Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Don't you just hate those Liberal Elitists
Share:
by The_Cynic | January 15, 2010 at 08:11 pm
634 views | 44 Recommendations | 38 comments
Something always comes to mind when someone calls me an elitist, liberal supporter - "Thanks".
If someone goes for the jugular and really gets into my face and calls me a left-wing, socialist, Marxist or whatever they want to call me adding, as always, I must be a Satanist, too - that really makes me smile. All kind of fluffy-pillowish. As a good Christian chap, I do giggle a bit.
What doesn't make sense to me is the right-wing who support people such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robinson. They do call them 'conservatives' - but, and this is a revelation, I don't meet many conservatives who wish ill on a people who have just been decimated in such a way as Haiti.
Those elitist, liberal actors of Hollywood, whom so many of the right-wing detest, are raising millions of dollars to send in both help and cash.
Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robinson condemn the innocent for ... well what reason? An urban myth and that some political gain can be seen?
Not On Our Watch, the international advocacy and grantmaking organization founded by actors George Clooney, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, producer Jerry Weintraub, and human rights lawyer David Pressman, has directed $1 million (USD) in emergency response funds to provide medical services for victims of the disaster. The beneficiary of the grant is Partners In Health (PIH), presently directing relief efforts and emergency medical care for the wounded.
If you dislike the liberal left, well that is a personal choice that I have no problem with. Political debate is, to me, a bit of fun. But when it comes to helping our fellow man in dire need, is it a matter that we should fall into our political trenches or do we help - no matter what your hue?
According to those who follow Limbaugh, Robinson and their ilk it is obviously the former, we lily liberals would prefer to help. I wonder how much Limbaugh and/or Robinson could have raised in aid? Will we ever know?
I doubt it - there is too much hatred to spread. These people are not conservatives, I really don't think that conservative want to be tarred with the same brush, not the 'real' ones. Yet, like so many times in our past we see a vocal minority speaking up for their cause and debilitating what the majority would want, and because a 'real conservative' could never call themselves anything else, the tar sticks.
Let's ask Limbaugh and Robinson to donate some cash. Even if it should be 20 pieces of silver.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Related Stories
Recommendations (44)
nanute
New York, United States
mudricky
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Karen Hatter
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United Statescaj1
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Uwe Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan
Barry ORegan
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States
stejeb
United Kingdom
Rory Cripps
New Port Richey, Florida, United States
Barbara McPherson
Nanaimo, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (38)
at 20:33 on January 15th, 2010
I never understood the paradox my self. Good opinion post. :)
at 20:46 on January 15th, 2010
Cynic: A real question, how much is 20 pieces of silver worth, Can or Amer?
at 20:52 on January 15th, 2010
In some context, 20 pieces of silver is your soul. ;)
at 20:56 on January 15th, 2010
Right...I understand...it's from Wm. Shakespeare or someone like him!
at 04:09 on January 16th, 2010
I'm not sure how you'd characterize Glenn Beck, but you can add him to the list:A Challenge to Howard Kurtz: Beck backs up Limbaugh, says Obama is 'dividing the country' by reacting so rapidly on Haiti
Great post, Cynic.
at 04:12 on January 16th, 2010
Robertson has a medical/disaster team that will be in Haiti by tonite, along with millions of dollars worth of medical supplies.
Any of you folks done anything? Other than pontificate about the hypocrisy of others, that is, whilst conveniently overlooking your own?
Us yahoos at a church out here in the sticks are sponsoring a medical team that leaves this next week. So you folks keep yapping, tell everyone how worthless we are. You all do a fine job with the yap. Very fine.
Us hypocrites are certainly impressed.
at 06:11 on January 16th, 2010
I think you missed the point, HA, in all honesty. It is not helpful when people that supposedly espouse Christian values make comments like Rush and Pat Robertson, and now Glenn Beck have. It does nothing to alleviate the suffering of the innocent victims of this human tragedy.
If Robertson is sending relief aid, good for him. I won't read any underlying reasons into his effort. I'd just like a link to the Robertson effort if you've got one.
at 08:18 on January 16th, 2010
nanute - i make no apologies for Beck or Limburger. I don't follow either of them, was unaware that they espouse "Christian" values. Nor i am sure why they are lumped with Robertson, other than for the sake of giving those that think only pure liberal thoughts the chance to make sweeping, arrogant, generalizations.
