Search Box

Monday, January 25, 2016

Empty threats from the Left

Last Wednesday Whoopi Goldberg said that if Donald Trump were elected, maybe that means it's time for her to move out of the country.

You always know it's an election year when a liberal threatens to move out of the country if the conservative candidate is elected. (I've never heard a conservative say that he would leave the country if the liberal candidate were elected.)

Alec Baldwin famously said he would leave the country if George W. Bush became President.

Yet, somehow, these liberals never leave the country. They threaten, posture, and fulminate, but then….they always end up staying.

I'm not sure exactly why they posture this way. Are they so narcissistic that they think that people will react by thinking, "Oh no! We can't have Alec leave the country! He's a national treasure! I'll have to vote for Al Gore now!!"

Do they feel foolish after the conservative is elected, and they stay put?

What exactly is it about the liberal mentality that makes them think that threatening to leave will have the slightest effect on anybody's voting? Or is it an offshoot of that "I'm really offended by..." stance whereby they are always trying to prove how refined and delicate their sensibilities are?

Whatever the underlying motivation, it's a revealing glimpse into the leftist psyche.

24 comments:

Steven said...

Its like they are trying to make the possibility of the conservative getting elected sound really grave and serious. Or they are taking a stand and saying they don't want to live in a county like that. I never thought they were trying to influence the voting.

of course they stay as they never truly meant it in the first place.



Mark Caplan said...

time for her to move out of the country

Another great reason to vote for Trump!

Zack said...

Bill O'Reilly said he will move to Ireland if Bernie Sanders wins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-oreilly-bernie-sanders_us_56992a35e4b0778f46f91dec

John Craig said...

Mark --
I'm not a fan of Whoopi overall or her politics, but one thing I'll say for her, she stuck up for Mel Gibson when he was in trouble. That took a certain amount of loyalty in the face of all the pc condemnation of him at the time.

John Craig said...

Zack --
I stand corrected, O'Reilly is certainly a traditional conservative. I doubt whether we'll find out if he means it though, it's hard to imagine Sanders being elected.

Steven said...

O'Reilly probably said it because he knows he wont be elected.

I like Bernie Sanders the most of the candidates, apart from a couple of his socially liberal positions, on abortion and marijuana. Unfortunately, pro-choice is often a deal breaker for me with candidates I otherwise like.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Sanders certainly has a lot more integrity than Hillary. He's one of the few socialists who actually describes himself that way.

Zack said...

I wonder if part of this phenomenon is also related to the fact that there are many countries liberals can fantasize about moving to (ie Canada and most of western Europe). But the US is pretty much the most conservative western country, so there's nowhere to run to.

John Craig said...

Zack --
Possibly. Interesting, though, that while the liberals who are currently decrying Trump for not wanting more immigrants from Mexico or Muslim countries don't seem to be considering either Mexico or a Muslim country as their desired destination.

You're right that the US is the most conservative of the western countries. But that's gradually changing, as a lot of the formerly relatively homogenous European countries which have traditionally been semi-socialist and are now being inundated with immigrants from north Africa and the Middle East are now becoming more "conservative," at least as far as the newcomers are concerned.

whorefinder said...

@JohnCraig:

I'm not a fan of Whoopi overall or her politics, but one thing I'll say for her, she stuck up for Mel Gibson when he was in trouble. That took a certain amount of loyalty in the face of all the pc condemnation of him at the time.

Whoopi's reaction was for two reasons: (1) she had close contact with Mel, an alpha male, and had run in the same Hollywood circles for years, so she was naturally personally cowed by him; and (2) because she didn't know at time whether Mel might have the juice to get her roles and work later (Mel is and remains one of the top 5 best filmmakers in the world since 1995---Braveheart, Apocalpyto, and Passion of the Christ are three hands-down classic films, and made Mel a billionaire; he will go down in history as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time even if he stopped today.

This is also why Whoopi was weirdly defensive of Roman Polanski's rape charges ("well, it wasn't 'rape rape'")---she's met him before, and he's still a very powerful filmmaker, so he can get her work either in his films or through connections---or, conversely, shut her out. And Polanski, despite his "artistic" persona, demonstrated in his rape that he will take what he wants like an alpha, consequences be darned.

In fact, despite her "brash" and "fearless" reputation, the evidence suggests Whoopi is otherwise. In addition to her defenses of the two-alpha-male career-makers above, she once told a story about Marlon Brando. It seems Whoopi bought a mansion next door to Brando, and Brando just arrogantly used to walk into her home without her permission and start playing the piano. Whoopi never told him it was improper or otherwise got angry, but played the story off as, "Well, what a treat! Marlon Brando playing the piano for you!"

Someone walks into your own house, takes control of your piano, and you don't set him straight on boundaries? Weakness.

All three stories demonstrate that, deep down, Whoopi really is a meek little rabbit when faced with a powerful male figure. She can curse all she wants on stage and brag about her abortions, but faced with a loss of parts or with a strong male leader. If you got her one-on-one in an interview live (without the View harpies to back her up) she would shrivel up and crawl under the table if you started being assertive and harsh with her, or try to end it quickly.

