Walk Into The Fire

I have become a big fan of political commentator Ben Shapiro as of late and have started reading his new book “Bullies”, which is terrific. Not surprisingly, Ben was mentored by the late Andrew Breitbart who pioneered the conservative tactic that Ben has now taken up the mantle on and that is to shine the light on the left and their despicable bullying tactics. It is imperative that conservatives spend the next four years methodically exposing the left, Obama, and the media for the shameful, divisive nature of their politics that they display daily, and have successfully used as a club to gain control and power. The tactic is to pit “victims” against “aggressors”, and to famously champion the victims. And of course, the Democrats side with the victims, therefore, anyone opposed to the Democrats is the aggressor; ie: bully, ie: Conservatives. And everyone hates a bully therefore everyone should hate Conservatives. Obama has even made himself into the victim claiming that people think that his name is funny, that he doesn’t “look” like previous Presidents, and that Republicans attack him on the floor of the Congress, all of which is designed to foment hatred against those who oppose him. This tactic has been very effective on the low information voter, and the intellectually challenged, which unfortunately constitutes far too many of the current population of voters, and is a tactic that Obama and the media have recently accelerated as evidenced by John Dickerson’s column on “pulverizing” the GOP.

Ironically in 2008, Obama ran as, and was elected as a uniter. But that again was just another lie as his Chicago thug-like nature took over shortly after the election, displaying no real interest in building coalitions, a fact cemented by his appointment of Rahm “dead fish” Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff. But why should he build coalitions? When all he has to do now is continue to play the well established “victim” card and demonize anyone who opposes his sanctimonious agenda. We are seeing that in the gun debate, the gay marriage debate, the higher tax debate, and so on and so on. This allows Obama and the Democrats to avoid any adult like, real substantive debate on the issue and unfortunately, this fact sails over the head of too many people. This shameful tactic was also in full display during the last campaign, when Obama relentlessly attacked the very character of Romney, claming him to be an uncaring, rich person who evades taxes, strips people of their healthcare and allows spouses to die. And the complicit media carried his water the entire way. That is why conservatives have no choice and must confront this tactic head on, and as Breitbart famously exclaimed “walk into the fire”.

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “Walk Into The Fire

  1. Cluster January 23, 2013 / 12:23 pm

    WHAT AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF BULLYING. Truthie has demonstrated the tactics of the left better than anyone, and this recent post is a great example. Regarding the “litany of lies” that I posted in the previous thread – that was simply a circulated email that I posted and mentioned that it was “interesting”. No where did I claim it to be factual. But it is even more interesting to note that the first assertion of the email was true, and that is that in 59 districts in Philadelphia, there were no recorded votes for Romney.

    That being said, by questioning my “disconnect from reality” and my “manhood” (whatever that means), truthie can bully and diminish his opponent and avoid any real debate on voter fraud, which as we all know exists on some level, and deserves an adult like conversation.

    truthie is a good example of the emotionally charged, low information voter that currently occupy our political environment.

    • neocon01 January 23, 2013 / 2:42 pm

      Cluster

      WHAT AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF BULLYING. Truthie has demonstrated

      and all along I thought it was his STUPIDITY!!

    • Cluster January 23, 2013 / 4:58 pm

      That’s not it all James. Again, another classic bullying tactic to assign ill intent on your opponent. I told you exactly what I did, and you still lie about it. Not that I hold you to any higher standard though.

    • neocon01 January 23, 2013 / 6:15 pm

      j1369

      suckers? only to some useful idiot.
      nice of you to admit ir is THEIR Social security check to do with what they want
      not like some welfare rat at the casino or strip club.

    • j6206 January 23, 2013 / 6:23 pm

      Moderator, you should remove Neocon’s 1/23/13 6:15 p.m. reply to my removed post. Cuz it makes no sense just sitting there. You guys are touchy.

      • neocon01 January 23, 2013 / 7:27 pm

        nobody likes a RAT j1369

      • watsonthethird January 24, 2013 / 1:05 am

        Ah, the random comment gremlins are at work again…

        My thoughts on Cluster’s “interesting” comment in the other thread are above.

        As for the topic Cluster raised in his commentary here, he said, “Ironically in 2008, Obama ran as, and was elected as a uniter. But that again was just another lie as his Chicago thug-like nature took over shortly after the election, displaying no real interest in building coalitions, a fact cemented by his appointment of Rahm “dead fish” Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff.”