Robertson? I stuck up for him because i watched the video, noticed that he DID NOT say what he was accused of saying. Folks made it sound like he said what they think a fool would have said. Those foolish enough to believe what they want to hear, believed what they wanted.
Robertson has a website, i doubt if you will get contaminated by visiting it. Funny how an organization that had spent time and money in Haiti prior to the earthquake, is accused of hypocrisy by snotty liberals over a comment that is not only taken out of context, but that is widely accepted as fact in the country he was commenting on.
at 13:28 on January 16th, 2010
HA, What did Pat Robertson say? What am I missing here?
Today on his 700 Club television show, Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson highlighted the tragedy and said that his network will be there “to help the people.” However, he then tried to offer an explanation for the earthquake, blaming Haiti’s own people for once making a “pact to the devil”:
at 17:53 on January 16th, 2010
nanute, seriously. Does the man say the earthquake was the result of their "pact with the devil"? Does he?
No, he says they have been cursed with one after the other. Does that really sound like he is laying it the devil?
at 02:49 on January 17th, 2010
I don't know how you can't see the connection. Why would Robertson make the reference to the pact with the Devil, if he didn't think it had something to do with the earthquake? Has all the misfortune except the earthquake been a result of the pact with the Devil? And, is that OK?
at 08:16 on January 16th, 2010
Curious I am, concerning the length of time that elapsed between the earthquake, and when our Beloved Leader decided something needed to be done.
Even with a liberal mayor saying everything was under control, it was still GB's fault that gummit aid was so slow to reach New Orleans. It seems to have taken 2 days before anyone even bothered to tell BO what an earthquake was.
Any vacant-minded liberals have a conspiracy theory for that?
at 10:18 on January 16th, 2010
Source: my.nowpublic.com
Source: my.nowpublic.com
Source: my.nowpublic.com
at 10:37 on January 16th, 2010
Well, you are no fun at all, Rory.
Been waiting for hours for a wise and intelligent, know-it-all, high minded liberal to give me some answers.
Obviously, such an animal doesn't exist.
at 11:14 on January 16th, 2010
Hugh: Yeah! You've got that right dude! Surf's up! You and I seem to be the only liberals here!
Whose woods these are, I think I know . . . .
The facts are that virtually all Christian churches have been dispatching members throughout the impoverished world for centuries. The churches have also donated billions in time and money throughout the years for relief efforts. Moreover, there have been countless Christian missionaries that have been brutally murdered for their efforts.
The Peace Corp, et al. didn't have a thing on the Christian Churches when it came to humanitarian efforts and getting down into the trenches. And neither do the Hollywood elite. Indeed, a few million here and there from the Hollywood elite is a drop in the bucket and requires no effort whatsoever from its collective social X-ray back. In fact, it's a loss-leader for them because they'll get their names in the paper and the PR derived will far outweigh the value of their contributions--and in any event, their accountants will balance their books.
But I guarantee this: There are millions of Christians nowadays that barely have a pot to piss in, can barely feed their families, and can't afford to heat their homes. But come this Sunday they'll reach deep into their pockets in an effort to help those poor and unfortunate souls in Haiti--even if it means giving up a meal or two . . . .
at 11:28 on January 16th, 2010
They wouldn't, would they?
The poor, poor, ignorant fools.
at 13:50 on January 16th, 2010
Hugh: Yeah! Perhaps Christians are poor, poor, ignorant fools! And it's interesting that Christians, nowadays, are being held in the same contempt that Jews have been held in throughout the millenniums. And we all know what happened to millions of Jews: They were burned at the stake, as it were, because they couldn't bring themselves to march in lock-step with the dictates of the ideologues de jure.
No doubt that American, Canadian, and European "progressives" are the ideologues de jure and that many of them would have no reservations about literally burning Christians at the stake.
at 14:07 on January 16th, 2010
An earthquake tragedy in another country + an ill-timed superstitious remark by a well known maker of such remarks + criticism of remark by many people= excuse to bash left, liberals and administration.
