OK, I've asked many, many people this question but none of them can answer it. I don't know the answer either.
Why is it that 99% of male AIDS "victims" here in America are either a) gay or b) drug addicts; but in Africa there are millions upon millions of males with AIDS?
I can understand why the women over there are, literally, plagued by it. Making children shows how much of a "man" their husbands are, and if they have to kill their wives in the process, so be it.
It's no different from black men here in America having children that they can't support and then abandoning them, thereby dooming them to a life of poverty. Then they actually brag about how many kids they have. That's how they define manhood.
I bet the "multicultural" gang won't like to hear that. We're only supposed to promote the good side of others' culture, not criticize the bad. Criticism is reserved for the White Male.
And, as in Africa, the people who can least afford it are squeezing out puppies as fast as they can. They can't feed themselves, but having 6 kids to prove that you're a man is a good idea.
Is that shocking to hear in this age of political correctness? I'm sure that it is to most people. But it's the truth and I've seen it many, many times with my own eyes.
So these guys in Africa are, apparently, forcing their wives to have sex with them so that they can prove their manhood. So much for the NOW gang in Africa. I guess Africans can't vote for liberal politicians in America, so African women don't count.
But that still doesn't explain how all of these men are getting it. I doubt that they're members of the BLT crowd (Bi-Lesbian-Trans or Bacon-Lettuce-Tomato) or that they're intravenous drug-users. So how are they getting it?
All theories are welcome.
- The Exile
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Here's Your Real Peta
Here are the type of people we're dealing with on the extreme Left. Ya gotta click on the link and see this guy's picture. Everything that I've ever said about them being misfits makes more sense when ya see this guy.
From the AP:
These people are nothing more than common criminals of the type that would shoplift from a coffee shop. And note the "James Bondish" trick of the handcuff key in the belt. That's something I might have thought up when I was 10.
And what kind of moron, who's on the run from Federal felony charges, is stupid enough to risk capture by shoplifting a CD? Easy: a moron to whom none of it is real. It's all just a childish game to him and he'll never really be caught and sent to prison. I'm sure that it'll become painfully real when he becomes some guy's "wife" in the Federal Pen.
And, what the story neglects to mention, is that the minks that this kind-hearted moron let loose were domesticated, and died in the wilderness because they didn't know how to survive. Every one of them!
From the AP:
SAN JOSE, Calif. - An animal rights activist was arrested on a domestic
terrorism charge after seven years on the run in connection with the release
of thousands of minks from commercial farms.
Peter Daniel Young, 27, could face life in prison if convicted of all charges, including conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce and animal enterprise terrorism, according to court papers.
Young fled soon after he was indicted in 1998 and was arrested March 21
at a coffee shop in San Jose, authorities said.
He and Justin Clayton Samuel, 26, were indicted by a federal grand jury
in Wisconsin in the release of minks from farms in Wisconsin, South Dakota and
Iowa, FBI agent Mike Johnson said Tuesday. They were accused of freeing
thousands of the animals.
Federal authorities suspect Young is affiliated with the activist group Animal Liberation Front. A telephone message left at the group's office in Canoga Park was not immediately returned.
According to a police report, Officer Ian Cooley witnessed
Young attempting to steal music CDs from the cafe. Young was arrested and
found to be hiding a handcuff key taped to his belt, according to the
report. A fingerprint search turned up the outstanding warrant.
Young also faces several charges in connection with the coffee shop
incident. He is being held in an isolation jail cell because he refused to
take a tuberculosis test, authorities said. Some TB tests contain animal
products.
Co-defendant Samuel was arrested in Belgium in 1999. He
pleaded guilty the following year and was sentenced to two years in
prison.
These people are nothing more than common criminals of the type that would shoplift from a coffee shop. And note the "James Bondish" trick of the handcuff key in the belt. That's something I might have thought up when I was 10.
And what kind of moron, who's on the run from Federal felony charges, is stupid enough to risk capture by shoplifting a CD? Easy: a moron to whom none of it is real. It's all just a childish game to him and he'll never really be caught and sent to prison. I'm sure that it'll become painfully real when he becomes some guy's "wife" in the Federal Pen.
And, what the story neglects to mention, is that the minks that this kind-hearted moron let loose were domesticated, and died in the wilderness because they didn't know how to survive. Every one of them!
There's your PETA for you.
- The Exile
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Jesse Jackson: "More Me Now"
Just the other day I was wondering what had happened to Jesse Jackson. It had been awhile since he had reared his (really) ugly head. That was the day that I put the poll on my sidebar featuring the Godless Reverend.
Imagine my surprise when he suddenly shows up in the Terri Schiavo case. It turned into outright shock when he appeared on the side of the Right.
But then it occured to me that most of the headlines were being written about Terri's parents and not about her husband. That explained that. There was more publicity to be had on the parents' side and I'm sure that he couldn't find much of an angle to get in on the side of the pro-death Left.
Besides, there was no race issue involved, so it didn't matter which side he was on. If Michael Shiavo had been black, who among you doubts for one second that Jesse would be in his corner?
After massive voting (well, 7 votes) the consensus seems to be running toward Gangster, but I think Huckster is more fitting. This guy would push his own mother out of the way to get in front of the cameras.
By the way, have you seen this guy lately? He looks like a zombie! He was always ugly enough with those "Boston Terrier" eyes of his, but man, he looks like he's been embalmed. I don't know what could do that to a guy, but I wish I did so that I could avoid it.
- The Exile
Imagine my surprise when he suddenly shows up in the Terri Schiavo case. It turned into outright shock when he appeared on the side of the Right.
But then it occured to me that most of the headlines were being written about Terri's parents and not about her husband. That explained that. There was more publicity to be had on the parents' side and I'm sure that he couldn't find much of an angle to get in on the side of the pro-death Left.
Besides, there was no race issue involved, so it didn't matter which side he was on. If Michael Shiavo had been black, who among you doubts for one second that Jesse would be in his corner?
After massive voting (well, 7 votes) the consensus seems to be running toward Gangster, but I think Huckster is more fitting. This guy would push his own mother out of the way to get in front of the cameras.
By the way, have you seen this guy lately? He looks like a zombie! He was always ugly enough with those "Boston Terrier" eyes of his, but man, he looks like he's been embalmed. I don't know what could do that to a guy, but I wish I did so that I could avoid it.
- The Exile
Monday, March 28, 2005
One Down, Two To Go.
Well, we're down to the "inalienable" rights of "Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". So much for Life.
33% of the way down the road to Socialism or outright Communism.
And Liberty is "iffy" when you consider how much the government intrudes on our daily lives and how "political correctness" no longer allows us to speak our minds.
You know, whenever I heard that old saw about Democracies lasting approximately 200 years and always being replaced by a Dictatorship, I envisioned the Executive branch turning into the Dictatorship.
It's fast becoming obvious that it's the Judicial branch that will get us there. They are taking over the governance of this country, and the other two branches are too afraid of offending people to do anything about it.
God, help my daughter. I'd almost rather it happens sooner rather than later so that I can help her along, but I'd guess we have about another 20 years before this country is run entirely by judicial fiat.
Does that sound paranoid? Conspiracy-theorist? Yes, to a point it sounds that way even to me. But I look at the judicial rulings regarding abortion, gay marriage, The Pledge of Allegiance, Terri Schiavo, prayer in schools, etc., and I see no one really trying to stop any of it.
The politicians in Washington are "full of sound and fury" but it signifies nothing. They don't have the spine to actually recall or impeach these despots in the black robes.
Could anything be more symbolic than people in black robes ruling our country?
- The Exile
33% of the way down the road to Socialism or outright Communism.
And Liberty is "iffy" when you consider how much the government intrudes on our daily lives and how "political correctness" no longer allows us to speak our minds.
You know, whenever I heard that old saw about Democracies lasting approximately 200 years and always being replaced by a Dictatorship, I envisioned the Executive branch turning into the Dictatorship.
It's fast becoming obvious that it's the Judicial branch that will get us there. They are taking over the governance of this country, and the other two branches are too afraid of offending people to do anything about it.
God, help my daughter. I'd almost rather it happens sooner rather than later so that I can help her along, but I'd guess we have about another 20 years before this country is run entirely by judicial fiat.
Does that sound paranoid? Conspiracy-theorist? Yes, to a point it sounds that way even to me. But I look at the judicial rulings regarding abortion, gay marriage, The Pledge of Allegiance, Terri Schiavo, prayer in schools, etc., and I see no one really trying to stop any of it.
