About Me

My photo
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
43 Years old Born in Wilson, North Carolina. Work in Law Enforcement / Patrol, married I am a Political Conservative without a party to represent my vote. I dislike liars, especially the type who are politicians and preachers. I oppose abortion of any type at any stage. The baby is innocent and deserves life regardless of the mothers circumstances. I also dislike racists. Especially the kind that always scream racism at others when life doesn't go there way! Get a life, it's only skin color and God made idiots in all colors. I also dislike Democrats, they wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass. I dislike Republicans, they are truly the most spineless creatures on God's green earth. I dislike arrogant environmentalist who think we can destroy what God created. If your homosexual, I don't dislike you, but please keep it in your own bedroom behind closed doors for the sake of the untwisted.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Only Democrats Get Accident Forgiveness

Again, here we are with our latest freedom of speech issue which is inevitably lost in heated debate of race, culture and skin color further tangled by the unwritten yet very powerful law of political correctness which must be adhered to. That is of course, if you do not fall within the protected class of race or belong to the Democratic Party. The hypocrisy is as obvious as it is endless yet the Democratic Party members never suffer the consequences of violating their own guiding morals which is firmly rooted in the Marxist ideology from which political correctness was born. Moral standards of truth and principle take the backseat of political convenience whenever their own double standard is brought to the center stage by the violation of offense towards members of minorities when their own exercising of freedom of speech is in direct conflict with the sacred code of conduct political correctness demands. The rules are made as the game is played and the Democrat party referees all games. They are their own merciful Judges who consistently show no mercy to those who belong to an opposing Party violate offensive speech towards any minority member regardless of whether the truth is spoken or not. Senator Harry (The Hypocrite) Reid has become the latest perfect example of this tiresome double standard we regular Americans must live by or otherwise face immediate character assassination and loss of employment and income as a result of a candid opinion. In this instance, I stand above all else in support of our freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. What Harry Reid said was certainly a poor choice of words to describe his approval of then Senator Barrack Obama. This no doubt caused offense to the African American community from which he would risk being held accountable for his opinion by the African Americans who belong in his constituency. But what he said was no crime and certainly should not be required by those outside of his district to lose his elected position over his right to freely express his opinion. Our constitution does not restrict ones choice to offend another even when the offensive words spoken are not beneficial to others or even to the speaker. Senator Harry Reid has the right to his own free will to form an opinion of others and express that opinion. That is why freedom of speech was included in our Bill of Rights. Otherwise we allow the government or other authorities to police our very own thoughts by their choice of virtue and standard. This is the paradox of those who feel they believe they possess the authority and right to dictate what others are allowed to believe or express through speech based on their self imposed principles. In this blunder Senator Harry Reid finds himself caught in the very web he has cast for his own prey. In the normal realm of regular people the biblical principles of reaping what has been sowed would naturally be the standard of consequence, but not if yet again you belong to and rule as a member of the Democratic Party and practice its mandated religion of political correctness. In this case it becomes similar to the All-State insurance commercials we all see on TV. Accident Forgiveness is their exclusive insurance policy. This is a benefit available only to the members of the club. We all know what the fate of a non-democratic political figure would otherwise be if they’re speech violated political correctness or was offensive to a protected class member. So the apologists play their word games to defend the senator when previously they played a role in the witch hunt against a political foe. In the end this argument will only result in further damage to race relations as the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party continues unabated.


  1. Please provide an example of the Democratic Party enforcing "politically correct" speech.

  2. Should I go all the way back to Clarence Thomas first, or work my way backwards from Harry Reid? What Liberals do not understand is that denial is not debate.

  3. What specifically are you referring to? With Thomas, the problem was alleged sexual harassment in the workplace, and I sure hope you aren't saying that you think you should be allowed to harass women at work. After the issue was reviewed, Thomas was confirmed. Seems like the law of the land worked in that case. You disagree?

    How does the Reid issue show Democrats enforcing political correctness? He said something that sounded stupid, people on both sides called him out for it. Believe it or not, some of us just don't think our leaders should be saying stupid things, and do our best to call them out when they do. SO how is the Reid statement an example of Democrats "enforcing" anything?

    Just because you don't like modern society's standards of decency doesn't mean you have to abide by them in the least.

  4. Also, I guess I should clarify my point, since it seems that you think the government is somehow involved in Harry Reid's debacle. There are absolutely no criminal charges being made against him. His position in the party is a position granted to him. People have been removed from the positions for ethical violations, political positioning, any number of reasons. I have no doubt that, if Reid continued to say things that are embarrassing to his party, that he would be removed from his leadership position. Again, no legal means need be involved. It should be relatively apparent that this does not involve free speech issues, as legal entities are not involved with handing out leadership positions in political parties. He serves in his current position at the behest of the party.

