Same Old Talking Points with Stilettos

Surf is up for socialism from Leftifornians to Leftiyorkers. Their latest stunt involves comparing Venezuela to the US economy. Right, not a lot of difference between them.

So if they can compare Venezuela’s dire situation to the “evils of capitalism,” then these people really don’t have a clue. Venezuela shows the softness of socialism?

When a Go Fund Me page appears and raises 17 million to build the wall, of course liberals or Democrats are fuming. People should only be able to raise money for lying hacks to take down a SCOTUS nominee or conservative. How dare people support border security.

Though Democrats’ talking points about the wall secures nothing, but costs us billions.

So Twitter slaps a big warning on the Wall petition and fundraiser telling everyone that Twitter and their “partners” have determined it too risky to link it. They say they are protecting their users from “potential” malicious threats by blocking the site. Now raising money to build a wall to secure the border is a huge threat. Orwellian.

However, the leftist shadow campaigns which sprung up as petitions and fundraisers in response to the Wall fundraiser have naturally not been deemed a threat. So open borders are no threat to national security either. Encouraging lawlessness is Christian compassion.

But there is a problem every time the left tries to outdo itself on talking points. They have been so far over the top for over ten years that no one could take them seriously anymore. Still they need to come up with new language and comparisons all the time, because the last stuff they shoveled out has already gotten old. So “Buyer Beware!”

In fact, if we haven’t gotten the loud and clear message yet, between media attack dogs and the rowdy fascist left, reality is that they have finally mainstreamed radicalism.

Mission complete.

In the immortal words of the colorful James Traficant, “Beam me up, Scotty.”
Or as Texas Congressman Ted Poe always said…”and that’s just the way it is.”

In Venezuela they call the organized gangs extorting conditions “the Colectivos.” By George, I think I will start calling Democrats here the Collectivos.

Right Ring | Bullright

Obama and his legion of sock puppets

A sock puppet, in the context of online communications, is a fake identity created to promote someone or something through blogs, wikis, forums or social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter.

sock puppet photo: sock puppet sock_puppet.jpgSock puppets are often created to improve the status of some company or other entity or to promote a particular viewpoint that is expected to be helpful to that entity. Fake identities are created to circumvent site bans, increase product sales, improve or tarnish reputations, spread disinformation and stifle dissent, among other possibilities.

Sometimes people create their own sock puppets; sometimes they hire others to do so. Someone hired to create a sock puppet is referred to as a meat puppet, an Internet shill or a cyber shill. The use of a sock puppet to artificially stimulate demand for a product or service is known as sock puppet marketing.

Okay, now that we all know the general term and definition of sock puppets, we can move on. So what Obama does is call out his minions and re-broadcast his message through a legion of useful idiots, aka sock puppets. Sure they may be real people, but there is nothing real or original about what they say. There was nothing original about Obama either.

Want a great example of this just tour the twitter universe at a given time. After the chief loon utters one of his verbal commands, you see them scurrying to place his words into the dialogue wherever, and I mean wherever, they can. Don’t believe me? Just go to any popular representative or Senator’s page — mostly those on the Republican side — and see for yourself. All the talking points boiled down to useful twitter-verse lingo. It doesn’t matter what they reply to, the same talking points. Mostly off topic, makes no difference. They just spout toxic verbiage whereever they feel like taking a dump.

I am talking about the stupid subject of sock puppets only because of their narrative. They are obnoxious. They don’t have to know or understand what they are saying, and chances are they don’t want to. Remember how “Mic Check” was used in OWS dialogue. (if one can call that dialogue) They just offer a mouthpiece to project Obama’s sound-bite agenda. It’s simple. He’s the ventriloquist, they are the puppets. But they can also email and call reps, per orders, or whatever happens to be on Obama’s menu.

There is little difference from one to another. Reply to any of them and they block you and call you a troll. They have their too-cute-by-half hashtags and contacts on Twitter. They are there so you cannot ignore them. Of course, it’s right up Obama’s alley with all those fictional followers he and the First Twit have. These are just self activating bots.

RightRing | Bullright

Goal Posts and WH strategy

The goal posts are moving, again, now almost daily.

At first they said there was nothing to suggest the White House changed or had anything to do with altering the talking points on Benghazi.

Here you have a chief WH staffer, Ben Rhodes, telling and suggesting what Susan Rice should say in her Sunday talk-a-thon. Then Rice goes out on the talk shows blaming Benghazi attack on the video, per script.

Carney telling us that the email had nothing to do with Benghazi is like… well, and they claim we dabble in conspiracies? Am I to believe he wrote the email to Rice, prior to her talk-a-thon, and was explicitly NOT talking about Benghazi? (Sure) Why would he exempt Benghazi… where 4 Americans were viciously killed, and all the attention was focused, and what Susan Rice mostly talked about? Then they claim the Benghazi blame points came from the CIA, not so per Morell. So then she would have had to inject that video reason for Benghazi all by her lonesome. (that’s a wild theory)

That Rhodes was not even referring to Benghazi, even though he did mention it, doesn’t pass the smell test. In fact, it wreaks. The other absurdity on its face is that if in fact he did mean the video was the reason for the protests and violence, anywhere, then that really blames us and supplies terrorists a universal excuse. That was Mitt Romney’s problem as it was happening. But they would rather cling to some flimsy excuse for the perpetrators of violence than admit there was a real terrorist attack in Benghazi — unattached to a video.

If Rhodes was making the point about protests excluding Benghazi, then wouldn’t you think he (the WH) would have made a point to lay out a real cause for Benghazi itself, alone, untied to the other protests? No, he was referring to Benghazi.

But the goal post did move. The left said there was nothing connecting the WH to what was said in the talking points. Hello, there it is. Now they say it doesn’t. Their co-opting of the talking points were not even about Benghazi. Jay must have thought that one up by himself. Just connect what Rice said, explicitly referring to Benghazi, to Rhodes instructions in the email. Voila. She followed the script perfectly. Now they merely dismiss deny that Rhodes’ email, copied to everyone, had anything at all to do with Benghazi. Nancy says there is “nothing new”. Lets just say they stretched the goal posts from one place to another. Now they will claim this means nothing — denial.

Liars and liars, and liars. “No substantive changes…”- Jay Carney.

It’s pretty bad when CNN, with its own queen of spin, Crowley, thinks it’s absurd.

(…see if CNN gets anymore special interviews!)

RightRing | Bullright