For those of you who haven't seen it, scroll down and check it out on the sidebar.
It's almost as much fun as having a real troll.
Thanks, Princess!
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Silly Rabbit, Libs are Just Kids!
Note: Originally posted on January 26, 2005.
Well, that last post was so much fun, let's keep it going, huh? Like I said, the examples are endless and the more you figure them out the more convincing the whole theory becomes.
What's the worst thing in the world that a little kid can call someone?"You big dummy!"What do Democrats and liberals call all Republicans? That's right: dummies.
It used to be that they'd just call Republican Presidents stupid. Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush I, Bush II. For some reason the American people were fooled again and again into voting for complete idiots.
But in the last few years, and especially since the last election, the extreme lefties have taken over the Democrat party and now call anybody who voted for Bush a dummy. Now we're all a bunch of "knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, gap-toothed idiots" from Red States.
It's really what they thought all along, but in years past they were at least smart enough to realize that the way to bring people to your side wasn't to call them idiots. Now the fanatics have taken over and, like the kids they are, they're throwing a tantrum because they keep losing, not realizing or caring what the consequences of that tantrum will be. Again, liberals can't link and can't look ahead to see those consequences, just as a little kid can't.
And, as kids, they don't believe what their eyes tell them. They have to look around them and see people who voted for Bush all over the place. I really doubt that these Bush people even faintly resemble idiots. But, just as kids can be convinced that Santa Claus exists despite all of the evidence to the contrary, so too can liberals believe that all Republicans are stupid. It doesn't matter what they see every say. Their leaders (read "mommy") tell them that it's so, and they couldn't possibly be wrong!
I'd be willing to bet large sums of money that if you took 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans at random and tested their IQ's, the Republicans would win, hands down. Why do I believe that? Because that's what my experience tells me. Not what Rush Limbaugh tells me.
Alright, let's talk "environmentalists".
Awhile back I had to cut down a tree in my back yard because it was dying and killing other trees around it. When it came down, my daughter cried her little eyes out. I explained to her why it had to go, but she really didn't understand.
Shortly thereafter I was watching the local news and saw a story about a bunch of protestors who had been trying to save some trees that were in the way of rerouting a highway. Their court appeals had run out and the Sheriffs had to literally drag them away from those trees.The footage on the news showed these people crying their little eyes out as the trees came down. No different than my daughter, who was 4 at the time.
Next: little kids will tell you the most outrageous lies right to your face and expect you to believe it. Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, anybody?
A child will break something in the other room in a house with just the two of you in it and, when you go to find out what that 'crash' was, will deny that they did it.
Al Gore: Internet, Love Canal, Love Story, Texas fires, etc.
Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky", "I'll only raise taxes on the rich", "That depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is".
Hillary Clinton: Claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, even though she was born years before anyone knew who he was. "Lost" Rose lawfirm billing records for months before they just happened to show up on the dining room table.
John Kerry: Was in combat for four months (one of which would have been training) and received three purple hearts and a silver star, which would have made him the most decorated hero in American history.
Teddy Kennedy: wasn't drunk and was just giving Mary Jo a ride home when he skidded off the bridge.
The really sad thing is that so many people in this country actually believe them and defend them, which tells you where their heads are at.
Liberals need someone to take care of them (i.e. the Government) just like a kid needs his parents. Mommy and daddy are supposed to take care of them and fix everything that they don't like, just like the Government is supposed to take care of everything and fix everything (usually through one person on the court) that liberals don't like.
I'm sure that we'll get back to this subject. I'd love to hear any examples that you may have.
Well, that last post was so much fun, let's keep it going, huh? Like I said, the examples are endless and the more you figure them out the more convincing the whole theory becomes.
What's the worst thing in the world that a little kid can call someone?"You big dummy!"What do Democrats and liberals call all Republicans? That's right: dummies.
It used to be that they'd just call Republican Presidents stupid. Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush I, Bush II. For some reason the American people were fooled again and again into voting for complete idiots.
But in the last few years, and especially since the last election, the extreme lefties have taken over the Democrat party and now call anybody who voted for Bush a dummy. Now we're all a bunch of "knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, gap-toothed idiots" from Red States.
It's really what they thought all along, but in years past they were at least smart enough to realize that the way to bring people to your side wasn't to call them idiots. Now the fanatics have taken over and, like the kids they are, they're throwing a tantrum because they keep losing, not realizing or caring what the consequences of that tantrum will be. Again, liberals can't link and can't look ahead to see those consequences, just as a little kid can't.
And, as kids, they don't believe what their eyes tell them. They have to look around them and see people who voted for Bush all over the place. I really doubt that these Bush people even faintly resemble idiots. But, just as kids can be convinced that Santa Claus exists despite all of the evidence to the contrary, so too can liberals believe that all Republicans are stupid. It doesn't matter what they see every say. Their leaders (read "mommy") tell them that it's so, and they couldn't possibly be wrong!
I'd be willing to bet large sums of money that if you took 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans at random and tested their IQ's, the Republicans would win, hands down. Why do I believe that? Because that's what my experience tells me. Not what Rush Limbaugh tells me.
Alright, let's talk "environmentalists".
Awhile back I had to cut down a tree in my back yard because it was dying and killing other trees around it. When it came down, my daughter cried her little eyes out. I explained to her why it had to go, but she really didn't understand.
Shortly thereafter I was watching the local news and saw a story about a bunch of protestors who had been trying to save some trees that were in the way of rerouting a highway. Their court appeals had run out and the Sheriffs had to literally drag them away from those trees.The footage on the news showed these people crying their little eyes out as the trees came down. No different than my daughter, who was 4 at the time.
Next: little kids will tell you the most outrageous lies right to your face and expect you to believe it. Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, anybody?
A child will break something in the other room in a house with just the two of you in it and, when you go to find out what that 'crash' was, will deny that they did it.
Al Gore: Internet, Love Canal, Love Story, Texas fires, etc.
Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky", "I'll only raise taxes on the rich", "That depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is".
Hillary Clinton: Claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, even though she was born years before anyone knew who he was. "Lost" Rose lawfirm billing records for months before they just happened to show up on the dining room table.
John Kerry: Was in combat for four months (one of which would have been training) and received three purple hearts and a silver star, which would have made him the most decorated hero in American history.
Teddy Kennedy: wasn't drunk and was just giving Mary Jo a ride home when he skidded off the bridge.
The really sad thing is that so many people in this country actually believe them and defend them, which tells you where their heads are at.
Liberals need someone to take care of them (i.e. the Government) just like a kid needs his parents. Mommy and daddy are supposed to take care of them and fix everything that they don't like, just like the Government is supposed to take care of everything and fix everything (usually through one person on the court) that liberals don't like.
I'm sure that we'll get back to this subject. I'd love to hear any examples that you may have.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Summer's Almost Gone
And I've hardly put a dent in everything that I wanted to get done around here before the snow flies. Not to mention the fact that Monkey Girl is suffering Up North at the cabin this week with her grandparents, who regularly torture her with new toys and make her go swimming and drive go-carts and golf carts. In other words, I have time to do things. I'd better get to them.
Therefore, for the next couple of days I will be doing the "Best of The Exile", and re-running a couple of my very first posts.
Many of you have probably seen them before, but I think that they're worth re-reading. It reminds us who we are dealing with when we go against the Left. Even I sometimes forget and start to give them too much credibility beyond their childishness.
And for those of you who haven't read them, it may give you some insight into the Left and how we should deal with them.
And, hopefully, it will all come together with a theory that I have twisting around in my strange little mind.
Until then:
Therefore, for the next couple of days I will be doing the "Best of The Exile", and re-running a couple of my very first posts.
Many of you have probably seen them before, but I think that they're worth re-reading. It reminds us who we are dealing with when we go against the Left. Even I sometimes forget and start to give them too much credibility beyond their childishness.
And for those of you who haven't read them, it may give you some insight into the Left and how we should deal with them.
And, hopefully, it will all come together with a theory that I have twisting around in my strange little mind.
Until then:
Liberalism Explained
Note: This was originally posted on January 24, 2005. I had been thinking this through for quite awhile. Years, actually. When I started blogging, it seemed a natural fit. Blogging let me finally put it all together "on paper" and send it out for all to see. That was the beauty of blogging for me: I'm a much better writer than I am a speaker. I have a bad habit of speaking like the grease-monkey that I am. Truck drivers and sailors (and Kos) got nothin' on me.
I've been putting this post off long enough. It's long and I could go on forever because the examples are so numerous, but it explains every liberal position perfectly.
Liberals are really very easy to figure out. Go hang out in any elementary school for a while and you'll see the exact same behavior. Liberals are nothing more than people whose emotional state hasn't progressed beyond childhood. You'll see that theme pointed out over and over again throughout this blog. It is, in fact, one of the main themes of this blog.
A few examples.
What do liberals hate more than anything? Why, unfairness, of course. To them everything must be fair. The rich have too much money and the poor don't have enough. Everyone should have the same amount of everything no matter how hard they've worked. Oddly enough, my five-year-old daughter has the same viewpoint. So do Communists. Apparently my daughter is a Communist. I suppose all children are Communists if you think about it.
I've heard a lot of conservatives mistake liberals' attitudes for communism. Liberals aren't communists except in the sense that the equal distribution of wealth seems like a good idea to someone who is, emotionally, six years old. What six-year-old doesn't want other kids' candy/taxes shared with him? In fact, the theory of communism is itself rooted in the mindset of a six-year-old. Karl Marx was, obviously, emotionally stunted.
If only that poor person had as much money as that mechanic, life would be good. It doesn't matter that the bum chose to spend his life doing nothing while the mechanic learned a trade. It doesn't matter if that welfare mom chose to have four kids and spend her life sitting on the couch watching 'Jerry Springer' while the carpenter got up at 5:00 A.M. every morning and went to work. They should still have the same amount of everything.
Speaking of "unfairness", I've heard more than a few liberals criticize America because our big, strong army went into poor, little Iraq and beat the hell out of their army.
These same people incessantly mouth the words, "We support the troops", but they'd apparently rather have the enemy's army be the same strength as ours so that we'd lose just as many troops as they do. Apparently what they mean is that they support the enemy's troops.
Obviously nobody ever told these people that life isn't fair. Some people just naturally have more brains, talent and/or ambition than others.
That's the one big reason that Communism has failed and always will fail. The more intelligent and ambitious will always try to get ahead of others. Always. It's hard-wired into us over thousands of years of evolution.
For people who are so convinced of Evolution's truth, they sure don't seem to put much stock in it.
Of course, they don't see the hypocrisy, because that's another trait of both libs and children. As one local radio show here says, liberals can't link. They can't see connections between actions.
Then again, they don't much care whether evolution is the truth or not, as long as they can use it to put down religion.
Of course they hate religion. It speaks about "right" and "wrong". Just like my daughter, these people can't stand being told that they're wrong. Which is the same reason they hate people who are "judgmental".
And, of course, once again they can't see the link between calling Conservatives "evil", "mean-spirited", "warmongers", "greedy", etc. and being judgmental. That is their judgment of me, but they really can't see it.
Just calling someone "judgmental" is a judgment!
Another manifestation of liberals' inability to see connections, is there inability to foresee consequences.
Just as a child doesn’t think about the consequences of throwing a rock through a window, the liberals don’t think about the consequences of their actions. They think things out to the point where they feel good, and then they stop. They never think beyond that.
Take welfare, for example. Giving poor people other people’s money made the liberals feel good. (STOP THINKING HERE IF YOU’RE A LIBERAL). They never thought about what would happen if you paid people not to work.
40 years and 3 TRILLION dollars later and the poverty rate is exactly the same as it used to be. The only difference is that now our crime rate and illegitimacy rate has skyrocketed!
This was Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty”. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, his war in Vietnam went a lot better.
Another example? OK.
Just today, a couple of days after President Bush's 2nd inauguration, the evil, right-wing-extremist radio program that I was listening to played a tape recording of a bunch of protestors.
It occurred to me that these protestors' chants sounded an awful lot like the nursery rhymes my daughter likes to chant.
"Hey, hey, ho, ho, (your cause here) has got to go" really isn't that different than "Ring around the Rosie, pocketful of posies".
"Like father, like son, one term and Bush is done" (Heh).
"Peter, Peter pumpkin eater, had a wife and couldn't keep her".
They're short, they're easy to memorize, they rhyme, they're kind of fun to say, they don't take a whole lot of thought...you get the picture. If you listen to just the cadence and not the words, you can't tell the difference.
(An interesting sidenote: have you ever thought about what "Ring around the Rosie" was about? It's actually about the bubonic plague. "Ring around the rosie" was actually describing the ring that formed around the sores when one caught the plague. People used to hold flowers (posies) to their nose in the belief that it would ward off the plague. "Ashes, ashes, all fall down!" kind of speaks for itself. Just as you've probably never thought about that, liberals don't really think about what they're chanting.)
This whole "libs as kids" theory was just kind of a vague notion and almost a joke between my friends and I until the last couple of school shootings. What did they blame them on? Every child's nemesis: bullies!
That's when all of the pieces came together.
These "poor kids" killed a bunch of bullies in their schools. They deserved our sympathy, not our reprimands.
I don't think that it's a coincidence that, if you look at these liberals, you can see inside them the kids in school who were constantly picked on. They all look "off" somehow.
An old boss of mine had a theory that they were actually aliens. "Just look at them!" he'd say. "It's obvious". But I think that what he was seeing was actually just the invisible target pasted on these people. These people were all of the misfits in your school and mine.
A psychologist I once knew told me that a lot of people's emotional progression stops at a certain traumatic point in their lives. Maybe these bullies traumatized these kids to the point where, even as adults, they can't grow up.
That would also explain why my daughter's public school sends home endless fliers on the subject of bullying. The people who are running the public school system are some of the biggest liberals in the country. I'd also bet that they were picked on when they were kids.
It would also explain their whole culture of "victimhood".
I'm sure that you'll see many, many more examples as I blather on in this blog.
From now on, whenever you hear a liberal speak, think about what they're saying and try to link it to childhood behavior. Once you start seeing the pattern, you can see it in everything that they do. It's actually a lot of fun for those of us who actually think.
And this theme will be continued on tomorrow's post. If you can't wait (yeah, right) it's in the archives under January 2005.
I've been putting this post off long enough. It's long and I could go on forever because the examples are so numerous, but it explains every liberal position perfectly.
Liberals are really very easy to figure out. Go hang out in any elementary school for a while and you'll see the exact same behavior. Liberals are nothing more than people whose emotional state hasn't progressed beyond childhood. You'll see that theme pointed out over and over again throughout this blog. It is, in fact, one of the main themes of this blog.
A few examples.
What do liberals hate more than anything? Why, unfairness, of course. To them everything must be fair. The rich have too much money and the poor don't have enough. Everyone should have the same amount of everything no matter how hard they've worked. Oddly enough, my five-year-old daughter has the same viewpoint. So do Communists. Apparently my daughter is a Communist. I suppose all children are Communists if you think about it.
I've heard a lot of conservatives mistake liberals' attitudes for communism. Liberals aren't communists except in the sense that the equal distribution of wealth seems like a good idea to someone who is, emotionally, six years old. What six-year-old doesn't want other kids' candy/taxes shared with him? In fact, the theory of communism is itself rooted in the mindset of a six-year-old. Karl Marx was, obviously, emotionally stunted.
If only that poor person had as much money as that mechanic, life would be good. It doesn't matter that the bum chose to spend his life doing nothing while the mechanic learned a trade. It doesn't matter if that welfare mom chose to have four kids and spend her life sitting on the couch watching 'Jerry Springer' while the carpenter got up at 5:00 A.M. every morning and went to work. They should still have the same amount of everything.
Speaking of "unfairness", I've heard more than a few liberals criticize America because our big, strong army went into poor, little Iraq and beat the hell out of their army.
These same people incessantly mouth the words, "We support the troops", but they'd apparently rather have the enemy's army be the same strength as ours so that we'd lose just as many troops as they do. Apparently what they mean is that they support the enemy's troops.
Obviously nobody ever told these people that life isn't fair. Some people just naturally have more brains, talent and/or ambition than others.
That's the one big reason that Communism has failed and always will fail. The more intelligent and ambitious will always try to get ahead of others. Always. It's hard-wired into us over thousands of years of evolution.
For people who are so convinced of Evolution's truth, they sure don't seem to put much stock in it.
Of course, they don't see the hypocrisy, because that's another trait of both libs and children. As one local radio show here says, liberals can't link. They can't see connections between actions.
Then again, they don't much care whether evolution is the truth or not, as long as they can use it to put down religion.