        The problem with your narrative is that it leaves out the fact that the Republicans decided, starting on inauguration day 2008, to obstruct virtually every Obama initiative going forward. That was their strategy, and it is well document. I find it highly amusing that Republicans are now crying that President Obama’s 2012 inauguration speech was too partisan. Honestly, what do they expect after their behavior the last four years? They even reject their own initiatives when they find out President Obama would support them.

      • neocon01 January 24, 2013 / 3:48 am

        waspstoogethet*rd

        Honestly, what do they expect after their behavior the last four years?

        deja vu?? amnesia?? or just plain useful idiocy?

        Bush was threatened frequently — but no arrests

        http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

      • watsonthethird January 24, 2013 / 4:30 pm

        NeoClown, I wasn’t talking about death threats to the president. I was talking about Republican Congressional leadership. Wait… Why am I even bothering trying to explain anything to you.

      • neocon01 January 26, 2013 / 1:31 pm

        waspstoogethet*rd

        ” Wait… Why am I even bothering trying to explain anything to you.

        EXACTLY, like an empty toothpaste tube trying to explain relativity to Einstein…….

    • Cluster January 24, 2013 / 8:48 am

      Truthie,

      You like Watson are a legend in your mind and a star in your own drama queen little world. It’s laughable that both of you would seize on some inane little email and puff up your chests in righteous indignation. Your hyper sensitivities are more profound than I ever could imagined so let allow me to help you with your obviously needed therapy:

      To all – the circulated email that I posted on the fly the other day and thought was interesting turned out to be weak in facts.

      It’s very interesting though (there’s that word again), that you truthie challenge the personal character of everyone you disagree with. That is a real sign that you are incapable of intellectually arguing your positions. And that fact is abundantly clear to everyone here. Have a nice day.

      • Amazona January 24, 2013 / 6:06 pm

        wattle, please cite a quote in which anyone of stature in the Republican Party said a goal is to “annihilate President Obama”.

        People who have sworn a sacred oath (whether military or as members of Congress or the judiciary) to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, and others who simply feel a commitment to the rule of law in this nation, have felt it necessary to block every effort to undermine, thwart or subvert that Constitution.

        You rabidly radical Lefties seem to find this incomprehensible, which is no surprise as from what we can tell you have no objective allegiance to a political system of government but rather an emotional attraction to the illusions offered by one and an even more emotional antipathy to its opposition. This is illustrated here by your feeling that opposition to Leftist ideology is personally directed at Obama.

        You carry on as if a principled opposition to something seen as wrong, and harmful to the nation, is shameful and an indictment of character. So naturally you will be befuddled by the concept, and tend to misrepresent it, as I think you have done when you falsely refer to “…the Republican party whose aim was to do exactly the same to President Obama…” —-“…the same..” being to “annihilate”.

        You are either woefully mistaken or purposely lying. But in either case—-and, as we have seen with you, the two are not mutually exclusive—–you are still nothing but irrelevant noise, as you contribute nothing but snarl and spite.

      • tiredoflibbs January 24, 2013 / 9:43 pm

        Ama: “wattle, please cite a quote in which anyone of stature in the Republican Party said a goal is to “annihilate President Obama”.”

        Watty is only regurgitating the dumbed down talking points used in the past two elections to explain why obAMATEUR is such a failure and a non-existent true leader. He has nothing else short of admitting the truth that this man is a complete incompetent.

        Of course, the Democrats had made it clear that they were not going to help Bush when they had control of the Senate stating that it was their right as the minority party to oppose his legislation. Obstruction was the name of the game with the Democrat Senate Majority Leader Dascle (just like it is with the weasel Reid).

        Notice that the “rights of the minority party” are no longer in the Democrat belief system once they are in charge.

        Drones like watty are dependable in regurgitating the party line designed for their ignorant constituency.

      • Amazona January 24, 2013 / 6:10 pm

        I see that bubble boy has left footprints on the blog, in responses to his posts even knowing that the posts will be removed.

        I get the impression they are removed because all they are are efforts to smear, attack and insult, with no actual content other than spite and malice.

  2. Cluster January 23, 2013 / 12:48 pm

    And now Hillary paints herself as the victim in her testimony on Benghazi:

    “For me, this is not just a matter of policy, it’s personal,” said Clinton, holding back tears. “I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters. It has been one of the greatest honors of my life to lead the men and women of the State Department and USAID.

    Got that? She held back tears and hugged the families of those who were killed – therefore anyone who questions her competence on the matter – is a bully.

    • Retired Spook January 23, 2013 / 1:21 pm

      “I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters.”

      And then proceeded to lie to their faces about what happened.