    This begs the question; in what way does this "political correctness" limit your free speech? You have every right to scream obscenities, slurs, unpopular opinions, whatever you want from the rooftops. In the end it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis on your part, and ultimately self-censorship. You don't say these things because you realize they're indecent, not because anyone is forcing you not to. You just seem to have a problem with current community standards. If that's what you mean, that's what you should say, otherwise, you're being intellectually evasive at best.

  5. Intellectually evasive is the operative standard of the Democrat party. If you will reread my post above I clearly state that Reid committed no crime other than self hypocrisy, the party clearly shows its operational double standard "Political Correctness" when Reid himself makes "offensive remarks" about African Americans as they claim Trent Lott did, they swarm to his defense to save a piece of their own worthless legislation involving health care. Reid himself speaking on Trent Lott's remarked "He had no alternative "Senator Lott dug himself a hole and he didn't dig it all in one setting. He dug it over the years. And he couldn't figure out a way to get out of it." He further stated, "You play how you practice."If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it's that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I've always practiced how I play." Well Apparently not! To answer your question, as I stated in the blog above before, freedom of speech only has a consequence if you do not belong to the Democratic Party. I.E. saying anything about Christians, Caucasians, Conservatives or any other group that opposes the liberal ideology and Democratic Party is fair game and involves no risk of penalty or consequence. Clearly there are two sets of rules the Democratic Party lives by whereas everyone else has to "Self Censor" their speech due to political correctness not Community standard. Just reread the blog.

  6. Well, I guess the main thing to glean from this is that more non-Democrats get in "trouble" for saying racially tinged things because... more Republicans make racially tinged remarks. Just a simple observation.

    So what was it that Harry Reid said that was so awful? He used the word "Negro" instead of "Black" or "African-American"? He used it in discussing the simple point of view that white voters were more likely to vote for Obama because he was light skinned and spoke without a stereotypically black dialect? The apparent truth of this statement should lend some context to the awkwardness of his remark, and of course, should reflect on the treatment he gets as a result, right? What, exactly was racist about his remark? It seems that most people (except for cable news anchors) didn't really think it was worth bringing up, or hanging the man over. I certainly understand if you want to make correlations between Lott's statements about how electing the Dixiecrat ticket would have made the country a better place; it gives a false choice/comparison between two different situations with varying degrees of insensitivity, not to mention the completely different contexts of the people making the statements. Apparently the Republican party thought Lott's statements were worth removing him for, mainly because they now realize the Southern Strategy was a long term loser and they're trying to dump it ex post facto. It seems that, in Reid's case, nobody much thought it was worth removing him over. Maybe things would be different if Reid had a history of making racially combative remarks.

    Back to the main point: again, you make reference to utilizing freedom of speech being given consequence only when one is not a Democrat. The simple observation I will make is that Republicans and right wing activists get "in trouble" more because their statements are more often out of line with modern America's ideals of decency in public discourse. Democrats have basically won the culture wars at this point. People of every race, creed and color are generally accepted, even if only begrudgingly. Even gays are accepted, by those of you on the right, even if it is only when they keep it "in your own bedroom behind closed doors for the sake of the untwisted." These positions were only held by the most progressive Americans forty years ago. Democrats took the position of supporting civil rights, Republicans took the Southern Strategy. The statements made by members of these parties to court their respective demographics have always rubbed the others the wrong way. Democrats get called out by southern voters, members of the religious right, and your more conservative urban voter when they make statements that are seen as politically harmful by those groups. Republicans get called out by the people they sheared off to the Democratic bloc via wedge politics, and the people who stick up for them, which happens to be just about everybody else. You wonder why Republicans get called on their "misstatements" more often?

    Long story short; your view of the situation does not take social/political context into account. Small wonder that someone who has consistently stuck up for civil rights and shown no history of racism should be given a pass.

    Also, what power does political correctness have if it's not in line with community standards? I dare the Republicans to try to push political correctness using some of the terms they've used for Obama in the last year. They'll quickly find out that it's impossible to coerce people into speaking how they want if the people don't already agree with them? The "everybody" you use in your last argument clearly should be read "right wing conservatives." People don't give them a pass because they've historically been huge jerks.

  7. James, you say more Republicans make racially tinged remarks? you are correct in saying it was a simple observation. Very simple indeed, although I doubt your really that nieve. A little side note for you though. I am not Republican but you need to brush up on your Party history. Abraham Lincoln was Republican and we all know who freed the slaves while the Democratic party was the party of the Ku Klux KLAN, Bull Conner, George Wallace, You remember, the segregationst! and i could go on on forever but i don't care to defend a Party that isn't any different than the Democratic party in a conservatives eyes. Harry Reid. Although you did a much better job of describing his stereotyping of white people that voted for Obama than Reid did. I agree. He utilized his freedom of speech by stating an opinion. I will go even further. I believe ther is an element of truth to what he said of Obama's speech. The skin color remark was ridiculous, as election day proved. However ridiculous his statement I still can find no harm in it, let alone racist. Of course if Reid were indeed a Republican, then the P.C. Mantra would have immediately followed ending in resignment or removal. The subject of hypocrisy in Harry Reid. You can take that to the bank. His own words condemn him as a hypocrite. only a fool or a liar could deny this double standard. More later!