Of course they hate religion. It speaks about "right" and "wrong". Just like my daughter, these people can't stand being told that they're wrong. Which is the same reason they hate people who are "judgmental".
And, of course, once again they can't see the link between calling Conservatives "evil", "mean-spirited", "warmongers", "greedy", etc. and being judgmental. That is their judgment of me, but they really can't see it.
Just calling someone "judgmental" is a judgment!
Another manifestation of liberals' inability to see connections, is there inability to foresee consequences.
Just as a child doesn’t think about the consequences of throwing a rock through a window, the liberals don’t think about the consequences of their actions. They think things out to the point where they feel good, and then they stop. They never think beyond that.
Take welfare, for example. Giving poor people other people’s money made the liberals feel good. (STOP THINKING HERE IF YOU’RE A LIBERAL). They never thought about what would happen if you paid people not to work.
40 years and 3 TRILLION dollars later and the poverty rate is exactly the same as it used to be. The only difference is that now our crime rate and illegitimacy rate has skyrocketed!
This was Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty”. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, his war in Vietnam went a lot better.
Another example? OK.
Just today, a couple of days after President Bush's 2nd inauguration, the evil, right-wing-extremist radio program that I was listening to played a tape recording of a bunch of protestors.
It occurred to me that these protestors' chants sounded an awful lot like the nursery rhymes my daughter likes to chant.
"Hey, hey, ho, ho, (your cause here) has got to go" really isn't that different than "Ring around the Rosie, pocketful of posies".
"Like father, like son, one term and Bush is done" (Heh).
"Peter, Peter pumpkin eater, had a wife and couldn't keep her".
They're short, they're easy to memorize, they rhyme, they're kind of fun to say, they don't take a whole lot of thought...you get the picture. If you listen to just the cadence and not the words, you can't tell the difference.
(An interesting sidenote: have you ever thought about what "Ring around the Rosie" was about? It's actually about the bubonic plague. "Ring around the rosie" was actually describing the ring that formed around the sores when one caught the plague. People used to hold flowers (posies) to their nose in the belief that it would ward off the plague. "Ashes, ashes, all fall down!" kind of speaks for itself. Just as you've probably never thought about that, liberals don't really think about what they're chanting.)
This whole "libs as kids" theory was just kind of a vague notion and almost a joke between my friends and I until the last couple of school shootings. What did they blame them on? Every child's nemesis: bullies!
That's when all of the pieces came together.
These "poor kids" killed a bunch of bullies in their schools. They deserved our sympathy, not our reprimands.
I don't think that it's a coincidence that, if you look at these liberals, you can see inside them the kids in school who were constantly picked on. They all look "off" somehow.
An old boss of mine had a theory that they were actually aliens. "Just look at them!" he'd say. "It's obvious". But I think that what he was seeing was actually just the invisible target pasted on these people. These people were all of the misfits in your school and mine.
A psychologist I once knew told me that a lot of people's emotional progression stops at a certain traumatic point in their lives. Maybe these bullies traumatized these kids to the point where, even as adults, they can't grow up.
That would also explain why my daughter's public school sends home endless fliers on the subject of bullying. The people who are running the public school system are some of the biggest liberals in the country. I'd also bet that they were picked on when they were kids.
It would also explain their whole culture of "victimhood".
I'm sure that you'll see many, many more examples as I blather on in this blog.
From now on, whenever you hear a liberal speak, think about what they're saying and try to link it to childhood behavior. Once you start seeing the pattern, you can see it in everything that they do. It's actually a lot of fun for those of us who actually think.
And this theme will be continued on tomorrow's post. If you can't wait (yeah, right) it's in the archives under January 2005.
Monday, August 29, 2005
A Reverend of the Left
I don't know why the sheer arrogance of these media pimps still surprises me. Probably because I have principles and the ability to take responsibility for my actions.
WAXAHACHIE, Texas - A car carrying the Rev. Al Sharpton led sheriff's deputies on a nine-mile chase at speeds up to 110 mph before state troopers stopped the vehicle and arrested the driver, authorities said.
And, when they're finally stopped, does this "moral" man, this Reverend, take responsibility for what happened? Yeah, right. The Reverend Al is a Lefty. The title is for show only.
"That nine-mile chase is news to me," Sharpton told The Associated Press. "All I know is that the police pulled us over because they wanted to talk to the driver about speeding."
The Rev got his mug in front of the cameras at Camp Exploit Sheehan for a few minutes and that was all that mattered. Now it was time to get out of this hick state! As fast as possible.
Are you people on the Left really not embarrased by this huckster?
The Reverend Al, like most lefty leaders, believes that he's been annointed and, therefore, above the rules that we peons have to live by. He is much more important than you and I.
I was, at first, surprised that he didn't automatically call this Texas trooper a racist and claim that he was being persecuted, but then it occured to me that the Reverend Al has no way of knowing whether the trooper has him on videotape.
He already got caught playing that game in the Tawana Bradley case. Not to mention the cocaine sting. He won't do it again until he's sure that he can get away with it.
The Reverend Al is an immoral, racist scumbag. It's easily seen by anyone, yet he still has credibility among the Left for no other reason than he is against the Right.
But the Left sees nothing wrong with embracing a corrupt, "Christian" Reverend, who should be an example of morality, as long as he goes along with them.
And they wonder why they can't get any traction on the "moral values" thing.
(Tip o' the Hat to The American Princess)
WAXAHACHIE, Texas - A car carrying the Rev. Al Sharpton led sheriff's deputies on a nine-mile chase at speeds up to 110 mph before state troopers stopped the vehicle and arrested the driver, authorities said.
And, when they're finally stopped, does this "moral" man, this Reverend, take responsibility for what happened? Yeah, right. The Reverend Al is a Lefty. The title is for show only.
"That nine-mile chase is news to me," Sharpton told The Associated Press. "All I know is that the police pulled us over because they wanted to talk to the driver about speeding."
The Rev got his mug in front of the cameras at Camp Exploit Sheehan for a few minutes and that was all that mattered. Now it was time to get out of this hick state! As fast as possible.
Are you people on the Left really not embarrased by this huckster?
The Reverend Al, like most lefty leaders, believes that he's been annointed and, therefore, above the rules that we peons have to live by. He is much more important than you and I.
I was, at first, surprised that he didn't automatically call this Texas trooper a racist and claim that he was being persecuted, but then it occured to me that the Reverend Al has no way of knowing whether the trooper has him on videotape.
He already got caught playing that game in the Tawana Bradley case. Not to mention the cocaine sting. He won't do it again until he's sure that he can get away with it.
The Reverend Al is an immoral, racist scumbag. It's easily seen by anyone, yet he still has credibility among the Left for no other reason than he is against the Right.
But the Left sees nothing wrong with embracing a corrupt, "Christian" Reverend, who should be an example of morality, as long as he goes along with them.
And they wonder why they can't get any traction on the "moral values" thing.
(Tip o' the Hat to The American Princess)
Bush caused Katrina!
I'm sure that somebody has already linked President Bush's "environmental" policies to Katrina.
However, I have a prediction: if massive aid isn't in place on the Gulf coast by midnight tonight, the Left will say that Bush was dragging his feet and didn't get federal aid there in a timely manner.
It also wouldn't surprise me if it is implied that it's a racist move because most of those hardest hit are black and Bush doesn't care about them.
Any takers?
However, I have a prediction: if massive aid isn't in place on the Gulf coast by midnight tonight, the Left will say that Bush was dragging his feet and didn't get federal aid there in a timely manner.
It also wouldn't surprise me if it is implied that it's a racist move because most of those hardest hit are black and Bush doesn't care about them.
Any takers?
OD'ing at the Fountain of Youth
So what's wrong with the Left? Nothing that a good old-fashioned Stalinist purge amongst their own group couldn't fix. The Left is good at the mechanics of that sort of thing. They've had experience in that area. Unfortunately they'd probably screw it up, and the extremists who are now running the gang would purge the more moderate faction.
Here's the real problem: the Democrat Party has been run by children in the bodies of adults for many years now, dating back to the 1960's. The children who took over the party back in the '60's most probably really did believe in their causes (i.e. civil rights). They were very much like the 18 - 20-something-year-olds that they truly were.
But the party has been regressing ever since.
In the 1970's, their emotional level fell back to that of your average high-school kid. The noble ideology was mostly gone. Everything was just one, big party. The drug culture, and the disrespect for rules and laws that was necessary to justify that culture, fit right in with a high-school-kid mentality and their new-found freedoms and contempt for the rules.
They slowly regressed throughout the 1980's. You could see it in their hatred toward the "popular" kid, Ronald Reagan, and in their ever-growing entitlement mentality, and their adolescent demands for "acceptance" of everything that they liked, which ushered in the age of Political Correctness.
By the 1990's they were in full-fledged 13-year-old kid mode, symbolized by Bill Clinton's obssession with sex, and their unthinking adherence to whatever they were told. It was peer-pressure at it's worst. This was the time when they really started doing nothing but parroting the party line. To do otherwise would get you kicked out of their clique. It was also the time that they really got going with their strict doctrine of non-disagreement with the leaders of that clique (see campus "speech codes").
And today, we have the young, pre-adolescent children running the whole show. Even if they did possess the logic to make decisions based on reality, they wouldn't do it anyway. Their beliefs are based on their feelings, and nothing more. Like your average 4 or 5-year-old, they have no discipline and very little experience with the real world. They are prone to screaming tantrums when they don't get what they want. When you take their favorite toy (power) away, that tantrum can last forever.
Just as they can be convinced that Santa Claus is real (e.g. free toys/social programs to which no thought is ever given to who's really paying for them), they can also be convinced that there is a boogieman.
Today, this boogieman is called the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" or "The Religious Right" or "Karl Rove" or just plain "Conservatives".
They are terrified of the boogieman and they don't know any way to stop him. That helplessness turns into the rage that only a small child can project. I'm sure that most of you have seen it at the mall or in a grocery store: the shrieking howling, uncontrollable tantrum that not even the most determined adult can stop.
And that's what we're dealing with today when we deal with the Left.
So what's next? They really can't regress much further, can they? The next stop is the womb. And that would be one abortion that I would be completely in favor of.
Here's the real problem: the Democrat Party has been run by children in the bodies of adults for many years now, dating back to the 1960's. The children who took over the party back in the '60's most probably really did believe in their causes (i.e. civil rights). They were very much like the 18 - 20-something-year-olds that they truly were.
But the party has been regressing ever since.
In the 1970's, their emotional level fell back to that of your average high-school kid. The noble ideology was mostly gone. Everything was just one, big party. The drug culture, and the disrespect for rules and laws that was necessary to justify that culture, fit right in with a high-school-kid mentality and their new-found freedoms and contempt for the rules.
They slowly regressed throughout the 1980's. You could see it in their hatred toward the "popular" kid, Ronald Reagan, and in their ever-growing entitlement mentality, and their adolescent demands for "acceptance" of everything that they liked, which ushered in the age of Political Correctness.
By the 1990's they were in full-fledged 13-year-old kid mode, symbolized by Bill Clinton's obssession with sex, and their unthinking adherence to whatever they were told. It was peer-pressure at it's worst. This was the time when they really started doing nothing but parroting the party line. To do otherwise would get you kicked out of their clique. It was also the time that they really got going with their strict doctrine of non-disagreement with the leaders of that clique (see campus "speech codes").
And today, we have the young, pre-adolescent children running the whole show. Even if they did possess the logic to make decisions based on reality, they wouldn't do it anyway. Their beliefs are based on their feelings, and nothing more. Like your average 4 or 5-year-old, they have no discipline and very little experience with the real world. They are prone to screaming tantrums when they don't get what they want. When you take their favorite toy (power) away, that tantrum can last forever.
Just as they can be convinced that Santa Claus is real (e.g. free toys/social programs to which no thought is ever given to who's really paying for them), they can also be convinced that there is a boogieman.
Today, this boogieman is called the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" or "The Religious Right" or "Karl Rove" or just plain "Conservatives".
They are terrified of the boogieman and they don't know any way to stop him. That helplessness turns into the rage that only a small child can project. I'm sure that most of you have seen it at the mall or in a grocery store: the shrieking howling, uncontrollable tantrum that not even the most determined adult can stop.
And that's what we're dealing with today when we deal with the Left.
So what's next? They really can't regress much further, can they? The next stop is the womb. And that would be one abortion that I would be completely in favor of.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
On Point
The Zero Point sums up the Left and their strategies and motivations pretty well in his latest post. I highly recommend it.
Obscene?
When it comes to the Left, they have their own definition of what's obscene and what words are considered obscenities.
"Gun", "violence", "bully", "patriotism". These words are all considered obscene by the Left. To utter them in any context that is not negative is considered a major faux pas to them.
However, to refer to the President of the United States as, "the Ass-Faced Fuckhead", doesn't elicit so much as a blink from these people.
Is that quote from the Daily Kos? From Pandagon? From any other extreme Lefty website? No, it's from a blog called "Air America Radio Place" and, judging by the fact that they're using Air America's logo, I would assume that it's endorsed by the failing, corrupt Left-wing radio network.
How childish. How unprofessional. How utterly illustrative of the Democrats today.
You know, at one point not long ago, I tried to differentiate between the extreme Left and run-of-the-mill Democrats. No longer. If their party is going to embrace these Moonbats, let the whole party be tarred with that brush. Maybe when the more mainstream people in the party stand up and denounce the Moonbats and get them out of the Democrat party, I'll believe that they don't believe the lunacy being espoused.
It's really no different than the "mainstream" Muslims not denouncing the extremists who are supposedly using their religion to justify targeting and killing innocent women and children.
If they're not going to denounce them, I have no choice but to believe that they are supportive of them.
"Gun", "violence", "bully", "patriotism". These words are all considered obscene by the Left. To utter them in any context that is not negative is considered a major faux pas to them.
However, to refer to the President of the United States as, "the Ass-Faced Fuckhead", doesn't elicit so much as a blink from these people.
Is that quote from the Daily Kos? From Pandagon? From any other extreme Lefty website? No, it's from a blog called "Air America Radio Place" and, judging by the fact that they're using Air America's logo, I would assume that it's endorsed by the failing, corrupt Left-wing radio network.
How childish. How unprofessional. How utterly illustrative of the Democrats today.
You know, at one point not long ago, I tried to differentiate between the extreme Left and run-of-the-mill Democrats. No longer. If their party is going to embrace these Moonbats, let the whole party be tarred with that brush. Maybe when the more mainstream people in the party stand up and denounce the Moonbats and get them out of the Democrat party, I'll believe that they don't believe the lunacy being espoused.
It's really no different than the "mainstream" Muslims not denouncing the extremists who are supposedly using their religion to justify targeting and killing innocent women and children.
If they're not going to denounce them, I have no choice but to believe that they are supportive of them.
About Time
MINNETONKA, Minn. - When Greg Wersal last ran for Minnesota's Supreme Court, he toted plywood cows from town to town, dragged around an oversized ball and chain and adopted his wife's Scandinavian name for political advantage.
Why? Because he was trying to get the idiotic rules on electing judges here in Minnesota changed. It looks like he may be succeeding.
Wersal filed a lawsuit to change those rules. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court sided with him, saying judicial candidates may attend political conventions, seek party endorsements and personally solicit money, all of which are currently forbidden in Minnesota.
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. When you go to vote, about half of the ballot is dedicated to judicial elections. And there was no way to know where any of them stood on the issues. There was no way to even find out.
In Minnesota, governors typically appoint judges, although they may stand for re-election. Incumbents rarely lose.
Of course they rarely lose. How does a person run against a judge when it's forbidden for them to state their views or even declare their political party affiliation? Why even bother holding elections?
Not long ago I remember reading a story about so-called free elections in Egypt. The people running against the incumbents were forbidden from so much as distributing a flyer, let alone have advertisements on TV. Care to guess who won? This is no different.
Can you imagine voting for President or legislators when you know, literally, nothing about them? Not even what party they lean toward?
Wersal said friends told him he didn't stand a chance at beating an incumbent justice — and as he toured the state, he began to agree. He was prohibited from telling people where he stood on the issues, and when the Republican Party tried to endorse him, he could not accept.
Could there be a more idiotic way to elect judges? Either appoint them for life, or quit wasting my time voting for people that I don't know anything about.
Why? Because he was trying to get the idiotic rules on electing judges here in Minnesota changed. It looks like he may be succeeding.
Wersal filed a lawsuit to change those rules. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court sided with him, saying judicial candidates may attend political conventions, seek party endorsements and personally solicit money, all of which are currently forbidden in Minnesota.
