I have an uncle I love dearly, but to say he is a Republican is an understatement. But one thing he has taught me politically is how email has become such an effective tool of transmitting political commentary.
This might be happening on both sides, but it appears to me, biased as I am, that the Right, and its supporters, have turned this strategy into a communications vehicle on steroids. It’s like the old shampoo commercial, and they email ten friends and they email ten friends and then, I have had the personal experience of having an email thrust in my face, printed out in ripe indignation as if it was a page of the Bible.
“How can you say that when Michelle Obama’s European Trip cost $100 million?”
Uh, well, I see your point Uncle Ken.
Today, I was forwarded an email with the headline
Amazing that the Wash. Post would actually print this. Amazing!
The Washington Post
August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson (columnist – Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Well, yes it would have been amazing. And let’s forget the rest of the entire email, let’s ignore the commentary in the email because clearly the commentary has value because this was printed in The Washington Post! A liberal paper in Washington DC printed this! You see how it works!
And clearly this Matt Patterson knows his stuff, look where he is a columnist for!
Well, google Matt Patterson and here is his site. Seriously, go see it.
And here is his contribution as a ‘columnist’ to The Washington Post. A single online letter to the editor from 2009
Now, Google Matt Patterson Washington Post August 18, 2011 and guess what you get? Hundreds of conservative sites linking to this remarkable article. But what you won’t get is any evidence that the article every actually ran in The Washington Post.
In fact, if you go to www.washingtonpost.com and search for Matt Patterson, you get nothing.
This is an example of what is remarkable about the Right’s echo chamber.
Here it echoed with a million plus links on Google, something that never was actually fired in the first place.
As Will Rogers one said”I Only know what I read, and I might add, one cannot even believe that which one reads any more. I know that where there is smoke, there is fire,
and unless words no longer mean what they say, including who says them, We are
truly in a great great pickel. I think it was Humpty Dumpty who said: ” Words mean
what I want and make them mean” So, Who can you trust?Dictionaries “fix” words
in their meaning and spelling and grammer. Maps, compasses, and Highway numbers
help us to travel accurately. Music is pretty well “established” so that a tune written
in the Amazonian Jungle could be well played in New York. So, who “fixes words for you?
Dear James,
I am a very conservative, retired submariner sailor. I belong to the John Birch Society too. But, on issues like this, I couldn’t agree with you more. I receive items like this so often. But, I always search sites that actually check things like this & also Google to see what else I can find. When the supped “original” source isn’t listed, one knows right away there is a problem. Many of the points are valid, but why attribute a writing/opinion to someone else. If you write it, man up & admit it. You have an interesting site here – one even an old submariner can enjoy.
I consider myself a constitutionalist and a proud Tea Party member. I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s self-defeating to originate or relay these inaccurate postings, as they harm credibility of our cause.
There is more than enough honest, accurate information right in front of our nose to support our belief that all Americans, and yes, the rest of the world as well, will benefit from the liberty and the free market system that our forefathers laid out for us. There is no reason to prevaricate.
If the Conservative Right could ‘run’ on the facts, they would not need to contine circulating partial and untruths to stoke the prejudices of the uneducated. I feel sorry for them. I feel more sorry for the people so ready to believe this ultraconservative propaganda.
A Moderate from NC.
It happens once in a while, and when it does, it’s obvious. But we all know that LIBERALS are as pure as the driven snow, right? And they are all SOOOO smart that the rest of us just can’t see what reality really is, right? In fact, I’m soooo lost without them. LOL To have them here, every day, reminding us all that their guiding light and pure insight will save us all (and the planet) is a blessing that is simply too hard to describe. Ugh… I think I’m going to be sick……..
A MODERATE? What the @#$$ is a “moderate” but someone who either doesn’t have the guts to be a liberal or someone who takes wishy washy, on the fence positions on everything to avoid conflict and get along with everyone. Are you pro life? Pro 2nd amendment? Pro tax cuts? Eliminate cap gains tax? Slash govt. spending by trillions, not just reduce the amount of the planned increases as liberals have planned. You have to take a FIRM STAND AGAINST the insanity if you want this country to survive. Moderates are useless as are RINOs and liberals. Get a spine.
