Search This Blog

Friday, August 10, 2012

Speaking out of both sides of their mouths

Just a very quick observation...
Both Janice Daniels and Paul Smith responded to their respective, repulsive scandals in a very similar way.
Both said:

  • there was nothing wrong with their statements, 
  • they stand by their statements and 
  • they have every right to say whatever they want, because America is a free country and the 1st Amendment and blah, blather, blah, yawn...
Both also said:
  • My enemies are trying to destroy me by making my comments public! 
    • But if the statements are fine and initially said/shown in public, what's wrong with making them a little MORE public?
  • How dare people say bad things about me!!!! 
    • But what about freedom of speech and all that?
  • How dare you judge me by what I say/write??? 
    • Well, how else would we be able to define you besides by what you do and say?
  • There is just a small group of malcontents against me/trying to recall me/tattling on the Secret Service about me! 
    • If it's a tiny little group of people, then why do these horrible things you both do and say go viral and create such universal anger and disgust?
Janice, Paul, Moira and their defenders...
Think about it, won't you?

7 comments:

  1. Yes, they are very similiar. And I conclude that Janice must think those signs were OK since she didn't repudiate them.

    They also are lousy in government due to their delusional thinking and elevated sense of superiority over others. No wonder Paul, Moira and Janice are good friends, it must be so comforting to have one's every belief validated by the others, kind of like an echo chamber.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was at the Wednesday meeting of the Sterling Heights City Council where the resolution asking Smith to resign was passed.

      During the public comment section, one speaker (we all know who) got angry and said 'how dare you accuse paul smith of racism!?'

      I'm one who follows the rules, so I fought the urge... but I wanted so much to stand up and yell.... the fact that you're standing there with a sign that talks about 'wetbacks' and 'fags'.

      This guy just doesn't seem to get it. He's blind to how entirely offensive his comments were.

      Delete
  2. I think Eva Braun was right when she spoke out so forcefully at the meeting...how can they do this to her wonderful, kind, tolerant and patriotic husband?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd bring up Godwin's law, but Paul Smith already went there with what some might see as some Nazi love in his tv interview.

      Even if his geography and history are lacking, his point is still clear. Seig Hiel!

      Delete
  3. What we're seeing here is the absolute bottom core of extremism, and what happens when it runs headlong into a wall that it can't smash through. A complete disconnect from reality. I'm sure the Smith's are in total denial about what they did and the reaction to it.

    There's an old saying about being hoisted on one's own petard. Probably more to the point, Paul Smith and his wife pulled out the pin on hand grenades, then threw them on the ground and jumped on them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There's an old saying about being hoisted on one's own petard."

      A more recent version is "hoist on own retard", which is for more extreme cases.

      Delete
  4. Apparently Mr. Smith was on Charlie Langton's radio show on August 10th. According Geoff Gariepy's Sterling Heights PolitiBlog (http://sterlinghts.wordpress.com/) when speaking on what he would do if he had it to do all over, Smith stated:
    “I’m not apologizing or backing down for anything, but I think if I had it to do over again I wouldn’t have included Jennifer Granholm. I think she’s a nice girl, I would really like her, she’s not really good at handling money, but she was a good person. But at the time she was really sending us into bankruptcy. But I think I would really personally like the girl.”
    Very revealing! I'm certainly no fan of Jennifer Ganholm; but, she's a woman, not a girl. This comment indicates a sexist attitude. This is demonstrated further in his response to a question about his effectiveness on City Council:
    "I’m a despised outsider because I dared to run against an incumbent. I defeated an incumbent. They had four women and three men on the council. Now it’s the other way around, four men and three women. The women on council haven’t said a word to me the whole time." What does the gender makeup of the Council have to do with anything? Given his use of the "B...." word on his sign depicting Nancy Pelosi, perhaps their decision not to speak to him was a pre-emptive action. His requent pre-election appearances at Council meeting surely gave them insight into his character.
    I am a married, father of daughters, my wife and daughters are WOMEN not girls (and, my sons would be MEN not boys). Girl, when used in the context of addressing or referring to an adult, professional female is demeaning. The "B...." word is not used in the presence of my family and not permissible in a civil discussion. Perhaps the Mayor ought to get some new friends.

    ReplyDelete