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. When you go to vote, about half of the ballot is dedicated to judicial elections. And there was no way to know where any of them stood on the issues. There was no way to even find out.
In Minnesota, governors typically appoint judges, although they may stand for re-election. Incumbents rarely lose.
Of course they rarely lose. How does a person run against a judge when it's forbidden for them to state their views or even declare their political party affiliation? Why even bother holding elections?
Not long ago I remember reading a story about so-called free elections in Egypt. The people running against the incumbents were forbidden from so much as distributing a flyer, let alone have advertisements on TV. Care to guess who won? This is no different.
Can you imagine voting for President or legislators when you know, literally, nothing about them? Not even what party they lean toward?
Wersal said friends told him he didn't stand a chance at beating an incumbent justice — and as he toured the state, he began to agree. He was prohibited from telling people where he stood on the issues, and when the Republican Party tried to endorse him, he could not accept.
Could there be a more idiotic way to elect judges? Either appoint them for life, or quit wasting my time voting for people that I don't know anything about.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Duh!
The American Princess makes a point that is just so glaringly, stupidly obvious, that everyone (myself included) seems to overlook it in their attempts at explaining to the Left that president Bush didn't lie about WMD's in Iraq.
Here goes. Ready? This is kind of like drinking a pan-galactic gargleblaster it hits you so hard. Prepare yourself. OK. Here goes.
If President Bush were so corrupt that he'd lie to the American people about going into Iraq because of Sadaam's WMD's, why didn't he just plant a bunch of WMD's once we got in there and didn't find any?
After all, someone who is that corrupt would have no compulsion against planting evidence, would he?
He could have just called in the black helicopter crowd and had them scatter nerve gas, plutonium and anthrax all over the country! The whole "Bush lied" thing would have never got started!
So why didn't he?
Any Lefties care to answer that one?
Here goes. Ready? This is kind of like drinking a pan-galactic gargleblaster it hits you so hard. Prepare yourself. OK. Here goes.
If President Bush were so corrupt that he'd lie to the American people about going into Iraq because of Sadaam's WMD's, why didn't he just plant a bunch of WMD's once we got in there and didn't find any?
After all, someone who is that corrupt would have no compulsion against planting evidence, would he?
He could have just called in the black helicopter crowd and had them scatter nerve gas, plutonium and anthrax all over the country! The whole "Bush lied" thing would have never got started!
So why didn't he?
Any Lefties care to answer that one?
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
When New Democrats Debate
Sometime in 2006
Moderator: Welcome to the first debate of the election cycle. This debate is between Republican candidate Righty Rightofski and Democrat candidate Lefty Moveonsoros.
The first question is for you, Mr Rightofski: How would you deal with the upcoming Social Security crisis?
RR: Well, I think that the President has a very good idea with individual voluntary, and I stress voluntary, Social Security accounts. Not only would they gain more interest than the current system, but they would be owned, owned, by the account holder. They could be passed on to your children! How anyone could vote against that, as opposed to having the government dole out pittances to you, and leaving nothing for your children, is something that I’ll never understand. Every day that we leave this problem unsolved is costing our children more money down the road.
Moderator: Mr. Moveonsoros?
LM: My opponent is a big, fat dummy!
Moderator: You still have two minutes Mr. Moveonsoros.
LM: Oh. Well, in that case, I’d like to add that he’s a Nazi poopy-head!
Moderator: Mr. Moveonsoros, the question was about the impending Social Security crisis. Do you have any ideas on how to fix it? You still have one-minute left.
LM: I think that my opponent should be “fixed”. Hehehe!
Moderator: Alright, let’s move on, sirs…
LM: Yes?
Moderator: Pardon me?
LM: Oh. I thought you said my name.
Moderator: No, sir. I didn’t. Anyway…
LM: Oh. Alright.
Moderator: Yes, well…next question gentlemen. Mr. Rightofski, what is your view of taxes in relation to the economy?
RR: I wish all the questions were this easy. Taxes should be as low as possible. Tax cuts have worked every time they’ve been tried: the economy grows because there’s more money in the private sector to invest in businesses and, therefore, more taxes are being paid, which increases revenues coming in to the government. I would also be very open to a flat-tax or a FAIR tax if the details could be worked out. Abolishing the IRS would not only free up all of those resources, but save taxpayers billions of dollars and many wasted hours in tax preperation.
Moderator: Mr. Moveonsoros?
LM: I am outraged! That was an incredibly racist, sexist and homophobic statement! I demand that my opponent immediately apologize, individually, to every person on this earth! He would like to go back to the days of lynchings and gas ovens!
In fact, as I was strolling through Harlem this very morning, I ran into one of my dearest friends, (pauses to read from note card) Ms. Panda Ring, who happens to be an African-Hispanic-American and a Lesbian. As I looked down upon her in her wheelchair, she looked up at me and said, and I quote, “Dontchoo be lettin’ dem white boys be stealin’ no mo them eelections, y’all see what I’m sayin’?”
To which I replied, “I am down with that, sister!”
So in conclusion, let me say…
Moderator: I’m sorry Mr. Moveonsoros, but your time is up. And may I remind you that the question was on taxes. Next question…
LM: Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Aaaggghh!
Moderator: Yes. Well. Er. Next question: Mr.Rightofski, what is your position on abortion?
RR: I, like the vast majority of the people in this country, believe that abortion should remain legal, but only used in very, very rare circumstances such as saving the mother’s life, incest or rape. I believe that the “abortion-on-demand” industry in this country is wrong. Period. What we are talking about here is killing human beings who react to stimuli, smile and interact with their environment. Ending a life should only be done in very, very extreme circumstances.
Moderator: (wincing) Mr. Moveonsoros. Your reply?
LM: I am outraged! These vicious personal attacks and outright attempts at character assasination must stop! My opponent is a known member of the Federalist Society and has, quite possibly, molested thousands of children! He is in no position to start this name-calling, especially when you consider the fact that Mr. Poopypants over there regularly beats his wife because he thinks his taxes are too high! So I've been told by a very reliable source at DNC headquarters.
And, even though he, too, may respond to stimuli, I don’t consider him a human being, either!
Moderator: Well, gentlemen, that’s all we have time for tonight. It’s been…umm…enlightening. I’ll now turn you over to our national news bureau for their analysis of the debate. Thank you, and good night.
(cut to two news anchors at analysis desk, upon which sits a potted plant)
Dan: Welcome. For the next few minutes I will be joined by my perky co-host, and this potted plant, which will represent the Republican point of view, since no one here in the studio has ever actually met a Republican and didn’t know where to find one. Which is just as well.
Katie: Well, Dan, who do you think came out on top in that debate?
Dan: Well, Katie, that was hotter than a cucumber on wood, but I’d have to say that Mr. Moveonsoros took command right from the beginning and never let go.
Katie: I agree, Dan. He seemed to leave his icky opponent flat-footed and gape-jawed several times tonight. His arguments were very hard to refute.
Dan: You bet Katie! And his anecdote about Ms. Panda Ring left me weeping like Michael Moore at an empty buffet table.
Katie: Unfortunately we don’t have time for the potted plant/Republican’s opinion, nor do we care, so we’ll now join our regularly scheduled program, “Gay Animals Are People, Too”, already in progress. Good night.
Moderator: Welcome to the first debate of the election cycle. This debate is between Republican candidate Righty Rightofski and Democrat candidate Lefty Moveonsoros.
The first question is for you, Mr Rightofski: How would you deal with the upcoming Social Security crisis?
RR: Well, I think that the President has a very good idea with individual voluntary, and I stress voluntary, Social Security accounts. Not only would they gain more interest than the current system, but they would be owned, owned, by the account holder. They could be passed on to your children! How anyone could vote against that, as opposed to having the government dole out pittances to you, and leaving nothing for your children, is something that I’ll never understand. Every day that we leave this problem unsolved is costing our children more money down the road.
Moderator: Mr. Moveonsoros?
LM: My opponent is a big, fat dummy!
Moderator: You still have two minutes Mr. Moveonsoros.
LM: Oh. Well, in that case, I’d like to add that he’s a Nazi poopy-head!
Moderator: Mr. Moveonsoros, the question was about the impending Social Security crisis. Do you have any ideas on how to fix it? You still have one-minute left.
LM: I think that my opponent should be “fixed”. Hehehe!
Moderator: Alright, let’s move on, sirs…
LM: Yes?
Moderator: Pardon me?
LM: Oh. I thought you said my name.
Moderator: No, sir. I didn’t. Anyway…
LM: Oh. Alright.
Moderator: Yes, well…next question gentlemen. Mr. Rightofski, what is your view of taxes in relation to the economy?
RR: I wish all the questions were this easy. Taxes should be as low as possible. Tax cuts have worked every time they’ve been tried: the economy grows because there’s more money in the private sector to invest in businesses and, therefore, more taxes are being paid, which increases revenues coming in to the government. I would also be very open to a flat-tax or a FAIR tax if the details could be worked out. Abolishing the IRS would not only free up all of those resources, but save taxpayers billions of dollars and many wasted hours in tax preperation.
Moderator: Mr. Moveonsoros?
LM: I am outraged! That was an incredibly racist, sexist and homophobic statement! I demand that my opponent immediately apologize, individually, to every person on this earth! He would like to go back to the days of lynchings and gas ovens!
In fact, as I was strolling through Harlem this very morning, I ran into one of my dearest friends, (pauses to read from note card) Ms. Panda Ring, who happens to be an African-Hispanic-American and a Lesbian. As I looked down upon her in her wheelchair, she looked up at me and said, and I quote, “Dontchoo be lettin’ dem white boys be stealin’ no mo them eelections, y’all see what I’m sayin’?”
To which I replied, “I am down with that, sister!”
So in conclusion, let me say…
Moderator: I’m sorry Mr. Moveonsoros, but your time is up. And may I remind you that the question was on taxes. Next question…
LM: Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Aaaggghh!
Moderator: Yes. Well. Er. Next question: Mr.Rightofski, what is your position on abortion?
RR: I, like the vast majority of the people in this country, believe that abortion should remain legal, but only used in very, very rare circumstances such as saving the mother’s life, incest or rape. I believe that the “abortion-on-demand” industry in this country is wrong. Period. What we are talking about here is killing human beings who react to stimuli, smile and interact with their environment. Ending a life should only be done in very, very extreme circumstances.
Moderator: (wincing) Mr. Moveonsoros. Your reply?
LM: I am outraged! These vicious personal attacks and outright attempts at character assasination must stop! My opponent is a known member of the Federalist Society and has, quite possibly, molested thousands of children! He is in no position to start this name-calling, especially when you consider the fact that Mr. Poopypants over there regularly beats his wife because he thinks his taxes are too high! So I've been told by a very reliable source at DNC headquarters.
And, even though he, too, may respond to stimuli, I don’t consider him a human being, either!
Moderator: Well, gentlemen, that’s all we have time for tonight. It’s been…umm…enlightening. I’ll now turn you over to our national news bureau for their analysis of the debate. Thank you, and good night.
(cut to two news anchors at analysis desk, upon which sits a potted plant)
Dan: Welcome. For the next few minutes I will be joined by my perky co-host, and this potted plant, which will represent the Republican point of view, since no one here in the studio has ever actually met a Republican and didn’t know where to find one. Which is just as well.
Katie: Well, Dan, who do you think came out on top in that debate?
Dan: Well, Katie, that was hotter than a cucumber on wood, but I’d have to say that Mr. Moveonsoros took command right from the beginning and never let go.
Katie: I agree, Dan. He seemed to leave his icky opponent flat-footed and gape-jawed several times tonight. His arguments were very hard to refute.
Dan: You bet Katie! And his anecdote about Ms. Panda Ring left me weeping like Michael Moore at an empty buffet table.
Katie: Unfortunately we don’t have time for the potted plant/Republican’s opinion, nor do we care, so we’ll now join our regularly scheduled program, “Gay Animals Are People, Too”, already in progress. Good night.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Top 12 MSM slogans
The MSM likes to justify it’s negativity toward the war in Iraq with the slogan, “If it bleeds, it leads!”.
Well, in that vein, here are the top 12 easy to remember slogans for the MSM:
12) If it hurts Bush, give it a push!
11) Un-American? Run it again and again!
10) Anti-Rove…it’s a treasure trove!
9) Good news from Iraq? Put it in the back!
8) Bad new from Iraq? Put it on top of the stack!
7) If it’s gay it pays!
6) Abortion out of proportion!
5) DNC faxes: do more stories on unfair taxes.
4) Someone has a plight? Blame it on the Right!
3) A story and we don't like it? That's OK, we'll just spike it!
2) Agenda not taking hold? Put it above the fold!
1) We'd never have to budge, if it weren't for Drudge!
Well, in that vein, here are the top 12 easy to remember slogans for the MSM:
12) If it hurts Bush, give it a push!
11) Un-American? Run it again and again!
10) Anti-Rove…it’s a treasure trove!
9) Good news from Iraq? Put it in the back!
8) Bad new from Iraq? Put it on top of the stack!
7) If it’s gay it pays!
6) Abortion out of proportion!
5) DNC faxes: do more stories on unfair taxes.
4) Someone has a plight? Blame it on the Right!
3) A story and we don't like it? That's OK, we'll just spike it!
2) Agenda not taking hold? Put it above the fold!
1) We'd never have to budge, if it weren't for Drudge!
Judy Ubertroll
Note: This post is in response to the many, many comments regarding my post "You Think Your Paper's Bad?", below. I suggest you read those comments if you have any doubts about the insanity and/or idiocy of the Left.
Wow! I've got the craziest troll ever, judging by the comments on the post below this one. I think she's having a flashback from too much acid back in the '60's.
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, Cindy...err...Judy, but I had to take my daughter (you know, the one that I "claim" to love) to the park.
And, Judy? I know the perfect Kinks song for you: Acute Schizophrenia Paranoia Blues
you sound really bitter toward women
I sound bitter toward women? No, quite frankly, I love women. I don’t, however, like people like this Moonbat feminist “women’s studies” refugee who wrote that article. She’s just another victim who’s blaming others for her unhappiness. Patriarchy? I bet she came up with that all by herself.
I am sure the divorce was your wife's fault...however if you are so great why are you still single?
Yes, as a matter of fact, the divorce was my wife’s fault. Men in this country don't get custody of the children unless the wife really goes off the deep end. You see, without going into all of the nasty details, she decided that she’d rather drink and become abusive than work or help raise our daughter. Apparently she missed something of that “bonding” process that you insist always happens, while my daughter was in the womb.
Why am I still single? Well, I’ve only been divorced a little under 2 years. Doesn’t that meet your timetable? I guess that I could start bringing home different women as often as I can, but I don’t think that that would be a very good example for my daughter.
I love your implication that I’m just an asshole that can’t get a date. How incredibly childish of you. Trust me, apparently unlike your husband, getting dates has never been an issue.
Just because you are a loser at 40 doesn't mean your daughter has to be.
Again, how utterly childish. So typical of a Lefty.
And, if by “loser” you mean a guy who runs an entire house on one income, has a happy, well-adjusted child despite the hardships she’s gone through, and taught that child to read and do some relatively complex math before she went into kindergarten while instilling manners and values, all in between doing laundry, dishes, cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, car repairs and doing all of the necessary maintenance and remodeling around here, then yes, I guess I am a loser. What have you done lately, Judy?
Somehow I’d bet that if I were a single mother, I’d get nothing but from sympathy from you. Hell, I’d be heroic! But, as a man, I’m a domineering loser.
Now let’s get to the meat of your comment.
you claim to love your daughter...what would your response be if she joined the military to allow her a better life after the military?
I don’t “claim” to love my daughter, I do love her. More than you, as a man-hating Lefty, could possibly believe.
My response to her would be, “If that’s what you really want to do, sweetheart”. And, unlike you, I’d be proud of her for wanting to defend this great country. I’d also be proud of myself for having raised a child with enough values and courage to do such a thing.
Yes, I would be frightened for her, but I wouldn’t stop her from doing what she wanted to do. She’ll be more than intelligent enough to do the right thing.
You and the rest of the Left may call it “poison”, but we call it Patriotism. And yes, I’m questioning yours. Military service does not necessarily a patriot make, especially one who talks like you do. Quite frankly, I have to question your claim to military service itself: in your rant you go from being a nurse (and apparently a psychologist) in a San Francisco army hospital to being a decorated vet. At this rate you’ll have more medals than John Kerry got in 3 months!
What if she did this to save you the expense of you paying for college?
Then I’d pay her tuition and say, “There ya go, sweetie. If you still want to go into the military, it’ll be waiting when you get back”.