I think what people describe as moderates have taken a stand on all those issues, only they don’t stand the party line on all of them. Pro-choice/pro 2nd admendment/anti-tax for middle class/pro tax on corps and rich/anti war/pro military does not fit either the liberals or the so called conservatives these days. Moderates take stands much more personally, they don’t just follow whatever the radio/tv/email tells them they should follow. Die hard Democrats and Republicans are nothing but Sheople. You should learn to think before you learn to “take a stand”.
No, it fits as stupid! Pro Choice on What? Schools??
Contine ? And you talk about the `uneducated` ? Moderate is another way of spelling Marxist..“none so blind as those that will not see“.
Hi I just wanted to let all of you know that the article in question WAS written by Matt Patterson, but it appeared in the American Thinker, not the Washington Post and indicated in the circulating email. So in short it is mostly ture except for the newspaper involved. You are free to draw your own conclusion.
Thanks for letting us know the origin of the article. We’ve all played the game telephone as kids, and learned that information can really change as it goes from one person to the next. Was this an honest mistake or did someone intentionally lie about the publishing? Regardless, the internet is a tool that can spread misinformation quickly, but also provide the means to fact check just as quickly.
Ken, thanks for your note and as a son and nephew and brother of Navy veterans, you are always welcome here.
Joe, thanks for writing. I never had any doubt it was written and published somewhere, but Mr Patterson (and he may not have created the offending email mind you) is not a Washington Post Columnist, nor did the article appear in the Washington Post. The illusion that he is and it did is the core piece of misinformation at play here.
To All,
Think you should look at Matt Patterson site. He was published in the Washington Post http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2009/09/red_line_blues.html
by way of the washingtonpost.com editors. Someone else changed the original message to appear that this particular piece was published. It was not the Conservative Right who are circulating partial and untruths to stoke the prejudices, but the other side of the isle. When I send out information I state links or copy the original article with the links just so the left can’t say that I am disseminating partial or untruths. The way the Progressive Left Socialist fight is to say the same untruth over and over and over agin until weak minds sy it must be true.
I am an Independent who is sick of the lies that are spread by MSM to the uniformed.
Paul
you’ll note that in our post we did reference that Mr Patterson did indeed have one letter to the editor published in 2009 in The Washington Post, this does not, in our opinion, make him a columnist as it implies on his site.
thanks for writing
I’ve been all over Matt Patterson’s website and nowhere does it even imply that he works for nor is a frequent contributor to the Washington Post, so put your distortion “implies” where the sun doesn’t shine. His website does list the many publications that his commentaries have appeared in as links – some go to only one article – some go to an index of articles. Being on such a list doesn’t “imply” anything. You’re as personally guilty of distortion as whoever crossed-up the publication information on the article in question – which could have been an honest mistake seeing that Patterson has been published in the Washinton Post. People are real quick to jump to conclusions and send their inaccuracies far and wide just as you just did with your “implies” comment.
James,
I stand with those who want truth emitted. I enjoy e-mails that spark thoughts and opinions. I am a conservative and 35. For every other “out-there” e-mail I get from my older conservative co-wrokers, or my dad; I have to reply with links showing them that it is a farse. As I am glad that the older generation conservatives in my life are being active in political conversations on the WWW, they tend to treat a typed e-mail the same as their morning paper when they were kids.
Mac: that’s a great point about the newspaper and e-mail; hadn’t thought about it, I am admittedly a progressive but I had a funny interchange with an Uncle brandishing an email that claimed Michelle Obama’s European trip cost $100 million. He was really upset and said “I mean aren’t you outraged that she spent $100 million going to Europe?” and I was like sure I would be if it was true. And he really just had never considered the idea that it might not be.
Typical liberal response from Mr. Boyce. Don’t deal with the facts of the article which actually was written by Mr. Patterson; but, rather, deflect and attack the fact that its publication is attributed to the wrong venue. It is a timeless tactic of Progressives. When the facts cannot be disputed, attack from the flank using any inane point that one can use.
I don’t the article, itself, is being disputed–but the dishonesty that this ‘type’ of article would be printed in the ‘liberal’ Washington Post. This gave the article the flavor that the Washington Post was (perhaps) beginning to see the light in regard to Obama. That is the deception–not the article.
Mike
Wait “when the facts cannot be disputed” Mr Patterson distributes an email far and wide claiming to be a Washington Post columnist, when he is not. And the title of the email expresses joy / astonishment something that the Washington Post printed this article when it didn’t.
Did I miss something? So I write an article and I claim to be a Wall Street Journal columnist and that this article was published in the WSJ when it wasn’t, you’re okay with that? Really?
