The other day I was sitting in Court minding my own business while awaiting opposing counsel. With other attorneys in the courtroom, but not the Judge, one attorney asks me if I'm going to have lunch with my buddy Putin soon. This attorney had recently run into me at a restaurant while I was having lunch with another conservative, Jewish attorney. I only recall saying then that I believe we have the worst two choices for President in my lifetime. He replied that one of them was the worst, anyway. So, he likes Hillary.
Back to the courtroom. As my knee is bothering me, and it was getting stuffy in the courtroom, I asked that attorney, who was standing by the door, if he would prop it open. He replied that he would not do it for me. Another attorney stood up and said she would do it. But when the first attorney told her not to do it because I'm a Republican, she sat back down.
Just because Trump made some ridiculous comment about Putin does not mean if I vote for Trump that I like Putin. I wonder what this attorney thought of Obama's dumb comment to Medvedev before the 2012 election: "Tell Vladimir (Putin) I'll have more flexibility after the election." Putin then took Obama for the weak leader that he is, and took over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
Back to the courtroom again. The attorney stood up again, and in an angry, hostile tone said: "I've had it up to here," putting his hand at the level of his neck. He continued: "I lived through Nixon, I lived through Bush, and I've had it up to here." He then asked to speak with me in the hallway. I thought that was better than continuing in the courtroom, so I stepped into the hallway with him. He said he had two questions for me.
The first question: "If you needed open heart surgery, would you go to someone with 30 years experience who had done thousands of such surgeries, or would you go to your local plumber." As the question was ridiculous I replied: "Can I have some time to think about it?" He got the point and moved on to his second question: "What was wrong with Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court? Who do you want filling that seat on the Supreme Court." I replied that I would like to see someone like Scalia appointed, and that only Trump would appoint such an individual.
His anger continued to rise. It was clear he was far too angry to have a conversation. I asked if he would like to read my blog for my viewpoints, pointing out that others on his side of the fence do read it. He said he knew about it and did not want to read it. I then inquired about what he did read - just the LA Times or NY Times? He replied that he read nothing. After suffering through his harassment and hostility, and admittedly not my finest moment, these words then left my mouth: "So, you're stupid then." At that, he stormed off.
If I run into this attorney again, I would apologize. I always prefer to keep things professional. However, it gets rather annoying that people think they can harass me or mock me because of my beliefs. I will never back down, however. People like this attorney need to read the July 17th post on "Classical Liberalism." The problem is, they probably still would not get it.
I have discussed this problem on a number of occasions - the left no longer believes in the fundamental American values.
That is why they see no problem in saying they want to ban or shut down Chick-fil-A, because the owner said he believed in the traditional definition of marriage. It's always the "issue" at hand (gay marriage, or any other issue) taking precedence over the "fundamental value" - in this case, free speech and the First Amendment. And the fundamental value that people are allowed to hold opposing views without feeling a need to hurt them or threaten them physically or economically. But it explains why this attorney had no problem being openly hostile towards me because I disagree with him.
One friend told me that the gay Republican commentator, Milo Yiannopoulos, said it is easier for him to admit being gay than it is to admit being a conservative/Republican. I would not be surprised. That is certainly the case in Hollywood. And it may be the case in leftist areas of the country like California, New York City and other places. I will never back down. But the larger issue remains - can the Democratic left ever again return to being a party of tolerance, with a belief in Classical Liberalism and the fundamental American values?
Friday, July 29, 2016
Sunday, July 24, 2016
A Few Words on the Blog and Spin
I started writing this blog shortly after Obama became President. It was actually set up and named by my daughters, who saw that I had been sending political emails to maybe 10-12 people I knew. Now, one daughter just added an email address for readers to be able to email me directly; as many readers are reluctant to post public comments. The email is in my profile, "About Me," and is mike.truthuncensored@gmail.com. My daughters also want to get my blog linked to other sites in order to increase readership. Stay tuned and I will let you know.
My last post discussed Melania's speech and the plagiarism issue. It was mentioned by some on the right that both Obama and Biden had been guilty of plagiarism. Why didn't I bring it up? The answer is because the plagiarism by Obama and Biden was irrelevant. Plagiarism is wrong. As with anything else that is wrong, it is not a defense to say "but other people do it also." Is stealing okay because others do it? Obviously not. I had no interest in defending Melania's partial copying of Michelle Obama's speech. What was significant was the difference in genuine beliefs of the Trumps versus the Obamas.
Similarly, an issue arose in one of the group emails in which I participate. One reader was incensed that I would not condemn Trump for accusing a judge of bias just based on his ethnicity (Hispanic) alone. I believe that reader was just so upset with my conservative views (this particular group email consists of mostly liberals) that he missed my very first comment about the issue. I had said that Trump's accusation of bias on the basis of ethnicity with no facts to support the bias was unconscionable. That participant in the blog had no interest in discussing any of Hillary's problems. He just wanted to make sure that I said Trump was wrong.