What if after she joined, the President looked our nation in the face and lied about the necessity of an invasion?
Well, I may be upset if Bill Clinton, France, Germany, Russia, Britain, the UN and every other person or country on earth didn’t agree, based on their own intelligence, that Hussein had WMD’s up to, and after, the time when we actually invaded.
But, being a rational person, I’d have to think that it wasn’t a lie if everyone believed the same thing that the President did until a month after we invaded the country. Then the rest, including the people you parrot, rewrote history to make it seem that only the President believed it. You see, some of us have memories and aren’t quite so willing to believe propaganda. Is that too complicated for you? If so, let me know and I’ll type slower.
What if the result (sic) that action killed your daughter?
Yes, I would be heartbroken. I’m sure that I can’t even imagine how much it would hurt. But I wouldn’t use her death to further my political agenda. Mourning should be a more dignified, personal thing than making speeches supporting people who help terrorists and partying in a ditch.
What if the political result was the establishment of an elected Iran-like government?
That would be too bad, but we don’t know that that’s going to happen now, do we? That’s what the MSM is implying, and it may actually happen, but the alternative was to let Sadaam murder 50,000 people a year while those on the Left wrung their hands and talked endlessly. And promoting Democracy in the Mideast is at least worth a try. If you on the Left have a better idea, I haven’t heard it. But then, you never have any solutions, just criticism and name-calling.
And from there, the rest of your comments just turn into sheer Moonbattery. This is so typical of the Left: you began the comments sounding almost reasonable, but within a couple of paragraphs you begin the name-calling; and a few paragraphs after that you are in full-throated, shrieking, outraged, incomprehensible, frothing-at-the-mouth, asylum escapee, eyes-rolled-back-in-the-head Lefty attack mode, complete with bad spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Could somebody tell me where these supposed “intellectual elites” of the Left I keep hearing about are? I never seem to run into any. If were a Left-wing conspiracy theory type, I might think that you are actually Cindy Sheehan. Judging from the way she speaks, I would imagine that her written English isn’t any better than what you have written. Cindy Sheehan is a moron. You don’t sound much different, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes.
Wow! I've got the craziest troll ever, judging by the comments on the post below this one. I think she's having a flashback from too much acid back in the '60's.
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, Cindy...err...Judy, but I had to take my daughter (you know, the one that I "claim" to love) to the park.
And, Judy? I know the perfect Kinks song for you: Acute Schizophrenia Paranoia Blues
you sound really bitter toward women
I sound bitter toward women? No, quite frankly, I love women. I don’t, however, like people like this Moonbat feminist “women’s studies” refugee who wrote that article. She’s just another victim who’s blaming others for her unhappiness. Patriarchy? I bet she came up with that all by herself.
I am sure the divorce was your wife's fault...however if you are so great why are you still single?
Yes, as a matter of fact, the divorce was my wife’s fault. Men in this country don't get custody of the children unless the wife really goes off the deep end. You see, without going into all of the nasty details, she decided that she’d rather drink and become abusive than work or help raise our daughter. Apparently she missed something of that “bonding” process that you insist always happens, while my daughter was in the womb.
Why am I still single? Well, I’ve only been divorced a little under 2 years. Doesn’t that meet your timetable? I guess that I could start bringing home different women as often as I can, but I don’t think that that would be a very good example for my daughter.
I love your implication that I’m just an asshole that can’t get a date. How incredibly childish of you. Trust me, apparently unlike your husband, getting dates has never been an issue.
Just because you are a loser at 40 doesn't mean your daughter has to be.
Again, how utterly childish. So typical of a Lefty.
And, if by “loser” you mean a guy who runs an entire house on one income, has a happy, well-adjusted child despite the hardships she’s gone through, and taught that child to read and do some relatively complex math before she went into kindergarten while instilling manners and values, all in between doing laundry, dishes, cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, car repairs and doing all of the necessary maintenance and remodeling around here, then yes, I guess I am a loser. What have you done lately, Judy?
Somehow I’d bet that if I were a single mother, I’d get nothing but from sympathy from you. Hell, I’d be heroic! But, as a man, I’m a domineering loser.
Now let’s get to the meat of your comment.
you claim to love your daughter...what would your response be if she joined the military to allow her a better life after the military?
I don’t “claim” to love my daughter, I do love her. More than you, as a man-hating Lefty, could possibly believe.
My response to her would be, “If that’s what you really want to do, sweetheart”. And, unlike you, I’d be proud of her for wanting to defend this great country. I’d also be proud of myself for having raised a child with enough values and courage to do such a thing.
Yes, I would be frightened for her, but I wouldn’t stop her from doing what she wanted to do. She’ll be more than intelligent enough to do the right thing.
You and the rest of the Left may call it “poison”, but we call it Patriotism. And yes, I’m questioning yours. Military service does not necessarily a patriot make, especially one who talks like you do. Quite frankly, I have to question your claim to military service itself: in your rant you go from being a nurse (and apparently a psychologist) in a San Francisco army hospital to being a decorated vet. At this rate you’ll have more medals than John Kerry got in 3 months!
What if she did this to save you the expense of you paying for college?
Then I’d pay her tuition and say, “There ya go, sweetie. If you still want to go into the military, it’ll be waiting when you get back”.
What if after she joined, the President looked our nation in the face and lied about the necessity of an invasion?
Well, I may be upset if Bill Clinton, France, Germany, Russia, Britain, the UN and every other person or country on earth didn’t agree, based on their own intelligence, that Hussein had WMD’s up to, and after, the time when we actually invaded.
But, being a rational person, I’d have to think that it wasn’t a lie if everyone believed the same thing that the President did until a month after we invaded the country. Then the rest, including the people you parrot, rewrote history to make it seem that only the President believed it. You see, some of us have memories and aren’t quite so willing to believe propaganda. Is that too complicated for you? If so, let me know and I’ll type slower.
What if the result (sic) that action killed your daughter?
Yes, I would be heartbroken. I’m sure that I can’t even imagine how much it would hurt. But I wouldn’t use her death to further my political agenda. Mourning should be a more dignified, personal thing than making speeches supporting people who help terrorists and partying in a ditch.
What if the political result was the establishment of an elected Iran-like government?
That would be too bad, but we don’t know that that’s going to happen now, do we? That’s what the MSM is implying, and it may actually happen, but the alternative was to let Sadaam murder 50,000 people a year while those on the Left wrung their hands and talked endlessly. And promoting Democracy in the Mideast is at least worth a try. If you on the Left have a better idea, I haven’t heard it. But then, you never have any solutions, just criticism and name-calling.
And from there, the rest of your comments just turn into sheer Moonbattery. This is so typical of the Left: you began the comments sounding almost reasonable, but within a couple of paragraphs you begin the name-calling; and a few paragraphs after that you are in full-throated, shrieking, outraged, incomprehensible, frothing-at-the-mouth, asylum escapee, eyes-rolled-back-in-the-head Lefty attack mode, complete with bad spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Could somebody tell me where these supposed “intellectual elites” of the Left I keep hearing about are? I never seem to run into any. If were a Left-wing conspiracy theory type, I might think that you are actually Cindy Sheehan. Judging from the way she speaks, I would imagine that her written English isn’t any better than what you have written. Cindy Sheehan is a moron. You don’t sound much different, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes.
Monday, August 22, 2005
You Think Your Paper's Bad?
I challenge any of you, anywhere, to beat this story for pure Moonbattery in the major newspaper in your region.
We'll fisk the piece from The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal, but I encourage you to read the whole thing to see what we put up with around here.
When we realize that Cindy Sheehan is operating within the confines of global male rule, we see why she is finding it so hard to get an audience with President Bush, though so many people have been rallying at her campsite in Texas.
Translation: I hate men!!!
Women should have been teaching their children not to join the Army from a very young age and should have monitored the effect of the educational system that promotes war as a solution to conflict.
Which educational system is she talking about? It certainly can't be the one my daughter goes to, which defines anything even approaching aggression as "bullying".
How was Sheehan to recognize the evil that lurked as sanity on her doorstep? Patriarchal systems find it very easy to goad our children into their world of mayhem and killing as if it were quite normal. This is what needs to stop.
So apparently a Matriarchal system would goad our children into thinking that, "He'll change, if I just love him enough" until she is beaten to death. Fighting back is not an option.
The military has gargantuan war budgets and doles out free war video games to forge paths into the neuro-patterns of the brains of upcoming generations. Your children.
Hey! I didn't get any free video games! And I'd bet that she's in the crowd that insists that Hollywood movies don't really corrupt children. Only military-produced games/movies do.
There is a huge movement of people devastated into stasis by Bush and his operatives. They are beyond debating our government for justice, as the government has shown us that it will just do whatever it wants.
Huh? People who have been "devastated into stasis" do not form "movements". They are in stasis...right? And our government is doing what the voters, who voted Bush back into office, want. Just because it isn't doing what Jane wants, doesn't mean that it's doing whatever it wants. Another shining example of Lefty arrogance.
I am surprised that there are millions of mothers who let the system steal their children's minds and take them away for purposes that serve only the elitist military agenda of war profiteering.
These "children" of whom she speaks are, legally, adults and can do whatever they want, including joining the military. If Jane has any children, I can just imagine what controlled little pantywaists they must be.
They must not be aware that the policy of recruitment is interwoven into the very fabric of our culture, so that our kids are just one "reasoning" sentence or two away from putting their lives on the line and ready to kill other parents' children at a moment's notice.
I'd be reallly interested in an explanation of how this "policy of recruitment is interwoven into the very fabric of our culture". What kind of Leftist psychobabble is that? And maybe these "kids" are putting their lives on the line to defend this country, which is one of the few countries that would allow Jane to publish this tripe. And these "other parents' children" want to die!
The poor, being the most vulnerable, are too easily persuaded with the candy of possible career benefits.
Somebody needs to tell her, and all of the other Moonbats, that most of the men and women in the military are from middle-class backgrounds. My guess is that Jane has a few bucks and, therefore, looks down on the rest of us as "poor".
Rectifying this won't start with Bush coming out and speaking with Cindy Sheehan; it must start with mothers teaching their children the way of peace and instilling in them a sense of reverence for all life at an early age.
Well, assuming that you can teach these kids a "reverence for all life" as long as they're not aborted. Now that's a very early age! I have a sneaking suspicion that Jane may support Roe v. Wade.
Mothers have the power to do this: We have our children with us 24/7 and can be very powerful advocates for social positive change if we take those early years when our children are of no use to the military and teach them peace!
Again, I'd guess that Jane has a few bucks if she can stay with her kids 24/7. I know that neither my wife nor I could, because we both had to work to support Jane's (I'm sure) beloved social programs with our taxes. Social programs that would be wholly uneccessary if one parent really could stay home with the kids and teach them values.
Remember, our children are being raised at our expense; we are literally getting them prepared for the government to usurp our work at our expense. We have invested our lives in raising our children to be responsible members of society whenever possible.
Cindy Sheehan missed the opportunity to dissuade her son from going into the armed forces. She is suffering deeply for it.
If the government can usurp 18 years of your teaching that easily, either you''re a bad teacher, or your teaching didn't make much sense to the kid. I'm sure that Ms. Sheehan tried to dissuade Casey. Fortunately for this country, there are young men and women who have enough common sense to go against what their mothers want. We owe them everything.
At one time Sheehan had complete control over her son's future when he was growing up. The patriarchal system stole him from her, long before he died.
And that's what it's all about for these Lefties: complete control over another person's life. Patriarchal system? How did this nutjob get out of the "Women's Studies" cage over at the U of M?
Quite possibly Sheehan herself was deluded by the very effective system that purports freedom at every opportunity and may have even been proud that her son went to war for his country, until she found out the facts.
I highly doubt that Ms. Sheehan was deluded by the "system", and I'm sure that she was far from proud that Casey joined the military. In fact, I'm sure she was horrified. Do you think that she just learned all of the Lefty issues and slogans in the past year? No way. Listen to her speak. She ain't that smart. She's been a Lefty for awhile.
(In fact, I'm dying to know what this woman was like before she popped up on the radar. Anyone?)
The point is, we must educate our children away from the war mentality as a way to right wrongs.
Note that she says "as a way". In other words, it's never an option. If she had said, "as anything other than a last resort", she may have some credibility. In her mind, war is never a way to solve anything.
What I am saying here is that by the time you are asking the president for an audience, it is too late. The president does not care, never will, cannot understand.
This dingbat really believes that President Bush doesn't care about the people he sends to war. From the accounts of all of the other grieving parents who've met with the President (no, not just mothers), nothing could be further from the truth. I'd bet that Clinton could have shed one of his famous crocodile tears, and Jane would have forgiven all.
His very position requires that he be able to accept the loss of lives in war. The real solution lies in mothering toward peace. It is way too late in the day to be asking an audience with the president as a solution.
Yes, the President must be able to accept the loss of lives in war. Just as FDR did, just as Truman did, just as JFK did, and just as LBJ did (Democrats all). That doesn't mean that it's not a wrenching decision for the President.
"Mothering toward peace"?!? Back to your ivory tower, Moonbat!
Women must teach peace to their children and educate them about the agenda of global patriarchy and the means by which they achieve it. That is the ultimate solution.
Agenda? Global Patriarchy. Translation: "I hate all men!!!"
Jane Evershed, Minneapolis, is an artist, poet and writer.
There's a shock.
This is from the largest, most "respected" newspaper in the state! They're publishing this stuff from an absolute, extreme Moonbat who's so far Left that she's not even on the map anymore!
New York Times? San Fransisco Chronicle? They've got nothing on the Red Star Tribunal. These people don't even try very hard to deny their prejudice anymore.
(Hat tip to Admin Worm without whom I would have never seen this piece (of ****). I avoid this rag like the plague. Too bad. It's good blogging material, but I refuse to give them a nickel.)
We'll fisk the piece from The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal, but I encourage you to read the whole thing to see what we put up with around here.
When we realize that Cindy Sheehan is operating within the confines of global male rule, we see why she is finding it so hard to get an audience with President Bush, though so many people have been rallying at her campsite in Texas.
Translation: I hate men!!!
Women should have been teaching their children not to join the Army from a very young age and should have monitored the effect of the educational system that promotes war as a solution to conflict.
Which educational system is she talking about? It certainly can't be the one my daughter goes to, which defines anything even approaching aggression as "bullying".
How was Sheehan to recognize the evil that lurked as sanity on her doorstep? Patriarchal systems find it very easy to goad our children into their world of mayhem and killing as if it were quite normal. This is what needs to stop.
So apparently a Matriarchal system would goad our children into thinking that, "He'll change, if I just love him enough" until she is beaten to death. Fighting back is not an option.
The military has gargantuan war budgets and doles out free war video games to forge paths into the neuro-patterns of the brains of upcoming generations. Your children.
Hey! I didn't get any free video games! And I'd bet that she's in the crowd that insists that Hollywood movies don't really corrupt children. Only military-produced games/movies do.
There is a huge movement of people devastated into stasis by Bush and his operatives. They are beyond debating our government for justice, as the government has shown us that it will just do whatever it wants.
Huh? People who have been "devastated into stasis" do not form "movements". They are in stasis...right? And our government is doing what the voters, who voted Bush back into office, want. Just because it isn't doing what Jane wants, doesn't mean that it's doing whatever it wants. Another shining example of Lefty arrogance.
I am surprised that there are millions of mothers who let the system steal their children's minds and take them away for purposes that serve only the elitist military agenda of war profiteering.
These "children" of whom she speaks are, legally, adults and can do whatever they want, including joining the military. If Jane has any children, I can just imagine what controlled little pantywaists they must be.
They must not be aware that the policy of recruitment is interwoven into the very fabric of our culture, so that our kids are just one "reasoning" sentence or two away from putting their lives on the line and ready to kill other parents' children at a moment's notice.
I'd be reallly interested in an explanation of how this "policy of recruitment is interwoven into the very fabric of our culture". What kind of Leftist psychobabble is that? And maybe these "kids" are putting their lives on the line to defend this country, which is one of the few countries that would allow Jane to publish this tripe. And these "other parents' children" want to die!
The poor, being the most vulnerable, are too easily persuaded with the candy of possible career benefits.
Somebody needs to tell her, and all of the other Moonbats, that most of the men and women in the military are from middle-class backgrounds. My guess is that Jane has a few bucks and, therefore, looks down on the rest of us as "poor".
Rectifying this won't start with Bush coming out and speaking with Cindy Sheehan; it must start with mothers teaching their children the way of peace and instilling in them a sense of reverence for all life at an early age.