James
James
You ARE really a typical liberal. Mike is talking about the CONTENT of the article and the facts stated within the article, not the fact of who the columnist is or who he writes for. Try agian to respond to Mike now that your head is out of your ass.
Don
Don,
First of all, you don’t know I am a liberal. Second, the article on this site has nothing to do with the content of what is essentially an email. The whole point of my blog post is that there is NO ARTICLE. I can’t respond to Matt Patterson’s email because I don’t have the whole email.
And I probably wouldn’t anyway.
James
A whole new problem is, you didn’t bother to investigate before running off at the mouth. There certainly was/is an article and it is quoted accurately. It was published in “The American Thinker” Aug 18, 2011. Patterson himself did not originate the screwed up email that has been circulated – someone else did who saw the article, saw that Patterson has been published in the Washington Post among other places, put 2+2 together and got 5. Simple as that! Was he/she careless? Yes! Were you careless in your commentary? Yes!
Yours is the typical liberal methodology – you don’t want to deal with the message, so you attack the messenger.
This piece–The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson was truly written in the American Thinker. So Patterson did write the article in a conservative arena. The deception is not whether or not Matt Patterson wrote the article, but where the article was published. The reason this email,which is clearly a deception (lie), is controverisal is that it leads the readers to believe that an ‘elite, uber liberal’ newspaper printed it which gives it added credibility to reinforce the conservative point of view–”see, the Washington Post printed this article so we must be true about Obama”. I’m not saying I disagree with the article, I wholeheartedly agree with it–I just detest the deception about where it was published. That is is just WRONG!! and beneath how I believe Conservatives should behave.
What a blessed country we live in. Millions of people do not have the freedom or technology to discuss openly whether this is a brilliant piece of word crafting or sewage from the bowels of men.
It is both. The use of verbs by the author clearly indicates their intention to incite negative emotion into those who identify with being conservative. The fact that there are lies and speculation sprinkled within truth is meant to add to the negative energy by making it “credible”.
So let’s put on our independent thinking caps for a moment and ask ourselves the question – “how would this article read if we removed the verbs, the lies and the speculation?”
Answer….. An article not worth reading. An article not worth discussing. Do something more productive with your time than pass around crap like this.
I will be letting the person that forwarded this email to me know that he is a “sewage facilitator”, a title you can put on your email signature if you forwarded this to anyone.
Signed,
Libertarian at Heart
p.s. James – You’re a liberal. You admit to being a “progressive” and your web site says this: “How the right wing is stealing elections, destroying our country and laughing all the way to the bank.” But because you appear to desire truth, we might get along.
Hey Don G- (and all you others sitting on the fence, calling yourselves “progressives”..
What exactly is a libertarian OR a “progressive” for that matter? Someone who wants to tax the hell out of people who earn a “lot” of money, yet supports payments to those who do nothing for it or are here illegally? Someone who wants to keep abortion legal (the wholesale slaughtering of unborn human beings) yet protests the death penalty for murderers? At least liberals have the balls to take a stance on issues, even though their arguments are more often than not based on fantasy, contradictions and hypocrisy. I don’t mean to slam you, but I’m really tired of people telling me they are libertarians! It’s like they can’t say the word “conservative” without offending some of their nut-case friends on the left. In my opinion, if you claim to be a Republican or Democrat, you’re a fool for being purely party affiliated. If you claim to be a libertarian or “progressive”, you want to get along with everyone by appearing to intellectually balance all aspects of an issue to “arrive”at the “well informed” position, regardless of the validity of your presentation. If you claim to be a liberal, at least you have the balls to take the heat, though you have no brains to examine the facts, and you certainly have NEVER taken any classes in either finance, economics or accounting, and you don’t know JACK about this country’s history OR the free enterprise system! That leaves those who claim to be a conservative. As evidenced by the person who started circulating this Washington Post article, you will always have those on any side who are overzealous. But by and large, their arguments hold far more water than any other organized political group out there, as ANYONE with an ounce of brains and who uses the New York Times as a bird cage liner (as opposed to reading it) can tell you. Oh… and verbs, adjectives, nouns, pronouns, adverbs, conjugations, or any other term you may want to add to the list, that article being circulated, regardless of who wrote it or where it was supposed to have appeared, is true. Liberals now know it as does every other American. PERIOD. Obama is a failure, as is the lamestream media for covering for him, and the liberal (oh… and progressive) establishment for electing him. I am always astounded at the stupidity of the left. They always wonder why this country is so screwed up yet look who they elect to congress. Add to those people the STUPID “Republicans” who keep electing RINOS. I suggest everyone ignore the media, dump their party and vote liberal or conservative.