The politicians in Washington are "full of sound and fury" but it signifies nothing. They don't have the spine to actually recall or impeach these despots in the black robes.
Could anything be more symbolic than people in black robes ruling our country?
- The Exile
Ham Lake or Guyana?
Whattya know!
Michael Schiavo: The first heterosexual white American man that the Left has stood up for in recent memory.
Unless you count Michael Newdow. But, if you've ever seen this sniveling little boy on TV, you'd have to question his designation as a "man". That guy just screams "Pay attention to me!" with every word.
- The Exile
Unless you count Michael Newdow. But, if you've ever seen this sniveling little boy on TV, you'd have to question his designation as a "man". That guy just screams "Pay attention to me!" with every word.
- The Exile
Saturday, March 26, 2005
The Easter Bunny vs. God
Liberals don't believe in God. Liberals don't believe in the Easter Bunny.
Liberals aren't offended by the Easter Bunny. Liberals are offended by God. Why?
Well, their usual answer would be that the Easter Bunny never started a war (that we know of, anyway...).
But when is the last time the followers of the Christian God started a war in his name? Yes, we may have believed that he was on our side in more recent wars, but it must be 500 years since anyone started a war in His name. And never in America, which seems to be the place that the liberals believe offends most in this regard.
In fact, the only religion that I can think of which has regularly started wars in God's name is Islam. But the liberals give them a pass. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, seems to be the way they look at Islam.
Once you shoot that argument down, their next is that religion oppresses people. Apparently they believe that living by certain rules that are not of their own making is "oppression".
And again, when is the last time that followers of Christianity have actually oppressed people? I don't mean suggesting that people live in a certain way; I mean cracking down and forcing people to live the way that they want them to live. You know, kind of like Islam does.
In fact, if anything, it's the liberals who are oppressing people. You can't speak your mind if what you say disagrees with their political correctness. You can be fired from your job, kicked out of school, forced into re-education camps (called "diversity training") and in certain places (like Canada) actually arrested for saying what you think! And, with the "hate-speech" laws that are being pushed by the Left, they're trying to do the same thing in America.
I always hear college kids and other lefties saying how they don't want the "Religous Right" shoving their ideals down their throats. What exactly do they think that the "Secular Left" (odd how that phrase doesn't just roll of your tongue like you've heard it a million times) are doing to us with "gay rights/marriage", abortion, diversity, multiculturalism, et al.
Don't talk to me about oppression.
The liberals are offended by God for one reason: they don't want to be told that what they're doing is wrong. They want to be able to do whatever they want to. "Thou shalt not" is in direct conflict with "If it feels good, do it".
It's just one more thing that liberals and children have in common: they hate to hear the word "no", unless it's coming out of their mouths.
They are blind to their hypocrisy just as any child is.
- The Exile
Liberals aren't offended by the Easter Bunny. Liberals are offended by God. Why?
Well, their usual answer would be that the Easter Bunny never started a war (that we know of, anyway...).
But when is the last time the followers of the Christian God started a war in his name? Yes, we may have believed that he was on our side in more recent wars, but it must be 500 years since anyone started a war in His name. And never in America, which seems to be the place that the liberals believe offends most in this regard.
In fact, the only religion that I can think of which has regularly started wars in God's name is Islam. But the liberals give them a pass. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, seems to be the way they look at Islam.
Once you shoot that argument down, their next is that religion oppresses people. Apparently they believe that living by certain rules that are not of their own making is "oppression".
And again, when is the last time that followers of Christianity have actually oppressed people? I don't mean suggesting that people live in a certain way; I mean cracking down and forcing people to live the way that they want them to live. You know, kind of like Islam does.
In fact, if anything, it's the liberals who are oppressing people. You can't speak your mind if what you say disagrees with their political correctness. You can be fired from your job, kicked out of school, forced into re-education camps (called "diversity training") and in certain places (like Canada) actually arrested for saying what you think! And, with the "hate-speech" laws that are being pushed by the Left, they're trying to do the same thing in America.
I always hear college kids and other lefties saying how they don't want the "Religous Right" shoving their ideals down their throats. What exactly do they think that the "Secular Left" (odd how that phrase doesn't just roll of your tongue like you've heard it a million times) are doing to us with "gay rights/marriage", abortion, diversity, multiculturalism, et al.
Don't talk to me about oppression.
The liberals are offended by God for one reason: they don't want to be told that what they're doing is wrong. They want to be able to do whatever they want to. "Thou shalt not" is in direct conflict with "If it feels good, do it".
It's just one more thing that liberals and children have in common: they hate to hear the word "no", unless it's coming out of their mouths.
They are blind to their hypocrisy just as any child is.
- The Exile
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Some Are More Equal Than Others
The Terry Schiavo case is just the most recent example that we're not living in a Republic, we're living in an oligarchy controlled by a few liberal judges.
(And for those of you that think we live in a Democracy, the best definition of Democracy that I ever heard is, "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner")
The conservative and moderate judges aren't any threat because they are interpreting the Constitution. They aren't making rulings based on what the Constitution would have said had they written it. But that's exactly what these liberal judges are doing.
What I don't understand is, why does everybody in the Legislative and Executive branches of this country just roll over when one of these judges makes some pronouncement from the bench? Why do these judges always have the last word?
The Constitution says that the Executive, Legislative and Executive branches are equal! Let me say that again: they are equal! In fact, if anything, Article III of the Constitution states that Congress has jurisdiction over the Judicial branch! Thats at the Federal level but, if I'm not mistaken, most states have basically the same outlook.
But when a Court makes a pronouncement, they all just say, "Well, that's it. They have the last say". They've resigned themselves to making laws at the whim of the Courts.
The Presidents/Governors and the Legislatures of this country need to get off their lazy asses and stand up to these fanatical ideologues. I don't expect the Democrats to do anything about it because they're afraid of offending their many constituencies who actually agree with these insane rulings.
Quite frankly, I don't expect much of anything from the Democrats at all. There's not a single one of them that actually owns a spine. No, not even Joe Lieberman, who sold out all of his principles to run with Gore in 2000, and then suddenly found them again when the race was over.
But the Republicans are a different story. Granted, there are many of them who are as spineless as the Democrats, (e.g. McCain, Snowe, Chafee among others), but there are some very good people on that side of the aisle and I just don't understand why they won't stand up to the usurping of their power that is being practiced by these judges.
It's doubly puzzling when you consider that the very power that is being taken from them by the courts is what many of them (on both sides of the aisle) live for, especially the Democrats.
They need to start standing up to these former ambulance-chasers-turned-judges and nullify their rulings. And impeach them when they go against what the Founding Fathers obviously meant (gun-control, so-called "separation of church and state" which doesn't exist) or miraculously find some right that nobody had noticed for 200 years (abortion, gay marriage).
And you need to write your Senators and Congressmen and the President now!
- The Exile
(And for those of you that think we live in a Democracy, the best definition of Democracy that I ever heard is, "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner")
The conservative and moderate judges aren't any threat because they are interpreting the Constitution. They aren't making rulings based on what the Constitution would have said had they written it. But that's exactly what these liberal judges are doing.
What I don't understand is, why does everybody in the Legislative and Executive branches of this country just roll over when one of these judges makes some pronouncement from the bench? Why do these judges always have the last word?
The Constitution says that the Executive, Legislative and Executive branches are equal! Let me say that again: they are equal! In fact, if anything, Article III of the Constitution states that Congress has jurisdiction over the Judicial branch! Thats at the Federal level but, if I'm not mistaken, most states have basically the same outlook.
But when a Court makes a pronouncement, they all just say, "Well, that's it. They have the last say". They've resigned themselves to making laws at the whim of the Courts.
The Presidents/Governors and the Legislatures of this country need to get off their lazy asses and stand up to these fanatical ideologues. I don't expect the Democrats to do anything about it because they're afraid of offending their many constituencies who actually agree with these insane rulings.
Quite frankly, I don't expect much of anything from the Democrats at all. There's not a single one of them that actually owns a spine. No, not even Joe Lieberman, who sold out all of his principles to run with Gore in 2000, and then suddenly found them again when the race was over.
But the Republicans are a different story. Granted, there are many of them who are as spineless as the Democrats, (e.g. McCain, Snowe, Chafee among others), but there are some very good people on that side of the aisle and I just don't understand why they won't stand up to the usurping of their power that is being practiced by these judges.