Well, assuming that you can teach these kids a "reverence for all life" as long as they're not aborted. Now that's a very early age! I have a sneaking suspicion that Jane may support Roe v. Wade.
Mothers have the power to do this: We have our children with us 24/7 and can be very powerful advocates for social positive change if we take those early years when our children are of no use to the military and teach them peace!
Again, I'd guess that Jane has a few bucks if she can stay with her kids 24/7. I know that neither my wife nor I could, because we both had to work to support Jane's (I'm sure) beloved social programs with our taxes. Social programs that would be wholly uneccessary if one parent really could stay home with the kids and teach them values.
Remember, our children are being raised at our expense; we are literally getting them prepared for the government to usurp our work at our expense. We have invested our lives in raising our children to be responsible members of society whenever possible.
Cindy Sheehan missed the opportunity to dissuade her son from going into the armed forces. She is suffering deeply for it.
If the government can usurp 18 years of your teaching that easily, either you''re a bad teacher, or your teaching didn't make much sense to the kid. I'm sure that Ms. Sheehan tried to dissuade Casey. Fortunately for this country, there are young men and women who have enough common sense to go against what their mothers want. We owe them everything.
At one time Sheehan had complete control over her son's future when he was growing up. The patriarchal system stole him from her, long before he died.
And that's what it's all about for these Lefties: complete control over another person's life. Patriarchal system? How did this nutjob get out of the "Women's Studies" cage over at the U of M?
Quite possibly Sheehan herself was deluded by the very effective system that purports freedom at every opportunity and may have even been proud that her son went to war for his country, until she found out the facts.
I highly doubt that Ms. Sheehan was deluded by the "system", and I'm sure that she was far from proud that Casey joined the military. In fact, I'm sure she was horrified. Do you think that she just learned all of the Lefty issues and slogans in the past year? No way. Listen to her speak. She ain't that smart. She's been a Lefty for awhile.
(In fact, I'm dying to know what this woman was like before she popped up on the radar. Anyone?)
The point is, we must educate our children away from the war mentality as a way to right wrongs.
Note that she says "as a way". In other words, it's never an option. If she had said, "as anything other than a last resort", she may have some credibility. In her mind, war is never a way to solve anything.
What I am saying here is that by the time you are asking the president for an audience, it is too late. The president does not care, never will, cannot understand.
This dingbat really believes that President Bush doesn't care about the people he sends to war. From the accounts of all of the other grieving parents who've met with the President (no, not just mothers), nothing could be further from the truth. I'd bet that Clinton could have shed one of his famous crocodile tears, and Jane would have forgiven all.
His very position requires that he be able to accept the loss of lives in war. The real solution lies in mothering toward peace. It is way too late in the day to be asking an audience with the president as a solution.
Yes, the President must be able to accept the loss of lives in war. Just as FDR did, just as Truman did, just as JFK did, and just as LBJ did (Democrats all). That doesn't mean that it's not a wrenching decision for the President.
"Mothering toward peace"?!? Back to your ivory tower, Moonbat!
Women must teach peace to their children and educate them about the agenda of global patriarchy and the means by which they achieve it. That is the ultimate solution.
Agenda? Global Patriarchy. Translation: "I hate all men!!!"
Jane Evershed, Minneapolis, is an artist, poet and writer.
There's a shock.
This is from the largest, most "respected" newspaper in the state! They're publishing this stuff from an absolute, extreme Moonbat who's so far Left that she's not even on the map anymore!
New York Times? San Fransisco Chronicle? They've got nothing on the Red Star Tribunal. These people don't even try very hard to deny their prejudice anymore.
(Hat tip to Admin Worm without whom I would have never seen this piece (of ****). I avoid this rag like the plague. Too bad. It's good blogging material, but I refuse to give them a nickel.)
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Caricature vs. Character
One thing I've noticed about the Left is that they need caricatures to justify everything that they do. Their extreme ideology falls apart without caricaturing us on the Right.
Do we on the Right caricature them? Yes, it's quite possible, although I think stereotyping would be a better word for what the Right does. Stereotyping takes the characterisitics of a smaller number of a group and assigns those characteristics to the whole of that group. We take the features of the most vocal of the Democrats and Liberals and assign those features to all of them. The truth is, many, many of the Democrats don't agree with the extreme Left at all.
And we on the Right don't do it to justify our positions on issues but, mostly, because that's all we see of the Left in real life and the media. There very well may be some moderates out there, but they are rarely given airtime by either the MSM or the New Media.
Like the "moderate" Muslims, if they're out there, they're keeping a very low profile.
The word "caricature", however, seems to fit what those on the Left do to Conservatives because the definition of that word involves the gross distortion of characteristics. It's a magnification of features, and usually the negative ones.
It's a propaganda tool that has been know for many, many years, and was used by the Nazis against the Jews and the Soviets against Capitalism and the West. It removes the necessity of arguing the real facts by villifying those who oppose you.
Opponents of abortion, for example, are always caricatured as nothing more than men who hate women and wish to keep them oppressed by tying them down with children. Visit any Lefty blog or website if you don't believe me.
Never is there any mention that these "pro-lifers" are, well, pro-life. There is never any discussion of why these people, who keep saying that they're against killing babies, might just be against killing babies. Instead, the whole argument of the pro-lifers is negated just to justify what most of those on the Left are really uncomfortable with: the fact that abortion may very well be killing babies.
Besides, the Left always hides its agenda, so they figure that the Right must do the same. It's beyond their comprehension that, when somebody says something, it's exactly what they mean.
If you caricature the pro-lifers as men who want to keep women "barefoot and pregnant", you never have to argue the point that you may be killing children.
Or let's talk about tax policy in this country.
Anyone who is for tax-cuts or against higher taxes on "the rich" is automatically caricatured as a rich, greedy Republican who's interested only in their bottom line.
(How that coincides with their belief that Republicans are ignorant trailer-trash is just another example of their psychosis. Doublethink is easy for these people.)
This allows them to justify the forcible taking of more and more money from your family and mine for no other reason than the funding of more government programs which, because they support them, makes them feel good about themselves.
They don't even care whether the programs work or not. These Lefties are so insecure, and feel so worthless, that the very act of pretending that they're doing good things makes them feel better.
Think about it: have you ever known a Lefty who wasn't pissed at the world and, basically, depressed? Me either. They'll deny it with their dying breath, and maybe many of them have actually convinced themselves otherwise; but if you look at them you can tell: deep down, these people don't like themselves very much. Take a look at Al Franken and tell me I'm wrong.
And so they have to caricature those of us on the Right as monsters to justify their projections of self-hatred into their stance on the issues. It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out that their positions on abortion, taxes, patriotism (or the lack thereof), etcetera, are nothing more than extensions of their psyches.
I'll never forget the annoyed Lefty who told me something to the effect of, "You people are just so sure that you're right!" Well, yes we are. Why else would we fight for our beliefs? It's stupid to fight for issues you're not sure of.
And I think that that is the very reason that they hate us so much.
We are self-confident, self-assured and have no need to justify our positions. We may need to explain them, but we don't have to justify them, because we have no doubt that we're on the right side.
Their hatred of us is based on nothing more than jealousy. They wish that they could be as self-assured as we are, but they're too frightened to cross over to "the dark side", as they see it.
Do we on the Right caricature them? Yes, it's quite possible, although I think stereotyping would be a better word for what the Right does. Stereotyping takes the characterisitics of a smaller number of a group and assigns those characteristics to the whole of that group. We take the features of the most vocal of the Democrats and Liberals and assign those features to all of them. The truth is, many, many of the Democrats don't agree with the extreme Left at all.
And we on the Right don't do it to justify our positions on issues but, mostly, because that's all we see of the Left in real life and the media. There very well may be some moderates out there, but they are rarely given airtime by either the MSM or the New Media.
Like the "moderate" Muslims, if they're out there, they're keeping a very low profile.
The word "caricature", however, seems to fit what those on the Left do to Conservatives because the definition of that word involves the gross distortion of characteristics. It's a magnification of features, and usually the negative ones.
It's a propaganda tool that has been know for many, many years, and was used by the Nazis against the Jews and the Soviets against Capitalism and the West. It removes the necessity of arguing the real facts by villifying those who oppose you.
Opponents of abortion, for example, are always caricatured as nothing more than men who hate women and wish to keep them oppressed by tying them down with children. Visit any Lefty blog or website if you don't believe me.
Never is there any mention that these "pro-lifers" are, well, pro-life. There is never any discussion of why these people, who keep saying that they're against killing babies, might just be against killing babies. Instead, the whole argument of the pro-lifers is negated just to justify what most of those on the Left are really uncomfortable with: the fact that abortion may very well be killing babies.
Besides, the Left always hides its agenda, so they figure that the Right must do the same. It's beyond their comprehension that, when somebody says something, it's exactly what they mean.
If you caricature the pro-lifers as men who want to keep women "barefoot and pregnant", you never have to argue the point that you may be killing children.
Or let's talk about tax policy in this country.
Anyone who is for tax-cuts or against higher taxes on "the rich" is automatically caricatured as a rich, greedy Republican who's interested only in their bottom line.
(How that coincides with their belief that Republicans are ignorant trailer-trash is just another example of their psychosis. Doublethink is easy for these people.)
This allows them to justify the forcible taking of more and more money from your family and mine for no other reason than the funding of more government programs which, because they support them, makes them feel good about themselves.
They don't even care whether the programs work or not. These Lefties are so insecure, and feel so worthless, that the very act of pretending that they're doing good things makes them feel better.
Think about it: have you ever known a Lefty who wasn't pissed at the world and, basically, depressed? Me either. They'll deny it with their dying breath, and maybe many of them have actually convinced themselves otherwise; but if you look at them you can tell: deep down, these people don't like themselves very much. Take a look at Al Franken and tell me I'm wrong.
And so they have to caricature those of us on the Right as monsters to justify their projections of self-hatred into their stance on the issues. It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out that their positions on abortion, taxes, patriotism (or the lack thereof), etcetera, are nothing more than extensions of their psyches.
I'll never forget the annoyed Lefty who told me something to the effect of, "You people are just so sure that you're right!" Well, yes we are. Why else would we fight for our beliefs? It's stupid to fight for issues you're not sure of.
And I think that that is the very reason that they hate us so much.
We are self-confident, self-assured and have no need to justify our positions. We may need to explain them, but we don't have to justify them, because we have no doubt that we're on the right side.
Their hatred of us is based on nothing more than jealousy. They wish that they could be as self-assured as we are, but they're too frightened to cross over to "the dark side", as they see it.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Liberalism Writ Small
This whole Cindy Sheehan circus is the "perfect storm" of Liberalism. I just can't stop posting about it because it is the Liberal tempest in a tiny teapot. You can take all of Liberalism and see it right there in a ditch in little Crawford, TX. It has it all.
The childishness, the stupidity, the paranoia, the conspiracy theories, the lies, the manipulation, the twisting of reality, the half-informed statements offered up as truth, the ignorance of reality...it's all right there. It's no wonder that I, and others whom I know, can't stop blogging about this. Every time you look at it, you can see another facet of Liberalism that begs to be commented upon. It's the Hope diamond of blogging.
And for those of you who thought that maybe I was a little harsh in calling her a dolt, I give you this piece of a transcript from a speech Cindy Sheehan gave back in April. From FrontPage magazine:
What they’re saying, too, is like, it’s okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the countries that we say it’s okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It’s okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can’t have them. It’s okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it’s – yeah – and it’s okay for Iraq to occupy – I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it’s not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon. They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up. We need a revolution and make it be peaceful and make it be loving and let’s just show them all the love we have for humanity because we want to stop the inhumane slaughter.
And that isn't even the worst of it. Go to the link and read the whole speech. Dolt may be overestimating this woman.
The childishness, the stupidity, the paranoia, the conspiracy theories, the lies, the manipulation, the twisting of reality, the half-informed statements offered up as truth, the ignorance of reality...it's all right there. It's no wonder that I, and others whom I know, can't stop blogging about this. Every time you look at it, you can see another facet of Liberalism that begs to be commented upon. It's the Hope diamond of blogging.
And for those of you who thought that maybe I was a little harsh in calling her a dolt, I give you this piece of a transcript from a speech Cindy Sheehan gave back in April. From FrontPage magazine:
What they’re saying, too, is like, it’s okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the countries that we say it’s okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It’s okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can’t have them. It’s okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it’s – yeah – and it’s okay for Iraq to occupy – I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it’s not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon. They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up. We need a revolution and make it be peaceful and make it be loving and let’s just show them all the love we have for humanity because we want to stop the inhumane slaughter.
And that isn't even the worst of it. Go to the link and read the whole speech. Dolt may be overestimating this woman.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Where Have All The Scandals Gone?
Wasn't Karl Rove supposed to be in trouble for something or other not long ago?
I also seem to remember a "Downing Street memo", or something like that.
And about a hundred other supposed scandals that, somehow, never grew legs.
For all of the gotterdammerung that was supposed to be called down from the pagan heavens upon President Bush and all of his minions for these "scandals", it's odd that they just keep fading away, with no one but the most extreme of the Moonbats citing them anymore.
It's no wonder that they're so angry. It's been 5 years and they can't make any of these idiotic "scandals" stick to Bush, while Bill Clinton looked like he was wearing a velcro suit in a gorilla cage he had so much stuff stuck to him (was that too Dan Ratherish?).
Why does it never occur to these nutjobs that maybe, just maybe, the reason that Bill Clinton had to deal with scandal after scandal was because he (and those around him) was a lying, corrupt, self-centered scumbag and the scandals were real.
As opposed to President Bush, who is an honorable guy that shrugs off these "scandals" because he knows that they're being manufactured and, therefore, can't be proven.
But the Lefties, children that they are, can't figure out that if you make something up, the facts to support your claim just aren't there. These allegations have to eventually make it into the adult world, where they are always picked apart as easily as you pick apart any three-year-old child's lies.
I really think that that's what has driven the Left over the edge. They can no longer put their version of the "truth" out there and have it automatically accepted as truth.
President Bush is just the obvious aiming point. The real underlying cause of their madness is people like you and me. People who are getting the real truth out there, unfiltered by the Left's fellow toddlers in the MSM.
I also seem to remember a "Downing Street memo", or something like that.
And about a hundred other supposed scandals that, somehow, never grew legs.
For all of the gotterdammerung that was supposed to be called down from the pagan heavens upon President Bush and all of his minions for these "scandals", it's odd that they just keep fading away, with no one but the most extreme of the Moonbats citing them anymore.
It's no wonder that they're so angry. It's been 5 years and they can't make any of these idiotic "scandals" stick to Bush, while Bill Clinton looked like he was wearing a velcro suit in a gorilla cage he had so much stuff stuck to him (was that too Dan Ratherish?).
Why does it never occur to these nutjobs that maybe, just maybe, the reason that Bill Clinton had to deal with scandal after scandal was because he (and those around him) was a lying, corrupt, self-centered scumbag and the scandals were real.
As opposed to President Bush, who is an honorable guy that shrugs off these "scandals" because he knows that they're being manufactured and, therefore, can't be proven.
But the Lefties, children that they are, can't figure out that if you make something up, the facts to support your claim just aren't there. These allegations have to eventually make it into the adult world, where they are always picked apart as easily as you pick apart any three-year-old child's lies.
I really think that that's what has driven the Left over the edge. They can no longer put their version of the "truth" out there and have it automatically accepted as truth.
President Bush is just the obvious aiming point. The real underlying cause of their madness is people like you and me. People who are getting the real truth out there, unfiltered by the Left's fellow toddlers in the MSM.
Haloscan commenting
Due to the Spamming of my comment section, I have switched over to Haloscan for comments.
Would it sound too conspiracy-theoryish to suggest that one of my former pet trolls probably put me on a mailing list somewhere? Nobody else seems to be having this problem, and it sounds just childish enough for a Lefty to do something like that.
The good thing about Haloscan is that, once you register on my site, you never have to sign in again; unlike Blogger, which required you to sign in every time. And I have better control over who comments, which means I can get rid of the Spammers if they show up again.
Consider this a recommendation. I much prefer it to Blogger's commenting and have actually been thinking of switching for awhile now. The Spam just gave me the final push to get off my butt.
And for those of you using Blogger, it has an automatic installation tool which makes it easy to install. I had to run it 3 times to make it overcome Blogger's resistance, but it eventually worked.
Would it sound too conspiracy-theoryish to suggest that one of my former pet trolls probably put me on a mailing list somewhere? Nobody else seems to be having this problem, and it sounds just childish enough for a Lefty to do something like that.