I’m confused–I thought the Libertarians were like 180 degrees apart from the Progressives. Are the Progressives now starting to call themselves Libertarians? Libertarians are strict Constitutionalist–Progressives want to rewrite the Constitution to suit their whims. Help–clarification needed please.
I am the grandad and my grandson keeps me on course. With the new internet age, we are all deluged with info some is valid and some is not – Isn’t this one way that Obama got elected – and it appeared that many young people grabbed on to this new way of getting their info and got caught up in the “Yes we can”, “Hope and change” etc. How many looked at what Obama had done??, very few obviously. For Matts article, I could care less if it was published but I can not find fault with the content . But of course the liberals will contest most of the content, but for me it rings true. Too bad that somebody tried to make it more “authentic” by indicating that it was posted in the Post
Thank you Burgundy Bob for making this point. What you said is so true! Whenever I receive an email containing information such as this one, before I forward it to any of my contacts I always do some research to verify if it is true. Like you, I knew the contents to be valid, but if I had forwarded this on, all I would have “heard” was that the email was not true b/c the author did not work for The Washington Post. The citizens of this country need to educate themselves and realize that there can be a lot of truth in an email that has a slight error in it. Be willing to search for the truth and not wait for it to be spoon fed to you. If they don’t one day we may lose the choice to vote for any President.
Pingback: PROP MAIL: Jay Leno Said What? | Smoking Politics
What’s amazing to me is that I see many comparable emails circulated by presumably intelligent folks out there. In other words, as long as the content is consistent to their beliefs or political positions, they’ll disseminate the crap without any regard for it’s level of accuracy (or in most cases inaccuracies). See it all the time, even from my 89 yr old Republican mother subsequent to her receipt from someone she knows !! I will say, however, that she doe’s genuinely appreciate when I invalidate the various assertions via sites like this, factcheck.org etc…. Happy Holidays !!
I landed at this site strictly see if the claims of the email were true. While I agree with the email I found the rest of the story suspect (and rightfully so). However, to attribute email and internet falsification strictly to Republicans is arrogant, foolish and just as misleading as that which you protest.
I love how you assume (or phrase in such a way that it seems-since one comment of yours stated other possibility) that Matt Patterson started the claim. It was probably someone else who saw his column on American Thinker and thought he should spread the word and putting Washington Post would make it more believable or inspire more people. I also love how you complain about a conservative email circulating around being falsify and not about the many liberal ones that are. You should help your side from misinformation as well [by the way like Ken found your site when double checking if it was actually from Washington Post which I doubt it was and obviously right]. On another note on his website he states himself as a commentator and columnist not for any particular place but that his work was publish in those various newspapers, etc like the Washington Post. If he was going to spread such an email, he would be an idiot beyond all belief (Though I guess we got plenty of those in this world).
Of course there is always the liberal ones in the news that is represented as fact every single day. Like oh the Unemployment Rates going down how great President Obama is for doing so.(if it is then let’s think about everything it doesn’t include those who given up on searching for a job, ones who are underemployed[Have a degree and not employed in a position that uses it.], those who are part time who want to be full time, etc (Basic Macroeconomics). Side note I know all Presidents have fudge the numbers when it comes to this-but media doesn’t even point out what it includes. The news needs to be straight forward and not for any side (So yes Fox News you are bias not as equal as they claim). It is the NEWS not a political agenda push.
On third and final note, I would love for you to point out the misinformation of the article. Yes it is put in strong bias language as Don G said, but doesn’t make it entirely inaccurate (You remember in Critical Thinking class you are just to change it to neutral like tones or consider the positive tones when analyzing the article). Almost every speech I hear him (And this is not counting the ones on Fox News) he is stuttering and saying ‘Uh’ and ‘Um’ and ‘Er’ yet proclaim as a great speech-man. Last time I was in speech class, that was considered terrible performance. Same thing with long pauses between words or repeating words. Another thing there is a big difference between book smarts and applying intelligence to create practical solutions. So even if he graduated top of his class, I haven’t seen intelligent moves on his part.