It's doubly puzzling when you consider that the very power that is being taken from them by the courts is what many of them (on both sides of the aisle) live for, especially the Democrats.
They need to start standing up to these former ambulance-chasers-turned-judges and nullify their rulings. And impeach them when they go against what the Founding Fathers obviously meant (gun-control, so-called "separation of church and state" which doesn't exist) or miraculously find some right that nobody had noticed for 200 years (abortion, gay marriage).
And you need to write your Senators and Congressmen and the President now!
- The Exile
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Greed is in the Eye of the Beholder
So which party is the "greedy" one?
From The Beltway Buzz at National Review:
***
An administration source has a funny story for Beltway Buzz readers. While traveling through the Southwest a few weeks ago promoting Social Security reform, the White House team encountered a group of about a dozen protestors outside an event in Albuquerque.
“There were twelve to fifteen of them outside. They were holding signs and heckling us as we went into the event. I didn’t think much of it, because you see this sort of thing happens almost anytime you are traveling for town hall type events.”
But what happened next is what caught our source’s attention:
“I was walking through the Dallas airport with some colleagues and one of them recognized two of the same protestors we had seen outside the event in Albuquerque. We had some extra time, so we decided to talk to them. They were very polite and explained to us they had just come from protesting an event nearby. One of them very quickly identified themselves as professional protestors.”
“Not that they just liked to protest, but that they actually got paid by liberal interest groups to travel the country protesting. Here they were, sitting in the airport TGI Friday’s having a burger and getting ready to travel to New Orleans for another protest. They were good kids and wanted to talk. We tried discussing some of the benefits of Social Security reform. They listened, but weren’t too interested. Not because they had opposing views, they just said they weren’t too educated on the details. They even admitted they didn’t know who it was they were going to protest in New Orleans.”
***
Thanks to The American Princess for this one
- The Exile
From The Beltway Buzz at National Review:
***
An administration source has a funny story for Beltway Buzz readers. While traveling through the Southwest a few weeks ago promoting Social Security reform, the White House team encountered a group of about a dozen protestors outside an event in Albuquerque.
“There were twelve to fifteen of them outside. They were holding signs and heckling us as we went into the event. I didn’t think much of it, because you see this sort of thing happens almost anytime you are traveling for town hall type events.”
But what happened next is what caught our source’s attention:
“I was walking through the Dallas airport with some colleagues and one of them recognized two of the same protestors we had seen outside the event in Albuquerque. We had some extra time, so we decided to talk to them. They were very polite and explained to us they had just come from protesting an event nearby. One of them very quickly identified themselves as professional protestors.”
“Not that they just liked to protest, but that they actually got paid by liberal interest groups to travel the country protesting. Here they were, sitting in the airport TGI Friday’s having a burger and getting ready to travel to New Orleans for another protest. They were good kids and wanted to talk. We tried discussing some of the benefits of Social Security reform. They listened, but weren’t too interested. Not because they had opposing views, they just said they weren’t too educated on the details. They even admitted they didn’t know who it was they were going to protest in New Orleans.”
***
Thanks to The American Princess for this one
- The Exile
It's about time!
I finally figured out where to put the HTML for the sidebar. You'd never know I had a degree in computer programming (VB), would ya?
I added a new poll feature that I'll be updating whenever I get around to it. Maybe sooner.
I also figured out where to put the code for links. Leave it to me to choose the template with no link already written in. I've only added a couple of my favorites, but I'm sure that many more will follow.
- The Exile
I added a new poll feature that I'll be updating whenever I get around to it. Maybe sooner.
I also figured out where to put the code for links. Leave it to me to choose the template with no link already written in. I've only added a couple of my favorites, but I'm sure that many more will follow.
- The Exile
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Thought Police
There's a columnist called "C.J." in The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal (aka The Star Tribune) who refuses to call the city in which I reside by it's proper name, Coon Rapids. She believes that it is racist. She calls it "Racoon Rapids".
This city was named in the 1890's after a creek that runs through it called Coon Creek. Once upon a time there were racoons everywhere, feeding on the acorns from all of the oak trees that were here. The city's symbol is an oak leaf. It has nothing to do with race.
But she thinks that the word "coon" should be banished from the English language. Wouldn't that be insulting to the animals? Wouldn't that hurt their self-esteem? Is this "1984"?
These people are insane.
- The Exile
This city was named in the 1890's after a creek that runs through it called Coon Creek. Once upon a time there were racoons everywhere, feeding on the acorns from all of the oak trees that were here. The city's symbol is an oak leaf. It has nothing to do with race.
But she thinks that the word "coon" should be banished from the English language. Wouldn't that be insulting to the animals? Wouldn't that hurt their self-esteem? Is this "1984"?
These people are insane.
- The Exile
I Protest!
While watching the people who are protesting Terry Schiavo's attempted state-sponsored murder, I couldn't help but contrast them to the ones who were protesting the 2nd anniversary of Sadaam's Butt-whooping (I think that that should be the official name of it, not "The War in Iraq". It would just be funny to watch Peter Jennings [Canadian], et al, saying it on the news).
The people who were protesting Terry Schiavo's murder were quiet, concerned and very serious-looking.
The ones who were protesting the 2nd anniversary of Sadaam's Butt-whooping (see?) were dancing, laughing and having the time of their lives. The chanting and yelling seemed to have about the same emotional concern as a college football rouser.
These people really didn't seem to care about their "cause" nearly as much as the party atmosphere going on around them. And they didn't seem to be protesting Sadaam's Butt-whooping (OK, I'll knock it off now) as much as professing their hatred of George Bush. If it wasn't the 2nd anniversary of, well, you know, then it would have been something else.
The point is, these people are more interested in being a part of a club. Look at them closely whenever you see them on TV. They're all of the misfits from school whose only friends, if they had any at all, were the other misfits. The ones who never belonged anywhere or to any social groups. The ones nobody paid any attention to.
But now they've found a group that will accept them. As long as they profess their hatred of Bush and Conservatism in general. They don't even have to believe it, but I'm sure that most of them do. Or have convinced themselves that they do so that they can be part of this club.
They're no different than children throwing a tantrum to get attention. They couldn't care less about their cause, though I'm sure that they've convinced themselves that they do. They just want the attention.
A few years back I remember a case where a bunch of animal-rights protestors set a bunch of minks free. The minks had no idea how to live in the wild and died. Every last one of them. There was nary a word of remorse from any of them.
I've seen many, many web sites, posts, ads, etc. touting the belief that drinking milk is somehow cruelty to cows. These people have no idea what would happen to a cow if you didn't milk it. Hint: it will die! I'm a city-boy from way back, but even I know that.
I'm sure that the above has been pointed out to them. But they don't care. They just want the attention. I hear it from my 6-year-old daughter all the time: "Look at me, daddy!". The difference is that at least she's cute.
- The Exile
P.S. Does anyone know of any websites or anywhere else that I could find out where and when these protests are scheduled? I've always wanted to join them with a sign that says, "I am a moron" and march around in front of the TV cameras with the rest of them. Now that would be funny!
I wonder how long it would take them to notice. I wonder what their reaction would be. Do you think that these "anti-violence" people would politely ask me to leave? And, if they did and I refused, what then? Do you think that they might attack me? Now that would be even funnier!
I can't think of a better hobby.
The people who were protesting Terry Schiavo's murder were quiet, concerned and very serious-looking.
The ones who were protesting the 2nd anniversary of Sadaam's Butt-whooping (see?) were dancing, laughing and having the time of their lives. The chanting and yelling seemed to have about the same emotional concern as a college football rouser.
These people really didn't seem to care about their "cause" nearly as much as the party atmosphere going on around them. And they didn't seem to be protesting Sadaam's Butt-whooping (OK, I'll knock it off now) as much as professing their hatred of George Bush. If it wasn't the 2nd anniversary of, well, you know, then it would have been something else.
The point is, these people are more interested in being a part of a club. Look at them closely whenever you see them on TV. They're all of the misfits from school whose only friends, if they had any at all, were the other misfits. The ones who never belonged anywhere or to any social groups. The ones nobody paid any attention to.
But now they've found a group that will accept them. As long as they profess their hatred of Bush and Conservatism in general. They don't even have to believe it, but I'm sure that most of them do. Or have convinced themselves that they do so that they can be part of this club.
