What's your reaction when you first hear about some borderline despicable act that Republicans might be responsible for?
If you're like me, and despite the enormous number of false alarms sounded by the partisan media, you ask, "Say it ain't so?!?"
Because not only am I not going to defend some dastardly individual or a party that engages in outright lies and character assassinations (which is why the Democrat party should lose that "party" designation), I don't want to associate with people who have no ethical bearings.
Which brings me to the meaning of the above title. Liberal hate is so rabid and all consuming that they can't hide it. It's understandable, I mean, I myself can't hide the hatred I have for liberals, but the difference is that mine is grounded in reason. Liberals decide what or who they want to hate first, then they set about manufacturing their reasons. And even when they can't come up with any good ones, they engage in brainstorming hate sessions until finally the herd mentality takes over.
Nowhere is this better displayed than in the comment section of what promises to be a very hot topic should further details prove it to be true. I'm talking about "The Bracelet." Yesterday's scandal was that Obama had to read the name off of his "me too" bracelet because he apparently didn't remember it. I didn't see that, and I haven't seen a replay, so I can't personally verify anything. But the reason I was distracted that moment is because I immediately went into shock when I heard Obama's "I've got a bracelet too" reply which I found to be shockingly juvenile, and since it was in regard to a most sacred subject, fallen soldiers, I felt this was a defining moment.
Needless to say, if Obama actually did have to refresh his memory, it becomes a disqualifying moment.
That's just a fantasy, because the liberal position is, as always: how dare you try to take political advantage of any shortcomings in one of our candidates. No matter that liberals attempt to magnify the smallest mistakes, and they work at it twenty-four hours a day. No matter that while there is certainly political gain to be had regarding the bracelet, that doesn't negate the seriousness of what Obama may have done.
But as I said, that was yesterday's scandal. Today, there's an allegation that the mother of the dead soldier had asked Obama not to wear the bracelet because, get this, she didn't want her son's death to even have the appearance of being connected with politics.
However, all this is hearsay and speculation since it comes from the woman's now ex-husband who apparently supports McCain. Although when the mother gave the bracelet to Senator Obama, she's alleged to have said that she wanted us to leave Iraq – but very carefully, so as not to leave the possibility of having to go back when things might be far worse.
OK, so as I write, we don't know the truth, but Jake Tapper posted the story saying that he hoped to verify it one way or the other. He said that the matter was brought up by Republicans which may seem suspicious were it not for the always applicable question: If not they, who?
And what's far more important is, it was only an allegation, not a public story, until Tapper published it. In other words, wouldn't we all have been perfectly comfortable with having Tapper wait until he's nailed the story's details?
Draw whatever conclusions you want from the fact that he didn't, except that by posting it as he did, it make Republicans the story as much as the circumstances surrounding the bracelet.
Yet, that's not my story. I was struck by the comments that followed which, to me, are far more important. Liberal respondents, as usual, don't' care about any details that might reflect badly on their guy. Even if it's all true, that Obama had to use the bracelet as a teleprompter and that the mother had asked him not to wear the bracelet, to them, Republicans are the ones who are despicable, apparently for disrupting their fantasy.
But even here, it's not what they said, but how they said it. John McCain, according to them, is a horrible individual for bringing up his Vietnamese captivity, and for talking about virtually anything related to the military. And he's denounced in the most vile manner, again as is usual for liberals.
And Sarah Palin is denounced too. One person said that this matter was of no importance compared to the fact that Palin was again absent from the Sunday talk shows. It didn't occur to him that both matters could be relevant at once. Or that Palin's absence might be irrelevant since the debate this Thursday will determine whether she can cut it
As you scan the comments, I doubt you'll be able to get much further than I did, which is not far. Liberals are so low, so irrational, and so overflowing with hate that it's like you stumbled into the Texas Chainsaw massacre.