It has many other great points such as the most common racism/sexism of today: Jobs like policemen, firemen, etc. lowering the standards so more woman can be in the job (which as a woman I find unacceptable. These jobs have requirements for a reason), which is applied to many schools cause they must have a certain percentage of what is considered ‘minority groups’. And census, jobs, schools, etc asking about race. It doesn’t matter. I don’t think of people based on where they are raised or color of skin. If you truly want to stop racism then ignore such factors; it isn’t important and doesn’t make you a better or worse person.
Yes, I’m a Conservative Libertarian in my political views. I do not support Republicans (No Republicans aren’t conservative despite what news says; just like George W. Bush isn’t a conservative despite the news claim [he was a moderate of sorts if you don't believe me look up conservative values compared to what he supported] or Democrats I think they are both terrible for our great country.
Very well said–Hear, hear!!
Yes, you are biased if you think that only or mostly the Right sends this sort of email.
I am biased on the Right, and of course I could say that I constantly see the Left just blatantly lying about events and data when something looks bad for its side, or to sway impressionable minds. I can also suggest that if it is more the Right than the Left employing this type of email communication vehicle (on steroids or not) perhaps it is because the Left owns almost all the other vehicles of communication (media) in this country and slants information in its favor practically as a matter of policy, while exhorting in disdainful disgust the uncouth, uneducated, ignoramuses who dare not agree, or anyone who might question the left’s “truth.”
All we can do is ask of people to use their noggins and be discerning. Let the outcomes speak for the truth or not of whatever anyone says.
Just for fun, why doesn’t everyone discuss the merits of the commentary article written by Patterson. Arguing over who is distorting what gets us nowhere. Somehow this country has to find a leader who can unite the country instead of divide it. Obama promised he’d unite it but has done more to divide the country than anyone in history. Patterson’s article makes some very interesting points about Affirmative Action and the results of it – not just about Obama, but other people who are victimized by this practice. Many of the students who are admitted to fancy schools because of the color of their skin only to fail miserably are truly victims of Affirmative Action, not beneficiaries.
Can the liberals discuss issues in a substantive manner? I don’t see any of them doing it.
“Can the liberals discuss issues in a substantive manner”? That’s an interesting question–my experience is ‘No’. I was having a wonderful online, idealogical debate with a progressive–we were debating back and forth sharing our facts and data. It was really very interesting and I must say I was enjoying it–until all of a sudden she started to attack my grammar (actually a spelling mistake). So, I guess the ‘fact’ is true that liberals/progressives start the personal attacks when they feel threatened of losing the debate. I ended my discussion with this progressive because when she made the personal attack, she lost all credibility with me and I didn’t want to waste anymore of my time.
After doing some actual, genuine research, either Mr. Patterson is misinformed or does not want to be informed about the, “The Affirmative Action President” article which was never published in the Washington Post, New York Post or San Francisco Examiner but was published in American Thinker Magazine. Why is that not a surprise? Mr. Patterson refers to Pres. Obama’s pre-presidential life being, “ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores.” How does Mr. Patterson know what Pres. Obama’s grades and test scores were? The schools Pres. Obama attended are not allowed to give out that information.
Mr. Patterson mentions, “along the way; a cushy non-job as a community organizer.” From what I understand, being a community organizer is a lot of hard work, a lot of knocking on doors and convincing people to get involved in improving their neighborhood and environment. Mr. Patterson mentions Pres. Obama’s, “brief career as a state legislator”, Eight years in the Illinois Senate seams like a respectable time to me. Of his time in the Illinois Legislature, Pres. Obama helped pass more than 800 bills, helped sheppard through a law that banned most gifts from lobbyist and personal use of campaign funds by state legislators and a law requiring police to video tape interrogations and confessions and yet, Mr. Patterson calls this, “devoid of legislative achievement”. Only 129 times out of 4,000 votes in the Illinois Legislature did Pres. Obama vote, “present”.
Although I personally don’t care for the Rev, Jeremiah Wright, he has a right to free speech just like the rest of us. I don’t condone what Bill Ayers did, blowing up empty public buildings, but if you want to blame someone for Mr. Ayers not going to jail, blame the FBI under the Nixon administration for botching the investigation. As far as I know, Bill Ayers was never convicted of any crime and is free to move among us just as you or I.
I could go on and on about all the other inconsistencies in Mr. Patterson’s diatribe, but I feel I would be wasting my time and my time is more valuable that this.