They're no different than children throwing a tantrum to get attention. They couldn't care less about their cause, though I'm sure that they've convinced themselves that they do. They just want the attention.
A few years back I remember a case where a bunch of animal-rights protestors set a bunch of minks free. The minks had no idea how to live in the wild and died. Every last one of them. There was nary a word of remorse from any of them.
I've seen many, many web sites, posts, ads, etc. touting the belief that drinking milk is somehow cruelty to cows. These people have no idea what would happen to a cow if you didn't milk it. Hint: it will die! I'm a city-boy from way back, but even I know that.
I'm sure that the above has been pointed out to them. But they don't care. They just want the attention. I hear it from my 6-year-old daughter all the time: "Look at me, daddy!". The difference is that at least she's cute.
- The Exile
P.S. Does anyone know of any websites or anywhere else that I could find out where and when these protests are scheduled? I've always wanted to join them with a sign that says, "I am a moron" and march around in front of the TV cameras with the rest of them. Now that would be funny!
I wonder how long it would take them to notice. I wonder what their reaction would be. Do you think that these "anti-violence" people would politely ask me to leave? And, if they did and I refused, what then? Do you think that they might attack me? Now that would be even funnier!
I can't think of a better hobby.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Insulting the scarecrow
The Lefty at work who occasionally pops out of his hole to try to "debate" me started another about Social Security reform the other day.
In his reply to my reply he, of course, called my arguments a "straw man" an accused me of "ad hominem" attacks. All of my points were rock-solid and I insulted no one. But that didn''t matter.
If you ever "debate" liberals, you will constantly have them calling your points "straw men" and your replies "ad hominem" attacks. They all do it. It must be something they teach in Leftism 101.
Those two tactics serve two purposes for these left-wing children: A) they think that it makes them sound intelligent and, B) it saves them from having to respond to your facts, because they can't.
When they call your arguments a "straw man", they're trying to say that your points are based on false information and, therefore, not worth responding to.
When they accuse you of "ad hominem" attacks, it's their way of trying to say that you're just insulting people and not actually debating. You don't even have to insult anyone or anything for them to use this one on you. With Clinton-like semantic-twisting, they'll find an insult in there somewhere.
I really don't think that most of them even know what these two phrases mean. Like children repeating profanities, they just think that it makes them sound cool or intelligent even though they don't have the slightest idea what they mean.
Either way, it's just an immature way to dismiss your argument out-of-hand because they can't debate you on the facts. I told Lefty this the other day and I haven't heard from him since.
Imagine that.
- The Exile
In his reply to my reply he, of course, called my arguments a "straw man" an accused me of "ad hominem" attacks. All of my points were rock-solid and I insulted no one. But that didn''t matter.
If you ever "debate" liberals, you will constantly have them calling your points "straw men" and your replies "ad hominem" attacks. They all do it. It must be something they teach in Leftism 101.
Those two tactics serve two purposes for these left-wing children: A) they think that it makes them sound intelligent and, B) it saves them from having to respond to your facts, because they can't.
When they call your arguments a "straw man", they're trying to say that your points are based on false information and, therefore, not worth responding to.
When they accuse you of "ad hominem" attacks, it's their way of trying to say that you're just insulting people and not actually debating. You don't even have to insult anyone or anything for them to use this one on you. With Clinton-like semantic-twisting, they'll find an insult in there somewhere.
I really don't think that most of them even know what these two phrases mean. Like children repeating profanities, they just think that it makes them sound cool or intelligent even though they don't have the slightest idea what they mean.
Either way, it's just an immature way to dismiss your argument out-of-hand because they can't debate you on the facts. I told Lefty this the other day and I haven't heard from him since.
Imagine that.
- The Exile
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
But they're not hypocrites...just ask them!
This really needs to be passed around...
From The Weekly Standard:
Obligatory New York Times Hypocrisy Item
A January 1, 1995, Times editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:
In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.
A March 6, 2005, Times editorial on the same subject:
The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House's judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Bush administration likes to call itself "conservative," but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.
From The Weekly Standard:
Obligatory New York Times Hypocrisy Item
A January 1, 1995, Times editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:
In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.
A March 6, 2005, Times editorial on the same subject:
The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House's judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Bush administration likes to call itself "conservative," but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.
Snow-angels in Hell
The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal is apparently looking for a new columnist.
From my fellow Minnesota bloggers at Fraters Libertas:
***
In the interest of adding more voices and perspectives to the paper, we are seeking candidates for a new Metro columnist position. As with all columnists, the emphasis would be on deeply reported columns, story telling off the news, pieces that can best be told with a columnist's leeway. This columnist would have the added goal of bringing a conservative perspective to the paper in story topics, circles traveled and views explored. Like the other Metro columnists, this person will write 3 columns a week and special projects from time to time.
***
Now all they have to do is hire 20 or 30 more and it will be almost balanced.
When evil Capitalist companies (other than their own) used to hire one black guy, they'd sneer at that company for hiring a "token" black. So what's the difference?
By hiring a conservative they will increase the number of columnists of that persuasion to exactly two. And the one that they already have, James Lileks, never speaks a word about politics in his column. Until he started showing up on Hugh Hewitt's show, I never had a clue that he was a Conservative.
But I'm sure that they'll trumpet this to the heavens and tell everybody, "See? We're not biased", and the sad thing is, they'll believe it. They already believe that they're not biased. They're only doing this to try to respond to the hordes of mail that they're surely getting blasting them for their left-wing bias and cancelling subscriptions.
It just goes to show that we are having an affect. It won't change the way they do business, but it shows that we are getting through to the people who used to take their drivel at face value, and that they are afraid.
- The Exile
From my fellow Minnesota bloggers at Fraters Libertas:
***
In the interest of adding more voices and perspectives to the paper, we are seeking candidates for a new Metro columnist position. As with all columnists, the emphasis would be on deeply reported columns, story telling off the news, pieces that can best be told with a columnist's leeway. This columnist would have the added goal of bringing a conservative perspective to the paper in story topics, circles traveled and views explored. Like the other Metro columnists, this person will write 3 columns a week and special projects from time to time.
***
Now all they have to do is hire 20 or 30 more and it will be almost balanced.
When evil Capitalist companies (other than their own) used to hire one black guy, they'd sneer at that company for hiring a "token" black. So what's the difference?
By hiring a conservative they will increase the number of columnists of that persuasion to exactly two. And the one that they already have, James Lileks, never speaks a word about politics in his column. Until he started showing up on Hugh Hewitt's show, I never had a clue that he was a Conservative.
But I'm sure that they'll trumpet this to the heavens and tell everybody, "See? We're not biased", and the sad thing is, they'll believe it. They already believe that they're not biased. They're only doing this to try to respond to the hordes of mail that they're surely getting blasting them for their left-wing bias and cancelling subscriptions.
It just goes to show that we are having an affect. It won't change the way they do business, but it shows that we are getting through to the people who used to take their drivel at face value, and that they are afraid.
- The Exile
Du bist ein Hippie!
Last night, as I was doing exhaustive research into the subject (i.e. sitting on the couch watching the History Channel), I came up with another reason why, though the Left always accuses the Right of being Nazis, it is they who are much, much closer to Nazi idealism.
What is one of the best-remembered symbols of the left-wing hippie culture of the 60's? The Volkswagen "bug", of course.
Did you know that it was everybody's favorite whacky Nazi, Adolph Hitler, who comissioned the design of that car? He did it so that all of the common "volk" could buy an inexpensive car and drive it on the centerpiece of his new Nazi regime, the Autobahn.
Makes ya think, huh?
- The Exile
What is one of the best-remembered symbols of the left-wing hippie culture of the 60's? The Volkswagen "bug", of course.
Did you know that it was everybody's favorite whacky Nazi, Adolph Hitler, who comissioned the design of that car? He did it so that all of the common "volk" could buy an inexpensive car and drive it on the centerpiece of his new Nazi regime, the Autobahn.
Makes ya think, huh?
- The Exile
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Yes, There Are Differences
I hate to disparage the average Democrat because I truly believe that if they were to ever get both sides of the issues, at least 50% of them would become Republicans immediately. I believe that that's why Republicans are now ascendant: a lot of former Democrats have found alternate news sources and different points of view than the ones they have been subjected to from the MSM.
However, I also believe that there is one major difference between Democrats and Republicans: voting for your own self-interests or voting for the good of the country.
Look at the unions, for example. Most of the people in these blue-collar unions are Democrats. They're (relatively) hard-working people who have a lot in common with other blue-collar people on the Right.
