberg that it's mete and polite to refer to the President of the United States by his title and not his last name. Or at least his first and last name. Why is Bill Clinton "Bill Clinton" but Barack Obama merely "Obama?"
One word: racism.
Oh, the fantasies of arrogance amongst white privilegists!
The thing, it seems, which enrages Progressives most about the President the fact that, you know, he doesn't stop everything at once and legalise pot. Yes, with a Republican House and a slim majority of Democrats in the Senate. Better yet, why doesn't he use that old fiat, the Executive Order?
It seems to me the mischief-making ignorati of the Left have to have some stick with which to beat this President, so why not the pot issue?
Watch the end of the first clip and the beginning of the second.
So Bill's now regretting his million-dollar contribution? What does he think will be achieved under a President Romney and a Republican Congress?
But what angers me the most about this incident is that it's so indicative of the arrogance and patronising assumptions of those morally superior "Progressives" who inhabit the Left Coast and the Northeastern Coast of the United States - the same types who reckon all Southerners and Midwesterners are beyond redemption because they're either gun-greedy survivalists or shit-kicking, toothless inbreds from Deliveranceland.
Eric Klininberg, with the sort of authority only a white, wealthy, coccooned-in-academia self-proclaimed Progressive would possess, warns that "the base" will rebel against the President and not vote because of this failure to legalise pot.
The base?
Please. Don't insult my intelligence. It may be Southern-born, bred and nurtured, but I'll pit my post-graduate degrees and my liberalism against Klininberg's any day of the week. "The base" is not those cosy, smug, affluent and erudite white people drinking Merlot and watching the sun set over San Francisco, nor are they the cosmopolitan elites found in New York City.
They're the people, nationwide, black, white, brown, male and female, gay and straight, who haul their asses out of bed first thing on election morning with one goal in mind - get to the polls and vote Democratic. Some of them have teeth. Some do not. Some have guns. Some may not even be educated to Dr Klininberg's high standards, but they are the base. Not you.
And what angers me even more about this, especially in this split segment, is the overt patronising tone of Bill's punditry here. Once again, he's pushing the lie he pushed relentlessly from the beginning of this President's administration: That he started out weak, that he was a wimp, but he's learning, and he's learning from - surprise surprise - FDR's example. Yet still, he has to step up to the plate and go the extra mile FDR did - after all, Roosevelt ended Prohibition, so why can't Obama just show some balls and legalise pot.
There's a propagation of a bad myth here, which people like Maher and his creatures have pushed since 2009, but it's been the meme of the Left Coast and Northeastern Progressives for the past forty years. They think no one's noticed, and they think themselves beyond racism, which is why people like Joan Walsh get their asses up when Ishmael Reed and others recognise it for what it is.
That's the myth of the weak and inadequate black man, who must be nurtured intellectually and tutored by his white betters. And he must take as his example the ultimate white mentor who may even guide him from the grave, but who gives him an example to follow which may, one hopes, afford him strength of character. Thus, the patron saint, Franklin Roosevelt, the ultimate white privilegist, is called upon, posthumously, to guide the poor, beleagured, genetically and racially weak character of Barack Obama.
The same old same old ... Roosevelt did it, why can't Obama?
And finally, please, would someone tell the likes of Maher and Klininberg that it's mete and polite to refer to the President of the United States by his title and not his last name. Or at least his first and last name. Why is Bill Clinton "Bill Clinton" but Barack Obama merely "Obama?"
One word: racism.
No comments:
Post a Comment