What a sad sick bunch.
The point many of you right-wing hard liners miss is that for the majority of people, any good that Pat Robertson and his organisation may do is overshadowed and lost with his ability to open his big fat mouth and stick his foot in it.
at 17:50 on January 16th, 2010
Pat Robertson: "But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle, on the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island.
They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy I’m optimistic something good may come. But right now, we’re helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable"
stejeb "ill-timed superstitious remark by a well known maker of such remarks"
Okay, stejeb, those are Robertsons words - show us where, where, where, is the superstition? Where? Point it out! Here, now, show us stooopid "hard-line" right wingers,where the superstition that you pure of heart liberals claim is present.
WHERE IS THAT SUPERSTITION??????
SHOW US, please, please, oh please.
Because he said, "they have been cursed by one thing after the other" ?
Is that it???? Because, my, my, my, if that is the best you can do, it is simply pathetic. P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C.
Does he say they were cursed by the devil? No, he did not.
Please, i am really curious about this "superstion" thing that you are reading into whatever you might think he is saying. Help me out, show me that superstion.
at 18:11 on January 16th, 2010
I have to hand it you Hugh, that is the best bit of selective deafness I have witnessed thus far in this day, and I have two teenagers!
Do me a favour, go back and watch the whole video (yes, I'm one of the few who did) I think you may just notice that there were a few words about a "pact with the devil" prior to your "quote" . Now, as far as I'm concerned, that is superstitious drivel, you may not consider talk of pacts with the devil as superstition, I do.
And as usual you have missed the point by about a mile, I was actually trying to take you and a few others to task for your inability to divorce any subject from your desire to make people who you regard as liberals, lefties and anti-christian look like mental deviants, and to get as many digs in as possible about the democratic administration. Quite why you are so much against Obama after the last clown you had as President(the french have no word for entrepeneur) Bush is beyond me, but hey, each to their own.
at 18:34 on January 16th, 2010
He repeats a story - as fact, mind - that has been current in Haiti for 200 years. You might tell me why the people of Haiti take it as fact.
NOWHERE does he blame the devil for the earthquake.
Why all the bashing of Robertson? Because you don't like him - real simple - make him look like a fool.
Where is your answer for the hypocrisy of those doing the bashing?
What in the world does any of it have to do with G Bush - other than the fact that NO ONE is taking BO to task for dithering on Haiti.
I had Bush as president? Thanks for that - i'm a registered Democrat, have never ever been a republican, tho i was an Independent for a number of years.
No i did not vote for BO - for reasons that are quite apparent now - his far left tendencies, his overwhelming (perhaps underwhelming is a better choice of words) inexperience, and his obvious tendency to lie through his teeth - lies dependent on whatever audience he was in front of.
Mostly i get really sick of the overweening arrogance of those that view themselves as superior intellects - which is how the article was presented.
at 19:02 on January 16th, 2010
That takes some reading Hugh, and I'm still not sure I've grasped what you mean all the way,
"NOWHERE does he blame the devil for the earthquake."
Actually, he's talking about the earthquake, and refers to the pact, then goes on to infer that they(the Haitians) have had problems ever since because of it.
"Why all the bashing of Robertson? Because you don't like him - real simple - make him look like a fool."
I personally don't like or dislike him, he is not worthy of an emotion, and this is not the first time he has come out with something that makes him look a fool, no, he doesn't need any help.
"What in the world does any of it have to do with G Bush"
He's being brought in to assist in the management of the disaster in Haiti, here's hoping.......
I had thought that as you are American, you had George Bush as President, I didn't imply that you personally selected him, and any person older than 2 knows that politicians lie, you can tell when they're doing it, their lips move.
And finally, I'm not sure how to reply to that last bit, it wasn't how I saw the article, so just goes to show, we all see things differently.
at 16:54 on January 16th, 2010
stejeb:
We get your ideological point, however the facts are that Pat Robertson's organization and others like it have have provided concrete and verifiable relief to countries such as Haiti on a firm and unwavering basis for many many years. Indeed, members of Pat Robertson's organization have consistently walked the walk as opposed to just talking the talk. In my opinion, actions speak much louder than words. And verifiable actions are what distinguishes real humanitarians from those that simply claim to be.