Mark Caplan said...

Whoopi Goldberg stood up for Bill Cosby too until her network told her to give him up or else.

John Craig said...

Whorefinder --
I have to disagree with you on some of this. I think Mel had lost a lot of his juice by the time Whoopi defended him. Hollywood is obviously Jewish-run, and The Passion of the Christ had already made him persona non grata there well before his drunken diatribes. And Braveheart was great, yes, but Apocalypto? I had been looking forward to seeing it, but thought it was only so-so. (I never saw "Passion," so can't comment.)

I actually agree with Whoopi about the "rape-rape" thing. The feminists have elevated what gets called "date rape" (being pushy about sex) to the same status as a stranger who holds a knife to your throat in a dark alley (threatening you with death as an alternative), and it's just not the same. Also, I don't think Polanski had that much pull in Hollywood anymore either by the time Goldberg said that.

As far as Brando….some people might actually consider that a treat. I don't know. And he was probably used to getting fawning attention wherever he went, and carried himself in such a way that may have preempted outrage.

Maybe Whoopi really was just saying those things in hopes of getting roles, I don't know. And she must be a pretty slick Hollywood conniver, otherwise how would someone who looks like that get all those plum roles? But I'd like to give her a little credit for Gibson, the whole world was against him at the time, and Whoopi must have known she was also offending a lot of powerful people there by sticking up for Gibson.

John Craig said...

Mark --
I don't know how you stick up for that guy. If there were 10 women who'd accused him of drugging them, I'd believe them. Where there's that much smoke there's almost alway fire. And there ended up being what, 30?

whorefinder said...

@JohnCraig:

@JohnCraig: 3 points
1. When you look at the facts of the Polanski thing, he held an underage girl down while she was saying, "No, no!" and forced himself inside her. He tried to drug her, but it was the holding down and forcing against her will that made it "rape rape." That was all proven.

2. To be clear: I don't think Whoopi is a conniver, but merely a weak person who cows before strong people. It's not so much as if Mel or Polanski had the juice at the time, but who Whoopi perceived was more powerful than her. Whoopi has been second rate for a while now; she had a show on Broadway, designed to do for her what Billy Crystal's did for him (google "700 Sundays"), and yet her show utterly flopped. She jumped into morning talk radio (yes, she did, google it, Opie & Anthony attacked her for insulting talk radio by doing it) because she was hurting for a paycheck, and then Walters gave her the View seat, which is still second rate but at least regular pay and exposure. And she was still under a thumb---Walters, who by all accounts is a vicious alpha-female boss disguised behind lace-glove manners (one report I read had Whoopi too afraid to question anything Walters commanded). In short, when Whoopi was making these defenses, she was definitely weaker than the others showbiz wise. Mel was a billionaire and still pretty connected ( he still is; he makes appearances at awards shows, and guys like Chris Rock love him, since Gibson supported Rock in breaking into big Hollywood films). Polanski's films still draw A-list talent, wins tons of awards to this day, and just a few years ago the effort to deport him to the U.S. to face his charges resulted in major protests by actors and directors and an entire documentary defending him: Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. So Whoopi viewed these two men as power-figures, and didn't want to upset them, which is why she went to the defense. "I'm a good rabbit, masters, I protected your name!" Not saying she was trying directly or indirectly to get a part; I'm just saying she definitely felt that she needed to side with the powerful guys she knew.

3. Even if you didn't like Apocalypto, see Passion of the Christ. It is the best Jesus/Bible I've seen, and that includes a lot of the classic 1960s ones (including the 10 Commandments) and even the 1920s ones. It's very powerful, and mixes in the mystical and the earthy very well (and is partially so scary it might be termed a horror movie). Eskimos didn't like it because it didn't do what Eskimos have demanded movies about the Bible do for a hundred years: exonerate the Eskimos and blame the Romans. When watched, it takes the view that the Eskimo priests were out for Jesus's blood (because he was a rival religious power) and managed to convince the reluctant Roman authority to kill him. That's pretty biblical, something Eskimos have tried to squash, especially since Vatican II put a tamper on Catholics trying to convert Eskimos. So the Eskimos in Hollywood refused to distribute the movie, which would have made it a bankrupt failure, but Gibson sold it through churches and thus got to keep ALL the profits himself---and it sold like hotcakes.

Anonymous said...

More than 50 women have accused Bill Cosby of drugging them and/or sexually assaulting them. I imagine there were many more victims that we don't know about. He likes taking advantage of women.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
50?! Wow, hadn't realized it was that many. I've heard that he probably has a sexual kink where he liked to have sex with drugged women, as opposed to wide awake ones. Hadn't even heard of that one until Cosby came along.

whorefinder said...

@birdie:

Birdie, the majority of these charges is one of two things :(1) "he promised to help my career, I slept with him, and then my career died"; and (2) "he offered my drugs openly, I took them willingly, and now I can't really remember having sex with him."