      • neocon01 January 23, 2013 / 2:41 pm

        marx, alinsky, leftism, communism 101

        see hitlery’s lying BS performance at the “hearings” TYPICAL UBER LEFTIST tactics.

      • neocon01 January 23, 2013 / 2:44 pm

        NO mention of the TWO theater level Generals RELIEVED of duty for REFUSING to STAND DOWN and let our citizens be MURDERED on live feed.

  3. Retired Spook January 23, 2013 / 2:53 pm

    One Senator had the stones to stand up to the Hildabeast:

    Making his debut on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a hearing Wednesday on the Benghazi attacks Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) lambasted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her role in the attacks on the diplomatic compound in Libya.

    “Ultimately, I think with your leaving, you accept culpability for the greatest tragedy since 9/11,” he said. “Had I been President at the time and I found out you had not read the cables… I would have relieved you of your post.”

    “I think it’s inexcusable,” he added.

    • neocon01 January 23, 2013 / 3:46 pm

      hitlery…..”WHAT DIFFERENCE WHY they were KILLED?”
      It could have been men walking down the street, or insurgents….
      what trailer scum….

      • Retired Spook January 23, 2013 / 4:06 pm

        hitlery…..”WHAT DIFFERENCE WHY they were KILLED?”

        She must have called Ricorun for advice.

      • neocon01 January 23, 2013 / 4:29 pm

        Spook

        She must have called Ricorun for advice.

        OMG…….ROTFLMAO………LOL LOL

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 23, 2013 / 6:49 pm

        neo,

        Since the last part of the “what’s the difference” statement was “It is our job to figure out what happened” I’d say she answered he own question.

        But, just like the ““Have you no decency” rhetorical question of the McCarthy hearings, the “what difference does it make” speech was a well rehearsed bit of theatrics designed to lead the evening news.

        This little drama allows the the media sycophants to claim that the Hildabeast had walked a trail of fire through enemy territory attempting to answer the real issues while partisan Republicans focused on petty gotcha politics.

        Juxtapose that with Jarrett’s clarion to stop violence against woman, and the left can firmly plant the image of a poor brow-beaten Hillary trying vainly to do service to her country while those mean middle-aged white men thrash her about the head and face.

        Pretty in Pink Redoux.

      • Amazona January 24, 2013 / 6:22 pm

        1. This is really funny coming from a spokeswoman for the radical Left which shrilly supports the idea of Hate Crimes, in which motive is everything.

        2. This sounds like a preemptive defense, in case the facts come out about the true role of Stevens and his CIA guards. In that case, it would be even more important to have established the alibi that the reason for him being where he was, doing whatever he was doing, is really immaterial and irrelevant.

        3. I note that the scenarios posited by Hillary do not include an organized celebration of 9/11, complete with advance warnings to the State Department. Hillary seems to be trying to play a political version of “If I close my eyes you can’t see me”….in this case “If I don’t acknowledge something it will go away”.

      • Amazona January 24, 2013 / 6:40 pm

        The spin machine immediately went into action, as we can see from this gem from the New Yorker: emphasis mine.

        ““What difference, at this point, does it make?” In regard to the Republican obsession with Susan Rice’s “Meet the Press” appearance, that is a reasonable question.:

        “Reasonable” to whom? Rice was sent out by Clinton’s State Department specifically to lie, she lied over and over again in five separate television interviews in one day, and the RRL kneepadders try to dismiss awareness of this organized deception of the American people, to try to cover up wrongdoing or incompetence or both at the highest levels of government, as mere “obsession” with the truth.

        Oh, for shame! Being “obsessed” with the truth!

        “Perhaps frustration was also driving Clinton, but that’s not how she framed it. What she went on to say is not so controversial: Chase them down first, keep this from happening again. Don’t get caught up in the mystery of hate.”

        DON’T GET CAUGHT UP IN THE MYSTERY OF HATE.

        Who knew that Hillary’s comment was really a moral rising-above-the-mystery-of-hate moment?

        But the Hillary apologia goes on…..

        ” The reply would be that knowing why people do things helps to prevent them from happening again. ”

        Oh, goody…..let’s not “obsess” over the multiple failures of our government agencies to protect their own, or their subsequent organized plan of lies to the American public, or even the real reason these murdered Americans were where they were and in a position which, evidently, being acknowledged by the State Department would be more of an embarrassment than their deaths.

        Let’s just have a round table discussion on why Al Queda wants to kill Americans. It’s about time, dontcha think? We can have professors weigh in on the psychological trauma of living in a world in which there are so many infidels. We can psychoanalyze the little buggers till the cows come home.