The tragedy is that ideologues refuse to be magnanimous and give credit where credit is due because their ideological takes precedence over all.
at 17:21 on January 16th, 2010
Rory, it wasn't an ideological point.
It was an observation, based on reading the headers and comments to several postings the last few days. Anyone daring to criticise Pat Robertson's words has been jumped on and harangued for being a liberal, you and several others have taken every opportunity to hammer home your objections to all things Obama.
The administration of the USA has got nothing whatsoever to do with this, Pat Robertson opened his mouth, put his foot straight in it, I stand by what I said, anything that he or his organisation may have done or is doing has been overshadowed by his ill-judged remarks about superstitious drivel.
I didn't say he was doing nothing, I don't care what his politics are, left, right or centre, he should stick to one thing or the other help or shut up, helping and making remarks like that are counter productive.
at 18:09 on January 16th, 2010
and i asked what you hypocritical liberals were doing to help - other than showing the world your pure thoughts - and got no answer.
Seems you folks look for any and all excuses to bash folks - evidently you have to be a pure in heart liberal to have the right to bash others without rebuke, eh?
Did you happen to read the article? A paean of self-congratulatory "intellectual left wing" wonderment at your own superiority.
I do hope that when you are in dire need, you don't have to stoop to accepting help from one of those horrid fascist christians that are all covered with ugly superstitions. How terrible would that be?
"Anyone daring to criticise Pat Robertson's words has been jumped on and harangued for being a liberal"
Ya know - there have been three or four articles here at NP bashing Robertson, yet somehow "anyone daring to criticise Pat Robertson has been jumped on".
So let us review the rules.
(1) Okay to criticize Robertson
(2) Not okay to criticize those that criticize Roberson.
Is that correct? Because that is what you seem to be saying.
at 18:25 on January 16th, 2010
I'm still not sure why anyone who dares to criticise Robertson is automatically a left wing liberal, my problem, Hugh, is mostly that many of the threads have degenerated into muck-slinging contests, because right wing christian extremists are wading in and ignoring the matter at hand and just bashing the people who object to Robertson's comments.
I have made a financial contribution through a charity here, I assume you have done the same as you're here bumping your gums and criticising everyone who's view differs to yours.
And quite frankly, a huge amount of the problems and poverty in the world is because those wonderful "christians" came to call, destroying cultures and societies that had survived for centuries before their arrival.
at 20:43 on January 16th, 2010
Simple enough, because the ONLY ones commenting on this article that are criticizing Robertson ARE - in your own words - left-wing liberals. (nanute may be a lib, but not sure if he has crossed the line to left-wing as yet).
The muck slinging started with the article - and its tone.
I asked for examples of the mudslingers largess, got no response until yours here. My first contribution was made a couple of days ago. My daughter has been providing for a child there for at least 5 years - as i did for years. We also will be helping with the support for the medical team being sent from our church, thanks for asking.
As far as "christians" destroying cultures, just shut up. Every society on earth is culpable in destroying whatever society it displaced and/or replaced. That is such a pathetic canard that it barely rates a response. I would think you were capable of better. What, the Zulu were all just peace loving natives, eh? And the Sioux never tried to exterminate the Pawnee, right? Just like the Inca never enslaved other tribes. Yeah, sure. Of course all those friendly folks just inherited the land they occupied, title in hand, from their ancestors, right?
By the way, i still haven't heard from the original commenters - or their contributions to Haiti's problem - even though they thought is was great to tell every one how left-wing intellectuals are superior to that stupid, superstitious Pat Robertson.
at 19:44 on January 16th, 2010
Hugh, you wrote :
(1) Okay to criticize Robertson
(2) Not okay to criticize those that criticize Roberson.
Not quite but, critique should be in relation to any statements offered regarding Robertson. Contributors should not be personally attacking one another.
at 20:46 on January 16th, 2010
Then apply the rule to those that criticize me.
at 22:38 on January 16th, 2010
A reminder has been posted here to everyone, Hugh.