When they vote, they seem to always vote on what's best for them, personally. Democrat candidates always promise them the world ( and rarely deliver) and the union pukes vote for them lockstep.
When my friends and I vote, we are always looking "long-term" at what's good for our children and our country 20 or 30 years from now. We realize things such as the fact that if we don't fix Social Security soon, our kids will be paying 70% of their income in taxes and that this country won't stand for that for long.
My mother is a lifelong Democrat who loves my daughter completely. She does, however, seem to have this blind spot when it comes to my daughter's future.
My mother votes Democrat because she's worried about her Social Security check. It doesn't matter how many time you explain to her that any of Bush's proposed changes won't affect her because she's already retired, it's as if she doesn't hear a word you say. She keeps up the same drumbeat of her taxes being raised or her benefits cut. And when you point out that it's always Democrats (i.e. Bill Clinton) who raise taxes on Social Security, she again tunes out. It's like she's deaf on this frequency.
In other words, she's fallen for the Democrat line of "Republicans starving the elderly" completely. It's no cooincidence that she gets her news from The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal and C-BS news. If she got both sides of the story, I have no doubt that she'd do what was right in the interests of my daughter.
I could somewhat understand her fears if she was living on the edge of financial ruin as the Leftist media like to portray, but she and my step-father are living a pretty comfortable life. She manages to go shopping every day of her life. They're living a lot better than I am and I'm supposed to be a "rich Republican".
(To my step-father's credit, I happen to know that he's voted for Bush in the past two elections, though he's a bit embarrased by it. He is, after all, a product of the Minnesota "Iron Range". They've voted for Democrats up there since the state was founded.)
What it all boils down to is that these people, who think that they're still voting for the party of John Kennedy, have completely ignored his best sound bite: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".
The shrinking percentage of Democrats who are not the raving Leftists but the regular people, are looking for the Government to do things for them, personally, right now.
The Republicans are looking to the future. For my child and my country.
- The Exile
However, I also believe that there is one major difference between Democrats and Republicans: voting for your own self-interests or voting for the good of the country.
Look at the unions, for example. Most of the people in these blue-collar unions are Democrats. They're (relatively) hard-working people who have a lot in common with other blue-collar people on the Right.
When they vote, they seem to always vote on what's best for them, personally. Democrat candidates always promise them the world ( and rarely deliver) and the union pukes vote for them lockstep.
When my friends and I vote, we are always looking "long-term" at what's good for our children and our country 20 or 30 years from now. We realize things such as the fact that if we don't fix Social Security soon, our kids will be paying 70% of their income in taxes and that this country won't stand for that for long.
My mother is a lifelong Democrat who loves my daughter completely. She does, however, seem to have this blind spot when it comes to my daughter's future.
My mother votes Democrat because she's worried about her Social Security check. It doesn't matter how many time you explain to her that any of Bush's proposed changes won't affect her because she's already retired, it's as if she doesn't hear a word you say. She keeps up the same drumbeat of her taxes being raised or her benefits cut. And when you point out that it's always Democrats (i.e. Bill Clinton) who raise taxes on Social Security, she again tunes out. It's like she's deaf on this frequency.
In other words, she's fallen for the Democrat line of "Republicans starving the elderly" completely. It's no cooincidence that she gets her news from The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal and C-BS news. If she got both sides of the story, I have no doubt that she'd do what was right in the interests of my daughter.
I could somewhat understand her fears if she was living on the edge of financial ruin as the Leftist media like to portray, but she and my step-father are living a pretty comfortable life. She manages to go shopping every day of her life. They're living a lot better than I am and I'm supposed to be a "rich Republican".
(To my step-father's credit, I happen to know that he's voted for Bush in the past two elections, though he's a bit embarrased by it. He is, after all, a product of the Minnesota "Iron Range". They've voted for Democrats up there since the state was founded.)
What it all boils down to is that these people, who think that they're still voting for the party of John Kennedy, have completely ignored his best sound bite: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".
The shrinking percentage of Democrats who are not the raving Leftists but the regular people, are looking for the Government to do things for them, personally, right now.
The Republicans are looking to the future. For my child and my country.
- The Exile
Friday, March 11, 2005
Isn't that cute?
I ran across this little scenario about a month ago on one of those insipid little blogs that details every moment of some family's existence. I've always wondered whether people do this just to entertain themselves or if they think anyone actually cares about the amazing exploits of their family. The former I could live with. The latter sends shivers down my spine.
Anyway...
***
"Tonight, Ella and I baked a cake for dessert. After dinner, we sliced four pieces and distributed them to the family. Before Ella would eat her piece, she wanted to explain to mommy how she made the cake, and my wife and I were listening to her story. Meanwhile, her two-year-old sister Chloe shovelled her cake into her mouth as fast as she could go. Chloe finished her piece then noticed that the rest of us still had cake left on our plates and started asking for more, then begging for more, then screaming and crying and whining "moooore." Ella cut off a piece of her own cake and put it on Chloe's plate, then gave her a kiss. What a great big sister."
***
That is the perfect metaphor for the whole liberals as children theory ( with Chloe, of course, posing as the liberal).
And I won't even get into the fact that it's amazing that this guy can type with his skirt billowing up in front of him like that. Just the fact that his kids are named Chloe & Ella tells me all I need to know about him.
Egads!
(I just revisited this guy's site and it really comes as no surprise that he's working to become a college professor and that he believes everything that Michael Moore, Al Gore, and Salon rave about. Oh, and [with apologies to The American Princess] his wife's a lawyer. Nice pants, lady.)
- The Exile
Anyway...
***
"Tonight, Ella and I baked a cake for dessert. After dinner, we sliced four pieces and distributed them to the family. Before Ella would eat her piece, she wanted to explain to mommy how she made the cake, and my wife and I were listening to her story. Meanwhile, her two-year-old sister Chloe shovelled her cake into her mouth as fast as she could go. Chloe finished her piece then noticed that the rest of us still had cake left on our plates and started asking for more, then begging for more, then screaming and crying and whining "moooore." Ella cut off a piece of her own cake and put it on Chloe's plate, then gave her a kiss. What a great big sister."
***
That is the perfect metaphor for the whole liberals as children theory ( with Chloe, of course, posing as the liberal).
And I won't even get into the fact that it's amazing that this guy can type with his skirt billowing up in front of him like that. Just the fact that his kids are named Chloe & Ella tells me all I need to know about him.
Egads!
(I just revisited this guy's site and it really comes as no surprise that he's working to become a college professor and that he believes everything that Michael Moore, Al Gore, and Salon rave about. Oh, and [with apologies to The American Princess] his wife's a lawyer. Nice pants, lady.)
- The Exile
"I'd like to buy a clue, please"
I was reading this article about the mainstream media lamenting their loss of readers/viewers and a couple of paragraphs struck me:
***
Goldberg, the executive editor of the Mercury News, a paper that rose to national prominence with its territory, Silicon Valley, and slipped back, many think, when its owners seemed to put profits before vigorous journalism, spoke at the National College Newspaper Convention two weeks ago, and read out fainter heartbeat numbers: "More than 80 percent of adults read a daily newspaper 40 years ago. Thirty years ago that had fallen to 72 percent. Twenty years ago, it was 65 percent. Ten years ago, it was 61 percent. Last year, it was hovering just above 50 percent."
You don't have to be Price-Waterhouse to figure out what that means: Change and survival are synonymous right now for many journals and journalistic operations. "We all either will embrace change," said Seib, "or get run over by it."
Goldberg played with some of the ideas out there, ideas that would remake or create a new "mainstream" press, telling the student editors that it was their destiny to reinvent: "Maybe the answer is bilingual newspapers ... Maybe it's news blogs that update all day and automatically download to your iPod ... Maybe we should arm reporters with video and audio equipment so the papers' Web sites can broadcast what they are doing as it happens ... Or allow readers to subscribe only to certain sections of the paper ... Or let them post and publish their own news."
***
Does that "just above 50%" figure sound familiar to any of you?
Did anyone notice what Ms. Goldberg left out of her possible solutions?
George Bush won the election last November with...just above 50% of the vote.
And completely lacking in Ms. Goldberg's list of possible solutions to the problem is possibly hiring people who represent the huge number of people who have cancelled their subscriptions, i.e. Conservatives.
But it never crosses the minds of these people that large numbers of people just got so sick of the liberal message being shoved down their throats that they bailed out and now get their news elsewhere.