One point about Obama’s experience and achievement–do you honestly equate “knocking on doors and convincing people to get involved” is experience in leadership? Com on, that’s a really big stretch!!!
Yes, yes – I figured the WaPo byline was a phony. What’s hilarious, though, is the little blurb at the top of your page: “How the right wing is stealing elections, destroying our country and laughing all the way to the bank.” I’m curious: just what ARE you smoking with your politics?
I received the Patterson E-mail today from a friend. I enjoyed every word of it. Obama has been given a pass on his past as well as the present state of affairs. I know–it’s all Busch’s fault.
I then investigated the E-Mail because I had my doubts that the Post would publish it. Before I sent it around I wanted to make sure I got my facts straight. I know that’s hard to believe (a Republican getting his facts straight). I only wish I could give the rightful Author his just dues when I send this letter to all my friends.
The ‘rightful author’ is Matt Patterson–and the American Thinker. Send it on with pride.
Great debate. This is a micro of the coming presidental election. Obama has accomplished nothing but add to the economic problems. He has to defend his record and he can’t. His tactic will be to distroy the other side by any means necessary. His allies on the left will do the best they can, but in the end it will not be enough, even with billions in the war chest. This place will come apart when he looses.
This will be fun to watch from a distance. I’ll take a vacation out of the country that week. Maybe not come back until the dust (riots) settles.
Indeed I’m sure Mr. Paterson is not a writer for the NYP, but the more remarkable aspect of this story is what no one commented on: that being the “facts” presented by this article (perhaps the word “political commentary” might be the better descriptive).
Though the commentary is mostly political conjecture (that being there are few “provable facts” that can be unearthed about Obama (for example, because BHO’s college records have been sealed; and it seems no can validate much at all about his past, other that what he has written about himself (, i.e., has anyone actually eye-balled his birth certificate…….that in itself is strange enough).
Personally, my belief is that Lincoln would have sounded like the same person with, or without his teleprompter had he had one! That “fact” in the article says it all about the charade created by this president and the political machine that made him who he is today.
Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, such as you wrote the guide in it or something. I believe that you just can do with a few percent to pressure the message house a little bit, however other than that, this is wonderful blog. A fantastic read. I will certainly be back.
Pingback: Monty Pelerin's World » Obama: An Affirmative Action Gift
I’m a retired librarian. I do like to see things cited correctly. Matt Patterson does write opinion pieces that appear in conservative sources, like Washington Times, and Washington Examiner, but not Washington Post. The Affirmative Action piece appeared in American Thinker, an on-line collection for conservative and libertarian writers, and someone started circulating the rumor it was in WaPo probably mistaking it for Washington Times. That’s a bit like saying Fox News is ABC News because they both have the word News in their name.
I just received this article in my email today. Although I agree with the sentiment of the piece, I too, have discovered it wise to check out the facts before forwarding on. Like many Americans, I am curious as to Obama’s academic standing, how he managed to enter and pay for his schooling, who his friends were as a student, his associates as an aspiring politico. If there is no skeleton, why all of the secrecy? Why the avoidance of the issues? I suspect that his closeted background is as lack-luster and deceptive as his public performance.
I think the real issue here is that the conservative, republican etc groups are using the same tactics that the Demoncrap/communist have been using for years and now they are crying foul. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but this is Washington DC politics and they are all lying scum….. so what’s the problem? At least the “article” speaks the truth unlike the typical Demoncrap propaganda, ya know republicans want to kill and murder anyone not a Demoncrap!!!! But the hypocrisy there is the Demoncraps support baby murder, muslim honor killings and are the most anti Christian and anti white people in America! Liberalism is a Severe Mental Disorder.
We’re talking Politics, for gosh sakes.
Politics.
It’s who you know not what you know.
Perception is reality.
Politics, just spin the perception and you are the master of reality.
Politics.
And you are trying to fien an intelligent conversation???
The meaningful question is, what does this all mean for you and me?
Think back to the summer before every election that elected a new Administration in the Fall.
Reflect on the outgoing Administration; did you feel optimistic about your future? Did you feel upwardly mobile? compared to how you felt at the start?
Escalate! It was Johnsons war.
Nixon ended it.
We couldn’t wait to put Carter in. I remember Optimistic times.
Carter to Regan……….
Regan to Bush………..
Bush to Clinton………
Clinton to Bush……..
Bush to Obama……..
Today……………………