A friend recently just told me that he was watching the Republican convention on CNN, but would also switch to FOX periodically. He felt that he was entering into a different universe each time he switched from one station to the other. CNN commentators had nothing good to say about the convention or Trump's speech. On the other hand, the FOX commentators were gushing over Trump's speech as one of the best political speeches ever. Both views are nonsense.
Trump hit many issues that concern the average American: law and order, terrorism, the economy, jobs and manufacturing, taxes, education and school choice and school debt, veterans, Supreme Court appointments, the Second Amendment and foreign affairs. Along the way, he threw in his criticisms of Hilary Clinton. It was, substantially, a populist speech, with a fair number of issues that would ordinarily appeal to Democrats. That made it all the more obvious that CNN and FOX were simply defending "their side," rather than giving a fair analysis. Which is why I encourage people, especially young people, to read different viewpoints. Which is also why I enjoy talk radio shows that have many callers, and make it a point to read letters to the editor. Those sources provide many different viewpoints.
Question: then weren't you justifying Trump's attack on the press when you answered with Obama's behavior towards the press? (See the 7/20/16 post "Get Ready For All The Lies.") Weren't you doing what you said you would not do because if something is wrong, it is wrong? Answer: not at all. The point of that post was not to defend Trump. Rather, it was to show the incredible bias of the elitists in the universities who were making Trump out to be the worst potential president for the First Amendment and freedom of the press, while ignoring the very real attacks on the press by a man who has actually been President for 7 1/2 years. The bias of the academy, like the bias of the media, is a very real and serious issue, and this blog has addressed it on multiple occasions.
The bottom line, of course, is that this blog has a conservative viewpoint. But I do my best to provide facts and information, not just my opinions. And, as long term readers of the blog will know, I have posted a number of exchanges between myself and others in order to present both sides of an issue. If any reader would like to engage in an exchange on a particular issue, email me and I will do my best to post it. Your name would not be posted, you would only be identified as "Reader," unless you preferred otherwise.
My last post discussed Melania's speech and the plagiarism issue. It was mentioned by some on the right that both Obama and Biden had been guilty of plagiarism. Why didn't I bring it up? The answer is because the plagiarism by Obama and Biden was irrelevant. Plagiarism is wrong. As with anything else that is wrong, it is not a defense to say "but other people do it also." Is stealing okay because others do it? Obviously not. I had no interest in defending Melania's partial copying of Michelle Obama's speech. What was significant was the difference in genuine beliefs of the Trumps versus the Obamas.
Similarly, an issue arose in one of the group emails in which I participate. One reader was incensed that I would not condemn Trump for accusing a judge of bias just based on his ethnicity (Hispanic) alone. I believe that reader was just so upset with my conservative views (this particular group email consists of mostly liberals) that he missed my very first comment about the issue. I had said that Trump's accusation of bias on the basis of ethnicity with no facts to support the bias was unconscionable. That participant in the blog had no interest in discussing any of Hillary's problems. He just wanted to make sure that I said Trump was wrong.
A friend recently just told me that he was watching the Republican convention on CNN, but would also switch to FOX periodically. He felt that he was entering into a different universe each time he switched from one station to the other. CNN commentators had nothing good to say about the convention or Trump's speech. On the other hand, the FOX commentators were gushing over Trump's speech as one of the best political speeches ever. Both views are nonsense.
Trump hit many issues that concern the average American: law and order, terrorism, the economy, jobs and manufacturing, taxes, education and school choice and school debt, veterans, Supreme Court appointments, the Second Amendment and foreign affairs. Along the way, he threw in his criticisms of Hilary Clinton. It was, substantially, a populist speech, with a fair number of issues that would ordinarily appeal to Democrats. That made it all the more obvious that CNN and FOX were simply defending "their side," rather than giving a fair analysis. Which is why I encourage people, especially young people, to read different viewpoints. Which is also why I enjoy talk radio shows that have many callers, and make it a point to read letters to the editor. Those sources provide many different viewpoints.
Question: then weren't you justifying Trump's attack on the press when you answered with Obama's behavior towards the press? (See the 7/20/16 post "Get Ready For All The Lies.") Weren't you doing what you said you would not do because if something is wrong, it is wrong? Answer: not at all. The point of that post was not to defend Trump. Rather, it was to show the incredible bias of the elitists in the universities who were making Trump out to be the worst potential president for the First Amendment and freedom of the press, while ignoring the very real attacks on the press by a man who has actually been President for 7 1/2 years. The bias of the academy, like the bias of the media, is a very real and serious issue, and this blog has addressed it on multiple occasions.
The bottom line, of course, is that this blog has a conservative viewpoint. But I do my best to provide facts and information, not just my opinions. And, as long term readers of the blog will know, I have posted a number of exchanges between myself and others in order to present both sides of an issue. If any reader would like to engage in an exchange on a particular issue, email me and I will do my best to post it. Your name would not be posted, you would only be identified as "Reader," unless you preferred otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)