        This will certainly help “prevent” these kinds of things from “happening again”.

        (GROUP HUG!!!)

        And then of course there is the mandatory swipe at Republicans, complete with blatant lie:

        “(Ironically, it is more often ” Republicans who are impatient with discussions about what’s going on in the hearts and minds of men with guns.)”

        Since when is overt lying dismissed as mere “irony”? It is a matter of record that it is the LEFT who “…are impatient with discussions about what’s going on in the hearts and minds of men with guns.” and focused exclusively on the guns themselves, while Republicans and other respecters of the Constitution keep trying to point out that it is not the guns but …… what’s going on in the hearts and minds of men with guns… that matters.

        Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/01/hillary-clintons-testimony-what-difference-will-it-make.html#ixzz2Iw0CrIBN

  4. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 23, 2013 / 3:54 pm

    It’s amazing that Hillary could even testify with so many Senator’s heads up her a$$. Made me wanna puke.

    • neocon01 January 23, 2013 / 4:05 pm

      we have lost the Republic.

    • neocon01 January 23, 2013 / 5:36 pm

      the witch melts down………

      drudge

      Shouts: ‘What Difference … Does It Make?!’
      I Didn’t Select Rice, Wasn’t Consulted…

    • neocon01 January 23, 2013 / 5:38 pm

      the LIAR lies under oath AGAIN.

      SecState: I never saw requests for more security…

      Blames Congress for lack of funding…

      Rand Paul: ‘I would have relieved you of post’…

      CONGRESSMAN: ‘Only Person In Jail Right Now Is Filmmaker…

    • neocon01 January 23, 2013 / 5:42 pm

      Bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha………ROTFLMAO…..

      JARRETT: ‘If There’s One Thing We Should All Agree On, It’s Protecting Women From Violence’…

      THEN……DRUM ROLL Ta Da…………………..

      WOMEN ********TO COMBAT FRONTLINES********* !!

      HUH??

  5. dbschmidt January 23, 2013 / 7:45 pm

    Only Person In Jail Right Now Is Filmmaker…
    What happened to his 1st amendment rights? Convenient excuse?
    If you believe the crap about probation / parole violation then you are denser than I could imagine. Was there a hearing prior to jail? Maybe one involving kangaroos.
    I am going with convenient excuse. Clinton needed it to cover her ass as she lied, as well as sending her minions out to lie. When that fell apart she knocked her noggin, and now “None of it matters”
    What a piece of elitist, Progressive work ~ and not in the good sense.

  6. watsonthethird January 24, 2013 / 1:03 am

    Cluster said, “Regarding the “litany of lies” that I posted in the previous thread – that was simply a circulated email that I posted and mentioned that it was “interesting”. No where did I claim it to be factual. But it is even more interesting to note that the first assertion of the email was true, and that is that in 59 districts in Philadelphia, there were no recorded votes for Romney.”

    Actually, the most interesting thing about the “litany of lies” that you posted is that it shows what kind of political commentator you are. It is interesting because it demonstrates that you would rather denigrate people you don’t like than seek facts. It is interesting because it shows that you happily regurgitate talking points with no regard for whether they might be true. It is interesting because it shows that deep down you are simply a partisan and nothing more. It is interesting because it shows that every one of your posts on B4V needs to be greeted with suspicion because readers can’t trust their veracity.

    I think that in adopting the position of a political commentator, you should be subjected to a higher standard than, say, NeoClown. In fact, you should subject yourself to a higher standard. For that matter, BV4 should subject you to a higher standard. While you may post anonymously, and therefore have no reputation to sully, Matt and Mark are not anonymous and this blog does reflect on their credibility, including who they choose as their spokesmen.

    • Cluster January 24, 2013 / 8:37 am

      Watson,

      You definitely are a star in your own drama queen world aren’t you? How is posting a circulated email denigrating others? That is a real stretch, and a laughable one at that, but in your world, you can accuse me of being a bully and rush in like Dudley Do Right and save the day.

      Political commentator? Who? Me? Hardly. I am a small business owner trying to make a living, or you might refer to as an evil capitalist.

      You really should occupy some other world than your liberal bubble where everyone you disagree with is some Snidely Whiplash.

    • Amazona January 24, 2013 / 6:17 pm

      the wattle seems to be the self-appointed Church Lady of the blog, making pronouncements on civility, who should do what, who should say what, etc., and lecturing while offering absolutely nothing that actually contributes to rational political discourse.