It's just that easy, but it's too complicated for a liberal.
- The Exile
***
Goldberg, the executive editor of the Mercury News, a paper that rose to national prominence with its territory, Silicon Valley, and slipped back, many think, when its owners seemed to put profits before vigorous journalism, spoke at the National College Newspaper Convention two weeks ago, and read out fainter heartbeat numbers: "More than 80 percent of adults read a daily newspaper 40 years ago. Thirty years ago that had fallen to 72 percent. Twenty years ago, it was 65 percent. Ten years ago, it was 61 percent. Last year, it was hovering just above 50 percent."
You don't have to be Price-Waterhouse to figure out what that means: Change and survival are synonymous right now for many journals and journalistic operations. "We all either will embrace change," said Seib, "or get run over by it."
Goldberg played with some of the ideas out there, ideas that would remake or create a new "mainstream" press, telling the student editors that it was their destiny to reinvent: "Maybe the answer is bilingual newspapers ... Maybe it's news blogs that update all day and automatically download to your iPod ... Maybe we should arm reporters with video and audio equipment so the papers' Web sites can broadcast what they are doing as it happens ... Or allow readers to subscribe only to certain sections of the paper ... Or let them post and publish their own news."
***
Does that "just above 50%" figure sound familiar to any of you?
Did anyone notice what Ms. Goldberg left out of her possible solutions?
George Bush won the election last November with...just above 50% of the vote.
And completely lacking in Ms. Goldberg's list of possible solutions to the problem is possibly hiring people who represent the huge number of people who have cancelled their subscriptions, i.e. Conservatives.
But it never crosses the minds of these people that large numbers of people just got so sick of the liberal message being shoved down their throats that they bailed out and now get their news elsewhere.
It's just that easy, but it's too complicated for a liberal.
- The Exile
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Gimme back my money
As I was putting my Kindergarten-age daughter to bed a few minutes ago, she started to proudly show me some of the sign-language that she knew. I asked her where she had learned that and she told me that she had learned it in school. I smiled and told her that it was very good and that she was a very smart girl, but inside, "I got to thinking".
Now I'm sure that, to some of you, the following will sound like something from your typical heartless Republican. To others it will confirm their belief that republicans are "x_ists" (x is a variable that can be changed at will) who do not celebrate diversity in all of it's forms. Hopefully it will sound logical to most of you.
I got to thinking, "How many times have I actually needed to know sign-language in my 40 years on this earth?
Answer: 0.
"OK", I thought, "how many times would it have come in handy to know sign-language?"
Answer: maybe 10. Probably less.
So why is the Government school that my daughter attends wasting time teaching her to communicate with a tiny fraction of 1% of the population that depends on sign-language to communicate?
Wouldn't that time be better spent learning say, math, history, reading, writing or anything else that is going to be useful in her everyday life?
Don't tell me that these teachers are overworked, underpaid or trying to do their best for our children. If they think that they have the time to piss away on something like this, which is pretty much useless to my child, then they really don't understand the responsibility that they have. They think that their job is to have fun with the kids (which makes their job fun) and teach them their ideology which always seems to be dominated by "diversity".
Their real responsibilty is to teach these kids how to get along in the real world, not in a world that is 80% deaf or 80% Spanish-speaking. No matter how much they may dislike it, 80% of the population of this country is not deaf and speaks English. Why are they wasting my child's time?
I've taught my daughter to read, to add and subtract some pretty large numbers, to tell time on a non-digital clock and much more. The rest of the kids in her class can do none of these things. But, by God, they'll know sign-language just in case they run into a deaf person and there's no pencil and paper available!
So why do the schools waste time teaching the other kids, who can't even read, sign-language? It's 99% useless!
I see things like this and wonder how in the hell these people have the guts to whine about not having enough money. But then I realize that a lot of the people pay no attention to anything other than their local newspaper, news or CBS, NBC, or CNN. If they did, the Democrat party and their union supporters would be voted out in a landlside of epic proportions.
That's our job: let's get these average people who aren't paying attention to realize what they're actually voting for. I've turned a few people to what they formerly thought was the "dark side". If every one of us could do that, we'd have our country back.
- The Exile
Now I'm sure that, to some of you, the following will sound like something from your typical heartless Republican. To others it will confirm their belief that republicans are "x_ists" (x is a variable that can be changed at will) who do not celebrate diversity in all of it's forms. Hopefully it will sound logical to most of you.
I got to thinking, "How many times have I actually needed to know sign-language in my 40 years on this earth?
Answer: 0.
"OK", I thought, "how many times would it have come in handy to know sign-language?"
Answer: maybe 10. Probably less.
So why is the Government school that my daughter attends wasting time teaching her to communicate with a tiny fraction of 1% of the population that depends on sign-language to communicate?
Wouldn't that time be better spent learning say, math, history, reading, writing or anything else that is going to be useful in her everyday life?
Don't tell me that these teachers are overworked, underpaid or trying to do their best for our children. If they think that they have the time to piss away on something like this, which is pretty much useless to my child, then they really don't understand the responsibility that they have. They think that their job is to have fun with the kids (which makes their job fun) and teach them their ideology which always seems to be dominated by "diversity".
Their real responsibilty is to teach these kids how to get along in the real world, not in a world that is 80% deaf or 80% Spanish-speaking. No matter how much they may dislike it, 80% of the population of this country is not deaf and speaks English. Why are they wasting my child's time?
I've taught my daughter to read, to add and subtract some pretty large numbers, to tell time on a non-digital clock and much more. The rest of the kids in her class can do none of these things. But, by God, they'll know sign-language just in case they run into a deaf person and there's no pencil and paper available!
So why do the schools waste time teaching the other kids, who can't even read, sign-language? It's 99% useless!
I see things like this and wonder how in the hell these people have the guts to whine about not having enough money. But then I realize that a lot of the people pay no attention to anything other than their local newspaper, news or CBS, NBC, or CNN. If they did, the Democrat party and their union supporters would be voted out in a landlside of epic proportions.
That's our job: let's get these average people who aren't paying attention to realize what they're actually voting for. I've turned a few people to what they formerly thought was the "dark side". If every one of us could do that, we'd have our country back.
- The Exile
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Take heart
A former coworker and fellow member of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" e-mailed me worried about Christians, the ACLU and what's happening in this country.
***
In a message dated 3/5/2005 11:08:26 AM Central Standard Time, ******* writes:
I think it is time Christians become a little more vocal and involved! Removing the basic principles this country was founded upon is going to be America's demise.
The other question I have and found no intelligent answer: Why is it we are supposed to accept the Gay and ACLU now with their anti Christ message when they were shunned not so long ago?
My Reply
I honestly believe that the tide has turned. The very fact that the Red Star Tribunal (aka The Minneapolis Star Tribune) would print this article praising religous values is a small bit of proof that the people have had enough of the liberal bullshit. And they know it.
The Left may try to fake a sudden belief in "moral values", but that will just put religion back out in the open where it belongs instead of hidden away and sneered at. They realize that they can no longer openly insult religous people and get away with it as they have for the past 30 years.
And Christians are becoming more vocal and involved. Big time! They got George Bush re-elected and, as far as vocalism goes, they were all willing to tell the exit pollsters that moral values was their top concern. They're speaking out and becoming more empowered all the time. The country wasn't taken over by liberalism overnight. What you're now seeing is the beginning of the pendulum swinging the other way.
The fact is, the ACLU wasn't shunned not that long ago. The reason that you're seeing more and more about them is that they're being "outed" as the extreme left-wingers that they are. Their squirming little lawyers are being exposed to the light of day, and most people are disgusted by what they're seeing.
Take heart. The libs see the writing on the wall and they are in an absolute panic. Why do you think that the Democrat party is in such disarray and keeps shooting themselves in the foot? They may be in denial but, deep down, they realize that the tide is turning against them.
***
I truly believe that what we are seeing is another revolution to undo the one that took place in the 60's and early 70's. While the Leftists of that time were screaming "Revolution" every chance that they got, nobody really believed that it was a real Revolution.
And now we're seeing another. Keep your powder dry folks, and keep fighting the good fight.
- The Exile
***
In a message dated 3/5/2005 11:08:26 AM Central Standard Time, ******* writes:
I think it is time Christians become a little more vocal and involved! Removing the basic principles this country was founded upon is going to be America's demise.