  8. My friend James,
    Or Geno. I love Hebrew names but Geno is cool to. It seems to me I have covered most all of your arguments. I am a southerner, and like most southerners I hate to chew my cabbage twice. However, I will suffer the debate if you wish. But, if you will go back to my 2009 blogs most all of this has been covered in several of them.
    Now, you look like a cool dude from your facebook pic and seem rather normal other than your political views. But I know nothing of you. What are you about James? What offends you most about my blogs. I put my beliefs out there a blog at a time. Your not going to understand a lot of it but I see your smart enough to get a good picture on my outlook politically. So it's your turn. If you will. I have already predicted why you are a Democrat. Yes, i have profiled and stereotyped you based solely on your arguements. I feel that you are either a homosexual, anti-Christian faith (In the traditional Sense) a war protester / pro choice, or anti-capitalist / socialist / communist. And i say all this not to offend but to understand your point of view. So be honest. I wont try to cut you down on a personal level if your honest. Political ideology is fair game though. But again, I will not try to put you down personally. I feel no need to do that. I do however feel i have every right to defend my blogs and argue my point when people visit my site to sling mud. I can then be just as nasty as i feel i need to be because they are on my turf. But we can wave all of that and get to the root of this debate should you care to.

  9. Edwards, apologies if this has been covered in prior blogs; I (and I have a feeling that it is this way with a lot of people) sometimes run into people's various blogs through links, comments on other blogs, etc., which does not always ensure that I've comprehensively read all of the foregoing posts from the beginning of the blog. If that is the case, I apologize. I felt like my comments were cogent to the content of this post and, in retrospect, they do seem to be. Hate to make you "suffer" a debate. Maybe you should limit the comments section to people with similar opinions if it's giving you the vapors.

    As far as the musings about my person, I assure, you, I am pretty "normal" not just in appearance, but that my political views align relatively frequently with the left, like a majority of American's political beliefs do; can't get more normal than that, I guess. How in the world you have me profiled as "homosexual" and "anti-Christian" is beyond me, seeing as how none of that really came up, and I assure you I am neither, although I don't really see how it matters to the conversation. Based on my arguments, you are correct that I was and am against the Iraq war as it seems most people would be after the fact, gien the false premises of the invasion, I am pro-choice, as is in line with upholding rights under our Constitution as ascertained by the Supreme Court as is their duty, and I do believe in a regulated market capitalism. You guys really have to give this "communist/socialist" thng a rest. It seems you don;t know the difference between the two or between them and Keynesian capitalism.

    Oh, and my friends call me Geno. I have an Italian grandmother that has called me that since I was a baby, and it apparently stuck.

    I hope you believe me, I'm not coming here to sling mud, and I feel that my arguments were sound and certainly pass muster on being intellectually rigorous.

  10. Now! back to the first part of your response; yes, I do believe that more Republicans utilize racially based invective. I made the point about the Southern Strategy, since that is basically the time that the northern Democrats, of whom the current party is intellectually and morally heir, was basically divested of its racist Southern element, which was subsequently pursued by the Republican party. This is simply an historical fact, and entire books have been written about the subject, and if you are not aware of the strategy and somehow think authentic the Republican attempts to co-opt the civil rights movement and claim that the very same former Democrats who are now in their voting bloc, I'd recommend that you look further into the subject than what's on tonight's Hannity. A line from one of the grand strategists of the Republican machine, Lee Atwater, pretty much says it all:

    "You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

    That should take care of your proposition that somehow the modern Democratic party is somehow aligned with the beliefs of racist Southern voters, who now vote consistently with the Republican party.

    How you can still call Reid a hypocrite after basically agreeing with him is beyond me. He was simply pointing out, rather awkwardly, the voting patterns of whites in relation to black candidates, and in relation to the candidate at the time. How is it in Harry Reid's control on whether he is called out on being un-PC? If you'll remember, everyone DID call him out on it. That's why we're having this discussion. He didn't resign or get removed because nobody actually thinks Harry Reid is a racist, whereas Trent Lott, well, you know. He has ties to racist organizations, a history of excusing blatantly racist politics, and a history of voting according to his prejudices. here's a good article from the time of the Lott issue (citing sources so it shouldn't matter that it's from a liberal rag, everything is docemunted therein):


    Anyway. I don't feel like your bashing of Reid is justified given current Republican attitudes and actions concerning race. I feel like I've outlined the reasons why I think your position is wrong. You haven't responded directly to any of them, and you've touched on the personal in your responses. It seems like you really are struggling to justify this to yourself.