      Don Quixote was brought down by a highly polished shield which acted as a mirror, in which he could see his foolishness as others did. Too bad the wattle has yet to have this experience, but still preens in imagined moral and intellectual superiority while being seen by others as nothing more than a peevish scold obsessed with blindly attacking strangers simply because they have a different view of how best to govern the nation.

  7. GMB January 24, 2013 / 8:21 am

    “Walk into the fire” Breitbart was a great man and conservative. However, I just don’t see you “heavy lifters” in the repub party doing it. That would involve getting out of your tax payer funded, air conditioned, offices, and out from behind your plasma, big screen, televisions.

    Looks good in theory though.

    You sure you could quit counting stacks of coins to do it?

  8. Cluster January 24, 2013 / 8:55 am

    The problem with your narrative is that it leaves out the fact that the Republicans decided, starting on inauguration day 2008, to obstruct virtually every Obama initiative going forward – Watson

    That’s why they are called the opposition party Watson. Are you new to politics? And I will remind you of two other facts – it’s the President’s job to “lead”, and the Democrats had filibuster proof majorities in both chambers. That’s why we now have Obamacare. Did you miss that fact? You had better check your facts Watson or truthie will question your manhood – lol.

    And just an aside – I think I might start posting more questionable circulated emails just to get truthie fired up.

  9. Cluster January 24, 2013 / 9:12 am

    The following exchange between O’Reilly and Democratic commentator Kirsten Powers sums up every liberal poster here. So with truthie and Watson in mind, enjoy the read:

    BILL O’REILLY: Personal Story segment tonight: New study out of George Washington University says that liberal people using the internet are less tolerant than conservative net users are. Also 71 percent of Americans younger than 25 believe what they see on the net is as or more trustworthy than what they get from the mainstream media. Joining us now from Washington, Kate Obenshain a Republican strategist, and Kirsten Powers, Democrat and Fox News analyst.

    Powers, I always knew that liberal people were more sensitive, more sensitive to criticism, more sensitive to disagreement, and according to the study, 22 percent of liberals have ended digital relationships, whatever they are, because somebody disagreed with them politically. For conservatives the number is 15 percent. And you say?

    KIRSTEN POWERS, DAILY BEAST: You know, I have to say this actually jibes with sort of real life experience that I have found, especially as I came into more contact with conservatives as I got older because I used to really live very much in a Democratic bubble when I worked in politics. I did find that they were much more open to sort of hearing other viewpoints, where I think liberals because they are so used to controlling all the media pretty much, academia, that for them when they hear things that don’t jibe with what they want to hear, it’s very disconcerting and unsettling to them. And it doesn’t surprise me that they’re really less interested, whereas conservatives are kind of used to it. They’ve lived in a world where pretty much, you know, the whole media has been sort of liberal.

    O’REILLY: So they’re used to the joust more than the liberals are?

    POWERS: Yeah, I think they don’t, they just have a sort of, they just sort of expect it, where the liberals are sort of taken aback because they feel like, “What are you talking about? Everybody knows that what I think is right and nobody thinks differently.”

  10. Cluster January 24, 2013 / 12:26 pm

    This is awesome truthie. I had no idea how sensitive you were to this, but it’s great to know.

    I plan now to post many more similar emails – let me know when your head explodes.

  11. Amazona January 26, 2013 / 7:35 pm

    This comment by the major pain, posted January 26, 2013 at 3:59 pm, in the Second Amendment thread, is so important that I am going to post this on every thread, because I don’t want it to be overlooked:

    The Constitution was not written to protect the people; it was written to preserve the Union and the rights of, initially, white men who owned property.”

    Looking past the racism that permeates all of the major pain’s outlook (there is another reference to “white Americans” in the same post) and the fact that I thought all posts from the forkers were to be deleted because of the rampant bigotry that marks them, we need to look at this precise statement:

    THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, IT WAS WRITTEN TO PRESERVE THE UNION—that is, the government.

    What could be a clearer statement of the core belief of the rabidly radical Left? Get past the fact that to believe this means a complete inability to understand fact, language or history—–it is a summary of the credo of the Left.

    That is, that nothing is more important than the government, nothing is less important than the individual.

    Now, those of us who have read the Constitution, those of us who have studied it and read not only the document but the supporting, contemporaneous writings of those who created it, those of us who understand the goals of the Founders and the events that led up to the writing of the document, all know that the Constitution is NOT about protecting the Union, but about protecting the people FROM the Union.

    The rabidly radical Left simply ignores fact, history and language because they are so deeply committed to the concept that government is always more important than people.

Comments are closed.