The other question I have and found no intelligent answer: Why is it we are supposed to accept the Gay and ACLU now with their anti Christ message when they were shunned not so long ago?
My Reply
I honestly believe that the tide has turned. The very fact that the Red Star Tribunal (aka The Minneapolis Star Tribune) would print this article praising religous values is a small bit of proof that the people have had enough of the liberal bullshit. And they know it.
The Left may try to fake a sudden belief in "moral values", but that will just put religion back out in the open where it belongs instead of hidden away and sneered at. They realize that they can no longer openly insult religous people and get away with it as they have for the past 30 years.
And Christians are becoming more vocal and involved. Big time! They got George Bush re-elected and, as far as vocalism goes, they were all willing to tell the exit pollsters that moral values was their top concern. They're speaking out and becoming more empowered all the time. The country wasn't taken over by liberalism overnight. What you're now seeing is the beginning of the pendulum swinging the other way.
The fact is, the ACLU wasn't shunned not that long ago. The reason that you're seeing more and more about them is that they're being "outed" as the extreme left-wingers that they are. Their squirming little lawyers are being exposed to the light of day, and most people are disgusted by what they're seeing.
Take heart. The libs see the writing on the wall and they are in an absolute panic. Why do you think that the Democrat party is in such disarray and keeps shooting themselves in the foot? They may be in denial but, deep down, they realize that the tide is turning against them.
***
I truly believe that what we are seeing is another revolution to undo the one that took place in the 60's and early 70's. While the Leftists of that time were screaming "Revolution" every chance that they got, nobody really believed that it was a real Revolution.
And now we're seeing another. Keep your powder dry folks, and keep fighting the good fight.
- The Exile
Friday, March 04, 2005
Unpatriotic, traitorous scum
If I hear one more Republican back down when a Lefty accuses them of "questioning their patriotism", I may just form my own party.
I'll go even farther than questioning their patriotism, I'll call them unpatriotic traitors and smile in their faces.
Ya want proof? OK, piece of cake.
They're only against things when America does them. If any other country does these things they have this amazing ability to ignore them or downplay them
Their main theme seems to be that they're "for the little guy.
Yet they were perfectly willing to let hundreds of thousands of "little guys" in Iraq die while they debated what to do about it for 12 years! I guess they only care for the little guys who can vote for them.
People would beg to be fed into Sadaam's wood-shredders head first, just so they wouldn't have to feel their bodies being chewed up as they died. Think about that! But a few more years of debate might have solved that problem.
And when George Bush sends our military in to stop these atrocities, they call him a mass murderer because we caused a few thousand "collateral damage" casualties. What we did to save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more people's lives is called mass murder, but you have to pry the words "mass murder" out of the Left when speaking of Sadaam, who killed a thousand times more people for no other reason than to hang on to Power. I guess that's a goal that they can relate to. Freeing millions of "little guys" is OK in theory, I guess. As long as you don't have to offend anyone.
They can't scream enough about abused women in this country, but they're perfectly willing to let the abuse go on anywhere else in this world.
Literally millions of women in other countries have been subject to "female castration" or what is actually a removal of the clitoris and sewing the labia closed. With no anesthesia.
Now, this is bad enough, but what you're never told by the media is that this is usually done by the victim's mother and other female relatives. The mother does it because after she gets old (say about 21) in the eyes of her husband, he may start eyeing his daughter as fresh meat. It's plain, old jealousy.
And when the poor girl finally gets married, her husband is given a "ceremonial dagger". Care to guess what this is for? Well, it's to cut her sewn labia open so that they can consumate their marriage.
Women in other countries aren't allowed to leave the house unless escorted by a male relative.
Women in other countries aren't allowed to drive cars.
Women in other countries are regularly killed because they have been raped, thereby soiling the family honor.
But, deep down, we're all the same, right? Yeah, right.
And in this country, you can be arrested for calling your wife a "bitch".
But it's America that's evil to these people.
It just goes to show that these people couldn't care less about the "causes" that they're whining about. Any "cause" will do, just so long as it can be used to bring down America. And just so long as it gets people to pay attention to them, just like any child throwing a tantrum.
I'd call that unpatriotic. I'd call that traitorous. I'd call that disgusting and evil.
And if any Lefty who stumbles across this cares to debate me, I have many, many more examples, such as real torture vs. "naked Twister" in Abu Ghraib. If it were up to me, I'd pick the naked pyramid over being beheaded any day. But to the Left, Abu Ghraib is worse than Auschwitz only because it was a few Americans who perpetrated it.
These people are disgustingly hypocritical. I really can't understand why more people can't see this. Have we as a people really become that stupid?
- The Exile
I'll go even farther than questioning their patriotism, I'll call them unpatriotic traitors and smile in their faces.
Ya want proof? OK, piece of cake.
They're only against things when America does them. If any other country does these things they have this amazing ability to ignore them or downplay them
Their main theme seems to be that they're "for the little guy.
Yet they were perfectly willing to let hundreds of thousands of "little guys" in Iraq die while they debated what to do about it for 12 years! I guess they only care for the little guys who can vote for them.
People would beg to be fed into Sadaam's wood-shredders head first, just so they wouldn't have to feel their bodies being chewed up as they died. Think about that! But a few more years of debate might have solved that problem.
And when George Bush sends our military in to stop these atrocities, they call him a mass murderer because we caused a few thousand "collateral damage" casualties. What we did to save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more people's lives is called mass murder, but you have to pry the words "mass murder" out of the Left when speaking of Sadaam, who killed a thousand times more people for no other reason than to hang on to Power. I guess that's a goal that they can relate to. Freeing millions of "little guys" is OK in theory, I guess. As long as you don't have to offend anyone.
They can't scream enough about abused women in this country, but they're perfectly willing to let the abuse go on anywhere else in this world.
Literally millions of women in other countries have been subject to "female castration" or what is actually a removal of the clitoris and sewing the labia closed. With no anesthesia.
Now, this is bad enough, but what you're never told by the media is that this is usually done by the victim's mother and other female relatives. The mother does it because after she gets old (say about 21) in the eyes of her husband, he may start eyeing his daughter as fresh meat. It's plain, old jealousy.
And when the poor girl finally gets married, her husband is given a "ceremonial dagger". Care to guess what this is for? Well, it's to cut her sewn labia open so that they can consumate their marriage.
Women in other countries aren't allowed to leave the house unless escorted by a male relative.
Women in other countries aren't allowed to drive cars.
Women in other countries are regularly killed because they have been raped, thereby soiling the family honor.
But, deep down, we're all the same, right? Yeah, right.
And in this country, you can be arrested for calling your wife a "bitch".
But it's America that's evil to these people.
It just goes to show that these people couldn't care less about the "causes" that they're whining about. Any "cause" will do, just so long as it can be used to bring down America. And just so long as it gets people to pay attention to them, just like any child throwing a tantrum.
I'd call that unpatriotic. I'd call that traitorous. I'd call that disgusting and evil.
And if any Lefty who stumbles across this cares to debate me, I have many, many more examples, such as real torture vs. "naked Twister" in Abu Ghraib. If it were up to me, I'd pick the naked pyramid over being beheaded any day. But to the Left, Abu Ghraib is worse than Auschwitz only because it was a few Americans who perpetrated it.
These people are disgustingly hypocritical. I really can't understand why more people can't see this. Have we as a people really become that stupid?
- The Exile
Thursday, March 03, 2005
They eyes are the windows to the (lack of a) soul
Today, once again, I heard a whiney liberal call Dick Cheney and Karl Rove "evil geniuses".
Come on!
Dick Cheney looks like somebody's grandpa and Karl Rove reminds me of nothing more than the old cartoon dog, Droopy! These people are the best they can come up with for the evil geniuses who are behind the whole vast right-wing conspiracy?
Here's a little test. The next time that you see either of these guys on TV, look at their eyes. They seem engaged, amused, human.
In comparison, look at Barbara Boxer's or Hillary's eyes. Now, it may just be the Botox, but to me they seem to have the wide-eyed, glazed, soulless, staring look of the fanatic. And they're not the only ones in their party.
I first noticed this phenomenon during the 2000 Presidential campaign. Al Gore's eyes had nothing behind them. Nothing. He had lizard eyes. The best way I could describe it is that he looked dead inside.
Now, that's quite different from Boxer or Clinton. Their eyes look like they may, at any moment, begin rolling around in their sockets while their owners begin ranting the latest Democrat talking points faxed over from the DNC. Kind of like when Regan began speaking in tongues in The Exorcist.