The good thing about Haloscan is that, once you register on my site, you never have to sign in again; unlike Blogger, which required you to sign in every time. And I have better control over who comments, which means I can get rid of the Spammers if they show up again.
Consider this a recommendation. I much prefer it to Blogger's commenting and have actually been thinking of switching for awhile now. The Spam just gave me the final push to get off my butt.
And for those of you using Blogger, it has an automatic installation tool which makes it easy to install. I had to run it 3 times to make it overcome Blogger's resistance, but it eventually worked.
Bush Did It
Cindy Sheehan's mother has apparently had a stroke. I wonder how long it will be before she blames it on President Bush. It wouldn't be at all out of character.
Remember, this is the woman who said that, after one of the locals suggested that she not stand in the road because she might get hit by a car, she felt "very intimidated" by the statement.
She also warned people, "We’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that the Secret Service killed us."
And remember that neighbor guy who got fed up with the protestors and fired his shotgun in the air? She actually said that the guy "shot at us".
It wouldn't surprise me for a second if she were to blame Bush for causing her mother's stroke, probably through some super-secret government agency. In her paranoid, conspiracy-theory mind, this just has to be too coincidental not to be aimed at getting her out of Crawford so that she can no longer embarass Bush.
The sad thing is, she's only embarassing herself.
Remember, this is the woman who said that, after one of the locals suggested that she not stand in the road because she might get hit by a car, she felt "very intimidated" by the statement.
She also warned people, "We’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that the Secret Service killed us."
And remember that neighbor guy who got fed up with the protestors and fired his shotgun in the air? She actually said that the guy "shot at us".
It wouldn't surprise me for a second if she were to blame Bush for causing her mother's stroke, probably through some super-secret government agency. In her paranoid, conspiracy-theory mind, this just has to be too coincidental not to be aimed at getting her out of Crawford so that she can no longer embarass Bush.
The sad thing is, she's only embarassing herself.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Yet, Even More Random Musings
Ever have one of those days where nothing you write seems to come together properly? Ever have a cold that seems to shut down the thinking process and make you feel like a Liberal trying to understand a simple issue? Well, tonight's the night.
So, instead of actually trying to be coherent, I give you this:
- Liberals have judged me to be “judgmental”.
- “Bush lied” is a lie. Can hypocrisy be boiled down any further?
- Lefties don’t take terrorism seriously because they don’t think that they, personally, will be killed by terrorism. They have figured the odds, and decided that they don’t have to worry. As long as it won’t be them getting killed, who cares? And these are the people who care so much about their fellow man.
- The Islamic terrorists tell us that they want to spread Islam throughout the world and make it the only from of religion and law. Umm…isn’t that the definition of Imperialism? So why does the Left call America an "imperialist" country and give the Islamists a pass?
- Racism no longer has anything to do with race. It has become nothing more than a political bludgeon wielded by the Left to pummel its enemies.
- To the Left, the underdog is always to be cheered, and the powerful vilified. Isn’t it ironic, then, that they want nothing on this earth more than to wield power? Will they then vilify themselves? No, because, in their arrogance, they believe that they will wield that power properly, although history has shown us what happens every time when the Left wields power. We had 100 million dead at their hands in the last century alone.
- Achtung Lefties: You have the right to say whatever you want. I have the right to point out why you’re a moron. Both are protected by the first amendment. You have the right to speak, I have the right to criticize your idiotic statements. Quit whining about people "shutting down" free speech just because you're criticized for making idiotic statements.
So, instead of actually trying to be coherent, I give you this:
- Liberals have judged me to be “judgmental”.
- “Bush lied” is a lie. Can hypocrisy be boiled down any further?
- Lefties don’t take terrorism seriously because they don’t think that they, personally, will be killed by terrorism. They have figured the odds, and decided that they don’t have to worry. As long as it won’t be them getting killed, who cares? And these are the people who care so much about their fellow man.
- The Islamic terrorists tell us that they want to spread Islam throughout the world and make it the only from of religion and law. Umm…isn’t that the definition of Imperialism? So why does the Left call America an "imperialist" country and give the Islamists a pass?
- Racism no longer has anything to do with race. It has become nothing more than a political bludgeon wielded by the Left to pummel its enemies.
- To the Left, the underdog is always to be cheered, and the powerful vilified. Isn’t it ironic, then, that they want nothing on this earth more than to wield power? Will they then vilify themselves? No, because, in their arrogance, they believe that they will wield that power properly, although history has shown us what happens every time when the Left wields power. We had 100 million dead at their hands in the last century alone.
- Achtung Lefties: You have the right to say whatever you want. I have the right to point out why you’re a moron. Both are protected by the first amendment. You have the right to speak, I have the right to criticize your idiotic statements. Quit whining about people "shutting down" free speech just because you're criticized for making idiotic statements.
Is This Thing On?
I'm trying to get haloscan running and playing with the HTML in my template, so if you see some wierd stuff show up here, don't automatically assume that I'm drunk. Yet.
UPDATE: Haloscan is working. And I'm still not drunk.
UPDATE: Haloscan is working. And I'm still not drunk.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Attention Addiction Disorder
If someone were demanding to meet with me for the express purpose of calling me a murderer and a war criminal, I think that I’d have to decline. Expecially if that person were a delusional fool who was doing nothing more than parroting the phrases whispered in her ear by my avowed enemies.
What I find surprising about the whole Sheehan circus, is that the MSM doesn’t seem to be ridiculing and pestering President Bush to meet with this woman like I expected them to. After all, that was what this whole thing was about, wasn’t it? Bush was supposed to drive out to Ms. Sheehan’s ditch, get out of his SUV, and have hatred and ridicule heaped upon him in person. He was to be the object of their “two minutes hate”.
And then Ms. Sheehan would go back to sunny California and grieve for her son in the normal way, never to be heard from again. She would live out her life like the rest of the mourning families in this country.
And Code Pink and the rest of the organizations who are manipulating this foolish woman would fold up their tents and, having gotten their point across, go out of business.
And then we'd finally see "Pigs on the Wing".
But the MSM is ignoring the original point of the whole spectacle. They couldn’t care less if President Bush ever meets with this woman. Vultures that they are, they just want the tasty bits; the picture, the sound bite, the over-the-top statement from Ms. Sheehan and her supporters.
You’d think that Troupe Sheehan would have a problem with that. After all, they expected their allies in the media to help pressure Bush into this meeting. But the media couldn’t care less about the meeting, and the “activists” don’t hardly dare pressure them to do so, because to publicly attack the media would make them disappear in a hurry; and then all of that lovely, warm-fuzzy attention would also go away.
So the Lefties will settle for the coverage that the MSM will give them and write off the meeting as a total loss. Their hoped for photo-op of Cindy Sheehan berating the President of the United States will never happen, but the alternative is to slink back under the rock whence they came.
In the meantime, President Bush can take care of important things.
What I find surprising about the whole Sheehan circus, is that the MSM doesn’t seem to be ridiculing and pestering President Bush to meet with this woman like I expected them to. After all, that was what this whole thing was about, wasn’t it? Bush was supposed to drive out to Ms. Sheehan’s ditch, get out of his SUV, and have hatred and ridicule heaped upon him in person. He was to be the object of their “two minutes hate”.
And then Ms. Sheehan would go back to sunny California and grieve for her son in the normal way, never to be heard from again. She would live out her life like the rest of the mourning families in this country.
And Code Pink and the rest of the organizations who are manipulating this foolish woman would fold up their tents and, having gotten their point across, go out of business.
And then we'd finally see "Pigs on the Wing".
But the MSM is ignoring the original point of the whole spectacle. They couldn’t care less if President Bush ever meets with this woman. Vultures that they are, they just want the tasty bits; the picture, the sound bite, the over-the-top statement from Ms. Sheehan and her supporters.
You’d think that Troupe Sheehan would have a problem with that. After all, they expected their allies in the media to help pressure Bush into this meeting. But the media couldn’t care less about the meeting, and the “activists” don’t hardly dare pressure them to do so, because to publicly attack the media would make them disappear in a hurry; and then all of that lovely, warm-fuzzy attention would also go away.
So the Lefties will settle for the coverage that the MSM will give them and write off the meeting as a total loss. Their hoped for photo-op of Cindy Sheehan berating the President of the United States will never happen, but the alternative is to slink back under the rock whence they came.
In the meantime, President Bush can take care of important things.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Conspiracies R Us
I forgot where I found this, so if it looks familiar, please give yourself a tip o' the hat.
The George W. Bush Conspiracy Generator!
George W. Bush rigged the 2000 election so that The Jews could kill The French.
Too funny.
UPDATE: As The Princess has so elegantly informed me (GAH?), the tip o' the hat goes to her. I read so much and am usually so tired by the time I get here, I have a tendency to forget these things. If you would care to hear more justifications, please let me know and I will try to think like a Lefty.
The George W. Bush Conspiracy Generator!
George W. Bush rigged the 2000 election so that The Jews could kill The French.
Too funny.
UPDATE: As The Princess has so elegantly informed me (GAH?), the tip o' the hat goes to her. I read so much and am usually so tired by the time I get here, I have a tendency to forget these things. If you would care to hear more justifications, please let me know and I will try to think like a Lefty.
Berry Interesting...but schtupid?
A post over at my friend Bob’s blog got me thinking. Again. He always seems to do that, damn him. So maybe he, or any of you, can answer this:
What was the significance of strawberries in the hippie culture of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s?
I’m only old enough to have caught the tail-end of the Flower Power movement, the part with the drugs, sex and rock 'n' roll, but minus the ideology (funny how all of that anti-war ideology went away once the draft ended, isn't it?).
However, I seem to remember strawberry everything: Strawberry Alarm Clock, strawberry wine, strawberry lipstick, paintings of strawberries, strawberries on t-shirts, strawberries embroidered on bell-bottoms…you name it, it had strawberries on it.
Was this just some meaningless fad, or do you think that it had some deeper, perhaps unconscious, significance to it?
And wouldn't you hate to have a brain like mine that actually thinks about stuff like this?
What was the significance of strawberries in the hippie culture of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s?
I’m only old enough to have caught the tail-end of the Flower Power movement, the part with the drugs, sex and rock 'n' roll, but minus the ideology (funny how all of that anti-war ideology went away once the draft ended, isn't it?).
However, I seem to remember strawberry everything: Strawberry Alarm Clock, strawberry wine, strawberry lipstick, paintings of strawberries, strawberries on t-shirts, strawberries embroidered on bell-bottoms…you name it, it had strawberries on it.
Was this just some meaningless fad, or do you think that it had some deeper, perhaps unconscious, significance to it?
And wouldn't you hate to have a brain like mine that actually thinks about stuff like this?
Stupidity and the End of Civilization
I may have to revise my earlier statement that Cindy Sheehan was a Lefty activist well before her present escapade.
My change of heart comes from finally hearing this woman speak. She is a dolt. She is just as dumb as bait. She sounds like a fifty-year-old valley-girl.
Just the other day she warned that if they (the activists) were gunned down, it would be the Secret Service who was to blame! She actually believes this and was putting them on notice that she knew what they were up to!
She may have held these leftist “beliefs” before this whole circus in Crawford got started, but she certainly didn’t come up with them by herself. It now seems far from inconceivable, and actually quite probable, that some of these Lefty groups hunted her down and persuaded her that she could make her sons death “meaningful” by getting us out of Iraq and attacking President Bush.
After hearing the woman speak, I don’t think that it would be terribly difficult to persuade her of almost anything that the Left wanted to use her for. Though I’m sure that she’s being used willingly, and that she was a Lefty to begin with, the Left’s exploitation of this woman’s dead son is typical of their disgusting behavior.
Which points out the one overwhelming characteristic of today’s Left: their utter lack of civilized behavior. They have no dignity, no tact, no self-discipline, no diplomacy, no civility, no shame.Witness their inability to say the word “Republican” without attaching to it the name of some murderous dictator or movement.
They are hysterical, shrieking children who are not able to grasp the consequences of their actions.
They are so far gone that they don’t even have the decency to be embarrassed by their behavior. But then, why should they be? All of this, in their minds, is nothing more than the means to an end. Therefore it is justified.
Many people believe that that 'end' is the destruction of, or at least the lowering of, America as a superpower. I believe that it is no more than these childish people screaming for attention.
This is another example of what the American people mean when they speak of the Democrats and the Left having no “moral values”: they will do anything to get their way and have absolutely no qualms about it.
What’s the difference between Cindy Sheehan and the other 1799 or so mothers who lost sons in the war? Cindy Sheehan has no dignity or shame.
And before the Moonbats start howling about the hypocrisy of what I’ve written above vs. attacking a “poor grieving mother”, note that Ms. Sheehan gave up any status that her son’s death may have given her when she decided to politicize his death. In fact, I’m sure that that was part of the plan for her leftist advisers: “They couldn’t possibly come after a grieving mother! She’ll have free reign to say whatever we want her to say, and nobody can criticize her!”
Well, think again. If she wants to politicize the tragedy of her brave son losing his life fighting for something that he obviously believed in, then she had better be ready to defend her despicable actions.
Do you think that she ever stopped and asked, “Is this what Casey would want?” I guess that it’s possible: another of the characteristics of the Left is an amazing ability to lie to themselves.
My change of heart comes from finally hearing this woman speak. She is a dolt. She is just as dumb as bait. She sounds like a fifty-year-old valley-girl.
Just the other day she warned that if they (the activists) were gunned down, it would be the Secret Service who was to blame! She actually believes this and was putting them on notice that she knew what they were up to!
She may have held these leftist “beliefs” before this whole circus in Crawford got started, but she certainly didn’t come up with them by herself. It now seems far from inconceivable, and actually quite probable, that some of these Lefty groups hunted her down and persuaded her that she could make her sons death “meaningful” by getting us out of Iraq and attacking President Bush.
After hearing the woman speak, I don’t think that it would be terribly difficult to persuade her of almost anything that the Left wanted to use her for. Though I’m sure that she’s being used willingly, and that she was a Lefty to begin with, the Left’s exploitation of this woman’s dead son is typical of their disgusting behavior.
Which points out the one overwhelming characteristic of today’s Left: their utter lack of civilized behavior. They have no dignity, no tact, no self-discipline, no diplomacy, no civility, no shame.Witness their inability to say the word “Republican” without attaching to it the name of some murderous dictator or movement.
They are hysterical, shrieking children who are not able to grasp the consequences of their actions.
They are so far gone that they don’t even have the decency to be embarrassed by their behavior. But then, why should they be? All of this, in their minds, is nothing more than the means to an end. Therefore it is justified.
Many people believe that that 'end' is the destruction of, or at least the lowering of, America as a superpower. I believe that it is no more than these childish people screaming for attention.
This is another example of what the American people mean when they speak of the Democrats and the Left having no “moral values”: they will do anything to get their way and have absolutely no qualms about it.
What’s the difference between Cindy Sheehan and the other 1799 or so mothers who lost sons in the war? Cindy Sheehan has no dignity or shame.
And before the Moonbats start howling about the hypocrisy of what I’ve written above vs. attacking a “poor grieving mother”, note that Ms. Sheehan gave up any status that her son’s death may have given her when she decided to politicize his death. In fact, I’m sure that that was part of the plan for her leftist advisers: “They couldn’t possibly come after a grieving mother! She’ll have free reign to say whatever we want her to say, and nobody can criticize her!”
Well, think again. If she wants to politicize the tragedy of her brave son losing his life fighting for something that he obviously believed in, then she had better be ready to defend her despicable actions.
Do you think that she ever stopped and asked, “Is this what Casey would want?” I guess that it’s possible: another of the characteristics of the Left is an amazing ability to lie to themselves.
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Dare to Hope
One of my regulars commented on a post the other day, and he seems to be a bit pessimistic about our ability to save this country from the damage that the Left has done.
He may or may not be right, but I do see some reasons for hope.
- Republicans just keep winning at the polls.
He may or may not be right, but I do see some reasons for hope.
- Republicans just keep winning at the polls.
We are winning at the polls and have been for some time. Because of the hysterics of the Left, which is the part of the Democrat Party that the politicians are pandering to, they stand to lose much more.
I keep hearing people say that these Moonbats are the "base" of the Democrat Party, but that's not true. The base, which is defined as the largest part, is made up of many, many people who have nothing in common with the Moonbats. They are not the "intellectual elitists", the "Blame America First" gang or the protestors with poorly written picket signs.
The base, or largest part, of the Democrat Party is made up of hard-working people like you and I. Many of them haven't yet realized how far out their party has become, but many have; and some of them are realizing the painful truth that it's the Republican Party that now represents their interests. Some of them have already deserted the Democrat Party, and many more soon will. Our job is to point this out to as many of them as possible. That's one thing you can do. I've converted a few already myself. It is possible.
