Liberal spin on riots

Home
Share

riots

Reporters did a good job of covering the riots in Los Angeles of Spring of 92 but afterwards most fell into their liberal tendency to favor those with less:

Liberals Facts
It was a ‘rebellion, uprising, war’ it was a riot.
The looting was ‘payday’, the goods were ‘free’. It was theft.
Looters were ‘opportunists’ were thieves.
Their motives were ‘complex’ were greed.
Rioters were ‘protestors’ were mostly hooligans and thugs.
Rioters had nothing to lose but supermarkets, stores, a post office, a DMV office, a library, and electricity.
Insurance would pay for the damage and rates would skyrocket for some and probably be cancelled for others.
It was the only way to get justice by making businesses move out and property values go down?
It sent a message by attacking news teams and shooting at news copters?
It was to get respect by attacking firemen, paramedics, and school busses?
Rioters were tired of prejudice and did everything to increase it.
Riots don’t make it right, but make it even by burning one’s neighborhood?
The riot showed black rage, frustration, desperation, fatigue, frustration, hurt in the carnival atmosphere of clowning looters?
They protested racism by pulling non-blacks out of their cars and beating them senseless?
It protested the lack of jobs and cost 5000 – 20,000 more jobs.
It showed nothing had been learned from the civil rights movement and the watts riot of ‘65 that violence doesn’t work.
It protested hopelessness. It’s not hopeless for poor immigrants (of all colors).
The riot protested discrimination, injustice, etc. Other minorities experience these and don’t riot periodically.
Rioters were getting back at merchants with high prices. Prices are higher because it costs more to do business in the inner city (vandalism, theft, security, insurance, staff turnover).
It paid back Koreans jealous, moronic scapegoating.

We heard a lot about the rage of the rioters, and a little about the rage of those who lost their homes, jobs, and stores or the rage of those who were beaten by rioters. We were told the riot was a matter of class, not race, implying the poor supported the riot. Fraid not. The majority of the poor hated the riots, as they were the ones who suffered the most and would continue to in their damaged neighborhoods. 

Many people felt the government didn’t owe the riot areas a dime to rebuild. (Why should government money go where private money won’t.) But the media did. If anyone believes that, look at former riot areas in big cities.

Most of the media lead us down the liberal path of guilt, promises, idealism, and ‘new’ social programs, which probably failed, increased dependency, self-pity, a victim’s mentality, and the chance for future riots.

We need more attention to moderate journalists and leaders. They channel unrest into legitimate forms of protest: marches, lawsuits, picketing, boycotts, initiatives, referendums, and recalls. They seek progress through:

  1. Avoiding job quotas, charity, sub­sidies, and preferen­tial treatment.
  2. Supporting work skills, educa­tion, business experience, ‘workfare’, right to work, work at home, a sub-minimum wage, and traditional values.
print this print this
 

 

Comments

3 Responses to “Liberal spin on riots”

  1. Anonymous
    August 12th, 2011 @ 5:38 pm

    Cheers pal. I do appreciate the writing.

  2. Anonymous
    August 13th, 2011 @ 7:07 am

    best answer of all time!

  3. Kattie
    December 2nd, 2012 @ 10:33 pm

    well written and insightful

Leave a Comment


Home