It may sound as if I'm personalizing this too much, but I'm serious. Look at the eyes of the people on the Left and tell me what you see.
- The Exile
Come on!
Dick Cheney looks like somebody's grandpa and Karl Rove reminds me of nothing more than the old cartoon dog, Droopy! These people are the best they can come up with for the evil geniuses who are behind the whole vast right-wing conspiracy?
Here's a little test. The next time that you see either of these guys on TV, look at their eyes. They seem engaged, amused, human.
In comparison, look at Barbara Boxer's or Hillary's eyes. Now, it may just be the Botox, but to me they seem to have the wide-eyed, glazed, soulless, staring look of the fanatic. And they're not the only ones in their party.
I first noticed this phenomenon during the 2000 Presidential campaign. Al Gore's eyes had nothing behind them. Nothing. He had lizard eyes. The best way I could describe it is that he looked dead inside.
Now, that's quite different from Boxer or Clinton. Their eyes look like they may, at any moment, begin rolling around in their sockets while their owners begin ranting the latest Democrat talking points faxed over from the DNC. Kind of like when Regan began speaking in tongues in The Exorcist.
It may sound as if I'm personalizing this too much, but I'm serious. Look at the eyes of the people on the Left and tell me what you see.
- The Exile
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
What's my Line?
For all of you who listen to "evil, right-wing extremist" talk radio, here's something that adds even more to the entertainment value.
When the host takes a caller and before said caller expresses his/her opinion, try to figure out whether that caller is a Lefty or a Righty.
I've got it down to where I can get about 90% right.
You can just tell by the whiny, soft-spoken, sneering, depressed tone of voice that they use to greet the host when a Lefty is on the line.
When it's a Righty, the vast majority of the time their tone of voice is happy, upbeat and confident.
Michael Medved's show is especially good for this game because he takes a lot of Lefties' calls. I've even tried this on Air Un-american's shows for the short periods of time that I'm able to listen to it and it works there, too, so it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the caller's attitude toward the host. It's apparently just their whole outlook on life.
Try it, it's interesting and fun.
- The Exile
When the host takes a caller and before said caller expresses his/her opinion, try to figure out whether that caller is a Lefty or a Righty.
I've got it down to where I can get about 90% right.
You can just tell by the whiny, soft-spoken, sneering, depressed tone of voice that they use to greet the host when a Lefty is on the line.
When it's a Righty, the vast majority of the time their tone of voice is happy, upbeat and confident.
Michael Medved's show is especially good for this game because he takes a lot of Lefties' calls. I've even tried this on Air Un-american's shows for the short periods of time that I'm able to listen to it and it works there, too, so it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the caller's attitude toward the host. It's apparently just their whole outlook on life.
Try it, it's interesting and fun.
- The Exile
Section IV, Paragraph II, Amen.
The whole issue of religous symbols on Federal property is in the hands of the Supreme Court. As I was listening to the debate on the news and talk-shows, it occured to me exactly why the Left hates the idea so much.
As I'm sure you've heard before, Government is the god of the Left. Therefore, the Government buildings are the churches of the Left. The Left hates Christianity the way Christians hate Satanism.
How would you like it if a bunch of Satanists put up symbols of their religion in your church? It's no different for them. Just a lot more pathetic when you look into the reasons that they worship Government.
- The Exile
As I'm sure you've heard before, Government is the god of the Left. Therefore, the Government buildings are the churches of the Left. The Left hates Christianity the way Christians hate Satanism.
How would you like it if a bunch of Satanists put up symbols of their religion in your church? It's no different for them. Just a lot more pathetic when you look into the reasons that they worship Government.
- The Exile
Hooray for deficits!
The Democrats, for the first time in forever, are suddenly worried that we’re running a deficit. When they had control of both houses of Congress, they constantly pooh-poohed Republican complaints about the deficit. Now, however, it seems to be a big deal to them.
Well, here’s one Republican that says that deficits are a good thing.
In the 1990’s the State of Minnesota had some pretty large budget surpluses. The Democrat controlled Congress, predictably, went on a spending spree that would have made your proverbial drunken sailor blush.
They had all the self-control of a kid (huh, there’s that word again) in a candy store with a pocket full of money.
In the 1990’s the size of the Government here doubled in under 10 years! When the recession started at the end of the Clinton Administration, they just kept right on spending and, eventually, left us with a $4.5 billion deficit that had to be cleaned up by our Republican governor who, predictably, was (and still is) called a “meanie” when he had to clean up the mess that the Democrats made.
I’m sure that it’ll come as no surprise that I nor anyone else in this state is getting double the service from our government. Except maybe the government unions.
Our former Governor, Jesse “the Mind is a Terrible Thing” Ventura, made a deal with the legislature wherein they gave us back 1/3 of the surplus (which of course we were taxed on the next year), the legislature took 1/3, and Jesse threw 1/3 at his pet projects.
I heard an analogy back then that I thought was either amusing or infuriating:
You go into your local convenience store and buy a Sludgie. The clerk charges you $100 for your 89 cent Sludgie. When you complain to the manager, he takes $33, gives the clerk who made the mistake in the first place $33 and gives you $33, minus the cost of the Sludgie. When you complain about that he tells you that you should feel lucky that you got that much!
Would you put up with that at a convenience store? No, you’d call the police and report the theft. So why do you put up with it from your government? That's exactly what they're doing: taking more than they need and when you ask for the remainder back, they sneer at you and call you greedy.
The fact is, they will spend every dollar that you give them and more. The only thing that keeps them in check at all is the fact that they know people may vote them out if the deficit gets too big. And when we’re running a surplus, every one of them bellies up to the trough and takes whatever he or she wants. They spend it so fast that you literally can't keep track of it all and, before you know it, it's gone.
Just like children, they thought that the good times would never end, so they spent it all and more. When the economy finally crashed, as was inevitable, they were so addicted to having all the money that they wanted that they couldn't (wouldn't) stop. Next thing ya know, we're $4.5 billion in the hole.
Then, when the grown-ups took charge and cut their allowance back, they whined like the babies they are.
I’ll take a deficit anytime.
- The Exile
Well, here’s one Republican that says that deficits are a good thing.
In the 1990’s the State of Minnesota had some pretty large budget surpluses. The Democrat controlled Congress, predictably, went on a spending spree that would have made your proverbial drunken sailor blush.
They had all the self-control of a kid (huh, there’s that word again) in a candy store with a pocket full of money.
In the 1990’s the size of the Government here doubled in under 10 years! When the recession started at the end of the Clinton Administration, they just kept right on spending and, eventually, left us with a $4.5 billion deficit that had to be cleaned up by our Republican governor who, predictably, was (and still is) called a “meanie” when he had to clean up the mess that the Democrats made.
I’m sure that it’ll come as no surprise that I nor anyone else in this state is getting double the service from our government. Except maybe the government unions.
Our former Governor, Jesse “the Mind is a Terrible Thing” Ventura, made a deal with the legislature wherein they gave us back 1/3 of the surplus (which of course we were taxed on the next year), the legislature took 1/3, and Jesse threw 1/3 at his pet projects.
I heard an analogy back then that I thought was either amusing or infuriating:
You go into your local convenience store and buy a Sludgie. The clerk charges you $100 for your 89 cent Sludgie. When you complain to the manager, he takes $33, gives the clerk who made the mistake in the first place $33 and gives you $33, minus the cost of the Sludgie. When you complain about that he tells you that you should feel lucky that you got that much!
Would you put up with that at a convenience store? No, you’d call the police and report the theft. So why do you put up with it from your government? That's exactly what they're doing: taking more than they need and when you ask for the remainder back, they sneer at you and call you greedy.
The fact is, they will spend every dollar that you give them and more. The only thing that keeps them in check at all is the fact that they know people may vote them out if the deficit gets too big. And when we’re running a surplus, every one of them bellies up to the trough and takes whatever he or she wants. They spend it so fast that you literally can't keep track of it all and, before you know it, it's gone.
Just like children, they thought that the good times would never end, so they spent it all and more. When the economy finally crashed, as was inevitable, they were so addicted to having all the money that they wanted that they couldn't (wouldn't) stop. Next thing ya know, we're $4.5 billion in the hole.
Then, when the grown-ups took charge and cut their allowance back, they whined like the babies they are.
I’ll take a deficit anytime.
- The Exile
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)