The Democrat party leaders are focusing on a minority of their party. While "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", focusing on these loudmouths is a bad political strategy.
- Moral values are a huge issue, and we have a lock on them.The post that my regular reader, who was having a "dark night of the soul" (Ray of Hope, below) commented on so pessimistically, was pointing out the fact that, despite the Left's desperate attempt to fool all of the people even some of the time, nobody was buying it. The people still think that the Democrats are "immoral", "morally bankrupt" and "anti-religious". That's not just the "far-left" they think that of, that's the Democrats!
Again, the Democrat leaders have focused on the extreme left-wing elements of their party, and the American people are starting to believe that that's where they all stand.
- “New Media” is calling attention to the lies and hypocrisy of the Left.
I got my first computer (486 DX2, 50 Mhz, 420M HDD...wow!) in November, 1994. There was no web at the time. Everything was still FTP (look it up). Six months later, the web was up and running.
That was about the time that the Republicans took over the US Congress.
Before that time, nobody, including myself, could get the truth on any issue (unless they listened to Rush, and he couldn't cover a fraction of it), because the MSM told you exactly what they wanted you to hear and no more. People speak of the impact of the web a lot, but I don't know how many of them actually think about what a huge development that was for we on the Right.
Since that time, talk radio has exploded, Conservative websites get the word out and, of course, blogs are afflicting the (formerly) comfortable MSM. We now have a way to get the other side of the story out, and the impact of that cannot be overestimated.
- Hollywood’s profits are way down.
The big story lately (OK, not as big as it should be) is that Hollywood's box office profits are down. Way down.
They half-heartedly try to blame it on the "multi-media" universe but, what it really comes down to is, a whole lot of people are not only sick of being preached to in the movie's story lines, but also by the actors in the movies.
I don't bother with movie theaters much. I really don't care about movies that much. But I do bring my daughter to the video store every week or two and, more often than not, we walk out with a Spongebob Squarepants video, but I can't find anything that I care to watch.
It's not so much that the story lines turn me off (although that does happen) but, part of the movie "experience" is "suspension of disbelief", and that's just not possible for me when I'm looking at Sean Penn (et al) and thinking about what a traitor he is.
I'm sure that I'm not alone and, with the amazing success of "The Passion of the Christ", Hollywood is going to have to eventually make changes or accept lower profits. They may call Republicans greedy, but the greed of the Hollywood Left makes Halliburton look like pikers.
It may take a generation to get rid of Gwyneth Paltrow, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and the rest but, when these people in Hollywood who are "for the people" can only afford a $10 million dollar hovel, they will stand up and take notice. Only then will the current propaganda end.
- Religion can be discussed in public today.
Fifteen or twenty years ago, the only people who were given any time to speak about religion were those who were telling us how "evil" it was. The only thing that you heard about religion was the Jim/Tammy Faye Baker scandal and the Jerry Falwell scandals.
O.K., that's not quite true. You'd get a lot of the "Ronald Reagan is a religious freak" stories in the news, too.
But the fact is, you can now speak of religion without being sneered at by the majority of the population. The propaganda of the Left is no longer working. And the religious have finally decided to fight back, simply by pointing out that most people in this country believe in a God of some sort or other.
And the most encouraging:
The Left is absolutely hysterical. Completely insane. The cheese has slipped off their cracker and their cracker has snapped.
Why? Is it because they truly believe in their cause? I really doubt it. They don't believe in much, other than "More Me Now" and "Pay Attention to Me!" I'm sure that they've convinced themselves otherwise but, when you boil it all down they, like any child, just want someone to pay attention to them.
They see their extinction coming toward them. They see their irrelevance bearing down. They see the fact that, very soon, nobody's going to pay attention to them anymore.
And, to these people, being ignored is worse than death.
The pendulum swings. I believe that we are on the upswing.
This Is Where the Left Is
Before anyone gets too teary-eyed over this “poor, grief-stricken mother” down in Crawford, TX, you really need to read this.
This woman is nothing more than an “end justifies the means” left-wing moonbat who’s using her dead son to further her politics. She is a despicable hypocrite.
Too many people on the Right are giving her the benefit of the doubt, saying that the death of her son has "driven her over the edge" and that all of these left-wing groups are using her, but there is ample evidence that her politics were the same as the looney Leftists long before her son, Casey, died.
As noted, Cindy Sheehan already met with Bush last June, two months after Casey’s death, along with a delegation of grieving military families. After that meeting, Sheehan initially said President Bush was caring, and the two spoke of their deep religious convictions. “I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy declared. “I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.”
Listen to her now and you get the exact opposite stance.
“Looking back, all I can say is that the meeting with Bush was one of the most disgusting experiences in my life.”
Cindy Sheehan has close ties with some of the most anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-Communist left-wing groups in this country, and has since well before her son’s death. She’s being used by these groups, but willingly so.
Her son, who apparently loved this country enough to sign up for a second hitch, must be rolling in his grave.
My prayers go out to Casey Sheehan. My scorn goes out to his mother.
This woman is nothing more than an “end justifies the means” left-wing moonbat who’s using her dead son to further her politics. She is a despicable hypocrite.
Too many people on the Right are giving her the benefit of the doubt, saying that the death of her son has "driven her over the edge" and that all of these left-wing groups are using her, but there is ample evidence that her politics were the same as the looney Leftists long before her son, Casey, died.
As noted, Cindy Sheehan already met with Bush last June, two months after Casey’s death, along with a delegation of grieving military families. After that meeting, Sheehan initially said President Bush was caring, and the two spoke of their deep religious convictions. “I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy declared. “I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.”
Listen to her now and you get the exact opposite stance.
“Looking back, all I can say is that the meeting with Bush was one of the most disgusting experiences in my life.”
Cindy Sheehan has close ties with some of the most anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-Communist left-wing groups in this country, and has since well before her son’s death. She’s being used by these groups, but willingly so.
Her son, who apparently loved this country enough to sign up for a second hitch, must be rolling in his grave.
My prayers go out to Casey Sheehan. My scorn goes out to his mother.
Awww!
I seem to have scared my pet troll away. That's two of them in two weeks!
I was having so much fun playing with them. I've never had many of them, so I didn't realize how easily frightened they were. I've never had any of them post more than 2 comments and, when you toss a bit of logic at them, they run away. I've had carnival goldfish that lasted longer than that!
Oh well, there are probably more where they came from. I may have to go out and actually bait them, though.
I was having so much fun playing with them. I've never had many of them, so I didn't realize how easily frightened they were. I've never had any of them post more than 2 comments and, when you toss a bit of logic at them, they run away. I've had carnival goldfish that lasted longer than that!
Oh well, there are probably more where they came from. I may have to go out and actually bait them, though.
I Hate People
And do you know why I hate people?
It's because of people like this:
Anonymous said...
Amazing job on your Blog! I'll definatly be coming back. If you're interested, check out my PS3 vs XBOX360 blog that shows unveils all th secrets there are to know between these two mecca systems.
That's right, these morons are spamming my comment section. What a bunch of useless assholes. If I had a way to hunt them down, the road-flare suppository would be a definite option.
So, in reaction to that, I seem to have no choice other than to reject anonymous comments. I hate that. I did so like to play with my trolls.
Anyone know any other way around these illiterate fools?
It's because of people like this:
Anonymous said...
Amazing job on your Blog! I'll definatly be coming back. If you're interested, check out my PS3 vs XBOX360 blog that shows unveils all th secrets there are to know between these two mecca systems.
That's right, these morons are spamming my comment section. What a bunch of useless assholes. If I had a way to hunt them down, the road-flare suppository would be a definite option.
So, in reaction to that, I seem to have no choice other than to reject anonymous comments. I hate that. I did so like to play with my trolls.
Anyone know any other way around these illiterate fools?
Thursday, August 11, 2005
A Ray of Hope
Apparently nobody's falling for Hillary (and the rest) suddenly professing their belief in "moral values" From The American Spectator:
The liberal polling firm Democracy Corps has released the results of its latest research project. Titled, "The Culture Divide & the Challenge of Winning Back Rural & Red State Voters," the memo encapsulating the results of a series of focus groups paints a grim picture for Democrats. "Most [focus group participants] referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them 'immoral,' 'morally bankrupt,' or even 'anti-religious,'" report Karl Agne and Stan Greenberg from Democracy Corps.
Anyone surprised?
They don’t get the "moral values" thing because they think that it’s about religion. Period. They are so fixated on their belief that all of these "red-staters" are bible-thumping religious fanatics, that they can't see that there is much, much more to "moral values" than religion.
And why can't they figure that out? It's because the Democrat politicians and their Leftist base have no moral values. They have one "value" and that can be summed up as, "more Me now!"; although, "Power at any cost!" also works.
They are so self-absorbed that they can't imagine that anyone could really care about anything other than themselves.
They can mouth the words, "putting the children first" or, "for the good of the country", but nobody believes for a minute that they have anything other than their own self-interest at the top of their list of "principles".
That's why they hated Ronald Reagan and that's why they hate George W. Bush. They portray both of them as stupid, shallow, bumbling fools who have a simplistic outlook on "right and wrong", "good and evil". But anyone who isn't a hard-core Leftist and/or Democrat believes that Reagan and Bush were and are sincere in their beliefs.
They hate them because they know that Reagan and Bush actually believed in something more powerful than themselves. They hate them because it throws their own shallow, self-interested, narcissistic "beliefs" into such stark contrast. They knew it in Reagan's day, just as they know it today.
Yes, moral values can speak of religion, But it also has to do with honor, pride, character, traditional America, patriotism, love of country, individualism, strength …everything that the Liberal base of the Democrat party hates and disparages and has none of.
The majority of the American people know when they are being lied to and patronized. They can usually tell when they are being “told what they want to hear". Hillary can move to the center as much as she wants, but the only people who will be fooled are those who want to be fooled.
Everyone else knows that to be a Democrat takes nothing more than being an insecure child who tries to remedy that insecurity by Lording power over others.
The liberal polling firm Democracy Corps has released the results of its latest research project. Titled, "The Culture Divide & the Challenge of Winning Back Rural & Red State Voters," the memo encapsulating the results of a series of focus groups paints a grim picture for Democrats. "Most [focus group participants] referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them 'immoral,' 'morally bankrupt,' or even 'anti-religious,'" report Karl Agne and Stan Greenberg from Democracy Corps.
Anyone surprised?
They don’t get the "moral values" thing because they think that it’s about religion. Period. They are so fixated on their belief that all of these "red-staters" are bible-thumping religious fanatics, that they can't see that there is much, much more to "moral values" than religion.
And why can't they figure that out? It's because the Democrat politicians and their Leftist base have no moral values. They have one "value" and that can be summed up as, "more Me now!"; although, "Power at any cost!" also works.
They are so self-absorbed that they can't imagine that anyone could really care about anything other than themselves.
They can mouth the words, "putting the children first" or, "for the good of the country", but nobody believes for a minute that they have anything other than their own self-interest at the top of their list of "principles".
That's why they hated Ronald Reagan and that's why they hate George W. Bush. They portray both of them as stupid, shallow, bumbling fools who have a simplistic outlook on "right and wrong", "good and evil". But anyone who isn't a hard-core Leftist and/or Democrat believes that Reagan and Bush were and are sincere in their beliefs.
They hate them because they know that Reagan and Bush actually believed in something more powerful than themselves. They hate them because it throws their own shallow, self-interested, narcissistic "beliefs" into such stark contrast. They knew it in Reagan's day, just as they know it today.
Yes, moral values can speak of religion, But it also has to do with honor, pride, character, traditional America, patriotism, love of country, individualism, strength …everything that the Liberal base of the Democrat party hates and disparages and has none of.
The majority of the American people know when they are being lied to and patronized. They can usually tell when they are being “told what they want to hear". Hillary can move to the center as much as she wants, but the only people who will be fooled are those who want to be fooled.
Everyone else knows that to be a Democrat takes nothing more than being an insecure child who tries to remedy that insecurity by Lording power over others.
Enough Already
If I hear one more person from the Right praise Peter Jennings as a “great reporter”, a “great anchor” or a “great man” I’m going to puke. The only thing that he was “great” at was spewing propaganda for the Left.
This Canadian high-school droput stood for everything that I, and most of the Right, are against. Tax policy, abortion, education, name the issue and he was on the opposite side. He was a perfect example of the “blame America first” crowd. He was anti-American, anti-Israel and an apologist for Muslim terrorists.. He despised anything Conservative; thus he was my ideological enemy.
Like most media liberals, he attacked the very country that made him rich and famous. He was an ungrateful, self-centered child. Just another fool who could read a Teleprompter and, somehow, thought that that made his opinion more relevant than anyone else’s. I will never understand people who believe that someone who reads the news is smarter than they are. I used to wonder about that even before I paid attention to politics.
Yes, it’s sad when almost anyone dies (and I do include him in that category), but don’t whitewash the harm that he’s done to this country. This “Progressive” used his position as a media giant to block progress on many issues, including the safety of you and me.
So why are all of these people on the Right suddenly praising him as if he were a Saint? It’s because they’re afraid that the left-wing MSM will attack them as being “insensitive”. Big deal. If the MSM were ever to attack me, I’d wear it as a badge of honor. I’m sure that my pet troll will attack me as “hateful and ignorant”. Good. That just tells me that I’m right. If you’re ever unsure of your position, just see what the Left is attacking, and you can be sure that that’s the right position, because the left is never right.
Besides, those right-wing pundits don’t have to actually come out and attack him, but they really don’t have to mention him at all, do they? Don’t dignify his existence with any comment whatsoever. As far as I can tell, he’s done nothing to earn our praise. Why suddenly pretend that he has?
The Left likes to call the Right hypocrites and, for once, on this issue, I would agree.
This Canadian high-school droput stood for everything that I, and most of the Right, are against. Tax policy, abortion, education, name the issue and he was on the opposite side. He was a perfect example of the “blame America first” crowd. He was anti-American, anti-Israel and an apologist for Muslim terrorists.. He despised anything Conservative; thus he was my ideological enemy.
Like most media liberals, he attacked the very country that made him rich and famous. He was an ungrateful, self-centered child. Just another fool who could read a Teleprompter and, somehow, thought that that made his opinion more relevant than anyone else’s. I will never understand people who believe that someone who reads the news is smarter than they are. I used to wonder about that even before I paid attention to politics.
Yes, it’s sad when almost anyone dies (and I do include him in that category), but don’t whitewash the harm that he’s done to this country. This “Progressive” used his position as a media giant to block progress on many issues, including the safety of you and me.
So why are all of these people on the Right suddenly praising him as if he were a Saint? It’s because they’re afraid that the left-wing MSM will attack them as being “insensitive”. Big deal. If the MSM were ever to attack me, I’d wear it as a badge of honor. I’m sure that my pet troll will attack me as “hateful and ignorant”. Good. That just tells me that I’m right. If you’re ever unsure of your position, just see what the Left is attacking, and you can be sure that that’s the right position, because the left is never right.
Besides, those right-wing pundits don’t have to actually come out and attack him, but they really don’t have to mention him at all, do they? Don’t dignify his existence with any comment whatsoever. As far as I can tell, he’s done nothing to earn our praise. Why suddenly pretend that he has?
The Left likes to call the Right hypocrites and, for once, on this issue, I would agree.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
That Was Then, This Is Now
Once upon a time there was a country in turmoil.
There were a small number of the "intellectual elite" who thought that they should be the ones in power, not the "rich-boy", inbred, religious morons who were actually running the show.
So they went on the attack, telling the semi-literate hordes that if only they were running the show, the rich would be made to share their ill-gotten gains! Equality would reign supreme! There would be free health care for all! Unemployment would be banished and the economy would grow at unprecedented levels! At the end of your working-life, the government would take care of you as a reward for all of your hard work! Food would be cheap and plentiful for all! There would be no prejudice and every person would be deemed equal to every other!
The Universities became the center of all of this Leftist thought, and from there they taught their propaganda to the younger generations.
The Leftist hordes were whipped into a frenzy of sheer, absolute, vicious hatred towards those who opposed them. Every problem was blamed on this conservative group.
Sound familiar? Well, that country was...Russia. Just before the Communist revolution.
Scary, huh? Sounds way too close to where we are now.
It's odd that the Left utterly refuses to wear the mantle of Communism, but they were promising the people then the exact same things that they're promising them now.
Do I need to mention the miserable living conditions or the 50 million people who were murdered as a result of those amoral, savage "intellectuals" who gained power by duping the "peasantry" for their own means?