That's almost all of them: no proof of secretive drugging or forced sex.

There was at least one other: some little 17 year old skank snuck under security at a movie set, found him and threw herself at him, willingly went back to his place and the playboy mansion, and then had sex with him. She was of age of consent in the state at the time.

So NOTHING illegal there.

The only thing Cosby is guilty of is being a famous lecherous man who slept with any dumb pretty girl dazzled by Hollywood. Nothing more. NOT illegal. (And don't get me started on the PA case_

And this entire episode is revenge by Cosby's just-failed latest sitcom venture. He pissed off some rich business partners, they got pissed, dug up some cheap dirt on him, and promoted every story and found every angry slut around whose career never panned out. If you can't see this is the same type of dirt-digging, non-criminal nonsense that was used against Donald Sterling to force him to sell the Clippers when he'd subbornly refused.

The public is being bamboozled by some cheap tawdry storytelling and misleading headlines. Cosby is already suing some for slander, which is good for him. If he comes at them, sooner or later we may get the evidence of who put them up to this nonsense.

Samuel Nock said...

With Trump as the one triggering this response in this case, there is an easy response to people who talk this way:

Because they will all say "I'm moving to Canada [or Ireland / Sweden / Norway]", the obvious response is: "Why not Mexico?" or "Why not a Muslim country?".

Steven said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjN8xP0i6Ak

John Craig said...

Samuel --
Ha, yes. The only thing is, none of them are even serious about moving to Canada or some European country in the first place.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Good summation of higher education.

Anonymous said...

whorefinder,

I'm not convinced about Cosby. There may have been girls/women who've thrown themselves at Cosby over the years (because of his celebrity status), doing so for whatever reasons. However, when someone slyly, deceptively drugs a woman and then sexually assaults her (not having the woman's consent), that's unlawful behavior. Since Cosby's done this plenty of times (that's his MO), he's a criminal. Lastly, these women who have come forward and stated the truth about Cosby are not sluts. We can agree to disagree.

-birdie



whorefinder said...

@birdie:

. However, when someone slyly, deceptively drugs a woman and then sexually assaults her (not having the woman's consent), that's unlawful behavior. Since Cosby's done this plenty of times (that's his MO), he's a criminal.


Birdie, you've been misled---which is exactly what the media (and the money men driving the coverage) want.

There is absolutely NO evidence that Cosby EVER slyly or deceptively drugged a woman. Absolutely NONE.

The support for such an insinuation---which the media and women are making---rests on one of two things:

(1) that Cosby openly offered them drugs, which they had the right to refuse, and they openly took them.

or

(2) that some of women "can't remember" what happened after a certain point.

As to (1), that is not deceptively drugging a woman.

If someone offers you a drug at a party, there's no obligation have to inform you before hand "it's so-and-sp drug." You can ask them, or you can refuse, but if they're offering you a pill and you swallow it without asking what it is----no way is it the person offering's fault. Cosby openly offered the women drugs, they thought them to be drugs (are they going to argue they thought the pills were vitamins), and took them willingly.
And there is no proof that said drugs were "rape" drugs; they were likely quaaludes, which were, in the 1970s, akin to alcohol: a drug that might make you a bit high but not going to make you GHB'd (and GHBing, despite the hysteria in the 1990s, never happened to straight people; it was the rape drug of choice (and still is) of gay men ).

as to (2):

These women never reported themselves raped. They are remembering events 30 years later, after drinking and partying with Cosby for hours at points, and, let me tell you, people's memories usually craft things to fit a story being shoved down their throats (look up the Central Park 5, 5 kids who claimed to have gang raped a reporter due to police interrogation, only to have it proven decades later that none of them raped her; they were heavily influenced by the police, who genuinely thought them to have done it).

How many times have you (or most guys) gotten blackout drunk and forgotten half of an evening? Yet other times you drank as much but were perfectly aware the whole night? My point:the human body deals with mind-altering substances differently on different days. Stress, lack of food, lack of sleep, or excitement (like being with a celebrity), or even taking other drugs (without Cosby) would have made their memories have "holes" in it. Plus it's 30 years later (memories fade/distort over time), they all have grudges that Cosby didn't make them starts, the dominant story shoved down their throats is that Cosby is a rapist, and they all now have spouses and children and loved ones and lives that would make them "embarrassed" to admit they were once just cheap groupies....

None of these women went to the police then, or claimed rape them, or have any proof of drugging surreptitiously. And since we know that "date rape drugging" are urban myth among straights, and there are multiple rationale that way better explain their faulty memories----

it's pretty clear Cosby didn't do.

Step outside the media headlines, man.Read their actual accounts. None of them prove anything but a groupie and a celebrity hooking up over booze and freely-taken drugs.

I'm a racist, but I won't see an innocent black man lynched.

Anonymous said...

Just to echo Whorefinder here. These Women where the worst kinds of fools but the most useful kinds of idiots. Then and now. This is on them, not Bill despite his kinks and defects of character.