As I've said before, the one mistake that they made was alienating the military during the Vietnam War. The military has hated them ever since. Thank God.
But that was a mistake of their own making because they failed to differentiate between the troops and the brass who were running the war. The "foot-soldiers" of the Left attacked the individual soldiers just as viciously as they went after the brass in the Pentagon, spitting on them and calling them baby-killers. Whether that was a mistake of the leaders or the average "hippie-on-the-street", makes no difference, although I suspect the latter.
Flash forward to today. Do you think that it's a coincidence that any Democrat or Lefty cannot mention the war in Iraq without spewing the words, "we support the troops"? They're trying to ingratiate themselves with the troops while attacking the war.
That's also why they're now trying to make out the soldiers as poor "victims" who were thrown into this war because they were poverty-stricken and had no other choice but to join the military. They're hoping that the troops will agree. Unfortunately for the Left, that also implies that the troops are too stupid to do anything else, and our soldiers know that that's not the case. Once again, Lefty arrogance is their downfall.
The politicians may say that they "support the troops" because they know that they'll never get elected if they say anything different, but the Leftist leaders are saying it because they know that they need the troops if there's ever going to be a Revolution. They learned from the mistake that they made 35 years ago.
Don't believe me? Think I'm paranoid? Think about this: what do you think the bomb-throwing, rioting Left would have done in the early 70's if the military had been on their side? Really. Think about that.
Do you think that these people who were blowing up buildings, killing people and fighting the police in the streets would have hesitated for a minute if they had tanks and trained troops? I don't. For all of their "Peace" and "Love", these people, just as today, are the most vicious elements of our society. Bar none.
Imagine if they were able to turn their verbal attacks into physical attacks. These people are so hysterical that I have no doubt about what they'd do. They've quit thinking and are now only reacting to their emotions. If they weren't such self-centered cowards, I have no doubt that they'd be joining the Islamic suicide bombers. In fact, I predict that, if they don't regain power soon, you will live to see that very thing happen.
Anyone want to bet?
There were a small number of the "intellectual elite" who thought that they should be the ones in power, not the "rich-boy", inbred, religious morons who were actually running the show.
So they went on the attack, telling the semi-literate hordes that if only they were running the show, the rich would be made to share their ill-gotten gains! Equality would reign supreme! There would be free health care for all! Unemployment would be banished and the economy would grow at unprecedented levels! At the end of your working-life, the government would take care of you as a reward for all of your hard work! Food would be cheap and plentiful for all! There would be no prejudice and every person would be deemed equal to every other!
The Universities became the center of all of this Leftist thought, and from there they taught their propaganda to the younger generations.
The Leftist hordes were whipped into a frenzy of sheer, absolute, vicious hatred towards those who opposed them. Every problem was blamed on this conservative group.
Sound familiar? Well, that country was...Russia. Just before the Communist revolution.
Scary, huh? Sounds way too close to where we are now.
It's odd that the Left utterly refuses to wear the mantle of Communism, but they were promising the people then the exact same things that they're promising them now.
Do I need to mention the miserable living conditions or the 50 million people who were murdered as a result of those amoral, savage "intellectuals" who gained power by duping the "peasantry" for their own means?
As I've said before, the one mistake that they made was alienating the military during the Vietnam War. The military has hated them ever since. Thank God.
But that was a mistake of their own making because they failed to differentiate between the troops and the brass who were running the war. The "foot-soldiers" of the Left attacked the individual soldiers just as viciously as they went after the brass in the Pentagon, spitting on them and calling them baby-killers. Whether that was a mistake of the leaders or the average "hippie-on-the-street", makes no difference, although I suspect the latter.
Flash forward to today. Do you think that it's a coincidence that any Democrat or Lefty cannot mention the war in Iraq without spewing the words, "we support the troops"? They're trying to ingratiate themselves with the troops while attacking the war.
That's also why they're now trying to make out the soldiers as poor "victims" who were thrown into this war because they were poverty-stricken and had no other choice but to join the military. They're hoping that the troops will agree. Unfortunately for the Left, that also implies that the troops are too stupid to do anything else, and our soldiers know that that's not the case. Once again, Lefty arrogance is their downfall.
The politicians may say that they "support the troops" because they know that they'll never get elected if they say anything different, but the Leftist leaders are saying it because they know that they need the troops if there's ever going to be a Revolution. They learned from the mistake that they made 35 years ago.
Don't believe me? Think I'm paranoid? Think about this: what do you think the bomb-throwing, rioting Left would have done in the early 70's if the military had been on their side? Really. Think about that.
Do you think that these people who were blowing up buildings, killing people and fighting the police in the streets would have hesitated for a minute if they had tanks and trained troops? I don't. For all of their "Peace" and "Love", these people, just as today, are the most vicious elements of our society. Bar none.
Imagine if they were able to turn their verbal attacks into physical attacks. These people are so hysterical that I have no doubt about what they'd do. They've quit thinking and are now only reacting to their emotions. If they weren't such self-centered cowards, I have no doubt that they'd be joining the Islamic suicide bombers. In fact, I predict that, if they don't regain power soon, you will live to see that very thing happen.
Anyone want to bet?
Monday, August 08, 2005
Even more Random Musings
- The Left always says that we need to find the “root cause” of terrorism before we can deal with it. Well, you can stop looking because I found it: it’s called the Koran.
- Muslims had lost power for 1000 years before they went insane and started terrorizing people.
The Democrats have been out of power for just over 10 years and they’ve already gone insane.
I don’t think they’ll wait 990 years to begin their jihad.
- Could someone tell me why Iran would want nuclear power plants? They have all of the oil that they want…for free! Why does anyone on this earth entertain the idea that they want nuclear power for “peaceful means”? There's a point where "diplomacy" becomes "idiocy".
- The Left is constantly sneering that Conservatives hate gays because, deep down, they fear that they, themselves are gay.
Using that logic, couldn’t we say that feminists who bitch about being “controlled by the Patriarchy” might, deep down, fear that they would like being controlled by men?
- For every foreign insurgent that we catch in Iraq, we should launch one Tomahawk at a military target in his home country. How long do you think it would take for these countries to get their people under control?
- Muslims had lost power for 1000 years before they went insane and started terrorizing people.
The Democrats have been out of power for just over 10 years and they’ve already gone insane.
I don’t think they’ll wait 990 years to begin their jihad.
- Could someone tell me why Iran would want nuclear power plants? They have all of the oil that they want…for free! Why does anyone on this earth entertain the idea that they want nuclear power for “peaceful means”? There's a point where "diplomacy" becomes "idiocy".
- The Left is constantly sneering that Conservatives hate gays because, deep down, they fear that they, themselves are gay.
Using that logic, couldn’t we say that feminists who bitch about being “controlled by the Patriarchy” might, deep down, fear that they would like being controlled by men?
- For every foreign insurgent that we catch in Iraq, we should launch one Tomahawk at a military target in his home country. How long do you think it would take for these countries to get their people under control?
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Way Too Funny
Not much time or ambition to blog tonight, so I'll direct you here:
Modern Drunkard Magazine: Attack of the Booze-Haters
This is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever read. I almost fell out of my chair I was laughing so hard. And that never happens.
Cheers!
Modern Drunkard Magazine: Attack of the Booze-Haters
This is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever read. I almost fell out of my chair I was laughing so hard. And that never happens.
Cheers!
Friday, August 05, 2005
Darwin vs. Science
For people who are so attached to Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”, the Left certainly seems intent on keeping the least fit in the gene pool (i.e. welfare queens, "homeless" bums).
You’d think that they’d embrace Intelligent Design (ID). That way they could just declare themselves the most fit to design everything and call all of their social meddling part of that effort. They could say that ancient Liberals actually designed the human species and the Universe, so we must trust them. They could actually proclaim God as the first "Progressive"! I certainly wouldn’t put it past them.
Don’t expect the Left to embrace it anytime soon though, no matter how beneficial it might be to them. It’s just too complex. It can’t be boiled down to a slogan or anything so simple as “Keep the good, get rid of the bad” like Darwinism can.
Even if the more intelligent among them were able to understand it, the vast majority of their foot-soldiers couldn’t. Or, even if they could, it would be just too much trouble to learn. If they’re too lazy to learn the simple facts behind the Air America scandal, they certainly couldn’t be bothered to try to understand the relatively complex science behind ID. And, like the Air America scandal, they dismiss ID because, a) they don't want to believe it and, b) it's easier to dismiss it than to learn what's really going on.
But the fact is, after almost 150 years of Darwinism, there is still no proof whatsoever that the Theory of Evolution (note the word theory) is anything more than that: a theory. Nobody has seen the slightest evidence that evolution occurs. The whole thing is based on nothing more than a theory and a pronouncement that it is true.
While it may appear that early man evolved from primates, there is absolutely no evidence to prove it. And what about animals that haven’t evolved for millions of years (i.e. sharks, cockroaches); have they attained perfection? Why else would they have dropped out of the ‘natural selection’ process? Maybe they're Liberals who just said, "I've had enough of this genetic competition. I like me just the way I am", and quit evolving.
Whether ID is right or wrong, it is at least based on logic and doesn’t require any great leaps of faith. The chances of natural selection actually occuring even once are so small that you probably have better odds of winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life.
Dembski has formulated what he calls the "universal probability bound." This is a number beyond which, under any circumstances, the probability of an event occurring is so small that we can say it was not the result of chance, but of design. He calculates this number by multiplying the number of elementary particles in the known universe (10^80) by the maximum number of alterations in the quantum states of matter per second (10^45) by the number of seconds between creation and when the universe undergoes heat death or collapses back on itself (10^25). The universal probability bound thus equals 10^150, and represents all of the possible events that can ever occur in the history of the universe. If an event is less likely than 1 in 10^150, therefore, we are quite justified in saying it did not result from chance but from design. Invoking billions of years of evolution to explain improbable occurrences does not help Darwinism if the odds exceed the universal probability bound.
(Unless they have an Improbability Drive. - ed.)
What that last sentence means is that because, as the author notes earlier in the article (it's well worth reading), fewer than 10^18 seconds have elapsed since the beginning of the universe, 10^150 makes it impossible for 'natural selection' to work.
But again, when you start talking about probabilities of 10^150th power (that's 10 with 150 zeroes behind it), it becomes just way too complicated for your average, lazy Lefty. Anything much beyond the Top 20 Video Countdown is pushing their limits. They don't have time to think about stuff like this. They have to get up at noon so they can make the protest on time.
The Left automatically sees ID as an attempt to justify God. Granted, while it could possibly prove that there was a Creator, it's just another way of trying to ascertain, scientifically, how we got here. I couldn't care less about the religious aspects of ID, the subject and its possibilities are fascinating.
The Left likes to ridicule religion because it’s not based on science; but neither is Darwinism. At least with religion, there is some early documentation (i.e. the Bible). Even that can’t be said of ‘natural selection’. There is not a shred of hard evidence that it has ever occurred.
The Left accuses the people studying ID as being religiously motivated, but make no mistake: Darwinism is much more a part of the Left’s religion than ID is for Christians. Liberals are defending Darwinism with all of the fervor of any true believer.
All of the proof that I need of the ID theorists possibly being on to something is the reaction of the Left to this subject. It's always a good sign when they react with condescension and/or shrieks of outrage. We're getting both in this case.
When you add in their absolute refusal to even consider allowing this to be spoken of in classrooms, it means that they realize that their emporer has no clothes and that ours is starting to look pretty well-dressed.
As always, they know that they can't stand up to competition, on this subject or any other.
You’d think that they’d embrace Intelligent Design (ID). That way they could just declare themselves the most fit to design everything and call all of their social meddling part of that effort. They could say that ancient Liberals actually designed the human species and the Universe, so we must trust them. They could actually proclaim God as the first "Progressive"! I certainly wouldn’t put it past them.
Don’t expect the Left to embrace it anytime soon though, no matter how beneficial it might be to them. It’s just too complex. It can’t be boiled down to a slogan or anything so simple as “Keep the good, get rid of the bad” like Darwinism can.
Even if the more intelligent among them were able to understand it, the vast majority of their foot-soldiers couldn’t. Or, even if they could, it would be just too much trouble to learn. If they’re too lazy to learn the simple facts behind the Air America scandal, they certainly couldn’t be bothered to try to understand the relatively complex science behind ID. And, like the Air America scandal, they dismiss ID because, a) they don't want to believe it and, b) it's easier to dismiss it than to learn what's really going on.
But the fact is, after almost 150 years of Darwinism, there is still no proof whatsoever that the Theory of Evolution (note the word theory) is anything more than that: a theory. Nobody has seen the slightest evidence that evolution occurs. The whole thing is based on nothing more than a theory and a pronouncement that it is true.
While it may appear that early man evolved from primates, there is absolutely no evidence to prove it. And what about animals that haven’t evolved for millions of years (i.e. sharks, cockroaches); have they attained perfection? Why else would they have dropped out of the ‘natural selection’ process? Maybe they're Liberals who just said, "I've had enough of this genetic competition. I like me just the way I am", and quit evolving.
Whether ID is right or wrong, it is at least based on logic and doesn’t require any great leaps of faith. The chances of natural selection actually occuring even once are so small that you probably have better odds of winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life.
Dembski has formulated what he calls the "universal probability bound." This is a number beyond which, under any circumstances, the probability of an event occurring is so small that we can say it was not the result of chance, but of design. He calculates this number by multiplying the number of elementary particles in the known universe (10^80) by the maximum number of alterations in the quantum states of matter per second (10^45) by the number of seconds between creation and when the universe undergoes heat death or collapses back on itself (10^25). The universal probability bound thus equals 10^150, and represents all of the possible events that can ever occur in the history of the universe. If an event is less likely than 1 in 10^150, therefore, we are quite justified in saying it did not result from chance but from design. Invoking billions of years of evolution to explain improbable occurrences does not help Darwinism if the odds exceed the universal probability bound.
(Unless they have an Improbability Drive. - ed.)
What that last sentence means is that because, as the author notes earlier in the article (it's well worth reading), fewer than 10^18 seconds have elapsed since the beginning of the universe, 10^150 makes it impossible for 'natural selection' to work.
But again, when you start talking about probabilities of 10^150th power (that's 10 with 150 zeroes behind it), it becomes just way too complicated for your average, lazy Lefty. Anything much beyond the Top 20 Video Countdown is pushing their limits. They don't have time to think about stuff like this. They have to get up at noon so they can make the protest on time.
The Left automatically sees ID as an attempt to justify God. Granted, while it could possibly prove that there was a Creator, it's just another way of trying to ascertain, scientifically, how we got here. I couldn't care less about the religious aspects of ID, the subject and its possibilities are fascinating.
The Left likes to ridicule religion because it’s not based on science; but neither is Darwinism. At least with religion, there is some early documentation (i.e. the Bible). Even that can’t be said of ‘natural selection’. There is not a shred of hard evidence that it has ever occurred.
The Left accuses the people studying ID as being religiously motivated, but make no mistake: Darwinism is much more a part of the Left’s religion than ID is for Christians. Liberals are defending Darwinism with all of the fervor of any true believer.
All of the proof that I need of the ID theorists possibly being on to something is the reaction of the Left to this subject. It's always a good sign when they react with condescension and/or shrieks of outrage. We're getting both in this case.
When you add in their absolute refusal to even consider allowing this to be spoken of in classrooms, it means that they realize that their emporer has no clothes and that ours is starting to look pretty well-dressed.
As always, they know that they can't stand up to competition, on this subject or any other.
Welcome to France...Allah Akhbar
French Muslim-Themed 'Beurger King' Opens
Top 12 reasons to visit Beurger King:
1) You can get a real sheik there.
Top 12 reasons to visit Beurger King:
1) You can get a real sheik there.
2) The kid's menu features the "Disgruntled Meal" which has a free toy suicide vest included.
3) They have the French Fry "pullltab" game: you pull the tab off of the container and, if it explodes, you win the Grand Prize...72 virgins!
4) The food's OK, as long as you don't mind a little beard hair in it.
5) There's a rack inside the door where you can check your AK-47.
6) They have a drive-through window, so you can position your car bomb on time.
7) The children's play area looks suspiciously like one of those Al Qaeda obstacle courses that you see on the news.
8) The decor looks like the inside of a cave.
9) The temperature is kept at 110 degrees and the floor is covered with sand.
10) For your entertainment pleasure, they behead an infidel every hour on the hour.
11) When you "Supersize it", you get even more delicious goat.
12) They have those nice red checked tablecloths that can also be used as headwear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)